Toyota Prius Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Assuming it is possible to define and characterize what constitutes energy inefficient operation of a motor vehicle, what do you think of driver citations, forfeitures, or revocations as a means of discouraging energy inefficient driving practices of operators? :?:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Well, since is doesn't seem to deter drunk drivers and drug runners all that much I think it would be a big waste of tax dollars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
This is perhaps one of those thoughts that on inception sounds reasonable, but then becomes unmanageable when you try to devise ways of enforcement. I'm afraid the courts would be full of people explaining, "But your honor, I was only ...."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Trust me, the court are already full of people saying that. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
tax at the pump, and if it hurts enough, they'll change. if not, they won't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
In Great Britain, they are seriously proposing a system of tradable carbon credits for the consumer. In other words, you are given a certain quantity of credits which allows you to release a certain amount of carbon per year. For example, when you fill up at the gas pump, you would have to use a certain amount of your credits. If you use up all your credits, you either have to quit using gas or buy additional credits on the open market. Supply and demand would bring the market into equilibrium. If you choose to pollute, you pay. On the other hand, the poor would have enough credits to get by or could choose to enrich themselves by conserving and selling there credits to the rich.

We Prius owners could make up like bandits under this system. Maybe the money we would make by sellling our credits could partially make up for any differential in the cost of our Prius.

I love to conserve energy; I would love it even more if I was rewarded financially for it.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
tstreet said:
In Great Britain, they are seriously proposing a system of tradable carbon credits for the consumer. In other words, you are given a certain quantity of credits which allows you to release a certain amount of carbon per year. For example, when you fill up at the gas pump, you would have to use a certain amount of your credits. If you use up all your credits, you either have to quit using gas or buy additional credits on the open market. Supply and demand would bring the market into equilibrium. If you choose to pollute, you pay. On the other hand, the poor would have enough credits to get by or could choose to enrich themselves by conserving and selling there credits to the rich.

We Prius owners could make up like bandits under this system. Maybe the money we would make by sellling our credits could partially make up for any differential in the cost of our Prius.


I love to conserve energy; I would love it even more if I was rewarded financially for it.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
"Driver Citations.............................."

In response to what tstreet wrote in previous post.....What a brilliant idea....and it is self-enforcing! Actually, it is brilliant idea that reflects the principles of a free-market economy so well illusturated and defined by Adam Smith--the founder of economics--in his classic book "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776! Leave it to the simplicity of a free competitive market system based on private property, individual freedom, individual pursuit of self-interest, and a limited role for government to achieve desirable and efficient outcomes. :idea:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,285 Posts
Lemme get this straight... if you have more money, you can pollute more?

But we all breathe the same air, drink the same water. Why should the rich be allowed to do more harm just because they are rich?
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
"Driver citations..............."

KTPhil said:
Lemme get this straight... if you have more money, you can pollute more?

But we all breathe the same air, drink the same water. Why should the rich be allowed to do more harm just because they are rich?
No. I think what ktphil is suggesting--and what the British proposal outlines--is that those who pollute the most should pay the most or drive the least. Right now the price of fuel from motor vehicles doesn't reflect the TOTAL COSTS of driving...in fact, significant costs are shifted from drivers to others that have to bear the consequences of polluted air (like Southern California). Britain has a scheme in place to impose a special tax on drivers who want to drive into downtown London during peak hours. The imposition of the tax has resulted in a dramatic decrease in rush-hour congestion and encouraged--through appealing to self-interest--for people to find another means or time of getting to work, car-pooling, etc.
As long as operators--and purchasers--of motor vehicles came shift some of the REAL COSTS of their driving and operation to others, the roads will be become more congested with gas-hogs occupied by drivers with no passengers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,873 Posts
If you really check into it you will probably find that it isn't the "rich" causing all the pollution (as there are fewer of them) as the middle and poorer classes. It's the three cars in every driveway folks. Something you won't find in the rest of the world. Along with the cheapness (relatively) of electric power plants fueled by coal.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
hyperion said:
If you really check into it you will probably find that it isn't the "rich" causing all the pollution (as there are fewer of them) as the middle and poorer classes. It's the three cars in every driveway folks. Something you won't find in the rest of the world. Along with the cheapness (relatively) of electric power plants fueled by coal.
Interesting observations!! The "cheapness (relatively of electric power plants fueled by coal") is explained in part because the price of coal generation of power plants (excavation, mortality of miners, miners' disability, pollution of waters, removal of protective landscape, transportation costs to plants, dangerous emissions which pollute the air and waters downstrem) is not reflected in utility costs. As long as these costs can be shifted to others who don't benefit, coal generated power plants will be cheaper than alternative ways of producing electricity...and because the utility rates don't reflect all the costs, over-use and consumption of electricity is encouraged.
"Whenever government intervenes in the market place, it makes some people better off by making everyone else worse off!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
tstreet said:
In Great Britain, they are seriously proposing a system of tradable carbon credits for the consumer. On the other hand, the poor would have enough credits to get by or could choose to enrich themselves by conserving and selling there credits to the rich.

We Prius owners could make up like bandits under this system. Maybe the money we would make by sellling our credits could partially make up for any differential in the cost of our Prius.

I love to conserve energy; I would love it even more if I was rewarded financially for it.
No. I imagnine they'll rig it so the Prius owners are the only ones that break even (if that). Everyone else would be forced to buy more credits. Because...they can make more money that way.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,815 Posts
carbon credits

carbon credits aren't new. The feds have tried to do this with US power plants. The plan is currently held up, as many states are sueing the Feds over the plan on a states' rights issue. (The dirtier power plants, typically the older coal-fired plants in the Northeast, would be able to buy extra pollution credits from cleaner plants out west. The dirtier plants would then be legally allowed by the Feds to pollute more than the affected states have already legislated against.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
KTPhil said:
Lemme get this straight... if you have more money, you can pollute more?

But we all breathe the same air, drink the same water. Why should the rich be allowed to do more harm just because they are rich?
Well, to get both political and cynical about it...yes.

That's what this country is based on. America uses more natural resources and pollutes more than other country. And our Government is making sure that we have the freedom to continue to do so. And I'm not just talking about our failure to sign the Kyoto Agreement or our head-in-the-sand refusal to acknowledge Global Warming.

In this country, if you have more money, you can do just about anything you want. (Including taking some poor guy's home to build a Walmart.....eminent domain.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Godiva said:
In this country, if you have more money, you can do just about anything you want.
That would seem to be true. Michael Jackson comes to mind. (And his pollution is the worst kind.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
I've been an advocate of the gas guzzler tax. Here is how my version of that tax would work. All non-comericial vehicles (I'm not going to pick on the truckers) that fail to get a certain EPA mialage figure, say 30MPG would be taxed at an annual rate based on the book value of thier vehicle. That tax rate would increase as the EPA mialage decreased, say 1 or 2% for 25MPG, maybe 5% for under 20, and jump it up to 10 or 15% if it's less than 15MPG.

This would hit hardest those who choose to buy the $60K Hummer's, but the guy who's flipping burgers at Mac & Don's because his job was outsourced and can only affort a $300 82 Buick getting 15MPG would be left alone. and of course those of us that drive a Prius :D , or the Ford Escape hybrid or HiHy are also left alone.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Re: carbon credits

mrv said:
carbon credits aren't new. The feds have tried to do this with US power plants. The plan is currently held up, as many states are sueing the Feds over the plan on a states' rights issue. (The dirtier power plants, typically the older coal-fired plants in the Northeast, would be able to buy extra pollution credits from cleaner plants out west. The dirtier plants would then be legally allowed by the Feds to pollute more than the affected states have already legislated against.)
"Whenever government interfers in the marketplace, it makes some people better off and everyone else worse off!"
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
"Driver citations.................."

sutherlin12 said:
Godiva said:
In this country, if you have more money, you can do just about anything you want.
That would seem to be true. Michael Jackson comes to mind. (And his pollution is the worst kind.)

Did you forget O.J. Simpsn? :evil:
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
"Driver citations..........."

tleonhar said:
I've been an advocate of the gas guzzler tax. Here is how my version of that tax would work. All non-comericial vehicles (I'm not going to pick on the truckers) that fail to get a certain EPA mialage figure, say 30MPG would be taxed at an annual rate based on the book value of thier vehicle. That tax rate would increase as the EPA mialage decreased, say 1 or 2% for 25MPG, maybe 5% for under 20, and jump it up to 10 or 15% if it's less than 15MPG.

This would hit hardest those who choose to buy the $60K Hummer's, but the guy who's flipping burgers at Mac & Don's because his job was outsourced and can only affort a $300 82 Buick getting 15MPG would be left alone. and of course those of us that drive a Prius :D , or the Ford Escape hybrid or HiHy are also left alone.
Tleonhar should be appointed new Head of the Department of Energy! :mrgreen:
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top