6 ms·

Yes, California has all the tools it needs to enforce their will. For example, they can establish mandatory weekly inspections for cars not meeting their standa

by bt848 7y ago

Yes, California has all the tools it needs to enforce their will. For example, they can establish mandatory weekly inspections for cars not meeting their standards. They can tax carbon fuels at $1000/ton. They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to arbitrary amounts.

melling 7y ago
Why not increase the gas tax and subsidize electric vehicles and charging stations? This will help EV’s get to the point where they’re cheaper.
- bt848 7y ago
  I favor using the carbon tax to fund mass transportation, but we agree on the general idea: tax carbon, use money for better things.
- soperj 7y ago
  Why not do the same and build way better public transportation, so that you don't spend your life waiting in traffic.
  - melling 7y ago
    We could do both. However, we’re probably only 10-15 years away from EV’s becoming cheaper than ICE. At that point, we could stop the subsidy. That’s about how long it takes to complete any mass transit project in the United States.
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    Yes, everyone sees EV's as the way our of our mess, but that's only part of the problem - EV's will help with emissions, but not congestion. And then there's the people that see self-driving cars as the way out of the congestion. But self-driving cars will make congestion worse, by making single occupancy vehicle trips cheaper and easier, shifting more people from transit to cars. But then each self-driving car doubles the number of trips, since instead of someone driving to work and parking, a self-driving car will drop them off at work then drive off to look for another passenger or parking outside of downtown, so 2 trips for one passenger.
    - Buttons840 7y ago
      I came to this realization myself recently while reading Joshua Spodek's book "Initiative". He points out that making something more efficient will lead to more of that thing. Cars ("vehicles") are part of our larger economic system, and that system does little to limit commutes. Only peoples own dislike of commuting keeps commute times down. Self-driving cars will make long commutes more tolerable, and thus raise the limiting factor on commutes. I predict that if level-5 self-driving cars become a reality, we'll see a new type of dystopian hell, where it's common to spend 6+ hours a day commuting. It will be especially burdensome for those who are poor and have to drive their car manually. Suddenly I'm less excited about self-driving cars.
      - munk-a 7y ago
        I really don't know how accurate that is - right now the US is weird about Automobiles (they were highly inflated in importance and as a status symbol by marketing) but it looks like that weirdness is fading as the younger generation is moving closer into city centers and has a much higher preference for public transit... I think that cars, whether there are level 5 self-driving cars to replace them or not, are just on their way out. City planning in the US is a mess though right now.
      - fiter 7y ago
        Even people who do not drive (take transit) try to limit their commute time, so I would not expect to see these even longer commute times.
        soperj 7y ago
        I knew a guy in Toronto that would do 3 hours each way. Seemed absolutely bananas, but there he was, every day.
    - kjksf 7y ago
      I don't understand the "2 trips for one passenger". The car will pick up the closest human that needs a ride and the operator will optimize the trips globally based on where cars are, where humans are and where humans what to go. It's about as optimal as it gets. Yes, cheaper trips will lead to more trips and therefore more congestion. But there are also advantages of having a massive car network. There are actually plenty of roads for most of the time. It's only during rush hour that you have congestion (LA being an exception). Rush hour traffic happens due to people commuting to work, usually one person in a car. The density of rush hour traffic makes it easy to optimize. Without changing cars, we can put 4 people in a car, which is 2-4x better than the common commute of 1 person in a car. People don't want to share cars? Implement rush hour pricing scheme that heavily penalizes single occupancy (say, $4 for shared ride, $16 if you want a car to yourself). The next step would be to make mini-buses for rush hour traffic: at lest 12-16 person. Once you know the traffic patterns, you can optimize by building cars / busses with the capacity that fits the pattern. What makes it even easier is that rush hour traffic is stable: people go to work and back roughly in the same numbers, which means you can do long-term predictions and investments.
OrangeMango 7y ago
> They can set the vehicle registration fees ... to arbitrary amounts. I'm not sure that they could get away with _arbitrary_ amounts, but they can certainly provide justification for high costs for heavily polluting vehicles. Unlike the current system, such a method would be retroactive and it would also apply to vehicles originally sold outside of California. I'm no expert, but I doubt that any automaker _wants_ this sort of thing to happen.
twblalock 7y ago
> They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to arbitrary amounts. High vehicle registration fees was one of the major factors in the recall of Governor Davis back in 2003. It may have been just as big a factor as the electricity crisis. Voters really don't like seeing their car registration fees go up.
- bt848 7y ago
  The fees are back up to where they used to be and the gas tax was also increased. An effort by various cavemen to repeal the act was soundly defeated last year. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_6,_Voter_Approval_for_Future_Gas_and_Vehicle_Taxes_and_2017_Tax_Repeal_Initiative_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_6,_Voter_Appr...
- mywittyname 7y ago
  It might be more palatable to levy these fees in a targeted manner, i.e., Raise fees on people buying new twin-turbocharged, crew cab pickups and the like, while using the revenue to subsidize Model 3s, Priuses and Civics. Just rumors of this happening are probably enough to impact sales in the USA's largest market.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Excise taxes on new cars instead of gasoline taxes is what I keep harping on. You can then use the money to pay for buybacks of older cars. And fund things like California's down payment assistance programs for low income drivers. Where the air quality board buys back an older gasoline powered car and provides the owner with money for a down payment on a new or used electric or hybrid vehicle. You could do the same with natural gas furnaces. Put an excise tax on new ones and a program to help people to replace their old one with a heat pump. This is better because the impression people would get is the state trying to help them do the right thing vs the beat poor people with a stick like carbon taxes do. (See France's Yellow Vests)
  - sieabahlpark 7y ago
    So taxing the people who need work trucks is the punishment? That will just make the rest of us of pay for it in construction, farming, our own taxes through government purchase of work vehicles for infrastructure purposes, electricity work trucks, cargo trucks. Everything gets more expensive and has the potential to effect even those who are in poverty who work those jobs as the employer can't afford extra employees due to the extra cost in trucks. Leaving a group of potential workers without employment. You also negatively affect those who want to start a business (landscaping, catering, delivery). They now have to raise even more money to begin. Regulations have downsides that may not be immediately apparent. California is already so stupidly expensive because of regulations it doesn't need to force it though. There is nothing stopping the manufacturers to continue being clean?

by bt848 7y ago

melling 7y ago

Why not increase the gas tax and subsidize electric vehicles and charging stations? This will help EV’s get to the point where they’re cheaper.

bt848 7y ago
I favor using the carbon tax to fund mass transportation, but we agree on the general idea: tax carbon, use money for better things.
soperj 7y ago
Why not do the same and build way better public transportation, so that you don't spend your life waiting in traffic.
- melling 7y ago
  We could do both. However, we’re probably only 10-15 years away from EV’s becoming cheaper than ICE. At that point, we could stop the subsidy. That’s about how long it takes to complete any mass transit project in the United States.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  Yes, everyone sees EV's as the way our of our mess, but that's only part of the problem - EV's will help with emissions, but not congestion. And then there's the people that see self-driving cars as the way out of the congestion. But self-driving cars will make congestion worse, by making single occupancy vehicle trips cheaper and easier, shifting more people from transit to cars. But then each self-driving car doubles the number of trips, since instead of someone driving to work and parking, a self-driving car will drop them off at work then drive off to look for another passenger or parking outside of downtown, so 2 trips for one passenger.
  - Buttons840 7y ago
    I came to this realization myself recently while reading Joshua Spodek's book "Initiative". He points out that making something more efficient will lead to more of that thing. Cars ("vehicles") are part of our larger economic system, and that system does little to limit commutes. Only peoples own dislike of commuting keeps commute times down. Self-driving cars will make long commutes more tolerable, and thus raise the limiting factor on commutes. I predict that if level-5 self-driving cars become a reality, we'll see a new type of dystopian hell, where it's common to spend 6+ hours a day commuting. It will be especially burdensome for those who are poor and have to drive their car manually. Suddenly I'm less excited about self-driving cars.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I really don't know how accurate that is - right now the US is weird about Automobiles (they were highly inflated in importance and as a status symbol by marketing) but it looks like that weirdness is fading as the younger generation is moving closer into city centers and has a much higher preference for public transit... I think that cars, whether there are level 5 self-driving cars to replace them or not, are just on their way out. City planning in the US is a mess though right now.
    - fiter 7y ago
      Even people who do not drive (take transit) try to limit their commute time, so I would not expect to see these even longer commute times.
      - soperj 7y ago
        I knew a guy in Toronto that would do 3 hours each way. Seemed absolutely bananas, but there he was, every day.
  - kjksf 7y ago
    I don't understand the "2 trips for one passenger". The car will pick up the closest human that needs a ride and the operator will optimize the trips globally based on where cars are, where humans are and where humans what to go. It's about as optimal as it gets. Yes, cheaper trips will lead to more trips and therefore more congestion. But there are also advantages of having a massive car network. There are actually plenty of roads for most of the time. It's only during rush hour that you have congestion (LA being an exception). Rush hour traffic happens due to people commuting to work, usually one person in a car. The density of rush hour traffic makes it easy to optimize. Without changing cars, we can put 4 people in a car, which is 2-4x better than the common commute of 1 person in a car. People don't want to share cars? Implement rush hour pricing scheme that heavily penalizes single occupancy (say, $4 for shared ride, $16 if you want a car to yourself). The next step would be to make mini-buses for rush hour traffic: at lest 12-16 person. Once you know the traffic patterns, you can optimize by building cars / busses with the capacity that fits the pattern. What makes it even easier is that rush hour traffic is stable: people go to work and back roughly in the same numbers, which means you can do long-term predictions and investments.

OrangeMango 7y ago

> They can set the vehicle registration fees ... to arbitrary amounts. I'm not sure that they could get away with _arbitrary_ amounts, but they can certainly provide justification for high costs for heavily polluting vehicles. Unlike the current system, such a method would be retroactive and it would also apply to vehicles originally sold outside of California. I'm no expert, but I doubt that any automaker _wants_ this sort of thing to happen.

twblalock 7y ago

> They can set the vehicle registration fees (not the tax-deductible part) to arbitrary amounts. High vehicle registration fees was one of the major factors in the recall of Governor Davis back in 2003. It may have been just as big a factor as the electricity crisis. Voters really don't like seeing their car registration fees go up.

bt848 7y ago
The fees are back up to where they used to be and the gas tax was also increased. An effort by various cavemen to repeal the act was soundly defeated last year. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_6,_Voter_Approval_for_Future_Gas_and_Vehicle_Taxes_and_2017_Tax_Repeal_Initiative_(2018) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_6,_Voter_Appr...
mywittyname 7y ago
It might be more palatable to levy these fees in a targeted manner, i.e., Raise fees on people buying new twin-turbocharged, crew cab pickups and the like, while using the revenue to subsidize Model 3s, Priuses and Civics. Just rumors of this happening are probably enough to impact sales in the USA's largest market.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Excise taxes on new cars instead of gasoline taxes is what I keep harping on. You can then use the money to pay for buybacks of older cars. And fund things like California's down payment assistance programs for low income drivers. Where the air quality board buys back an older gasoline powered car and provides the owner with money for a down payment on a new or used electric or hybrid vehicle. You could do the same with natural gas furnaces. Put an excise tax on new ones and a program to help people to replace their old one with a heat pump. This is better because the impression people would get is the state trying to help them do the right thing vs the beat poor people with a stick like carbon taxes do. (See France's Yellow Vests)
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  So taxing the people who need work trucks is the punishment? That will just make the rest of us of pay for it in construction, farming, our own taxes through government purchase of work vehicles for infrastructure purposes, electricity work trucks, cargo trucks. Everything gets more expensive and has the potential to effect even those who are in poverty who work those jobs as the employer can't afford extra employees due to the extra cost in trucks. Leaving a group of potential workers without employment. You also negatively affect those who want to start a business (landscaping, catering, delivery). They now have to raise even more money to begin. Regulations have downsides that may not be immediately apparent. California is already so stupidly expensive because of regulations it doesn't need to force it though. There is nothing stopping the manufacturers to continue being clean?