Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2014, 08:27 AM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,210 posts, read 80,369,332 times
Reputation: 57089

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Resale value with 7 years/70K on it?

We don't have a uniform fleet of cars in this country. I owned a 72 ford f-250 I used occasionally, I'd be forced to get rid of it?
In our state the "classic car" definition is 25 years old, so you could drive any 1989 or older vehicle and not have any kind of smog equipment or testing on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2014, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Volcano
12,969 posts, read 28,303,558 times
Reputation: 10756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
In our state the "classic car" definition is 25 years old, so you could drive any 1989 or older vehicle and not have any kind of smog equipment or testing on it.
I think it may be time to revisit those rules, since they used to acknowledge that older cars had no smog equipment at all, whereas now many older cars have smog equipment that may simply not be properly maintained... i.e. working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2014, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,103 posts, read 5,399,295 times
Reputation: 10105
The idea is asinine. Auto companies manufacture their products according to government regulations. We are then forced to buy these regulated products. Youre suggesting to tax the consumer based upon the amount of pollution that regulation allows to exist. It would be more appropriate to tighten the regulations, not tax the consumer for buying the product.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2014, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
16,289 posts, read 32,227,534 times
Reputation: 21890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
The means to determine how much a car sends into the atmosphere already exists. The amount s known at the time a car is manufactured and then over time with things like smog tests and so on. Yet, when one car has a higher emission rate than another, there is no peanlty to those who own such a car.

There is no incentive for lower income earners to buy "cleaner" cars like EVs because:

1. They can't afford the car the start with. (the trickle down from expensive EVs is a myth)
2. The tax credits are unavailable to them because of the above.

Tax per mile, increased fuel taxes and such things don't work to do anything but extract revenue, they do not solve any problems except lining certain pockets with money.

A pollution tax on vehicles would not impact low wage earners because the mechanisms already exist to let them avoid paying taxes. In many states, if your car fails a smog check and it can't be repaired within the financial means of the owner, the state gives them money to retire the car. Also, low wage earners can avoid paying income taxes so the way to limit that adverse effect exists.

Higher wage earners though, would be motivate to move to EVs when they otherwise might not do so. If they chose not to, the added revenue streams could be used to provide assistance to low wage earners to buy EVs. Now you are solving a problem. It is the large number of cars driven by low wage earners that contribute the most to pollution. It isn't practical to just give them a large enough tax credit so they can afford an EV and even the most optimistic projections don't show low wage earners being able to afford the so called "affordable" EVs because a $30,000 car is not something a low wage earner can afford.

The whole idea that EVs are going to trickle down is fine until you figure out what "trickle down" means. Decades, not years.

So why not a pollution tax? It helps by providing much larger credits to low wage earners so that the segment of the population contributing the most pollution via driving cars will be able to move to EVs.
You mentioned that the poorer drivers can not afford to buy them now, how would they afford to buy them later? Are you going to include the pollution generated by producing and getting rid of the EV's? Those cars have the largest carbon footprint of any car on the planet. It would be better on the environment if we stopped building all these electric / hybrid cars and focused on gasoline cars. It is possible to build an economical small car that anyone can purchase. We had them back in the 60's and 70's. Just a basic car no extras and everyone could buy one. I bet you could get the price down to around $8,000 or so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2014, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,969 posts, read 28,303,558 times
Reputation: 10756
Quote:
Originally Posted by armory View Post
My sister is liberal ~~ and lives in a notably upscale neighborhood. When driving around with her she sometimes points out large houses and makes comments such as ''They should be taxed for a house that big! Think of the electricity they use" as if they don't pay for the use of it. I try to remind her of the fact. It's the same for a vehicle which uses more fuel. The driver pays for it.
Since you seem to think "liberal" is a pejorative word... probably not a popular opinion on this forum... I'm bemused that you don't see that what she was expressing was actually what I would call a conservative view... that limited resources should be conserved, and not wasted. In other words, you shouldn't use more than you need, even if you happen to be able to pay for it. Wasted electricity, wasted gasoline... wasted non-renewable fossil resources... they're all spending our grandchildren's grandchildren's inheritance, with no mind to the future.

And obviously she was talking about taxing over-consumption as a dis-incentive measure, not as a means of increasing revenue, which I see as more of a progressive approach than a liberal one. And in fact many communities are now enacting such measures, such as charging progressively higher rates for higher rates of use. But you don't naturally see it that way, because you seem to be expressing a libertarian perspective, that people should be able to just do whatever they want. From that standpoint one might label a progressive conservative thought as "liberal," whereas there is actually nothing about having a deep concern for the environment that is deserving of any particular political label.

Funny things, labels are. So many people use them as substitutes for actually thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2014, 01:25 PM
 
2,131 posts, read 3,561,749 times
Reputation: 3394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemlock140 View Post
That is already being done through the EPA's Gas Guzzler tax. I suppose the theory is that the more fuel a car uses the more it pollutes if the pollution control systems are all the same.

I don't know about your state, but here there is no inspection that measures emissions. They simply read the computer codes to look for anomolies with the emissions system. They do not measure the actual particulates. Even if the car sends out a lot of smog it will pass if there are no codes. Likewise, there could be a failure due to a code that does not actually result in more smog. The state inspection agency is trusting the OBD system because the federal government has made it standard for all cars sold in the country.
OBDII is not perfect but pretty good at monitoring fuel mixture, misfire, catalytic converter efficiency, etc. If all these pass the exhaust is probably clean to EPA regs. On pre-OBDII vehicles some areas test emissions by actual exhaust analysis. Tailpipe gas analysis means almost nothing unless the vehicle is tethered down to a chassis dyno. Chassis dyno testing that is not done by a skilled experienced professional can be quite dangerous to the vehicle, operator and bystanders, so hence OBDII interrogation is the best all around emissions test for modern vehicles.

Don in Austin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2014, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,969 posts, read 28,303,558 times
Reputation: 10756
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
Are you going to include the pollution generated by producing and getting rid of the EV's? Those cars have the largest carbon footprint of any car on the planet.
This common myth has been rebutted here over and over and over again, but like "Whack-A-Mole" it just keeps popping up anew.

Unless you can provide substantial proof of your claim (hint: you can't, because it isn't true) I'm filing this under: BS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2014, 02:36 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,221,624 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth View Post
The idea is asinine. Auto companies manufacture their products according to government regulations. We are then forced to buy these regulated products. Youre suggesting to tax the consumer based upon the amount of pollution that regulation allows to exist. It would be more appropriate to tighten the regulations, not tax the consumer for buying the product.
A couple of things. We aren't forced to buy cars. Granted, it is difficult to get around without a car - even in large cities - nobody is actually forced to buy a car. Second, although the government does implement regulations regarding mpg and pollutants, tightening those regulations might exceed the abilities of a given manufacturer and we could eventually hit an upper limit. Third, when you separate the cost or price away the source you can't really influence behavior or change. To put another way, let's say you were able to get mpg level to reach of new min of 20/mpg. Once you did that how would you influence people at the individual level? Then you run into an issue where people burning more gas have paid the same as people that burn less. - Gas taxes notwithstanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2014, 08:52 PM
 
7,280 posts, read 10,899,535 times
Reputation: 11491
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
You mentioned that the poorer drivers can not afford to buy them now, how would they afford to buy them later? Are you going to include the pollution generated by producing and getting rid of the EV's? Those cars have the largest carbon footprint of any car on the planet. It would be better on the environment if we stopped building all these electric / hybrid cars and focused on gasoline cars. It is possible to build an economical small car that anyone can purchase. We had them back in the 60's and 70's. Just a basic car no extras and everyone could buy one. I bet you could get the price down to around $8,000 or so.
There is no incentive for lower income bracket earners to buy any EV or hybrid. Why shouldn't EVs be considered when it comes to pollution contributions? They should, I agree. Just because a car is an EV doesn't mean it is a sacred cow.

I also agree that the pollution a car contributes does not start the day the individual buys one and starts driving it. The carbon footprint calculated from the manufacturing should be something EVs should pay for just like everyone else. If the EV has a greater carbon footprint, then the buyer of that vehicle should pay a greater amount than the owner of a gas fueled car that has a lower one.

It is also true, and I agree, that there is quite a bit of room to reduce the emissions of gasoline cars and as a parallel development, push for other fuels instead of storing electric in batteries.

Economical gas fueled cars are popular and sell well. One has only to count the number of Mini Coopers and in some cities, the new Fiats to see that the barrier to selling them isn't pricing.

Reducing the emissions of gas fueled cars by just 10% will do far more for the environment than all the Evs sold to date and probably in the foreseeable future. EVs are more of a blip in automotive history. There are numerous fundamental problems with them that will prevent them from being more than a minor impact on the environment as far as benefits go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2014, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,969 posts, read 28,303,558 times
Reputation: 10756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Reducing the emissions of gas fueled cars by just 10% will do far more for the environment than all the Evs sold to date and probably in the foreseeable future. EVs are more of a blip in automotive history. There are numerous fundamental problems with them that will prevent them from being more than a minor impact on the environment as far as benefits go.
I think what I find most annoying about your rants is that you keep speaking your own personal opinions as if they were the descended word of gawdamighty... you know, the one that supposedly asked why you strain out gnats but swallow camels... instead of accurately labeling what you say as simply the product of your own imagination. Here, let me show you what that might look like, using the previous quoted text as an example.

"In my opinion reducing the emissions of gas fueled cars by just 10% will do far more for the environment than all the Evs sold to date and probably in the foreseeable future. I believe EVs are more of a blip in automotive history. It seems to me that there are numerous fundamental problems with them that will prevent them from being more than a minor impact on the environment as far as benefits go."

There. Much better. Far less obnoxious. And far more truthful, because it doesn't pretend to be anything but what it is... just your opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top