General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf even France can't stick to a gas tax, we're doomed
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/france-fuel-protests-government-to-suspend-fuel-tax-reports-say.htmlIf even the country that pays the most lip-service to climate change is going to fold the second the bourgeoisie start squealing, there's no hope.
Yes, this tax makes it more expensive to drive a gasoline-powered car. That isn't some unfortunate side effect you can work around; that's the explicit point of the law.
Dread Pirate Roberts
(1,897 posts)Forget climate change and sea level rise. We'll kill ourselves off long before the really bad stuff happens. Carbon taxes and behavior changes are for impacts that are 200 years in the future. Our next 200 years are "in the book" with the damage we have already caused. No reduction in emissions is going to head off what's on it's way. We can't handle population migration measured in the thousands. What will happen when millions of people are on the move because of drought, famine and war? Climate change will be the catalyst, but human nature and our inability to get along with our fellow man will do us in sure as anything.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Some kind of geoengineering, whether aerosol injection or the like, is the only path I see at the moment.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'd be very careful with geoengineering, personally...
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Its the worst possible option.
Weve precluded most of the good ones at this point.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)And subsidies for green energy. That was France's mistake.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's true they cut some solar subsidies last year but that was because the producers are doing so well they said they didn't need them anymore. And they make more of their electricity with nuclear than anybody else.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I don't blame the French for being upset.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)It punishes you for a certain behavior.
But unlike smoking, people cant just stop driving their present car and buy a new electric car. The economics doesnt work.
Now if you used the money to purchase the current cars people drive and buy them a new electric car maybe it would work.
Then again the electric cars need to be comparable to the ones being abandoned.
BumRushDaShow
(129,664 posts)Interesting article on gas (diesel) prices in the EU - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/are-the-french-hit-especially-hard-by-fuel-taxes-protests
Based on the average, the French are paying about US$6.30/gallon (after converting liters to gallons and Euros to dollars and not including the latest increase request).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)We have to stop moving people and things around by making hydrocarbons explode and converting about 30% of that linear kinetic energy to rotary kinetic energy.
blugbox
(951 posts)Just wording it properly conveys what a monumental waste it is. So inefficient while using such valuable Earth resources.
I see it the same as if we were trying to advance whale blubber technology...
Calculating
(2,957 posts)They're the very definition of a regressive tax which unfairly penalizes the poor. Meanwhile the rich keep driving their big guzzlers around without a care.
blugbox
(951 posts)My father is the superintendent of the road department where we live... and the gas tax is what pays for all road repair.
It's like the more you drive on the roads, the more you are paying to help repair it. Theoretically if you have a gas guzzler, you are buying more fuel, and thus paying more toward the gas tax.
But the gas tax pays his salary and all his workers. I obviously hate the fact we rely on gas still, but there needs to be money to fix the roads. There would have to be some form of general "road tax" or "mileage tax" to offset the gas tax when we switch to electric.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This whole thing is a put-up
manor321
(3,344 posts)Calculating
(2,957 posts)And fixing that requires us to go against one of our most core instincts, the drive to reproduce which got us this far. Basically addressing climate change would require us to go against a hard-wired biological drive and implement a global one-child policy.
Demsrule86
(68,715 posts)SaintLouisBlues
(1,244 posts)Javaman
(62,534 posts)most of the people that are directly effected are the farmers.
this was the bone of contention at the start. it has since morphed to something much larger and diverse.
the farmers were protesting the fact that with the rise in the price of fuel, their profit take a massive hit to the point that some of the smaller farms won't see any profit.
that's what this started out about originally.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Protesting a tax increase and complaining that "other people" get public money that they pay in taxes. Sound familiar?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Tax reform in France was a giveaway to the 1%. Now the gas tax increase is seen as taking from the bottom and giving to the top.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)public housing.
I'm just not going to wind up on their side here.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)It looks to me like the wealthier city population doesn't have to pay much of anything because public transportation is largely green (electricity from nuclear power)... while they don't have a choice (and the key to higher takes on carbon is supposed to be getting people to use less carbon... not to punish people who don't have a choice).
Almost exactly the opposite of your claim in the OP that getting rid of the tax benefits the bourgeoisie.
Demsrule86
(68,715 posts)Joe941
(2,848 posts)I saw a poll on here that asked if you would give up eating meat to save the environment. The answer was a resounding no! We have to give up far more than we realize if we are save the planet. People want to save the environment without having to "pay" for it. We need to make real changes - and they will hurt. We need to give up automobiles as they exist now. We have to become vegans. We need to live in multi family dwellings instead of single family homes. We all have to live in cities instead of dispersed in the country. A real change has to be dramatic and painful if we want to save the planet. Its not an easy sell is it?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)They could have beefed up public trains and buses and implemented toll charges on road travel. The ease of public transport and the tolls should have decreased car use.
Historically, economic shock to implement policy does not work, unless it is done as recovery from a severe downturn.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That was Macron's brainchild back in his last job. Think like MegaBus or Bolt Bus in the US: cheap, no-frills, regular shuttles between cities. (Lyon to Bordeaux is like 15 euros and takes six hours.)
Initech
(100,108 posts)Demsrule86
(68,715 posts)ordinary working people bear the brunt of this while the wealthy use as much gas a they choose...was a bad idea.