I don’t think I will understand the mental gymnastics you are using here to justify the idea of taxing corporations over people is “right-wing rhetoric”. But I am glad to have a debate over this.
I understand where you are coming from with the idea of moving the fleet of drive-able cars to a more clean set of cars, but I don’t agree with your idea that this is something that should be driven directly by consumers. I think that putting the onus on consumers to be smarter shoppers by taxing them is similar to all of the issues I have with plastic straw bans and other issues effecting climate change.
It is the expectation that we as consumers are to fix this issue. It is B.S. and it is large corporations handing of the social responsibility of being green to customers.
I think it would be more fair to force these companies to create greener cars.
Tesla, again is a great example of that.
This is true. But I think this is similar to smartphones. When that technology released, it was the new hot thing to have! But now, even the homeless have smartphones. All of the other companies followed suit, and like the leaf, some may argue that the Android phone is better than the 1200 dollar (jesus) Iphone people still buy the brand. They want the cool, but for those without 1200$ to buy a smartphone, they can still get a cheap motorola android phone for 200$, with a lot of the same functionality.
I think Tesla has made people think that EV’s can be cool, and that they can be used universally. It has shifted the perspective, much like how the iphone changed the perspective we had of cellphones in 2008.
I just think that it should never be the burden of the consumer to drive the market, when it comes to climate change. Customers are fickle, like you said, and the Wrangler could be in a rap video, and the hot new thing, and the backslide happens again.
The MPG requirements forced companies to develop very high level MPG vehicles to offset their SUV lines.
The same is true for gas taxes, subsidies or any government regulatory program. They can be dismantled the same way if the people in power are wont to do.
Bottom line, gas taxes put a greater burden on the poor than the wealthy, and EV subsidies are primarly given to the wealthy. It is income inequality baked in to the system.
If you have a chance (or quite a few chances) here is a more recent paper looking at the regressivity of the gas tax, and how previous analyses have neglected to factor in wealth and have looked at gas tax vs straight income.
Pretty good read.
The literature on the distributional incidence of gasoline taxes, as well as more generally of carbon pricing, ignores wealth as a dimension of economic welfare and, thus, as a component of ability to pay. With reference to the US federal gasoline tax, we show that this is an important omission, which results in a significant underestimation of both the regressivity of the tax and its inequity towards younger people. Taking wealth into account exacerbates the regressivity outcome because the distribution of wealth is much more concentrated than that of income, which is the standard measure of current ability to pay, and all the more so of total expenditure, often used as a proxy for lifetime ability to pay. Taking wealth into account also reveals that, in relative terms, younger people actually bear greater tax burdens than those resulting from using income or total expenditure as measures of ability to pay. This is the case because, on average, older people own more wealth.