NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2007/12/heavyweights_against_the_ropes.html
http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonnews_050.htm

The EU Commission is currently working out the way CO2 emissions will be reduced for European cars. This is relevant to everyone because it's the first major system of its kind and will surely serve as a test and inspiration for similar systems in other countries (eg the US once a new administration takes over).

Basically, they're saying that car manufacturers should reduce the average emissions their cars produce. So the average for all their cars sold must be less than some set level.

Easy enough for Renault, Peugeot or Fiat. Slightly harder for Mercedes, BMW or Porsche. In fact, the latter has no hope in hell of meeting the target, as its current average stands at 282 g/km and is supposed to be reduced to 144 g/km by 2012. Across all sold cars targets are supposed to hover around the 130 g/km mark.

Do you think that's a good rule? I find it very hard to believe that this right now isn't industrial policy meant to favour the car industries in one country against another (in this case it'd be France and Italy against Germany). Fiat sits in a market segment in which it is easy to have low emissions without trading away anything - the same can't be said for BMW. Does it really make sense to have the same rules apply to both?

Do you think this is a good plan? Can you think of a better one? What would you do with companies like Porsche or Ferrari (400+ g/km)? Would you perhaps support an exclusion of models that sell below a certain number from the calculations?

Rather coincidental Mercedes, BMW and Porsche make good sports cars ... and those others don't.

... and those others don't.
Oi! (http://rsc172.blogspot.com/)

But yeah, my point is that these companies operate in completely different circumstances, and this sort of 'one size fits all' approach only really makes intuitive sense if you're not making environmental, but industrial policy.

Why can't companies like BMW or Porsche offset their CO2 at the wholesale level rather than implement mandatory constraints that do not take in to account engineering or the market situation of a given company?

Rather than try to force CO2 cuts on them from the car-level, the EU should instead require them to account for the estimated CO2 production from their cars over their product cycle, and offset it sufficiently to bring their company in line with their competitors. This would allow them to meet the same standards as their competitors, but without sacrificing the quality or performance of their vehicles. Surely consumers would prefer to pay more for these high-end cars (and undoubtedly can afford it) rather than sacrifice the quality they expect in order to meet an arbitrary standard?

I mean, it's obvious that CO2 from high-end vehicles needs to be offset, but not at this kind of expense; a ton of CO2 offset is a ton of CO2 offset whether it's saved at the car level or at the wholesale level.

I think if you buy a cheap budget car which should not have higher emissions anyway due to their weak engines, then enforce it on those as most people will be driving those. People with the sports cars and performance cars which tend to emit more can't really reduce emissions as well, those types of cars can't really reduce emissions very easily in the first place.

There's a Cheyenne hybrid on the horizon, and by some comparative measures (like per horsepower or liter, I can't remember) they do pretty well. Porsche engineers have historically been pretty good at turning what seems to be a negative into a positive, or even an unfair advantage.

Ultimately it's about relevance. You won't find a bigger Porsche fan on these boards, but if they can't reduce then it speaks towards their relevance. I don't think that they'll go out like that.

BMW has things like the turbosteamer, and Mercedes has resources out the wazzo. I'm not afraid for them at all.

They could lways implement some sort of Sharing scheme.

ie if Fiat is 50g/km below the prescribed average than Mercedes can buy that 50g/km from Fiat. this could subsidise Fiat to povide cheaper cars (its target market) whilest having almost no impact on Mercedes as they target a much higher end customer.

You won't find a bigger Porsche fan on these boards, but if they can't reduce then it speaks towards their relevance. I don't think that they'll go out like that.
The problem is that technologies which produce good low-emission cars are at this stage still very experimental, and often border science-fiction. Until an electric, or hybrid, or turbosteamer or whatever is capable of matching a combustion-engined car on every level while reducing emissions, it is not ok to force them on people.

Anyways, the technology isn't real yet, the laws very definitely are. And that gap is what might just break a few of these companies, and lead to some rather shoddy products being released.

And finally - you're talking about the Cayenne, a faceless, mass-produced consumer product for soccer mums who wouldn't know a good car if it ran over their kids. I'm talking about the GT3 RS, which cannot tolerate a compromise on something as essential as the drivetrain. If unreasonable constraints are put on Porsche by the law, what we'll see is softcore, well-selling nothing-cars, because it will no longer be legal to sell a real Porsche. They won't mind, they'll still get their cash. It's us who end up losing out.

So all I'm asking is whether there isn't a better way of achieving some result that doesn't turn into a crusade of questionable motives.

i think everyone should stop emitting cars.

=^^=
.../\...

Why can't companies like BMW or Porsche offset their CO2 at the wholesale level rather than implement mandatory constraints that do not take in to account engineering or the market situation of a given company?

Rather than try to force CO2 cuts on them from the car-level, the EU should instead require them to account for the estimated CO2 production from their cars over their product cycle, and offset it sufficiently to bring their company in line with their competitors. This would allow them to meet the same standards as their competitors, but without sacrificing the quality or performance of their vehicles. Surely consumers would prefer to pay more for these high-end cars (and undoubtedly can afford it) rather than sacrifice the quality they expect in order to meet an arbitrary standard?

I mean, it's obvious that CO2 from high-end vehicles needs to be offset, but not at this kind of expense; a ton of CO2 offset is a ton of CO2 offset whether it's saved at the car level or at the wholesale level.

Well, given the huge amount of emissions that come from the transportation sector, where are they going to get the offsets from if the car manufacturers don't make reductions at the vehicle level?

Offsets are still too cheap. They should make them expensive enough that it becomes cheaper for car manufacturers to reduce at the vehicle level anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2007/12/heavyweights_against_the_ropes.html
http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonnews_050.htm

The EU Commission is currently working out the way CO2 emissions will be reduced for European cars. This is relevant to everyone because it's the first major system of its kind and will surely serve as a test and inspiration for similar systems in other countries (eg the US once a new administration takes over).

Basically, they're saying that car manufacturers should reduce the average emissions their cars produce. So the average for all their cars sold must be less than some set level.

Easy enough for Renault, Peugeot or Fiat. Slightly harder for Mercedes, BMW or Porsche. In fact, the latter has no hope in hell of meeting the target, as its current average stands at 282 g/km and is supposed to be reduced to 144 g/km by 2012. Across all sold cars targets are supposed to hover around the 130 g/km mark.

Do you think that's a good rule? I find it very hard to believe that this right now isn't industrial policy meant to favour the car industries in one country against another (in this case it'd be France and Italy against Germany). Fiat sits in a market segment in which it is easy to have low emissions without trading away anything - the same can't be said for BMW. Does it really make sense to have the same rules apply to both?

Do you think this is a good plan? Can you think of a better one? What would you do with companies like Porsche or Ferrari (400+ g/km)? Would you perhaps support an exclusion of models that sell below a certain number from the calculations?

Considering that Mercedes, BMW and Porsche aren't the only German car manufaturers, far from it, I think it's not favour the industry in one country over that in another.
The VW Polo is currently the European car with the lowest emissions, it's at 98g/km, showing clearly that it can be done.

I think it might be a good idea to grant exceptions for models that sell below a certain number, but I would combine it with a fee calculated by g/km.

The problem is that technologies which produce good low-emission cars are at this stage still very experimental, and often border science-fiction. Until an electric, or hybrid, or turbosteamer or whatever is capable of matching a combustion-engined car on every level while reducing emissions, it is not ok to force them on people.

Anyways, the technology isn't real yet, the laws very definitely are. And that gap is what might just break a few of these companies, and lead to some rather shoddy products being released.

And finally - you're talking about the Cayenne, a faceless, mass-produced consumer product for soccer mums who wouldn't know a good car if it ran over their kids. I'm talking about the GT3 RS, which cannot tolerate a compromise on something as essential as the drivetrain. If unreasonable constraints are put on Porsche by the law, what we'll see is softcore, well-selling nothing-cars, because it will no longer be legal to sell a real Porsche. They won't mind, they'll still get their cash. It's us who end up losing out.

So all I'm asking is whether there isn't a better way of achieving some result that doesn't turn into a crusade of questionable motives.

If I remember the news last night correctly, it was said that the emissions regulations would not become law until 2012. I think with that incentive, it should be well enough time to get those models tested and on the road, don't you?

Easy enough for Renault, Peugeot or Fiat. Slightly harder for Mercedes, BMW or Porsche. In fact, the latter has no hope in hell of meeting the target, as its current average stands at 282 g/km and is supposed to be reduced to 144 g/km by 2012. Across all sold cars targets are supposed to hover around the 130 g/km mark.

Do you think that's a good rule? I find it very hard to believe that this right now isn't industrial policy meant to favour the car industries in one country against another (in this case it'd be France and Italy against Germany). Fiat sits in a market segment in which it is easy to have low emissions without trading away anything - the same can't be said for BMW. Does it really make sense to have the same rules apply to both?

Actually, Fiat and Peugeot PSA claim that this rule is going to advantage BWM and Mercedes - because Fiat and Peugeot have been given the lowest emission target.

Here I report part of the list (from italian daily La Repubblica):

manufacturer, current emissions, future emissions by EU request (grams of CO2 per travelled kilometre each car)

FIAT, 144, 122
GM, 152, 129
Ford, 162, 132
PSA, 142, 126
BMW, 162, 137
Renault, 147, 127
Daimler Benz, 184, 138
VolksWagen, 164, 134
Toyota, 152, 127
Nissan, 164, 126

note: I think that FIAT here includes Lancia and Alfa Romeo, too.


Would you perhaps support an exclusion of models that sell below a certain number from the calculations?

NO WAY. If the gas guzzlers pollute too much, let's ban the gas guzzlers.

Oi! (http://rsc172.blogspot.com/)

But yeah, my point is that these companies operate in completely different circumstances, and this sort of 'one size fits all' approach only really makes intuitive sense if you're not making environmental, but industrial policy.
Well one thing is for sure. Driving a sport car is never a green choice.

I think there's something to be said for consumer's reducing their carbon footprint and not having manufacturer's do it for them.

An idea might be to enforce limits during the production and disposal of the car, but instead of g/km of CO2 you could have g/kmkg and then have consumer limits on the amount of CO2 they can emit per year. That is what do you want most - that fast car or the holiday to that far off land? And maybe allow a trading scheme and allow poorer people to benefit from rich people's greed and waste.

If I remember the news last night correctly, it was said that the emissions regulations would not become law until 2012. I think with that incentive, it should be well enough time to get those models tested and on the road, don't you?
Basically, no.

Considering that Mercedes, BMW and Porsche aren't the only German car manufaturers, far from it, I think it's not favour the industry in one country over that in another.
What makes you think this is some sort of exception? EU negotiations on economic issues are always based on mercantilist trade policy. This is war of the lobbies, and I don't want to be the victim.

Actually, Fiat and Peugeot PSA claim that this rule is going to advantage BWM and Mercedes - because Fiat and Peugeot have been given the lowest emission target.
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,524473,00.html
That article has a table that shows percentages.

Porsche - 49%
Daimler and BMW - 25%
VW - 19%
Renault - 14%
Fiat - 15%
Peugeot - 11%

And the fines will end up accordingly. Porsche is doing well now, but even they might just break under a few billion euro fines.

NO WAY. If the gas guzzlers pollute too much, let's ban the gas guzzlers.
Mmmh, the nothing like banning things you don't care for to make yourself feel righteous.

Well one thing is for sure. Driving a sport car is never a green choice.
It's not meant to be. I make my green choices on other things, knowing that they don't change jack. I'm not one for taking one for the team, and this particular team doesn't even give a shit about me. So I'll pass.

Mmmh, the nothing like banning things you don't care for to make yourself feel righteous.


Nothing like driving a useless toy to make you feel like a real man, neh?

Really, if Porsche or Ferrari aren't able to cope with the required standards, they can:
1.screw themselves; or
2.come up with hydrogen-powered sports cars. After all, the first car to exceed 100 km/h was a battery-powered electric car.

The problem is that technologies which produce good low-emission cars are at this stage still very experimental, and often border science-fiction. Until an electric, or hybrid, or turbosteamer or whatever is capable of matching a combustion-engined car on every level while reducing emissions, it is not ok to force them on people.

Why wouldn't it be okay to outlaw technolgy that has proven negative effects for the community if a reasonable alternative exists? So people will have to drive economy cars rather than sports cars, big deal. Driving luxury vehicles does not strike me as an inalienable right, especially when one considers the environmental and health costs associated with automobile use.

Rather coincidental Mercedes, BMW and Porsche make good sports cars ... and those others don't.

Uh... no.

In related news:

Ireland is to start taxing new cars based on the the amount of emissions they put out from 2008. The Environment Minister John Gormley (Green Party) announced in the recent budget.

Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0660168620071207?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0)

From July all new cars registered and any imported into Ireland will be subject to seven tax bands ranging from 100 euros a year for the greenest up to 2,000 for those with the highest emissions of gases which are blamed for global warming.

Existing cars will continue to be taxed based on engine size. Gormley said he would also introduce a mandatory labeling system for new cars to show their environmental impact.

The reforms follow an announcement by Finance Minister Cowen on Wednesday that as of July 1, Vehicle Registration Tax would also be determined by a car's carbon dioxide emissions.

oh how my heart bleeds for the expensive toy makers

its not fair I tell you! why should they be responsible for the damage they do?!

Uh... no.

:D

Really, unless you completely reject the idea that the government should intervene on this issue, the realistic options are: 1) more tax for cars which pollute more, or 2) emission rules like those described in the OP.

As far as I can see, option 1 will do very little to help - people are prepared to pay silly money for cars, so chances are most of them are quite happy to pay a little more. If anything, flashy cars will become more of a status symbol.
If option 2 goes ahead, I predict a steadily increasing demand for older vehicles - ones which predate the new law.

Nothing like driving a useless toy to make you feel like a real man, neh?
Hey, my reasons aren't up for discussion. I don't claim to justify them, I only ask you to justify your wish to take them away.

Tell me, can you figure out just how big a percentage of global CO2 emissions all the Ferraris in the world make up together? I suspect you must, because you seem very keen to ban them, and I'd hate to think it is without solid reason.

Why wouldn't it be okay to outlaw technolgy that has proven negative effects for the community if a reasonable alternative exists?
Because the negative effects are negligible. Performance cars are fewer in number, and will remain that way. They can never match the emissions created by normal cars.

They're sacrificial lambs. People think that they're making a statement by attacking them (and this is hardly the first reason they've come up with either) - hell, you notice the hostility towards people who want to buy them in Risottia's post.

But if people want to make statements, I suggest they ban things they like, otherwise all they're demonstrating is their willingness to hurt others to feel better about themselves.

Driving luxury vehicles does not strike me as an inalienable right, especially when one considers the environmental and health costs associated with automobile use.
Have you ever read "Brave New World"?

As far as I can see, option 1 will do very little to help - people are prepared to pay silly money for cars, so chances are most of them are quite happy to pay a little more. If anything, flashy cars will become more of a status symbol.
I think you misunderstand the point of a carbon tax. The idea is that the emissions cause a certain amount of damage (ie a cost) to society which the owner does not pay. The tax is used to make sure he does pay for the cost, so the price of driving the car accurately reflects the true cost of doing so both to him and to society in general.

And if people then still buy these cars, it is because the benefit of doing so outweighs the costs including the environmental and "social" externalities.

In principle I don't mind that, because it targets the actual number of these cars around and takes care of the emissions. But option 2 targets manufacturers with some sort of average rule, and that makes no sense. It doesn't even attempt to take into account the costs and benefits of actually operating the car, it's just arbitrarily chosen amounts apparently meant to do industrial policy on a new level.

And on that bombshell:
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9370620&subjectID=348924&fsrc=nwl&emailauth=%2527%252A%2520205%255C%255FEWQ9D%250A
Petrol taxes, in particular, are already eye-wateringly high at 50p per litre. Work by David Newbery, an economist at Cambridge University, suggests that existing levels of fuel tax more than cover the environmental damage that motoring does to local air quality or global carbon-dioxide levels. Forthcoming research from London's Imperial College argues that, on assumptions recommended by Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of a government study on climate change, the damage caused by carbon emissions amounts to less than 20p per litre.

I think you misunderstand the point of a carbon tax. The idea is that the emissions cause a certain amount of damage (ie a cost) to society which the owner does not pay. The tax is used to make sure he does pay for the cost, so the price of driving the car accurately reflects the true cost of doing so both to him and to society in general.

No, I understand perfectly what taxing a demerit good is all about, I just don't think it works. At all. In general, it hardly affects demand at all, and only serves to make money for the government. Money which is not earmarked for improving the environment, nor is it ploughed back into new 'greener' technology.


But option 2 targets manufacturers with some sort of average rule, and that makes no sense.

It does if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions. It will do that just fine. Whether you think that is a reasonable and justified step is another matter. After all, the environmental impact of manufacturing a car, even a 'green' car, is pretty heavy.

No, I understand perfectly what taxing a demerit good is all about, I just don't think it works. At all. In general, it hardly affects demand at all, and only serves to make money for the government. Money which is not earmarked for improving the environment, nor is it ploughed back into new 'greener' technology.
Well, if it doesn't reduce demand, doesn't that tell us that benefit is greater than cost? Doesn't that tell us that reducing its consumption will make us worse off, including any and all externalities? Wouldn't it then make sense to target other things, say fossil fuel power stations?

It does if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions. It will do that just fine. Whether you think that is a reasonable and justified step is another matter.
If we stop breathing, that's a way to reduce carbon emissions too. But neither of us thinks it reasonable or justified, for much the same reasons for which I don't think these rules are.

After all, the environmental impact of manufacturing a car, even a 'green' car, is pretty heavy.
Which is of course blown out by safety regulations which cause cars to be heavier than they have to be.

Well, if it doesn't reduce demand, doesn't that tell us that benefit is greater than cost?

No, it only tells us that people are prepared to spend more money on it than the free market was charging. It has no bearing whatsoever on the environment.


Wouldn't it then make sense to target other things, say fossil fuel power stations?

Yep. And aircraft too.


If we stop breathing, that's a way to reduce carbon emissions too. But neither of us thinks it reasonable or justified, for much the same reasons for which I don't think these rules are.


No, the reason I don't think stopping us breathing would be reasonable or justified is that it would constitute mass suicide. Stopping a few people driving overpowered cars would not be mass suicide, it would just be annoying for those few people.

No, it only tells us that people are prepared to spend more money on it than the free market was charging. It has no bearing whatsoever on the environment.
I don't think you get what I'm trying to say: if you do some research, you can get a dollar figure for the damage done to the environment. If people are willing to pay for that additional damage, then the benefits outweigh the costs and you have nothing to be annoyed with.

No, the reason I don't think stopping us breathing would be reasonable or justified is that it would constitute mass suicide. Stopping a few people driving overpowered cars would not be mass suicide, it would just be annoying for those few people.
The reason is that the costs of stopping to breathe outweigh the benefits. The same is true if you ban these cars rather than just factoring environmental costs into the price.

I don't think you get what I'm trying to say: if you do some research, you can get a dollar figure for the damage done to the environment. If people are willing to pay for that additional damage, then the benefits outweigh the costs and you have nothing to be annoyed with.
I don't for one moment think that luxury/high-end private cars are a particularly large part of the problem, but this line of reasoning misses a fairly major point by my reckoning.

You can't put a "dollar figure" on the "damage done to the environment"... you just can't. I suppose you could try to, if you had some facility on the other side of the equation who used dollars to operate some kind of magic machine that repaired the environment as long as you kept giving it money, but as things stand that simply isn't the case.

You can't put a "dollar figure" on the "damage done to the environment"... you just can't. I suppose you could try to, if you had some facility on the other side of the equation who used dollars to operate some kind of magic machine that repaired the environment as long as you kept giving it money, but as things stand that simply isn't the case.
True. But the worst thing we can do knowing that is put no price on it whatsoever. Some people simply won't stop doing damage until you hit them where it hurts ... in the wallet.

You can't put a "dollar figure" on the "damage done to the environment"... you just can't. I suppose you could try to, if you had some facility on the other side of the equation who used dollars to operate some kind of magic machine that repaired the environment as long as you kept giving it money, but as things stand that simply isn't the case.
Why can't we?

If some part of the environment is destroyed, then the following values might be reduced:

1. Use value. If the lake is toxic, you can't swim in it. If it's brown and smelly, you don't want to live near it.

2. Non-use value. If the lake is destroyed, your kids won't have a lake when they grow up. Nor will anybody else in the community.

3. Existence value. You may simply be sad if the lake no longer exists, even though neither you nor anybody you care about would ever come near it.

These can be split up into smaller sub-groups, but all of them can be assigned a dollar value. I can ask you how much you value the lake, and if I ask the right questions and in different ways, I can get some sort of approximation. It's not perfect, but with a large enough sample it would get pretty close to what you might pay in real life for the fact that the lake exists and is clean.

And if I ask everyone and come up with, say, $1 million and a factory that will pollute the lake creates $2 million worth of value then, as hard as that may be to accept, we would be wrong to prevent the factory from being built.

The problem is that technologies which produce good low-emission cars are at this stage still very experimental, and often border science-fiction. Until an electric, or hybrid, or turbosteamer or whatever is capable of matching a combustion-engined car on every level while reducing emissions, it is not ok to force them on people.

Anyways, the technology isn't real yet, the laws very definitely are. And that gap is what might just break a few of these companies, and lead to some rather shoddy products being released.

And finally - you're talking about the Cayenne, a faceless, mass-produced consumer product for soccer mums who wouldn't know a good car if it ran over their kids. I'm talking about the GT3 RS, which cannot tolerate a compromise on something as essential as the drivetrain. If unreasonable constraints are put on Porsche by the law, what we'll see is softcore, well-selling nothing-cars, because it will no longer be legal to sell a real Porsche. They won't mind, they'll still get their cash. It's us who end up losing out.

So all I'm asking is whether there isn't a better way of achieving some result that doesn't turn into a crusade of questionable motives.
Oh come on, the only one with questionable motives here is you.

By comparative standards, the GT-3 RS does pretty well against it's contemporaries because Porsche uses smaller engines than say, a Corvette or TVR.

And your pessimism regarding both the technology and the abilities of the engineers is frankly saddening.

The catalytic converter and higher standards may have brought an end to the 'muscle car era' but cars like the Buick Grand National and even 'rebirth' muscle cars give lie to that, and even with those standards that would 'destroy the performance car' cars are faster now than they ever have been.

You have all this unwavering faith in capitalism and the market and that the captains of industry will save us all, but put a tiny hurdle in their way and you're quick to throw a dramatic hand to your forehead and wail about doom and gloom. Get over it. If the GT3 cannot achieve performance efficiently, then it's time with us is done. Frankly, I guess of the two of us I'm actually the one with more faith in those 'captains of industry,' because I don't see Porsche closing its doors but rather rising to that challenge like they have since their founding. That must be a weird place for you.

Why can't we?

If some part of the environment is destroyed, then the following values might be reduced:

1. Use value. If the lake is toxic, you can't swim in it. If it's brown and smelly, you don't want to live near it.

2. Non-use value. If the lake is destroyed, your kids won't have a lake when they grow up. Nor will anybody else in the community.

3. Existence value. You may simply be sad if the lake no longer exists, even though neither you nor anybody you care about would ever come near it.

These can be split up into smaller sub-groups, but all of them can be assigned a dollar value. I can ask you how much you value the lake, and if I ask the right questions and in different ways, I can get some sort of approximation. It's not perfect, but with a large enough sample it would get pretty close to what you might pay in real life for the fact that the lake exists and is clean.

And if I ask everyone and come up with, say, $1 million and a factory that will pollute the lake creates $2 million worth of value then, as hard as that may be to accept, we would be wrong to prevent the factory from being built.
Your arguments only hold valid if the environment itself is an infinite resource that can have a price tag slapped on it so that pieces of it can be "bought". I don't believe that to be the case, hence my assertion that it's a silly idea to think that you can assign a dollar value to it.

Your point 2) seems particularly blind to the reality of the situation. You posit that a "Non-use" value should be assigned to cover the loss of a lake to a community. The "community" that is affected is the entire planet, and every organism on it. It's like the whole "what price a human life?" line of philosophical thinking - it gets brushed under the carpet, every time.

Without wishing to sound like some eco-paranoiac doom-monger, once it's gone, it's gone. The idea that you can simply come up with a financial price to pay that will somehow make all the bad aspects of the things that you like go away is blinkered, foolish and selfish in the extreme unless, as I stated, the extra dollars that you pay are somehow being used to repair the "damage".

I don't think you get what I'm trying to say: if you do some research, you can get a dollar figure for the damage done to the environment. If people are willing to pay for that additional damage, then the benefits outweigh the costs and you have nothing to be annoyed with.

I understand you, but the concept you are arguing for is a fallacy. You cannot assign a price tag to the air. Even if you could, paying that price to the government would not make the air any cleaner. And if somebody poisons the air, then I have every reason to be annoyed. Telling me: "It's okay - they've paid their tax bill," will not improve my mood one bit.


The reason is that the costs of stopping to breathe outweigh the benefits. The same is true if you ban these cars rather than just factoring environmental costs into the price.

The costs of banning certain cars may, in your eyes, outweigh the benefits. Personally, I can find better things to care about.
Anyway, they aren't banning cars, only tightening up the legal restrictions on them. Something which, frankly, should have been done back when Lamborghini were still making tractors.

Because the negative effects are negligible. Performance cars are fewer in number, and will remain that way. They can never match the emissions created by normal cars.

They're sacrificial lambs. People think that they're making a statement by attacking them (and this is hardly the first reason they've come up with either) - hell, you notice the hostility towards people who want to buy them in Risottia's post.

But if people want to make statements, I suggest they ban things they like, otherwise all they're demonstrating is their willingness to hurt others to feel better about themselves.

Your argument only makes sense if the EU were targetting luxury cars solely because they belong to some small and specific group of vehicles. This is not the case. They are targetting all vehicles, and it just so happens that this subgroup does not meet the standards.

The use of internal combustion automobiles has a marked effect on the environment and the people living in it. Putting standards in place to protect us and our surroundings from such effects has nothing to do with antipathy towards the owners.

OFrankly, I guess of the two of us I'm actually the one with more faith in those 'captains of industry,' because I don't see Porsche closing its doors but rather rising to that challenge like they have since their founding. That must be a weird place for you.
You keep saying this in every one of these threads. I really, really, recommend you read Atlas Shrugged some day, because your post is an almost 1:1 reproduction of what people in that book are saying.

You're asking these captains of industry to save you, to get you out of the cave - and then you start tying big iron balls to their ankles. 'Don't worry, we can do to them whatever the hell we want, they'll find a way.'

Your arguments only hold valid if the environment itself is an infinite resource that can have a price tag slapped on it so that pieces of it can be "bought".
No, if it could be bought, we wouldn't have to go through this exercise because we could just read the market prices in the newspaper.

No one assumes it's infinite - economics doesn't do infinite. If there's less of it, people would be less likely to give up what they have, so the prices rise until they're very high indeed close to the end. So somewhere there is a balance between damage to the environment and the benefit we receive from doing that damage - and there is no other approach I know of that would allow us to approximate that optimum.

Your point 2) seems particularly blind to the reality of the situation. You posit that a "Non-use" value should be assigned to cover the loss of a lake to a community. The "community" that is affected is the entire planet, and every organism on it. It's like the whole "what price a human life?" line of philosophical thinking - it gets brushed under the carpet, every time.
It doesn't matter who "the community" is. What we're valuing is how the person we're asking values the fact that the community (which can include anyone and anything) has access to the lake.

And besides, if you're actually serious, there are ways to calculate the price of a human life. You can use expected value formulae and look at life insurances or just take the present value of all future earnings.

Without wishing to sound like some eco-paranoiac doom-monger, once it's gone, it's gone. The idea that you can simply come up with a financial price to pay that will somehow make all the bad aspects of the things that you like go away is blinkered, foolish and selfish in the extreme unless, as I stated, the extra dollars that you pay are somehow being used to repair the "damage".
I'm not doubting that it'll be gone. But it doesn't matter whether it ever comes back or not - what matters is how much people would pay to keep it, or willing to accept compensation for its disappearance. We're only interested in what the damage is worth, not if it will ever be repaired.

I understand you, but the concept you are arguing for is a fallacy. You cannot assign a price tag to the air. Even if you could, paying that price to the government would not make the air any cleaner.
No, but if you have to pay the price and still poison it, that tells us that the benefit that is being created outweighs the actual cost.

And if somebody poisons the air, then I have every reason to be annoyed. Telling me: "It's okay - they've paid their tax bill," will not improve my mood one bit.
Certainly not. But then you're gonna have to come up with a justification that is not based on utilitarian thinking or values being assigned to things.

Anyway, they aren't banning cars, only tightening up the legal restrictions on them.
If only. They're creating a system that will allow them to put firms out of business by slapping them with extraordinary fines. Don't think those fines won't rise if they fail to do their job in 2012.

That's why I'm saying it's industrial policy. They're not trying to encourage cleaner cars, they're trying to take out the competition, actually wipe out firms like Porsche. Which would be normal, if it wasn't for the fact that right now they have the self-righteous indignation of the mob behind them, and you know that if people start lighting torches and picking up pitchforks, things will get ugly.

Your argument only makes sense if the EU were targetting luxury cars solely because they belong to some small and specific group of vehicles. This is not the case. They are targetting all vehicles, and it just so happens that this subgroup does not meet the standards.
They're not meant to be targeting "vehicles", they're meant to be targeting (will someone, anyone, please explain to me whether it's a double-t or not?) climate change. The way to do that is the reduction of global CO2 emissions. But if these particular cars don't make up a significant part of those, then means the benefit from doing something about them is small and the cost, considering how much people love them and are willing to pay for them, is large.

You keep saying this in every one of these threads. I really, really, recommend you read Atlas Shrugged some day, because your post is an almost 1:1 reproduction of what people in that book are saying.

You're asking these captains of industry to save you, to get you out of the cave - and then you start tying big iron balls to their ankles. 'Don't worry, we can do to them whatever the hell we want, they'll find a way.'


Maybe we could take advice from non-fiction sources from authors who haven't been totally discredited?

And besides, if you're actually serious, there are ways to calculate the price of a human life. You can use expected value formulae and look at life insurances or just take the present value of all future earnings.

I'm glad I don't hang out with you. The value of human life is not measured in money. That's why you can't murder someone, then escape prosecution by paying compensation to their family.
Let me put it another way: Suppose I murder someone close to you, then pay out a sum based on their likely earnings for the rest of their life. That sum is then divided between you and all the victim's other family and friends. Does that makes what I have done okay? Would you be happy with that arrangement? Would you want to live in a society where that sort of thing happened?


No, but if you have to pay the price and still poison it, that tells us that the benefit that is being created outweighs the actual cost.

No it doesn't. It tells us that some people have a lot of money to spend.


Certainly not. But then you're gonna have to come up with a justification that is not based on utilitarian thinking or values being assigned to things.

No, I think it's you that is going to have to do that.


If only. They're creating a system that will allow them to put firms out of business by slapping them with extraordinary fines. Don't think those fines won't rise if they fail to do their job in 2012.

Time will tell, but I find it very hard to believe that any major firms are going to be shut down by this. If there was much chance of that, the plan would be vetoed. In fairness, I do agree with you that there is probably an element of protectionism in certain countries going along with this. But then, the EU has always had an element of that. It's sad but unavoidable.


That's why I'm saying it's industrial policy. They're not trying to encourage cleaner cars, they're trying to take out the competition, actually wipe out firms like Porsche.

You'll rarely meet a more cynical person than me, but I very much doubt that this whole policy is aimed at killing off any particular car manufacturer(s). Look at it like this - having a Porsche dealership near me has benefits for the local economy. It just wouldn't make sense to put them out of business.

Maybe we could take advice from non-fiction sources from authors who haven't been totally discredited?
As always, your contribution to the thread is invaluable.

...

Hehe, "invaluable".

I'm glad I don't hang out with you. The value of human life is not measured in money.
I'm just saying, it's not like it's impossible to assign a value to a life, from a public policy point of view. Of course you and I are going to think differently about people we know, but if we wanted politicians to make really informed policy, they can't really get around valuing lives, can they? I mean, it's not like they're particularly careful with human life right now, but now they're not even bothering with an honest justification.

Let me ask you - is it bad that courts have dollar figures they use for injuries? Or sexual harassment? Or even accidental death?

No it doesn't. It tells us that some people have a lot of money to spend.
Who cares where the money comes from? This is a utilitarian way of thinking - the greatest good for the greatest number. If the aggregate benefits outweigh the aggregate costs, you can make a pretty good case for doing that thing. That's why I'm saying you'll have to come up with a way of justifying your opinion that is not utilitarian.

No, I think it's you that is going to have to do that.
You mean, talk about the fact that a gun doesn't make it right for the government to tell people what to do with themselves? Talk about the fact that no government on earth at this point is anything but a tyrannical imposition of one form or another? Talk about the fact that the best option to combat CO2 emissions has been hijacked by the aforementioned governments?

None of these things would move the argument forward.

It just wouldn't make sense to put them out of business.
How come you're talking about economic sense now?

You keep saying this in every one of these threads. I really, really, recommend you read Atlas Shrugged some day, because your post is an almost 1:1 reproduction of what people in that book are saying.

You're asking these captains of industry to save you, to get you out of the cave - and then you start tying big iron balls to their ankles. 'Don't worry, we can do to them whatever the hell we want, they'll find a way.'

Here's the problem-it's letting them do whatever the hell they wanted that got us into this mess in the first place. So yeah, not a lot of faith in standing back and hoping they do the right thing.

I've read Ayn Rand. I found her unconvincing.

Are those the same car manufacturers which miserably failed to meet their voluntarily established CO2-reduction goals and instead produced cars emitting even more?

'Bout time they get off their asses and live up to their promises and possibilities!

It's the same lame development which also made them miss a sound solution in soot filter technology.

I'm just saying, it's not like it's impossible to assign a value to a life, from a public policy point of view.

No, but paying out that sum of money doesn't magically undo the damage - in this example by bringing the dead person back to life.


Let me ask you - is it bad that courts have dollar figures they use for injuries? Or sexual harassment? Or even accidental death?

Ditto. And paying civil compensation does not confer immunity from criminal prosecution - the law recognises that paying out those sums does not undo the harm.


Who cares where the money comes from? This is a utilitarian way of thinking - the greatest good for the greatest number. If the aggregate benefits outweigh the aggregate costs, you can make a pretty good case for doing that thing.

Since I don't accept that it is possible to calculate the aggregate costs, we are deadlocked on this point and should agree to disagree.


You mean, talk about the fact that a gun doesn't make it right for the government to tell people what to do with themselves? Talk about the fact that no government on earth at this point is anything but a tyrannical imposition of one form or another? Talk about the fact that the best option to combat CO2 emissions has been hijacked by the aforementioned governments?

None of these things would move the argument forward.

I have some sympathy with all of those views, but I don't think the car industry desperately needs me to defend it from the evil governments.


How come you're talking about economic sense now?

Because it doesn't make economic sense for Country X to attack County Y's car industry. Not in this day and age. If BMW get into financial trouble, there will be dire consequences for Oxfordshire. If Rolls Royce go out of business, their German owners will suffer. If Nissan go bankrupt, Tyne and Wear will suffer. Therefore your argument that the emissions rules are being brought in out of a malicious desire to harm certain countries' car industries is unconvincing.