6 ms·
I don't understand the opposition to this. These vehicles continue to use roads but don't pay any taxes that would help maintain roads if they were gas or diese
by jdhn 6y ago
I don't understand the opposition to this. These vehicles continue to use roads but don't pay any taxes that would help maintain roads if they were gas or diesel cars. How is that fair?
- Dumblydorr 6y agoIt's fair to incentivize EVs because they are far less damaging to the planet and local communities than gasoline vehicles. Gasoline vehicles get to pollute for free, why don't non-polluters get to use the road for free? Either you're trying to minimize climate damage and disproportionate harms to vulnerable communities, or you're business as usual.
- brogrammer2018 6y agoI live in South Australia. Taxes here are already high for everything road related; we already pay taxes for roads as part of Vehicle Registration (excluding compulsory 3rd party insurance); pay council rates (goes to roads), income tax (goes to roads), capital gains tax, and have a 10% GST (which may be 15% soon) which all feeds into the roads. Other parts of the world are providing incentives to EVs; but not here.
- tshaddox 6y agoWhy is it incumbent on the EV owners to somehow solve the blatantly and deliberately incorrect means of charging people to use roads? This is like saying “the movie theater makes money by charging to park a car in the parking lot, but you walked to the theater, so how is it fair that you get to watch the movie for free?” Well, perhaps the movie theater should come up with some slightly less ridiculous way of charging for entrance. Or if governments had decided to fund road maintenance using a tax on car paint, would it be unfair to buy a car that isn’t painted? And what about people who use gasoline and diesel for things other than automobiles on public roads? That’s also unfair.
- mtgx 6y agoTrucks do...wait for it...1,400x more damage to roads than standard passenger vehicles do.
- xd 6y agoProbably because they transport 1,400x more economic goods?
- Sabinus 6y agoThen the cost of those goods should reflect the cost they put on the road transport system. It may make rail more competitive, or increase the incentive for local manufacture.
- adrianN 6y agoNo, because road damage is proportional to axle weight to the fourth power.
- xd 6y agoAnd axle weight comes from the weight of the cargo be it human or goods... edit: just looked up what you said, really interesting, but makes me wonder if the transport of goods in smaller lorries for instance would ultimately be beneficial when you factor in cost of fuel, maintenance etc
- adrianN 6y agoYes, but note the "to the fourth power".
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y agoBut EVs themselves are very heavy compared to similar gas powered cars.
- adrianN 6y agoA truck still does orders of magnitude more damage. "To the fourth power" makes a big difference.
- 6y ago
- Zigurd 6y agoWhile maintaining pavement is not all of road maintenance, it is the central aspect. Trucks wear out roads orders of magnitude more than cars. In the US trucks pay much less than cars, in total, for road maintenance. It is likely the same in Australia. Simply rebalancing the taxation to the amount of road wear would eliminate the need to tax EV road use without it being a significant subsidy of EVs. Diesel trucks are also the dirtiest vehicles on the road. It makes absolutely no sense to subsidize trucking.
- AdrianB1 6y agoActually Diesel engines are the most efficient ICE in mass production, modern engines respecting the latest emission standards (ex: EURO 6) are some of the least dirty vehicles on the road. If you compare fuel efficiency per ton per kilometer and what is the pollution caused, they become quite clean. Yes, older Diesel trucks are dirty and also the ones with improper maintenance, but hitting at all trucks because of some is not fair.
- Zigurd 6y agoIn the real world, diesels should be taken off the road as quickly as possible due to the impracticality of controlling particulate emissions and the damage to human health caused by those emissions. Also, euro 6 emission standards are for diesel passenger cars. Diesel cars, even with strict emission controls, still emit too much dangerous particulates.
- fogihujy 6y agoIt'll take generations to get rid of all current diesel engines. We need stuff like e-diesel as a stop-gap solution, because things like farming machinery are rarely replaced.
- adrianN 6y agoGas and diesel cars don't pay for the damage they cause to the climate, or for the local air pollution. How is that fair?
- xd 6y agoWhat's the cost of mining lithium for starters.. before talking about fair. edit: down voted for stating facts.. I've noticed this place is becoming very ideological.. or maybe I'm getting old.
- adrianN 6y agoWhat's the cost of oil spills? It's not like gas and diesel magically flow out of the pump either.
- xd 6y agoI never said anything that implied gas wasn't an issue .. simply stating a truth bomb about EV's environmental and human costs; lithium mining being the biggest one.
- zemvpferreira 6y agoI didn't downvote you and I think you bring a useful point to the discussion, but I also think you'd be better-received if you completed your argument. Please tell us, what is a good estimate for the impact of producing and EV on the planet? And how does it compare to a gas vehicle? If that's too much work I'd be glad to learn more about battery production, since that's the point of difference.
- ohmaigad 6y agoPolestar published their transparency report which states that their fully electric Polestar 2 compared to a Volvo XC40 will break even in CO2 emissions after 112k km (Global energy mix), 78k km (European energy mix) and 50k km (wind energy). https://www.polestar.com/nl/electric-sustainability/transparency/ https://www.polestar.com/nl/electric-sustainability/transpar...
- Lammy 6y agoProbably a lot of Tesla owners on here upset at the thought of losing any of the privilege it brings. Full EVs do more damage to the road than ICE vehicles since they’re a lot heavier. I’m totally pro-EV, but we should definitely pay some part of the tax necessary to maintain the roads we drive on. Some quick searches show: Mazda MX-5 Miata MY2020 base curb weight: 2403lbs Toyota Prius MY2020 base curb weight: 3010lbs Tesla model 3 base curb weight: 4072lbs
- dmurray 6y agoThat's an incredibly disingenuous comparison. The Miata is a two-passenger roadster, and one of the lightest cars on the road. The Model 3 is a 4-door sedan.
- Lammy 6y agoI tried to think of a fun car that goes fast and a thicc hatchback that can carry stuff, because the Tesla is kinda both :D
- guerby 6y agoModel 3 SR+ is 3627 lbs
- oh_sigh 6y agoA 4 door luxury sedan would be a better comparison. For example, an Audi A4 has a 3700 lbs curb weight. Also, since road damage scales at something like axle weight ^ 4th, balance issues could completely override the 300 lbs difference in mass. For example, if the Tesla 3 can have 2 axles each with 2036 lbs/axle (because there is no ICE weighing down the front), it could theoretically be less damaging to roads than an ICE that has one heavy axle and one light axle. 22036^4 = (x 3700)^4 + ((1-x) * 3700)^4. Solving for x = 63%, so if more than 63% of an Audi A4s weight is on the front axle, it will be approximately worse than a balanced Tesla 3 for road wear and tear.
- dschuler 6y agoICE vehicles aren’t front-heavy like that, it would be terrible for braking performance.
- josephcsible 6y agoMy opinion: The transition from ICE vehicles to EVs is a very large net benefit to society, so during this period when new ICE vehicles are still legal, we should be giving EVs special ("unfair") benefits to encourage people to switch. If this new tax results in people choosing to buy an ICE vehicle who would have bought an EV without it, that's a very bad outcome. As for the loss of revenue from the gas tax, I think a two-phase solution would be best to solve that. In the first phase (now), make up the revenue by raising the gas tax. In the second phase (once ICE vehicles are almost gone), ban new ICE vehicles and then implement this tax. This way, the tax would never result in someone buying an ICE vehicle instead of an EV.
- refurb 6y ago"we should be giving EVs special ("unfair") benefits to encourage people to switch" Sure, but at least in the US, electric vehicles already get numerous other benefits include tax rebates, lower registration fees, HOV lane access, etc.
- josephcsible 6y ago> tax rebates Not Tesla or GM. > lower registration fees, HOV lane access Not in most states.
- octodog 6y agoImplementing the tax now makes sense because it brings ICE and EV into alignment now, while usage is relatively low, rather than suddenly introducing a tax down the proverbial road. To incentive switching the government has other policy tools at their disposal, such as a one-off subsidy at purchase time.
- the8472 6y ago> Implementing the tax now makes sense because it brings ICE and EV into alignment now It doesn't. ICE vehicles are effectively subsidized by not pricing in externalties. The playing field was never level, suddenly insisting that it ought to be is a selective demand for rigor.
- rconti 6y agoThere's a huge gulf between not understanding opposition to a particular scheme, and thinking the existing scheme is unfair. I didn't see anything in this article about how it's levied, for one. Are they doing vehicle tracking, as was proposed in places in the US? Certainly I can see opposition to that. Maybe people driving a Renault Twizy don't think it's fair to pay the same tax per mile as an electric Hummer (whenever that comes out). All kinds of reasons to be opposed to it.