The market shouldn’t be focused on fuel efficiency but on total energy efficiency. Constantly pushing cars to be more effecient is still significantly less effecient than well built transit and active transport like walking. Our cities are built based on sprawl and strict zoning, consuming more land and requiring more resources to build roads and infrastructure. Existing spaces in downtowns or old retail sit vacant for years while new developments continue outside of town.
The government can reduce carbon emissions by encouraging people to use less carbon during their daily commutes by building effecient cities. Denser housing and commercial units are also more themerally effecient. This could actually reduce the amount of carbon generated from transportstion and heating rather than collect money from the carbon generated.
Increasing the price of carbon means people will have an incentive to stop generating so much of it. If it’s free to put another ton of CO2 into the atmosphere many people won’t think twice about doing it.
Yes, but there has to be viable alternatives to actually let people change.
People won’t stop using the highway for their commute if there isn’t another option like a train, reliable rapid transit bus, or an affordable apartment closer to the office.
No city can just build alternatives if they don’t know where the demand is.
Before a city can justify building anywhere,there needs to be demand. Both sides need to increase in stride.
Viable, but not perfect alternatives do already exist, and if more people use them they will get better, that is exactly what putting a price on carbon does.
Yes, but there has to be viable alternatives to actually let people change.
But what comes first? An incentive to change or an alternative to the status quo that’s been here for over 100 years?
Incentives are needed. Otherwise, as long as it’s free to pollute, people won’t do anything.
Most people won’t demand any of that if gas is cheap. It requires political will to get public transit built and funded.
