You say that as if it's a bad thing, but making pollution more expensive for the consumer is a good thing. Pricing pollution into the cost of the product will induce some consumers to spend their limited resources on less polluting options, which is exactly what we want them to do.

> You say that as if it's a bad thing, but making pollution more expensive for the consumer is a good thing.

I don’t think it’s a bad thing. We should make polluting activities more expensive. But the accurate version of the statement shows why we won’t do it: most of the increased costs will be passed onto voters. Not only that, but higher gas prices dampen consumer spending and slow economic growth: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/how-higher-gas-prices-hur...

Focusing on “big evil oil companies” makes for a neat narrative, but it blinds us to reality. There is a reason Obama attacked Romney in 2012 for wanting to shut down a coal plant: https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2012/08/new-obama-... (“New Obama ad hits Romney on coal 'kills people' remarks”). There is a reason Obama still proudly takes credit for fracking: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/obama-takes.... He’s not doing this to appease the Exxon. He’s doing it because making polluting activities cheap is politically necessary.

Find a politician who wants to raises taxes for everybody in their current term. That's why so many countries are announcing they are banning ICE cars in a decade or more. By that time everybody would have forgotten which politician enacted it, if they are even still in a political career.

You’re insufficiently cynical. By the time these ICE car bans go into effect, politicians whose terms it will fall on will grant “temporary extension” until after their term, rinse and repeat.

I suspect that many are hoping that ICE cars will be more expensive and less popular by the time their ban rolls around.

Activists, maybe, but politician's only hopes are about reelection, not environment.

Politicians really hope that too; that way if they're still in power the technical ban will be nothing more than an interesting note than anything that actually needs to be done.

Except that while everyone might enjoy the lower prices, the poor and minorities bear the brunt of pollution externalities.

Are minorities more susceptible to environmental pollution?

Poor folks can't afford fancy air quality monitors, filtering, well-built houses without leaks, or houses on the clean-air side of town. They are more likely to work outside.

Poor communities are almost always on the east side of town because (in the Northern Hemisphere) prevailing west winds usually blow the town's pollution east. This is also how the "right" and "wrong" side of the tracks came about.

It bears similarities to heat waves, which mainly kill the poor. You never see headlines about how the last heat wave killed twenty-three investment bankers in their penthouses.

You're talking about poor people, not minorities, though there's an overlap. There's also an overlap with white people. Actually, the focus should be on people that are disproportionately affected by pollution, regardless of their skin tone. There are towns around refineries and heavy industry that are predominantly white. Are you implying we should care less about them?

No, but they tend disproportionately to live in areas near pollution sources.

You mean poor people tend to live closer to sources of pollution.

That is also true.