3 ms·

What a great way to discourage people from engaging in a behavior that you want them to engage in. Why not make up for the (arguably inconsequential) loss in r

What a great way to discourage people from engaging in a behavior that you want them to engage in. Why not make up for the (arguably inconsequential) loss in revenue by making the people with the less desirable behavior (purchasing gas-guzzling, polluting vehicles) subsidize the desirable behavior? In other words, make up for lost revenues by increasing gasoline taxes. If it gets to the point where that's not enough, increase gasoline taxes again, and generally keep increasing them until people aren't driving ICE vehicles anymore. When it gets to the point where even that doesn't cover it, charge vehicle registration fees based on vehicle weight, since that's the true measure of the vehicle's contribution to the wear and tear on the roadways.

ams6110 13y ago
Why do you care what kind of car someone else wants to drive? Is it this: Among a few dozen who commented last spring when legislators were debating the fee, many cited the environmental benefits of cars that produce zero tailpipe emissions What's the environmental impact of a reasonably new gasoline car with catalytic converter and other emissions controls vs. the impact of coal-generated electric power for an EV? I don't know, but I would not be surprised if the EV was worse.
- brc 13y ago
  If you're going to go down that route, you have to look at total vehicle ownership. That includes the manufacture and trasnport of components, total vehicle miles and costs, and many other factors. IMO the dicsussions of the benefits of electric cars should be done at the local level - where it matters. The other problem is so intractable and remote it will never be agreed. Does a Prius generate less total emissions per mile driven than a Diesel VW? That is virtually unknowable, though I am sure many people try, usually finding a result consistent with their viewpoint. The benefits of electric vehicles for local issues are: less noise and zero tailpipe emissions. This is where people should focus their attention.
- hobs 13y ago
  That's an interesting question, however there is no inherent need for the electric power to be generated via coal power, whereas the gas car cannot get away from burning said fossil fuels, even though it can be made more efficient. I did some googling and there are a number of arguments on the internet about comparing a coal generated power plant's electricity emissions to a gas powered car's emissions, and I think depending on your average consumption either side could win that argument. However if the electricity was generated in not the dirtiest possible way we know how, gas car seems to lose every other time.
  - lucisferre 13y ago
    Not to mention electric drive motors are vastly more efficient than internal combustion. So much so that even line losses and other non-arguments often cited by anti-EV people wouldn't make up the difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Energy_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Energy_efficiency
- salmonellaeater 13y ago
  For half the US population (those in regions that use more renewable power sources), electric vehicles are equivalent to about 70mpg in terms of emissions, so they're a clear win. In the regions that use mostly coal, it's more like 35mpg, so a really efficient gasoline-powered car is a better choice.[1] However, I'd argue that even a car that gets 35mpg is better than average and its use should be encouraged. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/21/are-electric-cars-really-that-polluting/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/21/are-electr...
rahimnathwani 13y ago
What? Is driving a car (even electric) a behaviour that you want to encourage? It seems reasonable to me to have high taxes/fees/whatever for private vehicles that cause local pollution and cause traffic and road wear (normal cars), lower taxes/fees for those which just cause traffic and road wear (electric cars), and subsidies for things you really want to encourage (buses, bicycles, electric scooters) because they cause a minimal amount of pollution, road wear and traffic on a per-person-mile basis.
- Larrikin 13y ago
  Outside of a few major cities in the country, not having a car is just not a feasible idea.
  - rahimnathwani 13y ago
    According to Wikipedia[0], there are at least 50 cities in the USA where at least 16% of _households_ do not have a car. It appears to be feasible for those households to do without a car. I guess that some of the individuals within the households that _do_ have a car don't use it on a day to day basis. Moreover, even if 100% of households need at least one car, taxes can be levied on a per-car and per-mile basis, attempting to limit the number of cars per household to the minimum feasible level. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_h...
dm2 13y ago
The alternative would be to charge everybody ~$5 then you'd have a very large chunk of the voting population angry that they have to subsidize the cost of an electric vehicle. You have to also remember that most people that would be taxed cannot afford to purchase an electric vehicle and that seems like an unfair burden to put on them. Much of the damage is caused by large trucks anyways. What SHOULD happen is that all of the states get together and charge large transport trucks their fair share of their damage to the roads. That gives me a good idea for a startup: Electric, low damage to roads, autonomous transport trucks. They could deliver everything including mail, oranges, amazon packages, furniture, shit, even people. The company that delivers that product is going to make boat-fucking-loads.

ams6110 13y ago

Why do you care what kind of car someone else wants to drive? Is it this: Among a few dozen who commented last spring when legislators were debating the fee, many cited the environmental benefits of cars that produce zero tailpipe emissions What's the environmental impact of a reasonably new gasoline car with catalytic converter and other emissions controls vs. the impact of coal-generated electric power for an EV? I don't know, but I would not be surprised if the EV was worse.

brc 13y ago
If you're going to go down that route, you have to look at total vehicle ownership. That includes the manufacture and trasnport of components, total vehicle miles and costs, and many other factors. IMO the dicsussions of the benefits of electric cars should be done at the local level - where it matters. The other problem is so intractable and remote it will never be agreed. Does a Prius generate less total emissions per mile driven than a Diesel VW? That is virtually unknowable, though I am sure many people try, usually finding a result consistent with their viewpoint. The benefits of electric vehicles for local issues are: less noise and zero tailpipe emissions. This is where people should focus their attention.
hobs 13y ago
That's an interesting question, however there is no inherent need for the electric power to be generated via coal power, whereas the gas car cannot get away from burning said fossil fuels, even though it can be made more efficient. I did some googling and there are a number of arguments on the internet about comparing a coal generated power plant's electricity emissions to a gas powered car's emissions, and I think depending on your average consumption either side could win that argument. However if the electricity was generated in not the dirtiest possible way we know how, gas car seems to lose every other time.
- lucisferre 13y ago
  Not to mention electric drive motors are vastly more efficient than internal combustion. So much so that even line losses and other non-arguments often cited by anti-EV people wouldn't make up the difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Energy_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Energy_efficiency
salmonellaeater 13y ago
For half the US population (those in regions that use more renewable power sources), electric vehicles are equivalent to about 70mpg in terms of emissions, so they're a clear win. In the regions that use mostly coal, it's more like 35mpg, so a really efficient gasoline-powered car is a better choice.[1] However, I'd argue that even a car that gets 35mpg is better than average and its use should be encouraged. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/21/are-electric-cars-really-that-polluting/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/21/are-electr...

rahimnathwani 13y ago

What? Is driving a car (even electric) a behaviour that you want to encourage? It seems reasonable to me to have high taxes/fees/whatever for private vehicles that cause local pollution and cause traffic and road wear (normal cars), lower taxes/fees for those which just cause traffic and road wear (electric cars), and subsidies for things you really want to encourage (buses, bicycles, electric scooters) because they cause a minimal amount of pollution, road wear and traffic on a per-person-mile basis.

Larrikin 13y ago
Outside of a few major cities in the country, not having a car is just not a feasible idea.
- rahimnathwani 13y ago
  According to Wikipedia[0], there are at least 50 cities in the USA where at least 16% of _households_ do not have a car. It appears to be feasible for those households to do without a car. I guess that some of the individuals within the households that _do_ have a car don't use it on a day to day basis. Moreover, even if 100% of households need at least one car, taxes can be levied on a per-car and per-mile basis, attempting to limit the number of cars per household to the minimum feasible level. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_h...

dm2 13y ago

The alternative would be to charge everybody ~$5 then you'd have a very large chunk of the voting population angry that they have to subsidize the cost of an electric vehicle. You have to also remember that most people that would be taxed cannot afford to purchase an electric vehicle and that seems like an unfair burden to put on them. Much of the damage is caused by large trucks anyways. What SHOULD happen is that all of the states get together and charge large transport trucks their fair share of their damage to the roads. That gives me a good idea for a startup: Electric, low damage to roads, autonomous transport trucks. They could deliver everything including mail, oranges, amazon packages, furniture, shit, even people. The company that delivers that product is going to make boat-fucking-loads.