Because there is no "true cost" and it's all subjective.
You can ratchet up the tax on heavy trucks because "muh road wear" but then you'll have a world where everything is delivered in small trucks and there will be problems with that. At the end of the day it comes down to a subjective question of which problems get which priority.
I agree, but none of this is remotely just or fair without a minimum wage that is a living wage. And what that is needs to be reassessed if policies change the cost of living.
If you do anything to a low level of the economy (e.g. fuel or energy prices) to the point where consumption at the upper levels is reduced then you're also screwing the poors hard enough that you are either going to get voted out of office or shot in short order (depending on how your system of government handles power transitions).
Let's dream for a moment where the tort system worked perfectly. All environmental externalities would be perfectly priced by class actions. Cause $100,000 of lung damage, pay $100,000 to the survivors. If only such efficient courts existed...
>You can ratchet up the tax on heavy trucks because "muh road wear" but then you'll have a world where everything is delivered in small trucks and there will be problems with that
Is that really a bad thing? If shipping via big trucks (compared to small trucks) causes $200 more road wear per year, but saves $100/yr in gas (and other expenses), why shouldn't we use small trucks?
> At the end of the day it comes down to a subjective question of which problems get which priority.
You're right, there will be some subjectivity involved, but at least the general goal is trying to be as neutral as possible. It's not unlike cap & trade for dealing with climate change - letting the market decide what's the most cost effective way.
Small trucks may cut enough emissions by reducing road-wear. If everyone switched from large trucks to an even larger amount of small trucks it's possible the problem is made worse.
Why the focus on small trucks as if they're a panacea?
>If everyone switched from large trucks to an even larger amount of small trucks it's possible the problem is made worse.
Right, but isn't the whole premise that the damage is the truck's weight cubed (or ^4)? Splitting large trucks to small trucks only increase wear linearly.
>Why the focus on small trucks as if they're a panacea?
You can ratchet up the tax on heavy trucks because "muh road wear" but then you'll have a world where everything is delivered in small trucks and there will be problems with that. At the end of the day it comes down to a subjective question of which problems get which priority.