I think it goes underappreciated that, by creating so much excess demand, drivers of gas guzzlers are causing gas to be more expensive for the rest of us.

Yes, if you have a gas guzzler, then you should have to pay a tax everytime you pay for a new plate.

This also goes for anyone living in a large house and using an excessive amount of energy to heat and power it.

Guys like like Al Gore would then have to really walk the walk, instead of just spouting hot air.

Yes, high polluters (cars with no catalytic converters any more or spewing oily smoke) plus big ugly trucks and way-overpowered supercars, should pay. This is the only way to get people to start considering smaller and lighter cars. It has to hit everyone. The mindset of "well someone else can buy a prius but i'm keeping my hummer" has got to end.
I live in PA, i'd support a law similar to this.

It would be awesome if the SUV buyers' fee went directly to the green buyers' rebate. Then the SUV owner would get a card in the mail that said, "Thanks for giving your hard earned money to mr.X, who used it to buy a Prius."

Man, would that ever sicken SUV owners.

Incentives work better than penalties, so they should nix the SUV fee and double the green rebate.

Yep you should. If I was in charge, owners of gas guzzlers would pay more per gallon than owners of efficient vehicles. I know that a tonne of CO2 from a Prius driven 6,000 miles is the same as a tonne from a Hummer driven 50 miles but it would be a pretty damned effective fiscal instrument!

Picture that Hummer driver filling up with fuel that cost twice as much as it cost a Prius driver. I think he or she would think long and hard about their next vehicle purchase.

It's probably a good thing I'm not in charge though.

I already pay more for the privilege of driving my Silverado pickup. The state taxes it more than my Saturn SL2 and it's fuel economy is far worse. That said, I only drive it when I need a truck (and I need a truck to tow my equipment trailer occasionally and to haul supplies on) so the annual mileage is very low.

Another reason to charge higher taxes for over sized cars, they take up more space on the road. Not only does their size take up more space, but since the are so big, other drivers stay farther away so they can see around them. Thus, they increase congestion and traffic. I'd say that was worth a few grand right there.

Do these studies take embodied energy into account when issuing the rebates? When talking about carbon emissions there's the initial carbon investment of the vehicle purchase (manufacture) and the annual contribution of the fuel. A person that drives a Hummer once a week may still have less of a contribution in the long run than someone who drives their Prius regularly.

A fairer tax scheme could go something like this...
Purchase tax based on embodied energy in manufacture and transport coupled with end disposal. Then an annual tax based on odometer readings.

A tax such as this is only geared toward attempting to manipulate consumer choice with reducing carbon emissions a secondary concern. A gallon of gasoline purchased by a Prius owner and a gallon purchased by Hummer driver both end up in the same place, the rest is dependent on overall use. It is operating efficiency vs. overall efficiency.

Another easy way to levy a tax on gas guzzlers is to simply raise gas taxes. Tack on $2 bucks per gallon at the pumps so the commuters in Hummers really get nailed. The proceeds can go to a hefty rebate to efficient car drives so they don't feel the pain. The added bonus about this is it would make people think twice about driving any vehicle when they could walk or take transit.

With the one time rebate, after you pay it, it is out of sight and out of mind. You have no motivation to conserve after day 1. You may even want to drive your gas guzzler more to get your moneys worth out of the fee.

I'm all for a hefty gas-guzzler tax on big polluters. What bothers me is that cars such as the Dodge Viper (13mpg city/22 highway) are hit with the tax as it is, but massive SUVs (Cadillac Escalade, 12 city/18 highway) are exempt because they're classified as trucks. While the tax makes sense on a Viper because the mileage is dreadful, nobody uses one as a daily driver. On the other hand, middle-class families drive up to the store in SUVs that get worse gas mileage than V-10 supercars every day, and end up polluting far more. In addition, gas-chugging trucks like the H2, Navigator, and F-150 sell in MUCH greater quantities than Vipers and Ferraris, so their combined environmental impact is far greater. It's counterproductive to only tax expensive cars with big engines, because the rich and shameless won't flinch at another $2500 on top of the $80,000+ they're already paying. But there are tens of millions of ordinary people who will, and that's where we can make a difference. Get thousands of average joes to buy a CR-V instead of a Mountaineer for his daily commute and we've already made some progress! As much as I support taxing harmful, outrageous luxuries that only the wealthy can enjoy, when it comes to fuel economy it's the middle-class SUV drivers that are killing it the most.

I think putting a price on carbon is the only way to solve that problem with creating others via the law of unintended consequences, and even that should be done at least via tax shifting (shifting taxes on income to taxes on bad things, like carbon emissions -- not adding taxes on top of what we already have).

Same idea as "carbon offsets" - pay to pollute.

They already pay more at the pump - price is not a deterrent.

If we keep building them, people will keep buying them (on credit). What's a extra few thousand on a $40k truck (over 60 months)? It's tax deductible anyway.

I don't think that this is the way to go. These cars are already taxed more for their pollution since they use more fuel. They already pay for their pollution. There is another parameter, however, where these cars differ from other vehicles on the road and where they should be treated differently and this is the danger they bring to others around them. Because they can't stop as fast, have lots of inertia and have less clearance around them they are a danger to smaller vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. I think the danger should be mitigated by legislating on urban roads a lower speed limit for vehicle that are above a certain weight. It would be easy to implement: just make it the law that for streets with speed limits under 50mph vehicles classified as "heavy" must keep their speed under 8-10mph slower than the legal limit.

People would feel better buying smaller cars and taking their bicycle if the SUVs would go at a more appropriate speed for their size. Hence, by enabling smaller means of transportation as a safe choice, this would incidentally help with the pollutions problems.

While I agree that high consumption cars already pay more because they buy more fuel, I don't see why polluter pays shouldn't work like income tax.

In most income tax systems, high earners pay a larger proportion of their earnings than low earners. You could argue that everyone should have a flat rate and that the high earners will pay their share.

Why shouldn't a similar system apply to those who opt for high emission cars? Sure some high emission cars aren't driven much but the owners could always not drive much in a low emissions car! (with a few exceptions where people need a large vehicle).

I think the increased cost has to be proportional to the damage done. Someone who owns a powerful vehicle for a decent reason (e.g. towing heavy stuff) shouldn't necessarily be penalised. Hence, increase the fuel tax a lot. The money can be used to benefit *everyone* (not just Prius drivers getting a reduction in costs over the reduction they already have) by investing it in public transport -- this helps people who can't drive, e.g. children, and makes for a nicer city. If people weren't in their steel boxes all the time they might, you know, talk to each other!

BenE
Check your numbers before you start making claims. Modern SUV's/trucks and small cars have near identical safety features and abilities i.e. Silverado and Civic both have a 128ft. 60-0 (Edmunds).

The argument being, that fuel taxes aren't nearly as effective as lump sum purchase taxes, in affecting consumer's purchase behavior.

Additionally this applies the RobinHood principle, to make those dollars work twice. It taxes gas guzzlers, and it gives rebates for gas sippers. Effectively it's "revenue neutral".

That said, it shouldn't be based on miles-per-gallon.
It should be based on gallons-per-mile.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/19/152610/35

_

But as with all pollution.
If you want to pollute, then you get to pay for it.

If you don't, then you are subverting the market by not paying for your damages.

_

Now something which would be even better, is if California did away with the 4 different fuel economy standards out there, and made just 1.

Instead of having:
1. Import Car Fleet
2. Import Truck Fleet
3. Domestic Car Fleet
4. Domestic Truck Fleet

Just have one average fuel economy standard for entire corporations.

_

The difference being you might see more Wagons and Flatbed Sedans, and all that middle ground between.

100% in taxes on gasoline would solve the problem

One should definitely pay for the "privilege" of driving a gas-guzzler through higher taxes, both on the purchase of a vehicle and on gasoline. However, I think that the best way to tax car use is through congestion taxes. The reason is because in urban areas, car use is an extremely inefficient use of road space and there are viable alternatives (walking, biking and public transit). Even electric cars run using 100% renewable energy contribute to the problem. Also, fuel-burning cars create pollution which is concentrated in urban areas. Thus, all drivers of any motorized vehicle, except buses, should be required to pay a toll when driving in any urban area or on a freeway; this toll should vary by time of day so that driving at rush hour is much more expensive than driving at 3am. In contrast, in rural areas, there is no alternative to the car and roads are less congested, so taxes should be low or zero. 100% of the proceeds from the toll should be spent on public transit and renewable energy.

This sounds like typically over complicated politician thinking. There are many scenarios by which one may own a gas-guzzler but use it minimally, whether it is a sportscar or antique only driven occasionally or a farm or commercial vehicle only driven when needed, in which a per-vehicle fee would not be proportional to the imparct of the vehicle.

Why create a new tax with more administration overhead? If the goal is a reduction in fuel consumption, then increase the existing fuel tax and offset it by some reasonable amout with the reduction of some other existing state levied tax (sales tax, income tax, etc.) such that anyone using more or less than X amount of fuel per year would see an increase or decrease in their tax burden proportional to their consumption or lack of.

To be honest, when someone drives a gas guzzler, they are already paying . . . at the pump! So I'm not sure that making them pay more would be a deterrent to , say buying a Prius.

This is an excellent idea because unlike gas taxes, its not regressive.

Doing this nationwide would be the one thing which would actually make gas prices cheaper. The futures traders would have a huge selloff if this was enacted on a national level. It would adjust the long term demand for oil in the US much faster than the recent CAFE change.

Should be on milage and not just emissions.

Yes. Whatever people are charged it's not going to get close to the true economic environmental cost.

I think that this would be great. They're doing this in Ireland. Basically what they are saying is "yes you can have your SUV, but you'll pay for it." http://www.screamtobegreen.com/2007/12/ireland-is-even-greener-now/

They are going to have tax bands based on emissions.They'll range from 100 euros to 2,000 euros annually.

-Jason
http://www.screamtobegreen.com

I think this solution is a little simplistic. The charge should also factor in miles driven. A person driving a high effecincy car 50 miles to work every day pollutes far more than someone with an F350 that drives 3 miles to work. The person with an F350 is penalized even though they have smaller impacts. A better solution would be to take mileage into account during annual registration. The following is a somewhat lengthy explanation, but a far better solution.

You would do this by assigning a "pollution factor" to each vehicle model based on fuel efficiency, coupled with applying a generalized reduction in registration fees. Multiply the pollution factor by the mileage to arrive at an annual "pollution contribution fee," and add that to the reduced registration fee. For example:

F-350 = 1 cent/mile
Civic = 0.5 cents/mile
Prius = 0.1 cents/mile

Under equal driving, 15000 miles, guzzlers would be penalized while fuel efficient vehicles would be incentivized like this:

F-350 15000* $0.01 = $150
Civic 15000* $0.05 = $75
Prius 15000* $0.001 = $15

Add this charge to a registration fee reduced by $75 overall, and the guzzler pays $75 extra every year, the efficient car pays nothing extra and the high efficiency vehicle gets a $60 reduction in registration fees.

In the case of a guzzler that is not driven much versus a high efficiency car that is driven a lot, it would look more like this:

F-350 3000*$0.01 = $30
Prius 75,000*$0.001= $75

The low-mileage F350 would get a rebate whereas the high-mileage hybrid breaks even. This is far less arbitrary and assesses fees based on actual impacts - which is what we really want, after all. If the government wants to incentivize a production sector, they could do so by manipulating the factor assigned to each model.

The current model would actually penalize people arbitrarily who have smaller pollution contributions. I don't think that's what we want.

I think this solution is a little too simplistic. Without taking annual
mileage into consideration, it ignores a big piece of the puzzle. A
Prius driven 50 miles to work every day pollutes more than a F350 driven
3 miles to work each day. A better solution would be to assign
"pollution factors" to each vehicles based on fuel efficiency, coupled
with a generalized reduction in annual registration fees. This would
provide penalties and incentives based on actual impacts. Here is how
it would work. (I apologize for the long post and math, but bare with me
and I think you will agree.)

Guzzlers would be assigned a larger factor than high-efficiency
vehicles. For example:

F350 = $0.01/mile
Civic = $0.005/mile
Prius = $0.001/mile
General annual registration reduction of $75/yr

Given that all vehicles were driven the same, say 15,000 miles per year,
their annual fee calculation would look like this:

F350=$0.01/mile*15000 miles - $75 = $75 annual increase
Civic=$0.005/mile*15000 miles - $75 = $0 annual increase
Prius=$0.001/mile*15000 miles - $75 = $60 annual *reduction*

But given the case of the low-mileage guzzler versus the high mileage
Prius, where the Prius is the bigger polluter due to driving habits, it
would look like this:

F350 = $0.01/miles*3000 miles - $75 = $45 annual *reduction*
Prius = $0.001/miles*75,000 miles - $75 = $0 annual reduction

This method does a lot better job of incentivizing pollution reduction,
which is what we really want, after all. The proposed method actually
arbitrarily penalizes choices that reduce pollution overall.

V/R
Steve Van Middlesworth
30 CES/CEV
Chief, Pollution Prevention Branch

I have to throw a comment out there to the guy who took the pot shot at Al Gore. Yes he has a big house that uses considerably more energy than the usual house in order to run his business, live in his mansion etc. If you want to be pissed off about the fact that he had a successful movie that netted him a big house then I will let you have that.

But he buys into what is called carbon offsetting and power that is guaranteed to come from renewable energies. The company I work for does this all the time. We will sponsor large music events, calculate the carbon and then hired a company like FuF to offset the pollution we just produced by planting trees.

Itshouldallbe doneby weight. GASS HOLE AUTOHOLICS!!!
But come on folks lets be real here in America. Nothing is going to change because american{t]s are lazy and care nothing about others.

The fact that so many folks here attack the Hummer and avoid criticism of, say, the Volvo XC90 (another vehicle that gets even lower gas mileage than a Suburban) suggests the issue has some aesthetic component. Indeed, whille there is frequently a legitimate reason someone might need an eight or nine passenger vehicle with a large towing capacity, nobody "needs" a station wagon that gets 13 mpg.

Likewise, because the environmental movement is not going to win the battle against cars in general, something other than a tax on gasoline might invite scrutiiny of a vehicle's life cycle environmental impact that could reflect a lot more poorlly on cars viewed as "green" , particularly hybrids, than expected (http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=14582). Not that there's anything wrong with that.

A gas tax is the way to go on this one.

J,

I think it is less the aesthetic component than it is anti-domestic bias. Look back through the comments. The arbitrary comparisons of gas-guzzlers and gas-sippers chosen by commenters are consistently apples-and-oranges comparisons of large domestic vehicles to much smaller foreign vehicles. (The lone exception was the Ferrari.)

gl

Another thing I like about a direct fuel tax is that it captures the use and condition of the vehicle, not just the make and model. A vehicle that is driven with a heavy foot, under-inflated tires, and/or burdened with unnecessary items or modifications will consume far more and create more pollution than other like vehicles. Similarly a vehicle, driven conservatively and well maintained will consume less. A fuel tax rewards or punishes drivers for their behavior and vehicle care.

Q. Should you pay more for the privilege of driving a gas-guzzler?

A. Yes, but not as you suggest that is illogical.

Just raise the tax on gas.

If you burn more, you pay more.

Gas taxes are entirely too low which is why people continue to purchase these vehicles.

Plus raising gas taxes affects people who buy used Gas-Guzzlers and those who already have them.