Is it really naive of me to believe that in long term tariffs will force people to be minimalistic and only buy things that they need? Also wouldn't tariffs reduce shipping / transport related emissions since manufacturing will take place closer to the markets? I am just wondering what are other aspects that could be worse in terms of climate change.

30 minutes ago, Mahi_sayli said:

Is it really naive of me to believe that in long term tariffs will force people to be minimalistic and only buy things that they need? Also wouldn't tariffs reduce shipping / transport related emissions since manufacturing will take place closer to the markets? I am just wondering what are other aspects that could be worse in terms of climate change.

Lack of investment in renewable energy. A large proportion of solar panels is made in China, for instance. Also, the lack of a consistent policy, that people can believe will be sustained over, say, a 5-10 year period, makes investors sit on their hands, because they can’t calculate any reliable rate of return. So that slows down the building of green infrastructure: electric vehicles, changes to the electricity grid, public transport, heat pumps…..

Edited May 1May 1 by exchemist

25 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Lack of investment in renewable energy. A large proportion of solar panels is made in China, for instance. Also, the lack of a consistent policy, that people can believe will be sustained over, say, a 5-10 year period, makes investors sit on their hands, because they can’t calculate any reliable rate of return. So that slows down the building of green infrastructure: electric vehicles, changes to the electricity grid, public transport, heat pumps…..

So are you saying lack of consistent policy is a problem but not the tariffs in themselves? Wouldn't it be ideal for left to use this opportunity and seek consistency instead of opposing the tariffs? Amount of useless gimmicky products sold in USA especially is a major source of carbon footprint.

57 minutes ago, Mahi_sayli said:

Wouldn't it be ideal for left to use this opportunity and seek consistency instead of opposing the tariffs?

There is no fundamental objection against tariffs on the left. In fact, some of past motivations for tariffs were considered protective measures welcomed by laborers. The real issue is that tariffs are a specific tool that works in a specific way.

It can be used for targeted protectionism, for example and when done in such a way, often has broad support. Biden supported tariffs on Chinese EV and got Canada and Europe on board to assist Western car companies. The issue with Trump are two-fold. a) for the longest time, he did not understand who pays the tariffs. b) he does not understand how tariffs work and when tariffs are beneficial and c) his team is too lazy to figure out how to implement tariffs in a beneficial way.

So they ended up conflating multiple issues and simple used trade deficits as a way to implement tariffs. It is like prescribing drugs based on the size and color of your shoes.

The inconsistencies come into play because the tariffs, when implemented that broadly with unclear goals, harm the international trade and when things went bad, Trump reversed them randomly.

However, if you want to just cut consumption, there are easier ways. Just increase sale taxes for example. That will cut down consumption. The issue, of course is that modern economies rely on high consumption to flourish. Lowering consumption will likely reduce carbon footprints but also cause other issues associated with recessions.

2 hours ago, Mahi_sayli said:

Is it really naive of me to believe that in long term tariffs will force people to be minimalistic and only buy things that they need? Also wouldn't tariffs reduce shipping / transport related emissions since manufacturing will take place closer to the markets? I am just wondering what are other aspects that could be worse in terms of climate change.

I think this is more of a politics question :)

2 hours ago, Mahi_sayli said:

Is it really naive of me to believe that in long term tariffs will force people to be minimalistic and only buy things that they need? Also wouldn't tariffs reduce shipping / transport related emissions since manufacturing will take place closer to the markets? I am just wondering what are other aspects that could be worse in terms of climate change.

Tariffs will/have shut down some shipping, yes. COVID did the same thing.

It will be a while before domestic manufacturing could possibly fix the issue.

“be minimalist” is a privileged assessment, because it assumes that buying less means reducing discretionary spending. What of people in or near poverty?

5 hours ago, Mahi_sayli said:

Is it really naive of me to believe that in long term tariffs will force people to be minimalistic and only buy things that they need?

Yes

10 hours ago, Mahi_sayli said:

So are you saying lack of consistent policy is a problem but not the tariffs in themselves? Wouldn't it be ideal for left to use this opportunity and seek consistency instead of opposing the tariffs? Amount of useless gimmicky products sold in USA especially is a major source of carbon footprint.

Lack of consistency is a big part of why Trump's tariff policy is a disaster. Also, the levels he has imposed are so high that nobody has any faith they will last, whatever he now says. So uncertainty is no longer something he has the power to dispel. His entire approach to governing is characterised by inconsistency, added to he which he lies all the time, so you can't rely on a word he says. Certainly not if you are contemplating a billion dollar investment.

But even if the policy were consistent it would be damaging to economic growth, which would reduce investment, most likely including green investment projects.

I have some sympathy for your view that a reduction in mindless, ad-fuelled consumerism would be good for the planet. I remember during the Covid lockdown sitting in my garden enjoying the silence (no planes overhead, very few vehicles in the street) and becoming aware of the birdsong and the various birds responsible. I recall thinking that if this were the future it would help a lot with CO2 emissions and the world might be a nicer place. But I'm not convinced that making us all poorer would enable us to solve our climate change crisis. We need some major technology shifts to do that, which cost money.

Edited May 2May 2 by exchemist

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Tariffs will/have shut down some shipping, yes. COVID did the same thing.

It will be a while before domestic manufacturing could possibly fix the issue.

“be minimalist” is a privileged assessment, because it assumes that buying less means reducing discretionary spending. What of people in or near poverty?

I understand that tariffs need to be applied strategically so it doesn't affect essential goods but i am also sick of naked consumerism. I hope auto tariffs force people buy smaller more efficient cars rather than monstrous SUVs everywhere.

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Lack of consistency is a big part of why Trump's tariff policy is a disaster. Also, the levels he has imposed are so high that nobody has any faith they will last, whatever he now says. So uncertainty is no longer something he has the power to dispel. His entire approach to governing is characterised by inconsistency, added to he which he lies all the time, so you can't rely on a word he says. Certainly not if you are contemplating a billion dollar investment.

But even if the policy were consistent it would be damaging to economic growth, which would reduce investment, most likely including green investment projects.

I have some sympathy for your view that a reduction in mindless, ad-fuelled consumerism would be good for the planet. I remember during the Covid lockdown sitting in my garden enjoying the silence (no planes overhead, very few vehicles in the street) and becoming aware of the birdsong and the various birds responsible. I recall thinking that if this were the future it would help a lot with CO2 emissions and the world might be a nicer place. But I'm not convinced that making us all poorer would enable us to solve our climate change crisis. We need some major technology shifts to do that, which cost money.

Current application of tariffs is really careless but I was hoping left shows up with nuanced discussion instead of just opposing it. Left should turn this discussion towards sustainable policies. Domestic manufacturing is not just economic benefit, manufacturing closer to market and manufacturing with descent environmental regulation is good for overall climate.

5 minutes ago, Mahi_sayli said:

I understand that tariffs need to be applied strategically so it doesn't affect essential goods but i am also sick of naked consumerism. I hope auto tariffs force people buy smaller more efficient cars rather than monstrous SUVs everywhere.

But many of the monstrous SUVs are built in the US. We can’t export them because basically no other country wants them. Parts come from elsewhere, so their price will be affected by tariffs, but I don’t see how small cars would avoid this same fate.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

But many of the monstrous SUVs are built in the US. We can’t export them because basically no other country wants them. Parts come from elsewhere, so their price will be affected by tariffs, but I don’t see how small cars would avoid this same fate.

SUVs are built because people want to buy them and afford them. Truth is that gas is cheaper than it should be in USA.

Most automakers have flexible production lines so they can switch to smaller cars on the same production lines easily. Small cars will become expensive due to tariffs but they will still be cheaper than large SUVs.

Edited May 2May 2 by Mahi_sayli

1 minute ago, Mahi_sayli said:

Truth is that gas is cheaper that it should be in USA.

I would argue the opposite. Gas is more expensive than it should be in many places. For example, the high price of gas in Europe is in large part due to taxes having nothing to do with the 'real' cost of the product.

19 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I would argue the opposite. Gas is more expensive than it should be in many places. For example, the high price of gas in Europe is in large part due to taxes having nothing to do with the 'real' cost of the product.

Not sure about EU but in USA it is cheap in my opinion. If it was expensive, people would be inclined to buy EVs, Hybrids or just smaller cars.

In terms of "real cost", what is the cost of burning all of the petroleum reserves within 100 years, reserves that took millions of years to accumulate? What is the cost of releasing carbon stored underground for eternity into the atmosphere?

20 minutes ago, Mahi_sayli said:

Not sure about EU but in USA it is cheap in my opinion.

I agree. But I disagree with your statement that it is cheaper "than it should be". There are many ways to increase sales of EVs and hybrids, or to reduce carbon in the air, that don't involve taxes on gasoline.

21 minutes ago, Mahi_sayli said:

what is the cost of burning all of the petroleum reserves within 100 years, reserves that took millions of years to accumulate?

No idea, but I was talking about the cost of gasoline.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I would argue the opposite. Gas is more expensive than it should be in many places. For example, the high price of gas in Europe is in large part due to taxes having nothing to do with the 'real' cost of the product.

Depends on how you account for the “real” cost. There are roads required and pollution issues that are a direct result. I don’t see a problem lumping that into cost. We haven’t raised the federal tax on gas in the US (fixed amount, not a percentage of the price) in a long time, and we’re in political denial about the pollution costs.

If it’s not in the fuel cost, it’s just going to show up somewhere else, but at least this way it’s proportional to the impact. Use less gas, pollute less and less wear-and-tear on the roads.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Depends on how you account for the “real” cost. There are roads required and pollution issues that are a direct result. I don’t see a problem lumping that into cost. We haven’t raised the federal tax on gas in the US (fixed amount, not a percentage of the price) in a long time, and we’re in political denial about the pollution costs.

If it’s not in the fuel cost, it’s just going to show up somewhere else, but at least this way it’s proportional to the impact. Use less gas, pollute less and less wear-and-tear on the roads.

Thank you. I agree with all of what you said.

Just as applying federal tax of gas would force people to use efficient means of transportation, why can't we come up with a tariffs that encourage consumption of essential and quality goods? I agree that what's going on is careless and visionless but left could use this to showcase our sustainable vision.

13 minutes ago, Mahi_sayli said:

Just as applying federal tax of gas would force people to use efficient means of transportation, why can't we come up with a tariffs that encourage consumption of essential and quality goods?

Because the issue here is that the mechanisms are different. A carbon tax on high emitting products would be an example of encouraging folks to buy low emitting products. However, a tariff would directly only increase the price for the import of high emitting products, but would not necessarily affect domestic products.

One of the many (and contradictory) justification for tariffs was to increase domestic manufacturing. I.e., while it can impact consumption, it is not really an efficient tool to this goal, as it only impacts imports.

2 hours ago, Mahi_sayli said:

Thank you. I agree with all of what you said.

Just as applying federal tax of gas would force people to use efficient means of transportation, why can't we come up with a tariffs that encourage consumption of essential and quality goods? I agree that what's going on is careless and visionless but left could use this to showcase our sustainable vision.

One rationale for not raising the gas tax has been that it’s regressive, and would hurt lower wage people more. Your pizza delivery person gets hit proportionally harder, and they probably already have a smaller car, though also older, since they can’t afford a new(er) one.

6 hours ago, Mahi_sayli said:

automakers have flexible production lines so they can switch to smaller cars on the same production lines easily.

This seems a bit pollyanish. Easy is relative... and often rather costly

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

I would argue the opposite. Gas is more expensive than it should be in many places. For example, the high price of gas in Europe is in large part due to taxes having nothing to do with the 'real' cost of the product.

Not sure about that. When I was over there, it seemed like more people used mass transit which meant that the cost of serving up roads and other infrastructure to motorists might be higher per person. Higher price of gas could also serve to encourage continued production of fuel efficient vehicles and EVs, which is generally seen as a public good.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

One rationale for not raising the gas tax has been that it’s regressive, and would hurt lower wage people more. Your pizza delivery person gets hit proportionally harder

Yep, which is why any real gas tax hike would need to be accompanied by better mass transit options and, for the pizza guy who needs his own vehicle, better reimbursement on his work mileage. A gas tax, isolated from real infrastructure improvement, is regressive.

Frugality that is forced on people, that is widely disliked and resented, does not help and can work counter-productively to give ongoing popular permission to policies that build and expand fossil fuel use - no questions that fossil fuels do work whilst new technologies do come with uncertainties. Of course the climate consequences of emissions have a lot of 'certainty' but they are widely seen as remote certainties and (frankly) the ability to weigh it all up by the public, without resort to trusting high level expertise, in a milieu where false claims of expertise is common and can be well aimed at popular dislikes and resentments, is very limited.

Whilst frugality as a choice by those who are informed and care enough helps a bit - and as a choice by everyone would help a lot - that still can't get us to zero emissions without threatening more than access to unnecessary luxuries. It can put a ceiling on them but the ceiling is still too high; we are too dependent. We need abundance of low cost low emissions energy to displace the fossil fuels and that takes forethought, planning, with sufficient funding and investment, which seem harder to get when economies are struggling.

Dependence on the economy we are part of (and on the energy economies use) is too great for 'going without' to fix the problem. And yes, frugality as a choice is a virtue - but it remains deeply unpopular.

55 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Not sure about that.

Well, if you are referring to my "high taxes" comment, I found this:

"The Netherlands has the highest gas tax in the European Union, at €0.82 per liter ($3.69 per gallon). Italy applies the second highest rate at €0.73 per liter ($3.26 per gallon), followed by Finland at €0.72 per liter ($3.24 per gallon).

The lowest gas tax is in Hungary, at €0.34 per liter ($1.49 per gallon), as the Hungarian rate is set in its domestic currency, the Forint, resulting in an average rate slightly below the EU minimum after exchange rate fluctuations. The next lowest are Bulgaria and Poland, both at €0.36 per liter ($1.61 per gallon)."

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/gas-taxes-in-europe-2022/

Average tax in the US on the other hand is around $0.50 per gallon:

	Gasoline	Diesel
Federal	18.40	24.40
Average of total state taxes	32.61	34.76

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=10&t=5

If you are referring to the 'real' cost of the product, then if you are going to add in the negatives (road maintenance, global warming, etc.) then it only seems reasonable to adjust for the positives (quality of life, economic benefit, etc.)

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Higher price of gas could also serve to encourage continued production of fuel efficient vehicles and EVs, which is generally seen as a public good.

True, but you could also do that by mandating production of fuel efficient vehicles and EVs.

Edited May 2May 2 by zapatos

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Well, if you are referring to my "high taxes" comment,

No, I I wasn't questioning they are higher over there. I was questioning your assertion that "the high price of gas in Europe is in large part due to taxes having nothing to do with the 'real' cost of the product." What I was trying to get at was that Europeans tend to drive less, but they still need all the infrastructure to get anyone from point A to point B. That means that a European driver is costing more per mile than an American driver. If Pierre Euro drives 25 miles a week and Joe Merica drives a 100, they still both need paved roads, signals, signage, bridges, etc. Pierre is going to cost society more per mile, and gas taxes should reflect that. Otherwise Henri who takes the Metro and Eloise who rides her bike will end up paying other kinds of taxes which are subsidizing Pierre in his carbon spewing travels.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

True, but you could also do that by mandating production of fuel efficient vehicles and EVs.

Well, I lean towards the idea that both carrot and stick are needed to bring about real change. If EVs and PIHVs are mandated at a certain level of production, then it helps if people are motivated to buy them by high gas prices. And the high taxes collected can also go into a program to assist lower income people who find it harder to transition away from an old gas hog they need for their job.

11 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Pierre is going to cost society more per mile, and gas taxes should reflect that.

That may be true, but the taxes seem to cover more than just that extra cost, at least in England.

"Fuel duty - a tax levied on a unit of purchased fuel - is charged on almost every liquid fuel that is bought

and burnt in the UK. Duties are applied to petrol, diesel, bioethanol, biodiesel, LPG for transport use and

oil for home heating. The tax raised goes into the general revenue “pot”

, and is used to pay for the

nation’s public services - schools, hospitals, etc. It is also used to pay the costs of the negative

externalities that burning fossil fuels causes, such as the NHS costs society incurs in treating respiratory

conditions caused by air pollution."

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

No, I I wasn't questioning they are higher over there. I was questioning your assertion that "the high price of gas in Europe is in large part due to taxes having nothing to do with the 'real' cost of the product." What I was trying to get at was that Europeans tend to drive less, but they still need all the infrastructure to get anyone from point A to point B. That means that a European driver is costing more per mile than an American driver. If Pierre Euro drives 25 miles a week and Joe Merica drives a 100, they still both need paved roads, signals, signage, bridges, etc. Pierre is going to cost society more per mile, and gas taxes should reflect that. Otherwise Henri who takes the Metro and Eloise who rides her bike will end up paying other kinds of taxes which are subsidizing Pierre in his carbon spewing travels.

Part of the reason Americans drive more is that things are spread out and transit infrastructure is lacking, relative to Europe. Pretty sure there are more lane-miles of road in the US, with half of Europe’s population, so those roads cost more per driver. And driving more means more wear and tear on those roads, which drives up the cost.