View Single Post
Old 04-23-2021, 08:47 PM   #38 (permalink)
JSH
AKA - Jason
 
JSH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: PDX
Posts: 3,606

Adventure Seeker - '04 Chevy Astro - Campervan
90 day: 17.3 mpg (US)
Thanks: 327
Thanked 2,154 Times in 1,457 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
JHS has brought up the fact that often road infrastructure is largely paid for by the general tax fund, with fuel taxes representing only a portion of the cost.

As he points out, Oregon has a goal to transition to tax per mile.

... as I'm always pointing out, infrastructure should entirely come from the general fund, because absolutely everyone depends on it for modern living, regardless of their personal use. Most everything should come from the general fund, and how to spend that money should be based on what the most important priorities are.

Reducing fossil fuel consumption shouldn't be arbitrarily approached, but a collaboration between economists, climate scientists, and security experts to set consumption targets and achieve them through gradually increasing taxation on fossil fuels. It directly addresses all relevant concerns in the most effective way while reducing corruption and inefficient market distortions.

Fossil fuel reduction needs binding buy-in from all major countries otherwise all it does is shift prosperity from places participating to places not participating. I hate to admit this, because world organizations are the most corrupt, dumbest, worst types of organizations. There is no other way to address a global problem except globally, unfortunately. Unilateral solutions are doomed to fail.
I agree with everything except the need to wait for buy-in from all major counties. First, because it is in our country's best interest to develop the technology that will power our futures. Second, because high income companies got to where we are today by buy burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. Not only did we create the majority of the problem but we have the most resources to try to fix the problem. It doesn't make sense to tell countries that are much poorer than we are that they need to contribute equally in carbon reductions. Especially when per capita their emission are much lower than the USA.

India produces 1.9 tons of CO2 per person
China produces 8 tons of CO2 per person
The USA produces 16.1 tons of CO2 per person.

It is disingenuous to try to blame India and China for CO2 emissions.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JSH For This Useful Post:
Isaac Zachary (04-23-2021), redpoint5 (04-23-2021)