[aianus]

That economic analysis is flawed because you're ignoring the externalities of burning gasoline (health costs, climate change). Only if there were high enough taxes on gasoline to mitigate those effects, then you could accurately do that sort of dollar-cost analysis.

[msandford]

Sure but then every analysis is flawed because everything has some kind of externality that's hard to measure and account for.

How much fuel is burned to make the cells? How much pollution happens to mine the rare earths for the cells and the motors? It's super easy to poke holes in both sides of the argument because building a car is so damn complicated whether it's an ICE or electric.

[aianus]

I didn't downvote you but I really don't think it's hard to measure and account for the externalities in fossil fuels.

1. Calculate the dollar amount per pound of CO2 released that pays for enough tree planting or subsidizes enough renewables to offset the emissions.

2. Apply it as a tax to all fossil fuels and imports from countries without a comparable tax scheme.

[msandford]

Right but that's incredibly naive and uncreative. It presumes that fossil fuels are the ONLY way to do certain things, unless you can spend millions of dollars proving otherwise.

For example, right now most steel is made in electric furnaces which can be powered by coal, nuclear, gas, oil, solar, hydro, etc. What's the right tax for imported steel then?

Let me now make a list of a bunch of other things that are in a similar category: aluminum, most other metals, rubber, plastics, glass, etc.

Machines that are used to process raw materials may themselves be made of raw materials which are sourced in various ways. And those machines may be powered by dirty fossil fuels or clean renewables. Which means that components -- as opposed to raw materials -- are also going to be very difficult to properly classify and tax.

The same for subsystems and full assemblies and entire products.

It's a lot more complicated than "do some math and then apply a tax"