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?
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.
To incentive switching the government has other policy tools at their disposal, such as a one-off subsidy at purchase time.
I know it does. My point is that bringing them into alignment now isn't a good thing.
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.
Sure, but at least in the US, electric vehicles already get numerous other benefits include tax rebates, lower registration fees, HOV lane access, etc.
Not Tesla or GM.
> lower registration fees, HOV lane access
Not in most states.
edit: down voted for stating facts.. I've noticed this place is becoming very ideological.. or maybe I'm getting old.
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.
edit: but the cost of rare earth mining is huge and if you don't want to do your own research... that's your call.
https://www.polestar.com/nl/electric-sustainability/transpar...
Yeah in 10-50 years. Not now. People that aren't part of the intelligentsia don't see it a threat yet.
A real problem. Both are real problems. The importance of road maintenance isn't diminished by the importance of environmental considerations. Roads are vital to the economy. Governments need to multitask; they need to handle many important matters at once , not focus on one issue at a time while letting others fall to the wayside.
Either you're trying to minimize climate damage and disproportionate harms to vulnerable communities, or you're business as usual.
Diesel trucks are also the dirtiest vehicles on the road. It makes absolutely no sense to subsidize trucking.
Also, euro 6 emission standards are for diesel passenger cars. Diesel cars, even with strict emission controls, still emit too much dangerous particulates.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Also, tax based on tire speed rating, to capture the 0.5 m v^2 energy.