|
|
|
|
|
|
by adventured
3856 days ago
|
|
|
The parent is arguing for extreme subsidization to alter the market for electricity and vehicles (etc). They effectively want the government to spend a lot of money to bankrupt the fossil fuels industry and fossil fuel vehicles, with subsidies toward the generation of renewables and producing electric vehicles. They're wrong that spending is easier however. Republicans control Congress and the US made a massive mistake in taking on ~$15 trillion in new public debt between 2000 and 2015. Simply put, the US doesn't have vast excess spending room (which means it would require tax increases or new taxes). It would cost trillions over a few decades to pull off the parent's plan. |
|
|
Suppose the government gives out free Priuses. Well, then people are going to drive more. Even though some people may be driving more fuel efficient cars, it's not clear that total carbon emissions decrease.
Suppose the government provides free solar cells for everyone. Then people will use a lot more electricity. But solar cells require some carbon emissions to produce, and since people use so much more electricity overall, it's not clear whether carbon emissions decrease or increase.
Either way it's just a totally goofy thought experiment, since a carbon tax is exactly the right answer, and this subsidy idea is so misguided that it could possibly even increase carbon emissions