Will global warming stickers on cars help?
Will consumers care?If you live in California, the next time you go car shopping you might see a different sticker on your car of choice called an Environmental Performance sticker. Showing both a smog score and a global warming score based on EPA data, California lawmakers hope it will influence consumers to buy greener vehicles.
Can a sticker make consumers buy greener cars?
Labels: global warming
posted by Dahcredyns at
7:06 AM
9 Comments:
I doubt it...the majority of people in the US don't care much about anything except themselves...
A simple sticker won't do squat to change the minds of morons and idiots if you ask me.
People who do care don't need stickers anyway...they've already got the understanding and brains to research themselves, figure it out, and have the right morals to do something about it...and all that without having idiots like Hagee preaching to us telling us all the bullshit he usually does.
What I think CA needs to do is copy what Spain has done. Tie the Vehicle License Fee to CO2 emissions.
Here is what Spain has done, according to this posting:
"Spain's Registration Tax (also called "Inmatriculation") might be the reason. This tax is paid when purchasing a new vehicle. It changed on January 1st and became dependent on CO2 emission levels, encouraging cleaner vehicle purchases. The new rate is zero percent for cars producing less than 120 g/km, 4.75 percent for cars between 121 and 160 g/km, 9.75 percent between 161 and 200 g/km and 14.75 percent if the vehicle produces more than 201 g/km of CO2."
Just like Al Gore is proposing REPLACING payroll taxes with a Carbon Tax that is revenue neutral, CA could REPLACE the Vehicle License Fee with a CO2 fee. PZEV vehicles will pay less, and huge polluters, older cars maybe, will pay more.
Spain has seen big drops in high polluters over the last year. And it isn't just a correlation with gas mileage. As the post points out, SUV have dropped less than polluting sedans. So, if someone just needs a sedan, they are making smarter choices about which one to buy.
The other thing that I would like to see are not ambiguous ratings, but hard numbers of g CO2/mile. Scales from 1-10 without the hard pollution numbers are not convincing in my book.
Darn, can anyone fix my href hyperlink. It looked good in the preview, but not in the actual comment, as you can see.
Also, I am reading more and more about CO2 limits in Europe. I know that CA sued the EPA to allow them to regulate CO2 emissions. Could that EPA court case be the reason that CA is proposing such a global warming sticker? Taxing or setting fees based upon CO2 emissions may be a form of regulation under review in that case.
Anyone know that status of that case?
I'm not sure that we could pass such legislation. And to be honest, if we would start heading down such a path I'd prefer to keep it simpler, such as with a gas tax, which I think would be more effective in terms of influencing consumer behavior and in driving revenue, assuming the extra money would be used to fund more efficient technology, etc.
re: CA CO2 emissions, I don't think the EPA has yet granted California the waiver, even though the Supreme Court essentially ruled in a manner that made most observers think the EPA had no choice but to grant the waiver. thus, CA has sued the EPA, and there has been an investigation by Congress to determine if the White House influenced the EPA in any unacceptable way.
Nonetheless, even if the waiver is granted, it is already being challenged in other courts, so its possible that even if granted, there could still be further delays.
Excellent news on the Supreme Court ruling. I thought I had heard they had ruled in CA favor. In any case, any delays will not extend beyond Jan 21, 2009!!
How do you envision a green tax? CA or federal? Carbon Tax or something else?
noz-
I think global warming stickers will help a little, but overall, I doubt they will do much.
I also wonder if global warming is the right 'front'. Many Americans are against the idea. Even in Japan, where global warming is accepted, most Japanese don't want to have to pay much to help change according to the latest polls and there is growing pushback in Europe as well.
Foreign oil dependency. Job creation. I think these issues would be better ways to sell a plan that would be just as focused on global warming emission reductions, but without making it such a focal point.
America needs a Manhatten project focus regarding energy, but I think if such a plan is marketed largely via global warming, there will never be enough support, at least not in the short term.
alcatholic-
i don't know that i favor any specific carbon taxes, yet, at least at the individual level. i suggested the gas tax because it seems the simplest and most effective, in terms of the automobile.
ultimately, as i replied to noz, i think we need a manhatten project to become oil independent. we need a vision and a goal, but I don't believe that goal can be driven by carbon neutrality - i just don't think it will sell.
also, they are building roads in India and China as fast as they can. in another decade, two at the latest, these countries will have driving cultures very similar to america and europe. and when you consider the amount of people in these countries, that kind of growth isn't sustainable even if global warming wasn't an issue.
technology will be the only solution to these markets in the very near term. i mean think of america gas guzzling today times 10. it simply isn't sustainable.
america should seek to become oil independent, especially in terms of the automobile, because it will save trillions in military expenses and thus pay for itself, plus it will provide high tech jobs to americans coupled with the products that the rest of the world will desperately need, thereby strengthening our economy.
energy independence, achieved via ever reduced oil dependence, is america's golden opportunity, but we're too small minded and polarized to see it.
Post a Comment
<< Home