As mentioned earlier, methane breaks down after 10 years into CO2 which makes livestock more part of the cycle rather than a producer. Applying the tax to any process that directly removes carbon sinks (eg. drilling/forest clearing) should take care of any downstream processes that rely on it.

did speed limits really make things better though? germany has the autobahn and sections with no speed limit, yet their roadways are much safer than the US.

The flaw in logic here is to assume that Germany and the US are otherwise identical in policy. But of course that's not remotely true. Germany roads are safer because

- Drivers are required to obtain an extensive education at a licensed driving school and pass a rigorous test before being allowed to drive.

- Driving rules such as "no passing on the right" are strictly enforced in Germany, creating a more predictable (and thus safer) driving environment. There is absolutely no way something like the following could be achieved in the US due to Americans' stubbornness and lack of driving discipline:

https://jalopnik.com/how-germans-make-way-for-emergency-vehi...

- German roads are designed to naturally encourage people to make good decisions by the use of roundabouts, narrower lanes (which naturally make people slow down and be more careful) and many similar "vision zero" initiatives.

- German roads are consistently maintained.

- When you're not on the autobahn, speed limits are generally lower than in the US and are more strictly enforced.

Not to say that Germany is perfect, but they are doing much more than the US to ensure road safety and are doing so more consistently.

- Moreover, German vehicles (meaning vehicles registered in Germany, not vehicles from German brands/factories) must pass strict tests every two years (for vehicles less than 10 years) or yearly (10 years or more).

Some US states have a looser policy on this.

The inspections might differ, but most states that require vehicle inspections do so yearly.

And most include an emissions test, which reduces the need for complex mechanical inspections, and largely negates differences in inspection "quality".

Do those deaths only count Autobahn/highway deaths?

If not, then Germany has the upper hand with a miraculous ancient technology called sidewalks.

They also have bike lanes - no, not for motorcycles, but bicycles!

In addition to that you actually have to demonstrate some driving competence (with a minimum of 20 hours of theory study) to get a driver's license.

Most US states require more than 20 hours in the classroom (usually a week or two), plus 8+ hours of actual driving with a driver's education teacher, plus some number of years with a learner's permit, where driving is only allowed during the day with a licensed driver 21 or older supervising in the vehicle. Then written and driving tests by the DMV must be passed to get licensed.

In practice, the classroom study usually isn't all that rigorous, and the testing is likely too easy.

But the requirements on paper aren't typically any easier in the US.

What's most needed is probably refresher quizzes for license renewals to remind drivers of commonly forgotten or new driving laws. Like who has right of way at a 4 way stop, or how to zipper merge.

"Taking a closer look at Germany, federal and state statistics reported by Der Spiegel show that there 0.95 fatal accidents per billion kilometres driven on German autobahn sections with speed limits. When it comes the parts without a speed limit, however, there are 1.67 fatal accidents - 75 percent more than on stretches with a speed limit."

https://www.statista.com/chart/25098/fatality-rate-and-speed... https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehr... ( In German, should be the original source)

Would be interesting to know about accidents in general. It's quite obvious that higher speeds increase the likelihood of fatal accidents.

Do I need to pay carbon tax on my dog?

Unless your dog burns fossil fuels you most likely only need to pay carbon tax on the dog products you use that were made using fossil fuels. Dogs don't produce a lot of Methane either, because they're not ruminants.

> Unless your dog burns fossil fuels

Cattle only burn fossil fuels to the extent that transporting water and feed, fertilizing that feed, and manufacturing and transporting fencing materials, antibiotics, etc, use.

Guess what? Your dog has roughly the same impact making and transporting his food, his water, his veterinarian supplies, any bedding you've purchased, bags to dispose of his feces, collars, leashes, toys, etc.

I don't have hard numbers but intuitively I'd guess dogs and cattle have approximately the same climate impact on a pound-of-bodyweight basis.

Dogs probably have slightly more, since they live in much more luxurious digs than CAFO cattle, eat higher quality feed, get to ride in cars, etc.

I would be fine with paying a carbon tax on my cat, the meat he eats (all chicken, at least, and not that much) has some footprint (pawprint?) after all. I do pay for some extra offsets via Wren, so maybe he's covered.

Yes, we absolutely need the government to tell people what they’re allowed to eat.

That's where we'll be in 50-100 years if we want to have a future that doesn't suck too much, and not just about what you eat. We're definitely living in the golden age of consumerism in every aspects: energy, food, travel, electronic gadgets, &c. We're producing and consuming so much useless shit and well aware that we're heading for disaster.

We're either going to be limited by natural resources, climate issues or our own actions to limit ourself to avoid #1 and #2.

There is just no way around it, you can't keep on extracting more and more ressources from a closed system, you can't keep polluting more and more in a closed system, you can't target an exponential growth in a closed system.

Companies don't give a shit, because their sole purpose is to not care about these issues. That's how you get companies like apple shitting unrepairable products every 6 months, but it's ok because their offices are carbon neutral, right ?

Countries don't give a shit, because GDP is king and energy = GDP, https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/correlation-...

So it's a game of chicken, everyone knows about the problem, they all know the solutions, but no one is really taking action, because that would be a massive paradigm shift in virtually every aspect of our economy

The government never regulates food products.

Fishing boats are allowed to keep any fish or crustacean regardless of size or sex. In fact, they don’t even have daily catch limits they have to adhere too. We’re so lucky that all fishing companies voluntarily avoid over fishing. If there was some sort of “department of game and fish” in most states regulating what animals you can eat, it would probably be the beginning of the end for America. I would just up and move to Canada.

yes that already exists, last time i checked governments don't like it when people eat other people;

Or depending on where you live horses, cats and dogs.

Welcome to Switzerland, the only place you can have all of those.

Maybe read the entire comment before replying to it.

Remember to apply Gell-Man Amnesia[1] to all of The Economist's writings. It's self-parody at this point, or Mad Magazine for PPE[2] nerds.

1. https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

– Michael Crichton (1942-2008)

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy,_politics_and_econo...

Michael Crichton, the author who has researchers overwhelmed with lust for research grants as the evil people in his novels.

If you see this is an unrealistic you should talk to someone (anyone) who works in academia.

Actually I work in academia so I'll start the ball rolling by telling you this isn't unrealistic.

Actually I work in academia, too.

You can find a lot of people who work in academia who find Stage of Fear (in particular) to be a thinly-veiled attempt to smear the entire climate science community. Because everyone is in lust with grant money.

The ironic thing is that speed limits reduce revenues collected from gas tax via better fuel efficiency from driving slower.

A mid-sized conventional gasoline car is more fuel efficient at 55MPH than at 45MPH. Pumping losses work that way. With improved aerodynamics, you could get that even higher.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10312

But much less efficient at 65 and 75. Pushing the wind eventually gets you.

At which speed a car is most efficient can essentially be chosen by the engineer designing it as far as I know.

For an engine rpm yes, for a moving body, not so much. Energy in a vacuum is proportional to velocity squared, and energy required with wind drag is iirc 4th power of velocity.

So even with an engine designed to be most efficient when the car drives 65 mph, the efficiency of the system will quickly be controlled by drag forces as speed increases.

Incredible. Thanks for sharing. I had no idea. What is “pumping loss “?

> What is “pumping loss “?

Unlike older scientific topics that have esoteric terminology, usually from the Latin, this one is pretty straight forward... It is the energy lost due to pumping. Basically, the overhead of keeping an engine running no matter how much distance of roadway you cover, but more on point, the extra losses due to running an engine outside of its peak power/performance range:

https://www.cycleworld.com/2015/10/12/ask-kevin-what-is-pump...

Would be very interesting to see some of the ideas that they wanted to base improved infrastructure on with older ideas of the future of technology. The convoys always fascinated me, and the entrenchment of older technology makes progression much harder when the existing infrastructure is heavily depended on and long term planning has never been a strength of the US.

Weird, does this apply to EV's, too?

> does this apply to EV's, too?

Not "pumping" losses, no. There is no intake air or exhaust gas to pump.

EVs may experience an effect that is similar in practice, albeit much smaller... Things like headlights, HVAC, entertainment systems, etc., will draw more power the longer it takes you to get to your destination, so reducing your speed from 30 to 15 MPH might not be an efficiency win.

No- those losses (less the engine idle speed) are relatively larger for electric, because alternator loss is already baked into the efficiency for ice engines.

No- electric motors generally perform better at lower speeds, gas at higher speeds. Especially so in direct comparison.

Which is why hybrids often switch from electric to gas past some determined speed.

That's only true because the electric motors don't have a gearbox but the gas engines do.

I believe due to motor efficiency and losses from AC, media system, etc., the most efficient speed for most EVs and hybrids is around 25 mph. I’ve heard 10 and 35 suggested as well.

its the opposite for EVs. Their range decreases as their speed increases due to the increased effect of wind resistance