Drivers will not play a role in carbon law
The United States government is in the early stages of crafting the nation's first carbon cap-and-trade law. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a white paper detailing the scope of the carbon law and one thing is already very clear: drivers won't be regulated directly because there are just too many of us! You can read the entire 22 page white page pdf here. Transportation is discussed on page 13 of the white paper. Here is exactly how the white paper explains why regulating individual drivers won't work.
"Although this sector must be included in the cap, having a downstream point of regulation (i.e, the point were the emissions occur) is not workable. Owners or operators of vehicles, the sources that actually emit greenhouse gases is this sector, are too numerous to include in a cap-and-trade program."
Regulating the transportation sector's carbon emissions will probably work by estimating the contribution of individual drivers. The only question seems to be how much share of the cost of carbon to put on the gas and automobile industry. The white paper ends the transportation section saying "consumer demand is also an important piece of the puzzle that must be addressed."
Who do you think should pay for carbon pollution from cars? 100 percent of car's carbon pollution paid by the consumer? 50 percent paid by car industry and 50 percent gas industry? 33 percent car industry, 33 percent gas industry, and 33 percent consumer?
[Source: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
dhofmann 9:37AM (10/09/2007)
Just make it a tax at the point of sale, based on the weight of carbon in a unit of your fuel of choice.
Reply
Lascelles Linton 9:49AM (10/09/2007)
Dhofmann, 100 percent gas makers? Interesting. Probably the most accurate but the white paper says all contributers must be regulated. No one likes gas taxes so the auto industry will take some of it. We are also use to regulating the car industry; the white paper says CAFE should be a model for regulation. I think 33,33,33 is the fairest but it will probably be 70 auto makers, 30 gas and 0 driver.
Reply
Mort 9:51AM (10/09/2007)
Add in a Mercury and acid rain tax so solar and wind become attractive. Tax the crap out of coal and sulfurous oil.
Reply
rgseidl 10:47AM (10/09/2007)
The principle of the polluter pays still holds and, the polluter is the person driving the car. Refineries - a feasible point of cap-and-trade regulation for motor fuels - would have to raise fuel prices to recoup the cost. Same applies if the car makers and importers are regulated under cap-and-trade for the carbon emissions related to vehicle manufacture.
A far simpler - but politically more hazardous - approach is to leave motor vehicles out ofcap-and-trade altogether and just increase the tax on fuel while lowering general sales tax to compensate. Over time, consumers will "earn their tax cut" by switching to more efficient technology. This implies that lawmakers must anticipate a reduction in total revenue. The dedication of fuel tax revenue to road construction and/or maintenanance would have to be abandoned.
Reply
GreyFlcn 12:00PM (10/09/2007)
I'd be a lot easier just to do a cap-and-trade on the fuel.
Yes, that would raise the price, but isn't that whole point of doing it?
To raise the price of one set of technologies, and lower the price of another.
Reply
GreyFlcn 12:04PM (10/09/2007)
Frankly though,
Perhaps the BEST place to put a Cap-and-Trade mechanism would be in the hands of those who have the power to make a choice to change things.
In that respect, there should mechanism put on the cars themselves when they are sold.
That way car makers can choose to sell cleaner cars.
_
Not to mention, it would grandfather older cars quite well, which would be politically paletable.
Reply
kballs 12:39PM (10/09/2007)
If you put the cost on auto manufacturers and oil companies they will pass the cost and MORE (overhead) on to the consumer, so we'll all pay anyway. It's better to tax the fuel at point of sale. It gives consumers incentive to buy more efficient vehicles.
The tax wouldn't have to start sky high, you could ramp it up over time to give people more time to adjust, get more efficient vehicles, ride the bus/train more, telecommute more, etc.
Reply
dhofmann 1:23PM (10/09/2007)
If the car industry were to pay for carbon pollution (which they would then pass on to their customers), if I were to total my brand new car, would I get a prorated refund on the pollution it didn't emit during its short life?
Reply
GoodCheer 3:56PM (10/09/2007)
I think the point here has been made pretty well: It makes no difference who is charged the tax, it is the end-user that faces the increase in costs.
A carbon tax IS a gas tax, and there's no way around it. Drivers will pay more, unless they are driving professionally (taxis or truck drivers), in which case they, like the entities upstream of them, will pass the increase costs on to their customers.
The only mechanism that makes no sense is charging the auto-makers. If you did that, your new car price would include thousands in carbon tax which you would pay if you drive 1000 miles/year or 100,000 miles/year and whether you keep the car 2 weeks or 20 years. (I assume 2nd hand car sales would not be regulated).
Reply
jcwinnie 3:18PM (10/09/2007)
The dark cloud hanging over these comments, in fine print, is labelled Coal 22%.
The best way to effect such a big piece of the GHG pie is a carbon tax. (And, while that idea get murdered on the stage of Washington Theater, there at least could be some backbone installed in the Business Protection Agency, formerly known as the Environment Protection Agency, to place a moratorium on all new coal plants that fail to sufficiently evidence a reduction in carbon emissions).
Carbon cap-and-trade is Business As Usual and Above All Else and, while you are here at the same 37 years old CAFE, do you want bottled water with your baloney?
Reply
Lascelles Linton 4:18PM (10/09/2007)
GoodCheer, "The only mechanism that makes no sense is charging the auto-makers. If you did that, your new car price would include thousands in carbon tax which you would pay if you drive 1000 miles/year or 100,000 miles/year"
and that's what's going to happen. To defend the the unfair regulation that's coming to the car industry a little bit, they can innovate! You really can't make gas burn better or convince people taxes are good and drive less. Think about the poor politician that has to fund his next race? A complicated system for drivers or gas tax makes for bad headlines. Your car will get higher mileage and save you money is a good headline! Besides, the oil industry and drivers contribute more than the car industry. The car industry is low handing fruit :D Since when has the government ever done something because it's fair or accurate?
Reply
frank78 10:42PM (10/09/2007)
All taxes get paid by consumers via price increases. Just in case anyone forgot.
Reply
Frankenlogic 1:30PM (1/07/2008)
Just remember that the car companies and their lobbyists have had a stranglehold on the political process for far too long. They made the mess we're in by not innovating since 1984 and paying off enough politicians to effectively kill or neuter any legislation that would force them to improve fuel efficiency and emissions standards. Then they spent billions in advertising to woo us into all "needing" a suv or a sexy sports car. Face it, we consumers are easily manipulated. What we have is what they wanted us to have. We do have the ultimate responsibility, of course, but our choices have been whether to play russian roulette with a .38 caliber or a .357 and we didn't demand better. So we chose the gas guzzling suv instead of the gas guzzling sports coupe or the gas guzzling family sedan.
Now, how do we move forward? First thing is to tax the companies that cause the problem. Coal mining as well as coal power generation. The oil industry. The auto industry.
But the most important thing is for us consumers to demand energy efficiency and sustainability in all things we purchase. The big 3 would stop making gas guzzlers today if we all stopped buying them. Educate your fellow consumers that there is a better way and help them make a series of small changes.
Reply