The higher the number, the greater the government’s justification for compelling polluters to reduce the emissions that are dangerously heating the planet. During the Obama administration, White House economists calculated the social cost of carbon at $42 a ton. The Trump administration lowered it to less than $5 a ton. Under President Biden, the cost was returned to Obama levels, adjusted for inflation and set at $51.

The new estimate of the social cost of carbon, making its debut in a legally binding federal regulation, is almost four times that amount: $190 a ton.

  • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree that it is cheap. It’s entirely possible for manufactures to do a lot better at that price point, but it’s less profitable.

    • Followupquestion@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right, and since profits are king, the affordable electric cars will stay terrible because an ICE is $1k or so to manufacture while an electric power train including battery is at least five times that in cost. When you look at a $27k car, tax incentives excluded (especially because some people will be unable to use them), the electric car has to be cheapened, every corner cut, or the profits just won’t be there.

      Again, it’s dollar for dollar, when you sit in a $20k Mazda versus a Chevy Bolt that will cost the same if the full $7k tax incentive is realized, the quality difference is tangible. Until that’s addressed, there won’t be people wanting to buy that car.

      • Sonori@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Im curious, why are you comparing a sedan to a suv? Beyond being about the same cost upfront after tax credit, if still 8.5k cheaper over ten years than the smaller Mazda.

        I also doubt most of its customers are that horrified by its quality, given as far as i could see its reviewed well by consumers.

        • Followupquestion@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I compared a sedan and SUV because they both will fit a family of four and their suitcases for roughly the same price.

          I can only speak as somebody who has spent some real time in one, I’d never buy a Bolt. They’re well liked, but as the very cheapest electric vehicles, not just as vehicles. In other words, compared against actually good ICE or hybrid vehicles, the Bolt has zero appeal aside from being electric. That makes us a passable electric vehicle but an overall crappy car to drive. Also, for $850 a year I’d take the Mazda in a heartbeat. Sure, that’s a “privilege”, but it’s also a proven reliable, quality vehicle that will absolutely positively not feel like a tin can that rattles when you shut a door. If somebody spends real time in their vehicle, as I have at various points in my life, I wouldn’t take the Bolt.

      • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’ve been selling out the entire Bolt manufacturing capacity. So clearly people do want it

        • Followupquestion@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do they, or is there a lack of an alternative in that niche? Again, I can only speak from my personal experience driving and riding in one; I’d choose pretty much anything else with four wheels.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There have been a few other low-cost models. Also all selling out.

            They’ll make them fancier if that stops happening