By that logic, GDP would peak if we paved over all the land with roads and parking lots and removed all the stores, factories, and office buildings.

No, I think GDP would peak long before then. We may already be past that point.

Unless they share the cost with everyone else on the bus.

Yes, I think given a choice between an uncongested freeway or residential streets that take 2-3 times as long to navigate, people will mostly choose the freeway, even if it costs money.

if you do just that half, it will lead to lower GDP.

Are you sure that lowering our taxes as I suggested would lower GDP?

Or ask them to eliminate the shortage of freeway road space for the number of people who want to use it at the same time, by setting the price of freeway travel at market equilibrium and adjusting the price by the hour to achieve permanent free-flow. With the freeway running smoothly 24/7 and nobody ever being overcharged to use it, fewer people will seek out alternatives. At the same time, eliminating the price ceiling on freeway travel will provide a revenue source that can be used to lower your taxes. So that's two benefits for the price of one, and who doesn't like 2-for-1 deals?

Totalitarian government, whether it gets sold to the people as "Communist" or "Fascist" or whatever the next excuse will be to give central government ever more power always comes from the left.

Except when it benefits Big Oil, then that fascism (actually, dirigism, which is close enough) comes from the right. Unless you can name one right wing politician who opposes minimum parking requirements?

I use this example because such requirements take away our freedom and property rights while benefiting Big Oil by inducing people to drive everywhere.

It's interesting how the left errs on the side of the poor while the right errs on the side of the wealthy.

So, we increase a tariff on the promise that if the country taxes carbon on the export, we'll lower the tariff by an equivalent amount. Why wouldn't the country simply tax carbon at the border so the USA doesn't get any of that money? Because they would be no worse off than today, a trade war is unwarranted. Meanwhile, the USA achieves its carbon reduction goals without triggering massive offshoring.

Anything that makes production in the US more expensive then somewhere else will just result in off shoring.

And, conveniently, it also makes implementing the same production standards in those countries more cost-effective. You have to start somewhere.

Tax carbon (make it revenue-neutral to be more palatable), and tariff exports from countries that don't, until they do. It's simple, effective, and transparent.

If real fascists took over the United States tomorrow...

Considering that fascism is closely associated with dirigism, where a government exerts a strong directive influence over the means of production, we're already there in spirit if not in name.

If poor people can't afford to get to work, who's going to do the work?

Employers will be forced to pay more or find innovative ways to bring employees to work. So the problem will solve itself.

...making new cars more expensive means people are more likely to keep driving dirty old cars.

It also makes them more likely to ride bicycles, buses and trains, and to walk or telecommute.

Drivers don't expect anything on the sidewalk to enter a crosswalk at the speed of a bicycle, so the only safe way to ride a bicycle on a sidewalk is to dismount at every intersection. This just isn't very practical for transportation.

On roads where speed limits are high, bike lanes are more practical.

On streets where speed limits are low, bicyclists can almost keep up with traffic, so bike lanes aren't so necessary.

There's no need to know how much gas each person consumed. Just give everyone on welfare the same amount. It's simple, it creates the proper incentive to conserve, and on average it won't burden the poor.

This is why we should keep the gas tax even after implementing a mileage fee. In fact, the cost of dirty air is up to $1,600 per person annually in medical costs and lost work days. Shouldn't the polluters pay those costs?

All they have to do is compile a list of buildings that the City deems to be unsafe, and the owners will be sufficiently encouraged to make the upgrades (or lose their present tenants.)

Maybe if the homeowners insurance companies and mortgage companies (lienholders) were also notified which properties are not up to code.