Yes, let us stipulate that uniform regulations that disregard the federalist design of the constitution are more convenient and profitable for huge corporations with top flight lobbyists to write the one law to be enforced from sea to shining sea.
US consumers are facing hardship directly caused by overtly erratic tariffing. US ICE makers are seeking protections. Consumers will not have smaller vehicles nor the affordable EVs they could use.
The air and water are fine, we never pollute, climate change is a silly leftist slogan, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
How about $100/ton of CO2.
At 30 mpg that's 60 tons of CO2 so $6k.
The fundamental idea is the state doesn't actually want the money. It wants manufactures to stop making cars that emit CO2. If someone already has a car like that perhaps the state can buy it back.
All solutions other than punishing fossil fuel use seem like “I want to feel like I did something, but not actually make any sacrifice” solutions so the public doesn’t revolt. See also plastic recycling.
The standard response here is “well what about poor people?”
And the standard response to that is “if a different fundamental problem is some people are too poor, then give them cash”
Less obfuscation and more transparency is always better.
Putting an excise tax on those cars tilts the decision to buy gas vs electric strongly away from gas. Which is what you want. The other thing is it sends a very strong signal to manufacturers that they need to stop producing them. Remember the cost of carbon taxes isn't something they pay. The consumer most of whom suck at accounting are the ones.
And punishing people that bought a gas car ten years ago is pointless and immoral. Because they already bought it. And they did so in good faith.
No increased cost for existing owners, but still an incentive to replace the car for a lower emission one
They already have cap-and-trade:
* https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/
* https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-progr...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif...
Also, companies are greedy. They can, and will, just move and leave you high and dry, if you regulate at the source (manufacturing). So you have to not regulate at the source, which is kind of worse. It leads to a lot of tragedy of the commons situations. Maybe Company X is poisoning the water supply and State Y says "no more!". They just move to Texas or some other state that doesn't give a fuck about it's residents and continue poisoning the water supply. State Y will still be affected, maybe they drink from the same water shed. And State Y is also economically harmed, while Texas comes out ahead.
Or contraception?