Filed under: Legislation and Policy, USA
$2,500 "gas guzzler fee" bill pulled from California's assembly amid opposition
California Assemblyman, Ira Ruskin has withdrawn a bill that would have put a one-time fee of $2,500 on the sale price of new gas guzzlers. If it made it into law, it would have been American's first feebate law, which would also provide a rebate of $2,500 for green cars. Ira has tried to enact a similar bill into law with even with considerable industry opposition. He says he will try again but, for now, his California Clean Car Discount Act is dead in the water. California is not alone: very little will be asked of individuals on the national level as well even though studies show feebates work. Related:
[Source: Contra Costa Times]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mike 6:03PM (1/30/2008)
The Stink of Oil.
Car Companies should be able to build any kind of car with any kind of engine. Like, for example, BMW with 6 engines in the BMW One.
It should not be the Auto Industry's Concern what size of engine, or size of car I purchase.
Reply
Wildgoosechase 11:03PM (1/30/2008)
This is in fact a brilliant plan to regulate CO2 emmisions without wasting precious state resources on lawsuits.
Reply
Paul 1:31AM (1/31/2008)
This sort of stuff stinks. Does anyone NOT think that $3 a gallon gas is enough to move people in the direction of higher MPG vehicles?
While I love the idea of more efficient autos I detest the goverment trying to force their idea of whats best for me down my throat.
If they want to spend money like that they should just remove barriers with it if they must spend tax dollars on initiatives like this. They should offer a break for gas stations to add diesel or E85 to their pumps or something.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 5:17AM (1/31/2008)
No $3 gas is not high enough to chnage peoples habits. $5 gas will start to have an impact. $8 gas will cause a dramitic shift. The problem is that when left simply to market forces, the change may not be gradual but can be very abrupt. In '79 the cost of oil tripled almost overnight.
I would much rather see the gov't make incremental increases in the gas tax over a long period of time. THat would give people years to replace vehicles, find jobs closer to home, or whatever other lifestyle changes tehy need to make to deal with higher fuel costs.
A sudden tripling in price that catches everyone by surprise causes a lot of serious problems and makes the transition much more difficult. It's hard to find that job closer to home if the country is in a deep recession caused by an oil price shock. It's hard to buy a more fuel efficient car if you're laid off and can't make your mortgage payments.
We know that the cheap oil is running out, it's not a question of if, it's question of when.
Reply
jdcheng 4:53PM (1/31/2008)
With Americans deciding to live farther away from work and live a car-intensive lifestyle, all this will be able to do is reduce the level of CO2 increases we see - but not reduce CO2 production overall.
I mean, sure - we can force the production and purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles, but all of that will be offset if relatively cheap gasoline allows ever-higher increases in miles driven.
It'll take a more focused look at how we live to really create a reduction in CO2 production - and probably something that no politician will dare to do - namely a carbon tax.
Reply
USCA 3:19PM (2/01/2008)
$3 a gallon gas only hurts the poor. Middle Americans that only drive 5000 miles a year will still buy their F150's and large SUV's. Gas will have to go to European levels before you see a huge market shift to green small cars. I don't understand the mind set that bigger is better but a large number of American's have it.
Reply