it shouldnt matter if you keep your car as a real size model or if u drive it 24/7, that system will prevent people from buying low EPA estimate MPG vehicle and start considering other options. Its more like a luxury tax than a penalty of the low MPG

 

Sorry, but in this day of hybrid SUV's, I'm still convinced this would be a way to reduce ridiculous consumption, incent people to do the right thing, help the environment, and extend the ever-shrinking supply of oil.

It shouldn't matter how often a gas guzzler is driven, its very presence on the planet is counterproductive. I want my grandkids to live on the same Earth I did. The chances of that are NIL unless people wake up.

 

This is part of the problem with SUVs being treated as trucks by government regulations. The exceptions to requirements meant for commuter cars has has allowed commuter SUVs and pickups to be exempt. The only way to protect real truck use would be to segrate trucks by actual use, rather than build structure.

 

The problem is simple, the cost goes up and the guy in his lamborghini getting 8 mpg doesn't care. The family with 3 kids in their mini van or SUV (which they need because of the 3 kids) gets screwed...

When will government and people realize raising the tax on the so called rich always hurts the middle class. You might as well let the rich pay less taxes (trust me they will anyway they can afford good accountants) and let them spend their money of stuff that we manufacture and sell so the rest of us have jobs... When the rich stop spending the only ones who hire are walmart and McDonalds....

 

So, better to scrap my properly-maintained 1983 truck and cause yet *another* new vehicle to be built, considering that a significant amount of the pollution from any new vehicle comes from the very act of building it?

Plus, it's not as if I could replace the truck with a new vehicle that has the same capabilities and gets 30+ MPG. Right now, the environmental impact from my truck is pretty much limited to the 15-20 gallons of gasoline and six quarts of oil I put through it each year. I really don't see how the world is going to be better off if I replace it with a new vehicle, regardless of how much better the fuel economy is.

As for the very presence of gas-guzzlers being counterproductive, there's simply a lot of things that need doing that can't be done at 30 MPG. The "tax at the pump" system that Kreig proposed would treat a 12-mpg SUV that only carries one passenger and never sees cargo the exact same way as a 12-mpg pickup that hauls machinery, furniture, dirt, and/or four passengers all day, every day. I could make an argument for irresponsibility in the first case, but not in the second case.

 

I'd counter by saying that NO family with 3 kids NEEDS an SUV. I was raised with 2 other siblings. Our biggest vehicle when I was growing up in the mid 70's was a Gran Torino 4 door sedan. I can remember a trip from PA to Florida in 1981 with 5 people stuffed in a Ford Escort wagon.

Somehow, amazingly, I lived through it all unscathed. Not to mention SMARTER. Thanks Mom and Dad! You were way ahead of your time.

 

Yes. You're exactly right. That's exactly what I'm proposing. If you NEED the extra size or hauling capability of a truck or SUV, or you absolutely HAVE to drive around in your BIG FAT, gas guzzling BMW, Mercedes, or Crown Vic... you pay anyway... tough noogies.

 

Bring it on! I'll be able to run a blackmarket business with all the SUV owners in my neighborhood right out of the side of my MINI! Let's just make sure there's enough profit margin, er... SUV Price Penalty, to make it pay for my mods!

 

This I agree with - we're long-overdue for closing the loophole that exempts the big SUVs and trucks from having to meet CAFE standards. When the exemption was originally put into place, it made sense, because the only vehicles on the road with a GVWR of 8500+ pounds were commercial vehicles, and like I said earlier, there are some necessary activities (particularly commercial activities) that are incompatible with low fuel consumption.

But with so many Excursions, H2s, Yukon XLs and similar vehicles being used essentially as passenger vehicles, it's time to include them in the CAFE calculations.

If GM had to include the H2 in their CAFE figures, they'd be forced to sell a larger quantity of more fuel-efficient vehicles to keep their CAFE average up above the minimum. They could do this by either lowering the price of their more-economic vehicles, or by making models that are even more fuel-efficient. They could also raise the price of their gas-guzzlers in an attempr to cut sales in favour of more fuel-efficient models. Any one of those would be a step in the right direction.

 

So you're saying that a building contractor that uses his big truck or SUV to haul around equipment, materials and his crew should pay an additional penalty at the pump? I'm sorry, but that's going beyond just taxing irresponsible use and all the way into pure vindictiveness and spite.

 

There is a tradeoff there. While it would take more resources and cause more pollution to replace your 1983 truck, it would probably be replaced by a car that was safer and polluted less. Part of what Los Angeles did to clean up its air pollution was to buy up old cars and junk them.

At 15-20 gallons per year, why are you worried about a gasoline tax?

Vehicles are not paying their actual cost of use if you consider their carbon impact. A gas tax is one way to put the actual cost to the actual use, rather than subsidizing it with the future. So, the use of a 12 mpg pickup would have to justify its cost. Right now, people are not having to make those decisions. If they did, a lot of alternatives would be found.

 

The problem is when we were kids you didn't need car seats and other stuff. Once you have 2 kids in car seats in a regular car you can't fit a 3rd person easily in the middle (trust me the only one who fits is my 95lb wife, my mother in-law or father in-law can't fit). Oh and let's not even mention the size of the stroller. When we were kids our parents chucked us in an umbrella stroller at 6 months. Even a Mclaren buggy are bigger than what our parents used. Safety laws and all that... Here in NJ, booster/car seat till 8 years old for example...

So now you need a Minivan that seats 7 to fit 5 with 2 car seats or you need a SUV with the same. BTW: I had an audi wagon before my SUV and my SUV gets better mileage and can fit more stuff. There would be no way for me to take a mini on an outing, I can't fit my 2 kids and a stroller let alone anyone else and a diaper bag.

BTW, my neighbors infront and behind me both have 4 kids. Should they get 2 small cars and drive to one place or one SUV. I think the one SUV does better in the end...

 

While my truck is old and only gets ~15 miles per gallon, it's hardly a pollution-spewing behemoth. I keep it tuned up, and every single piece of the factory emissions-control equipment is in place and functioning properly. The environmental impact of having to scrap/recycle my truck and build a new vehicle to replace it would far outweigh the impact of my continuing use of the truck I have now.

And I'm not worried about the tax on the amount of gas I put into it every year - I'm bothered by the fact that Krieg's plan makes no distinction between responsible use and irresponsible use of a low-MPG vehicle (although from Krieg's later post, he apparently doesn't think there *should* be any such distinction).

I simply can't support any low-MPG "tax at the pump" if it's going to be applied equally to a 12-MPG SUV that just carries the driver to and from the mall and a 12-MPG 15-passenger van that's used as an airport shuttle.

 

The size of an SUV is not what it is because it is necessary to build a car that size and weight to carry a family. Much smaller cars could be built to carry as many people, child seats, and strollers. SUVs are the way they are because people want large vehicles for emotional reasons. Cars have long been built to satisfy people's emotional needs and desires.

One thing that is typical of people who want something for emotional reasons is that they come up with all sorts of ways to justify it and cover their emotions.

 

Such a tax would tend to shrink the numbers of the 12 mpg SUV carrying one person, and the cost would be spread across the 15 passengers going to the airport. They would be paying 1/15th what the maller would be paying.

Do you think it is right for others to subsidize, with income tax or property tax, the company that takes people to the airport? Let the business pay the actual cost of doing business, even if it includes cleaning up the environmental impact of their actions.

 

I am saying that. Yes. Those costs should be built into his overhead, passed to his customers. It's NO different that the fuel clause that your electric utility has. Fuel goes up. You pay. The point is, until we force the market to correct our self-inflicted excess, there will be no incentive to reduce unnecessary consumption.

 

I agree - growing up, we had a three-row station wagon (1976 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser), so there was seating for eight. If we needed more cargo space than people space, we could fold down some of the seats and haul pretty much anything we needed to. Granted, it was long and heavy, but a similar car could be built today with a physically smaller/shorter engine than the 455 V-8 that our Olds had, and it could be made both lighter AND safer using modern design/analysis method and modern materials.

 

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!! Give this man a cigar! He GETS IT!

Excellent Post Robin!

 

But I think that operating a shuttle service is providing a huge net *benefit* to the environment. Even carrying just three people in a shuttle is better than those three people taking their own fuel-efficient cars (from the standpoints of fuel usage, safety and congestion). As such, I don't think they should get hit with an additional "low MPG" penalty.

The fact is, you're going to get the lowest fuel consumption *per person-mile* out of a high-capacity vehicle, even though those types of vehicles tend to get the poorest fuel economy.

 

Yes - it is different. The contractor is already paying more whenever gas goes up, just like everyone else (this is the equivalent of the electric company clause in your post). What you're talking about with your "tax at the pump" is a totally-separate penalty.

 

If you only drive 200 miles a year then you'd barely notice paying an extra 40-50 cents a gallon for that vehicle only, why is that a bad idea?

 

Because I don't have to be personally affected by a bad idea in order to call it a bad idea. The price of a gallon of gas could double and it wouldn't be the end of my world, so I'm not worrid about paying an extra $10 a year for the gas I put in my truck.

But there are a lot of people performing necessary (and even environmentally-beneficial) tasks that are doing it at 12 MPG without a good lower-consumption alternative.

 

I worked for a guy who taught me a very good business lesson: Never biatch about the cost of doing business.

The arguement that contractors would be hurt doesn't hold water because all contractors would have to deal with the same thing, so there wouldn't be any competitive impact. Expenses of businesses reduce profit yes, but they also lower taxes as they are charged against income.

What it comes down to is if there is a real cost for doing something, the closer one makes the actual cost to the real cost the more effective a market-based regulation system can work. face it, now the use of autos is massivly subsidized, both directly and indirectly, and doing ANYTHING to fix that can yeild nothing but good in the long run. Yes, there will be some that are more effected than others as the new equilibrium sets in, but how can you have a system that does better than what we have now without those that are getting a disproportional benefit (or significantly less screwed) taking a hit? You can't have it both ways.

Carbon tax baby! Use that mechanism that taxes actual use to correct the fact that huge amounts of "externalites" (love the economist lingo for non-captured costs and benefits) aren't reflected in the price we pay at the pump. Heck, if one really wanted to grant significantly effected groups with a kick back, go for it! Take some of the pump generated carbon tax and re-direct it to those one wants to help.

But to say that raising the cost of use on those that have to use stuff is unfair is just wrong. It's right, it's just making those that have to use a large amount of something pay closer to the true costs. Businesses can always pass the cost onto customers, and if all businesses have to pay the cost, that's just what will happen and it won't hit them in the pocket at all.

Matt

 

But if they started paying out of their BUTTS for fuel and their customers were forced to foot the bill... don't you think the market would act to FORCE "good lower-consumption alternatives"?? I think so. I've been watching the free market in action for 47 years. I saw my parents' neighbors dash to the VW Dealers in the mid/late 70's and pay hundreds over sticker to buy Rabbit Diesels when the Arabs thought it would be cool to inflate the price of oil just for grins and giggles. It would be no different today. Contractors would bend over backwards to figure out how to do business with smaller, more efficient vehicles if it meant the difference between staying in business and starving. Trust me.

Hmmmmm.... Minis with tow packages! I'm off to the patent office!!

 

I can see you point, but something about Krieg's plan still sticks in my craw.

Specifically, if I have to get 6 people 100 miles down the road, I'm going to pay an extra penalty if I use an SUV or van to do it compared to putting them in two more fuel-efficient cars, even if the total amount of gas consumed would be less when using the SUV for the trip. (Never mind the fact that consolidating more people into fewer vehicles eases traffic congestion).