Fuel prices at the pump and oil, where is the bug?

[phil59]

No need for linky, to tax a modern EV, which communicates with a server...

And we can imagine taxation based on the km traveled.

It's not more complicated than that.

Indeed, I think that as long as we have less than 5-10 EVs, if there is, there won't be much.

The rise in the price of fossil fuels offsets EV taxes in value.

[Remundo]

Philou, don't give them too good ideas...

[sicetaitsimple]

There is still a time when you have to know what you want.
Or generally reduce its dependence on fossils, and there the EV is one tool among others.
Either don't change anything, at the risk of one day being caught by the throat without a solution.

[phil59]

We could imagine a VAT of 5.5% on EVs!

And a tax of €1 per 100 km.

[Remundo]

Or generally reduce its dependence on fossils, and there the EV is one tool among others.

provided you have carbon-free electricity sources, yes.

China or USA, 50% of electricity from coal...

[Janic]

remondo

provided you have carbon-free electricity sources, yes.

and even! When we invoke CO2 as responsible for global warming because of fossils, we forget that the primary cause of CO2 is the respiration of living beings, plants and animals, which no one can currently quantify, and which therefore does not does not appear in the figures. Even with all-electric, another madness, CO2 continues and will continue to be produced.

China or USA, 50% of electricity from coal...

which must be brought back to the population of these countries. Between 1.5 billion in China and 350 million in the USA, the ratio is not the same, but if a real big epidemic eliminates 90% of humanity, the problem of pollution will no longer arise, or thanks to the terminators Hyper-developed AI capable of self-replication.

[sicetaitsimple]

but if a real big epidemic eliminates 90% of humanity, the problem of pollution will no longer arise,

No problem, solutions!

[Remundo]

there is also the near-Earth planet which would emerge from trans-Neptunian objects...

[Ahmed]

Janic writes: "When we invoke CO2 as responsible for global warming because of fossils, we forget that the primary cause of CO2 is the respiration of living beings, plants and animals, which no one can currently quantify, and which therefore does not does not appear in the figures."


CO2 is only problematic in excess, which is due to the anthropogenic release of energy stored during the 50 million years of the Carboniferous; it is therefore logical not to worry about a gas whose usefulness is obvious in ordinary doses.

[Remundo]

it is of course possible to estimate combustion CO2 and metabolic CO2.

Plants do not emit CO2 in terms of their balance, on the contrary they store it through their growth.

If we take a French human, he exhales around 1 kg CO2/day, or 365 kg per year, but his carbon footprint is several tonnes CO2/year, even around 10 tonnes* on average. "...

Human respiration therefore accounts for around 5% of anthropogenic emissions in developed countries. 1/20th only. It would be different in underdeveloped countries.

* Jancovici has also done his corner calculations and recommends moving to 2 tonnesCO2/year by 2050. Ambitious!