Time to give SUV drivers a break? 5

[jmw]

In an article in Novembers "What Car?"; "how green is your car?" (

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=222582)

According to CNW's table of 96 cars sold in the UK, the Honda Civic Hybrid finished 73rd and the Toyota Prius 74th, .......the Range Rover Sport finished higher in the list. Top of the table was the Jeep Wrangler ........

This is based on a "dust to dust" analysis which measure the "carbon footprint" for the car and takes into account not only the fuel use and CO2 emissions but the energy costs of production and end of life costs.

Of course, the report mentions the different manufactruing technologies involved so we should anticipate improvements as the hybrid car technologies improve (super capacitors? see thread769-165886) but will it improve enough?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ewh]

Here in Texas, they drag their feet in making much needed road improvements, and are now strongly pushing private toll roads across the state to "alleviate" the situation. This will only force the poor to use roads which are much more crowded, in worse condition, and will allow for much slower travel due to the traffic lights and congestion (which will not be on the toll roads, of course). Meanwhile, private, foreign interests will be reaping the profits, and who knows where the tax monies will end up.

 

[bvanhiel]

jmw,

I'm not suprised that you are confused. Europe has plenty of incentive to keep cars small already. England may be different, since it's been more than a decade since I've been there, but I was recently in Switzerland and could probably count on one hand the number of full sized SUV's that I saw (a couple of Range Rovers and a Lexus). Do they even sell Suburban/Expedition/Navigator sized vehicles there? It seemed that 5-10% of cars were Smart cars or some other sub-sub-compacts. I don't think Smart cars are even legal to drive in the US. Several of the people that I met did not own cars. That just doesn't happen in the US.

I live in the Atlanta area, which is famous for it's lack of decent public transport and suburban sprawl. I can't seem to find statistics, but it seems like 1/3 or more of the vehicles on the road in Atlanta are SUV's.

In the US we have tried to force automakers to make more fuel efficient cars through CAFE regulations. There are also many safety standards that apply to passenger cars. SUV's are the loophole that the market has exploited because they can be classified as light trucks and hence the standards that apply to smaller vehicles to not apply to them. In essence regular passenger cars are penalized in the market.

I believe that it would be more effective to remove the CAFE constraints and simply tax gasoline to encourage the market to buy fuel efficient vehicles of their own accord.

As for what happens to the taxes after the government has them... Well I don't think that's any different here than there. They'll do whatever it is that we let them get away with. Probably a huge subsidy to Exxon-Mobile, but I'd like to think that it might be offset by income tax cuts.

-b

 

[ewh]

Atlanta is still MUCH better than other major suburban cities. While traffic congestion there is horrible, especially in the northern suburbs, MARTA is available to commute into and out of the city. Of course, how well it works for you depends on your location and your job location. While I lived there, it didn't help my work commute, but was excellent for travel to downtown events and to the airport and back.

 

[bvanhiel]

Atlanta usually ranks pretty high on the "worst cities to drive in" lists. Usually right behind LA, the perennial favorite. Marta only has two light rail lines: one north south and one east west. Unless both your home and your work are on a line you are out of luck, because the buses are never on time and they sit in the same traffic as the rest of the drivers. I happen to live in Cobb County, which has shut Marta out completely. I'd have to switch buses 3-4 times to make my 7 mile commute to work. They were afraid that Marta would bring crime into their neighborhoods. They were probably right, because nobody in Atlanta would waste their time with Marta unless they just flat out couldn't afford a car.

Atlanta just doesn't have the urban density to support a light rail system. A related, but different problem from SUV's.

 

[ewh]

Strange, I didn't feel that I was wasting my time, and I certainly had a nice car...
Point taken about the limited lines.

 

[moltenmetal]

A carbon tax dumped into general government revenues will definitely be a mess. Transit subsidy, investment in renewable electric generation infrastructure, cogen projects etc.- all will lose out in competition with schools and hospitals.

But a tax, even a misdirected one, can be counted on doing one thing effectively: detering wasteful consumption of the taxed commodity. It will do this even if 100% of the proceeds of the tax are "wasted" on frivolous things like schools and hospitals!

Road tolls etc. will work, but only if you tax ALL roads- and that's a logisical nightmare. Taxing some roads while leaving others "free" just creates two sets of roads: one for the rich, and one for everyone else. Tax fuel and you get a real consumption tax: consume more fuel and you pay more, regardless what road you drive on.

As to the poor's dependance on fossil fuel consumption: poverty is best dealt with by means of income subsidy rather than consumption subsidy. Let the poor decide what to spend their money on. Use the fuel tax to fund free, well-served and fast public transit, and the poor will overwhelmingly make use of this option.

 

[UcfSE]

bvanhiel and molten, why don't you two run for office since you have all the answers?

 

[bvanhiel]

ewh,

It's the buses that are the problem. I love the trains. They just don't take me (and most Atlantans) where I need to go. It's like a network, the more lines we have the more valuable each of them will be. Atlanta just doesn't have the density to motivate their construction.

UcfSE,

I might run for office when I retire. I'd like to see logic applied to solve problems rather than special interests dictating their terms to their pet politicians. Thank you for your support.

-b

 

[UcfSE]

Good luck if you do decide to run. Don't count on my support, though you knew that most likely.

 

[ewh]

I have to admit that I have never taken the bus in Atlanta.

 

[davefitz]

so, exactly what part of the SUV do you want to break?

 

[KENAT]

Or of more concern is that fact that apparently these rather large vehicles don't have the standard method of deceleration for motor vehicles. How do they stop? Would explain some of the driving I've seen from them though

 

[moltenmetal]

UcfSE: I'm suggesting solutions which I think have a hope of working. What are you suggesting as a solution, besides sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nyah nyah nyah I don't hear you! There's no problem! I can drive whatever I want to and you can't stop me! nyah nyah nyah..."

Put YOUR solutions on the table. Or keep your fingers in your ears and continue to live in denial- your choice.

 

[jmw]

We should never forget the law of unintended consequences.
Imposing yet more taxes on motorists is not a good idea.
In the modern society where cars are essential because they have erroded public transport and because people now work and live further away than before, we have a problem that will take more than single issue focus to solve.

For example, many of the less well off depend on their cars. Old cars. So taxes directed indiscriminately at all car users will impact most severely on the poorer owners of older cars.

EWH's point about toll roads is pertinent.
The one essential for operating a car is fuel.
The higher the fuel cost the less money there is for other things. Maintenance and insurance are early casualties. Paying fines is another. The statistics on all these aspects are alarming. More improtantly it is bring law into disrepute; it engenders an increasing attitude of deciding which laws to obey and which not. This is a very bad condition to introduce into a society.

A carbon tax? it will be paid by those who can afford to pay and not impact on use (e.g. the UK Chancellors changes to vehicle licencing are a joke. They just add to his revenue but are not designed to actually impact on choice.
For those who can't afford it, something else is scrificed.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[bvanhiel]

jmw,

In the US, the law of unintended consequences is what created the SUV (I'm referring to CAFE regulations). There will always be unintended consequences to any action, but I don't think inaction is the answer. I think the answer is to admit that the situation is different now and try something new.

I concur that taxing fuel would be a highly regressive tax, and that income tax would need to be ajusted to compensate.

A fuel tax would indeed put economic pressure on people to use less fuel. Housing values in the exurbs would go down and in the city go up. People who live near their jobs would see a net tax benefit, and those further away a tax burden. There would be renewed demand for telecommuting, public transportation, and live-work development. The upside is that we would use less fuel, live in a cleaner and safer environment, and not get jerked around by OPEC.

-b

 

[CajunCenturion]

I agree, it would be highly regressive, as it would almost imediately be inflationary. The price of everything would be raised because shipping and delivery costs across the board would be higher. Food cost goes up, medical costs go up, all goods and service costs will rise and those costs will be passed uniformly onto the consumer. Indeed, it would be highly regressive. The downsides to that move are huge.

I think a different approach to consider is something along the lines of a scaled vehicle registration cost. Just as insurance companies vary rates based on vehicle type, a registration scale could be established based on the vehicle type. The more expensive (not in terms of sticker price, but in terms of operational footprint) that a vehicle is, the higher the registration fee for that type of vehicle.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[UcfSE]

molten, you're not suggesting solutions. You're suggesting opinions. You're also posting very aggresively to anyone who contradicts your opinion. We're here to share ideas, not ram them down one another's throats. I don't need to pretend I have a solution to an environmental problem by posting on an engineering forum. I am suggesting you put your money where your mouth is, since you are so adamant about how good your idea is and how bad is every idea that doesn't agree with yours. In the end, this isn't the place for a heated environmental debate in which we are slinging opinions around like verified facts. You had your say, I had mine, let someone else post without fear of you once again restating your opinion. Answering a direct question is one thing, but you don't need to restate yourself each and every time someone else posts. Putting solutions on the table is not useful to anyone accept those who want to argue more since we have no way to evaluate them except by who can post more often and more aggressively.

Let's try to keep the maturity level up as well. You sound like an 8-year-old in the school yard.

 

[ewh]

I disagree with the statement that "Putting solutions on the table is not useful to anyone accept those who want to argue" in that providing a solution may give others pause to think it out, and point out the flaws as they find them. I found CajunCenturions suggestion of a vehicle registration scale to be quite worthy.

 

[bvanhiel]

CajunCenturion,

A registration fee would indeed discourage the purchase of inefficient vehicles. What it would not do is encourage the efficient use of those vehicles such as car pooling, shorter commutes, and the use of public transportation. When you pay a fee it is a sunk cost and there is no reason not to drive the tires off of it. If in the end what we hope to do is reduce fuel consumption, I think it would be better to attack the problem directly.

I agree that the cost of goods will increase because of increased transportation costs. Agricultural users are currently exempt from many fuel taxes now. One way to counteract the increase in prices would be to extend that privlidge to the transportation industry.

I still think a cleaner solution would be to make income tax more progressive to counteract the regressive nature of the fuel tax. The average taxpayer would get back more than they paid in fuel taxes, because of the contributions of the transportation industry. This would offset the increase in the cost of goods due to those contributions.

-b

 

[0707]

If I had a big ranch in Texas I would like to have a SUV car to drive freely in wild roads, in the city I suppose it is not practical because the problem of parking.

I suppose one can’t speak of SUV drivers Hybrid car drivers or “normal car drivers” all of them are just drivers and equally dangerous.

About SUV cars and global warming conferences, some times on the car park conferences we can see lots of ambient defenders SUV cars...