Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
777 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey all,

Do car companies pay a tax on each car they make that is powered by fossil fuels, and if not, why not?

Surely a cost per vehicle will make them move to EVs faster, as to not bankrupt themselves.
Not talking a small tax sum either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
They pay tax on profits. It is easy to bias what production results in those profits so that would be a difficult route to police. Adding tax or incentives at point of sale is the easiest to account for which should create the demand. When it fails to, measures like those the CRB have used like Zero Emissions Mandate force a percentage of sales to be EV. This has led to compliance cars only sold in California.
Taxing production can only be done by the country where the manufacturer resides, so it would not be a level playing field across brands, and the government would be penalizing indigenous industry at the expense of foreign competition, so they would not do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
More stringent emissions regulation is the most justifiable and effective measure in my view. If the only way they can meet them is with plug-in vehicles, then that is what they will force on their customers. It would be universal across brands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,066 Posts
Remember too that all the ideas of adding tax/etc are great in theory but there isn't some magic well of unlimited money somewhere just because it says ev on the side. They don't fit in with many people's use at the moment and that coupled with daft pricing is why take up is so low. Start pushing heavier tax on makers and they will pass it on to customers. At some point they will just stay in their old cars longer because changing costs outweigh repair costs.
Ideally there should be some kind of measures to help promote cheaper clean cars - ev or phev or whatever that may be. That's where the government grant idea came from but then makers saw a chance and just bumped the list price so the buyer doesn't see the benefit but they do.
There is a natural market for ev's because really who wants to drive something noisy, awkward and outdated while killing the planet on a daily basis? Trouble is at the moment makers greed is really holding that back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,161 Posts
This has led to compliance cars only sold in California.

To prevent this all California has to do is reword the rules.
Tell manufacturers that they must show evidence of selling, target numbers, of their EV's in other jurisdictions.

Problem solved. If they choose not to sell motorcars in Cali then that's their decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Most ev's are powered by fossil fuels at the moment so bit early to get all preachey.
I can never understand this response.

- If your electricity was 100% fossil fuel it is still much better to run an EV on that electricity than to use ICE as the EV is more efficient. I dont know the exact figures but itsnt it something like 30% vs 90%?

So, what difference does it make if the electricity is fossil fuel generated. Its still much better.
Its then up to the government to move to renewable energy.

- There is the obvious emissions issue from an ICE in a city. A EV has non at the point of use. Yes, it happens at the power plant instead, but the power plant is more efficient at reducing those emissions than an ICE is so again EV is better here.

- If you charge off-peak you will also be much more likely to be using a greater % of renewable energy or simply choose a renewable energy supplier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,564 Posts
The fixation over burning fossil fuels, demonising CO2 , and trying to 'save the planet' from something that isn't a threat in the first place, is wrong headed. The problem is not CO2 at all, which isn't a polluter ; it's a natural part of our air and is plant food. It should be about particulates and air pollution by the noxious bi-products of burning hydrocarbons. Moving the generation of power to places where that pollution can be better controlled, and then driving in cities with zero pollution being thrown out is where it needs to go. I really wish that the political war on CO2 was replaced by a legitimate war on pollutants. If the government got behind that aspect and introduced more of the stick instead of the carrot the move to EVs would be more rapid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
I suggest that the simplest way to deter the manufacture of vehicles driven by fossil fuels is to effectively price them out of the market. In the UK for a time that was via the road fuel escalator,(horrible name) . For petty party reasons that was abandoned to buy votes, even though the rise in pump prices was persuading buyers to buy more economical and 'cleaner' cars.
It seems that we will have to rely on individual city managers to ban polluting cars on an ad hoc basis. And keep taking the Government to court over its failure to act.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,966 Posts
The fixation over burning fossil fuels, demonising CO2 , and trying to 'save the planet' from something that isn't a threat in the first place, is wrong headed. The problem is not CO2 at all, which isn't a polluter ; it's a natural part of our air and is plant food...
Hmm, imagine it's 1800. if I were to propose doing an experiment where I simply pump CO2 (ignore where that comes from for now) into the atmosphere in order to improve crop yields, and attempt to double the levels of CO2, I'd be laughed at as a madman.

"What right do you have to do an uncontrolled experiment like that? You'll be affecting every nation on the Earth! What if you alter air temperatures? What if you acidify the ocean? You're bonkers, it's far too dangerous. How do you reverse it if something starts going wrong? (echoes of CFCs here...)"

Somehow, that's exactly what we're doing. And yes, the idea of doing an experiment like this on a global scale is bonkers. And the only way to stop this experiment, (which might in fact be beneficial on a global scale, but who knows?) is to stop producing so much CO2. Cue renewables, nuclear etc electricity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,564 Posts
Hmm, imagine it's 1800. if I were to propose doing an experiment where I simply pump CO2 (ignore where that comes from for now) into the atmosphere in order to improve crop yields, and attempt to double the levels of CO2, I'd be laughed at as a madman.
All such ideas go through three stages. First you are laughed at. Then you are ridiculed. Then they claim that what you said was self evident all the time. We are presently at stage two.

The CO2 debate is well off topic but even basic research will show that the present political stance isn't supported by the science. It is based on the false claim of 97% consensus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,066 Posts
All such ideas go through three stages. First you are laughed at. Then you are ridiculed. Then they claim that what you said was self evident all the time. We are presently at stage two.

The CO2 debate is well off topic but even basic research will show that the present political stance isn't supported by the science. It is based on the false claim of 97% consensus.
CO2 is and always was a big red herring which was advertised as the bad guy because it's easy to apply tax to. There are far worse things coming out of pretty much any ice exhaust all the time but they are much harder to pin down as they have less to do with fuel used and more to do with combustion conditions and after treatment. That means some pollutants which are particularly nasty are ignored because it's politically hard to point out a Clio diesel is more harmful from certain aspects than a V8 range rover.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,505 Posts
Gone off topic here but too much CO2 is a pollutant in as much as could lead to destruction of all life on this planet. Look at Venus for the end game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
The best there is at what I do
Joined
·
10,520 Posts
I believe the Road Fund License is being set to discourage people from buying the worst polluting cars so the government doesn't have to directly tax big businesses, as sales decrease the businesses will produce whatever is the flavour of the month.

Having a better taxation class doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best option, remember how everyone was once encouraged to buy diesels, not doing that now are they,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
I believe the Road Fund License is being set to discourage people from buying the worst polluting cars so the government doesn't have to directly tax big businesses, as sales decrease the businesses will produce whatever is the flavour of the month.

Having a better taxation class doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best option, remember how everyone was once encouraged to buy diesels, not doing that now are they,
I suggest that it is important that any action is consistent and from multi angles, with a willingness to modify a policy if found failing. It was a change in company car rates that changed the demand from 2.2 litre engines to 1.8 litre in a short period. Careful changes in Taxation can have quite large and predictable results, for both good and bad .
Adjustments to Vehicle Taxation should almost certainly persuade Manufacturers to change their product quite rapidly as the demand changes.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
9,719 Posts
The concentrations you are talking about are many of orders of magnitude different, we would have all suffocated long before CO2 levels reach anything like on Venus. If you want to make hyperbolic statements make sensible ones.

Venus:
The mass of its atmosphere is 93 times that of Earth's, whereas the pressure at its surface is about 92 times that at Earth's—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometre under Earth's oceans.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,066 Posts
Gone off topic here but too much CO2 is a pollutant in as much as could lead to destruction of all life on this planet. Look at Venus for the end game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By that measure you could pick any of the gasses in the world and at some concentration it becomes life limiting.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top