4 ms·

The writing is on the wall. Soon you won't be able to sell many ICE personal vehicles in China. Huge taxes will be levied on them, or the big bosses there will

The writing is on the wall. Soon you won't be able to sell many ICE personal vehicles in China. Huge taxes will be levied on them, or the big bosses there will ban them altogether. (I would put money on a ban. The Chinese government always did have a fondness for blunt instruments.) In any case, it has now been confirmed that even companies like Ferrari and Maserati have electric vehicles in the works. Mainly with the Chinese market in mind, and targeted for 2020. So yeah, if the largest market is intent on a wholesale switch to electric, then that's definitely gonna have a big impact.

gwbas1c 8y ago
I have a Chrysler Pacifica plug in hybrid, and I know the plan is to use the technology in Maseratis. The drivetrain is awesome... Not as good as a pure electric, but still awesome.
Scoundreller 8y ago
Why levy high taxes on low mpg vehicles? Wouldn’t it make more sense to increase fuel taxes? Who cares if someone has a massive SUV if they drive it 2 miles per day? It’s the 50 mile per day driver that you really want to discourage from buying a gas guzzler. Sincerely, a dude that bikes to work 90% of the time unless the weather is particularly deplorable (or has a big load go bring home)
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Yes, it always seems inefficent to put controls on the rate of pollution rather than on the amount of pollution.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  I actually think excise taxes on new vehicles is more effective since it forces people to put everything on the balance sheet when committing to buy. Makes sense because people don't commit to creating pollution/CO2 emissions when they fill their tank, they did it when they bought the car. On the other end you can do what California is doing which is paying people a couple of grand towards a down payment if they replace an older ICE car with an electric car. Would be a good idea if the state would also identify and target longer distance commuters for buyouts.
  - coredog64 8y ago
    Two negatives here. The first is that people rarely pay cash for a car, so unless you are levying a huge tax, it just rolls up into another $20/month. Significant over the long term, but not really an inducement to change behavior. The second is that this turns into a form of environmental redlining. Poor folks who need a car get priced out of the new car market. They then get stuck in older, less efficient, and less safe vehicles. Mass transit may eventually fix this, but in most parts of the US you’d have to raze entire cities to get a working mass transit system.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Why levy high taxes on low mpg vehicles? Wouldn’t it make more sense to increase fuel taxes? It makes sense to do both, because it's necessary to catch the average driver without pinching either end too hard. It doesn't take much to convince the heaviest drivers to buy more efficient vehicles -- it may not even take anything, since the fuel savings is already thousands of dollars for them regardless of any taxes. But they're still paying the fuel taxes even with the more efficient vehicle. Meanwhile the average driver would need a much higher fuel cost to convince them to buy the more efficient vehicle -- high enough that it would hammer the innocent heavy drivers who have already bought more efficient vehicles. On the other hand, a combination of fuel tax and incentives for purchasing more efficient vehicles will convince the average driver to switch without putting too severe a burden on heavy drivers who have already done the right thing. It's also generally not good to discourage productive usage. Better to get consumption from 100 gallons to 60 by going from 30MPG to 50 than by only being able to drive 1800 miles instead of 3000 and losing whatever value the extra 1200 miles of travel was worth. And of course it would be the opposite if you tried to do it entirely through a fee on inefficient vehicles -- the amount required to convince the median driver on its own without a fuel tax would be too much burden for vehicles with light usage. Which is why you want a balance of both.
  - Scoundreller 8y ago
    > It doesn't take much to convince the heaviest drivers to buy more efficient vehicles Require them to buy 1000km of fuel when buying the vehicle. Plus second hand owners won’t feel the extra taxes on new cars, not directly anyway.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      Huh, that's an interesting idea and I like it. It'll give people a visceral feeling of how much more expensive the inefficient vehicles will be to operate. Have this amount be printed prominently on the price sticker, and maybe consider increasing the distance. Depending on the country and inefficiency of the vehicle in question, the extra amount for pre-purchasing the fuel will only be low to high 3 digit dollars.
- IkmoIkmo 8y ago
  Behavioral economics, in short. It's the reason why people rent a $1k TV that lasts for 10 years at $50 (5%) a month ($6k spent) or pay 2% a month on a creditcard. We tend to overlook the small amounts and get slapped in the face by the large amounts.
adinobro 8y ago
I live in Shanghai and already have an electric vehicle ... it just isn't a car. I would estimate that almost 20% of the population already has electric scooters. That being said I doubt they will get rid of them because that isn't really the way China works. For taxis, you really need an ICE at the moment. For delivery vehicle not so much. Every delivery vehicle that I've seen in cities is electric. The trucks between cities aren't but lots of the intercity deliveries are by train (some is electric some isn't). One thing to be aware of is that China generally has tough laws that are not well enforced. This is by design. They don't have to change the law they just need to enforce it more strictly. What generally happens is that the laws are introduced into the top tier cities and then slowly out to other cities over time. What they have been doing is increasing the emission requirements. This is to bring down pollution. We had an old jeep that we rented that had to be tested every 6 months because of its age. There was a loophole that let us pass the test. It cost a little bit more but we could drive it. The government knew about the loophole and let it exist for a few years then closed it. You knew it was coming just not when. I think the jeep was moved into the country or sold for scrap. The emission requirements will just keep slowly going up. There will be way around the requirements (which they are aware of) but they will slowly make it harder and harder. If you really want an ICE it will still be possible but when you go for a new car it will just be less effort and easier to get electric. This is why I have an electric moped. I could get a petrol one which would technically be illegal but it is just so much easier to get electric.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  For taxis, you really need an ICE at the moment. For delivery vehicle not so much. Every delivery vehicle that I've seen in cities is electric. Very interesting. Where I am in North America, nearly every taxi is electric, and I think I’ve seen two electric delivery vehicles in the last five years. I wonder why our transportation is so very opposite.
  - macintux 8y ago
    > Where I am in North America, nearly every taxi is electric May I inquire where? To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never seen one. Maybe Uber/Lyft around here you’d see a few, but never a taxi.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
I really don’t know how this is going to work out for personal vehicles just given a lack of personal parking spaces. On any given night, the roads are filled with illegally parked cars (turning a 4 lane street into a 2 lane one), let alone parked in a space with access to a charger. It only works out for e-bikes because you carry the battery up to your flat for charging. Most of the personal EVs I saw in Beijing were Teslas; because if you were rich enough to have a private parking space, you were looking for an Audi replacement, not an economy one.
- paganel 8y ago
  > I really don’t know how this is going to work out for personal vehicles just given a lack of personal parking spaces. It probably won't work. Or, come to think of it, it will sort of work as it will force the "poorer" people (those who can't afford a dedicated parking space with access to a charger) to sell their ICE cars and revert to using public transport, so you'd only have "richer" people driving their EV cars. A similar thing is now happening in cities like Paris, where recent rules forbid the use of older diesel cars, which has in fact meant that people who had moved out in the banlieues for cheaper rent while still working in downtown Paris have had to go back to using public transport, which out in the banlieues is not that reliable compared to the downtown area. That means that those "poorer" people now have issues arriving at time to work or picking up their kids from school. Regressive taxes and bans are bad.

gwbas1c 8y ago

I have a Chrysler Pacifica plug in hybrid, and I know the plan is to use the technology in Maseratis. The drivetrain is awesome... Not as good as a pure electric, but still awesome.

Scoundreller 8y ago

Why levy high taxes on low mpg vehicles? Wouldn’t it make more sense to increase fuel taxes? Who cares if someone has a massive SUV if they drive it 2 miles per day? It’s the 50 mile per day driver that you really want to discourage from buying a gas guzzler. Sincerely, a dude that bikes to work 90% of the time unless the weather is particularly deplorable (or has a big load go bring home)

WalterBright 8y ago
Yes, it always seems inefficent to put controls on the rate of pollution rather than on the amount of pollution.
Gibbon1 8y ago
I actually think excise taxes on new vehicles is more effective since it forces people to put everything on the balance sheet when committing to buy. Makes sense because people don't commit to creating pollution/CO2 emissions when they fill their tank, they did it when they bought the car. On the other end you can do what California is doing which is paying people a couple of grand towards a down payment if they replace an older ICE car with an electric car. Would be a good idea if the state would also identify and target longer distance commuters for buyouts.
- coredog64 8y ago
  Two negatives here. The first is that people rarely pay cash for a car, so unless you are levying a huge tax, it just rolls up into another $20/month. Significant over the long term, but not really an inducement to change behavior. The second is that this turns into a form of environmental redlining. Poor folks who need a car get priced out of the new car market. They then get stuck in older, less efficient, and less safe vehicles. Mass transit may eventually fix this, but in most parts of the US you’d have to raze entire cities to get a working mass transit system.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Why levy high taxes on low mpg vehicles? Wouldn’t it make more sense to increase fuel taxes? It makes sense to do both, because it's necessary to catch the average driver without pinching either end too hard. It doesn't take much to convince the heaviest drivers to buy more efficient vehicles -- it may not even take anything, since the fuel savings is already thousands of dollars for them regardless of any taxes. But they're still paying the fuel taxes even with the more efficient vehicle. Meanwhile the average driver would need a much higher fuel cost to convince them to buy the more efficient vehicle -- high enough that it would hammer the innocent heavy drivers who have already bought more efficient vehicles. On the other hand, a combination of fuel tax and incentives for purchasing more efficient vehicles will convince the average driver to switch without putting too severe a burden on heavy drivers who have already done the right thing. It's also generally not good to discourage productive usage. Better to get consumption from 100 gallons to 60 by going from 30MPG to 50 than by only being able to drive 1800 miles instead of 3000 and losing whatever value the extra 1200 miles of travel was worth. And of course it would be the opposite if you tried to do it entirely through a fee on inefficient vehicles -- the amount required to convince the median driver on its own without a fuel tax would be too much burden for vehicles with light usage. Which is why you want a balance of both.
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  > It doesn't take much to convince the heaviest drivers to buy more efficient vehicles Require them to buy 1000km of fuel when buying the vehicle. Plus second hand owners won’t feel the extra taxes on new cars, not directly anyway.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    Huh, that's an interesting idea and I like it. It'll give people a visceral feeling of how much more expensive the inefficient vehicles will be to operate. Have this amount be printed prominently on the price sticker, and maybe consider increasing the distance. Depending on the country and inefficiency of the vehicle in question, the extra amount for pre-purchasing the fuel will only be low to high 3 digit dollars.
IkmoIkmo 8y ago
Behavioral economics, in short. It's the reason why people rent a $1k TV that lasts for 10 years at $50 (5%) a month ($6k spent) or pay 2% a month on a creditcard. We tend to overlook the small amounts and get slapped in the face by the large amounts.

adinobro 8y ago

I live in Shanghai and already have an electric vehicle ... it just isn't a car. I would estimate that almost 20% of the population already has electric scooters. That being said I doubt they will get rid of them because that isn't really the way China works. For taxis, you really need an ICE at the moment. For delivery vehicle not so much. Every delivery vehicle that I've seen in cities is electric. The trucks between cities aren't but lots of the intercity deliveries are by train (some is electric some isn't). One thing to be aware of is that China generally has tough laws that are not well enforced. This is by design. They don't have to change the law they just need to enforce it more strictly. What generally happens is that the laws are introduced into the top tier cities and then slowly out to other cities over time. What they have been doing is increasing the emission requirements. This is to bring down pollution. We had an old jeep that we rented that had to be tested every 6 months because of its age. There was a loophole that let us pass the test. It cost a little bit more but we could drive it. The government knew about the loophole and let it exist for a few years then closed it. You knew it was coming just not when. I think the jeep was moved into the country or sold for scrap. The emission requirements will just keep slowly going up. There will be way around the requirements (which they are aware of) but they will slowly make it harder and harder. If you really want an ICE it will still be possible but when you go for a new car it will just be less effort and easier to get electric. This is why I have an electric moped. I could get a petrol one which would technically be illegal but it is just so much easier to get electric.

reaperducer 8y ago
For taxis, you really need an ICE at the moment. For delivery vehicle not so much. Every delivery vehicle that I've seen in cities is electric. Very interesting. Where I am in North America, nearly every taxi is electric, and I think I’ve seen two electric delivery vehicles in the last five years. I wonder why our transportation is so very opposite.
- macintux 8y ago
  > Where I am in North America, nearly every taxi is electric May I inquire where? To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never seen one. Maybe Uber/Lyft around here you’d see a few, but never a taxi.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

I really don’t know how this is going to work out for personal vehicles just given a lack of personal parking spaces. On any given night, the roads are filled with illegally parked cars (turning a 4 lane street into a 2 lane one), let alone parked in a space with access to a charger. It only works out for e-bikes because you carry the battery up to your flat for charging. Most of the personal EVs I saw in Beijing were Teslas; because if you were rich enough to have a private parking space, you were looking for an Audi replacement, not an economy one.

paganel 8y ago
> I really don’t know how this is going to work out for personal vehicles just given a lack of personal parking spaces. It probably won't work. Or, come to think of it, it will sort of work as it will force the "poorer" people (those who can't afford a dedicated parking space with access to a charger) to sell their ICE cars and revert to using public transport, so you'd only have "richer" people driving their EV cars. A similar thing is now happening in cities like Paris, where recent rules forbid the use of older diesel cars, which has in fact meant that people who had moved out in the banlieues for cheaper rent while still working in downtown Paris have had to go back to using public transport, which out in the banlieues is not that reliable compared to the downtown area. That means that those "poorer" people now have issues arriving at time to work or picking up their kids from school. Regressive taxes and bans are bad.