Global Warning/Climate Change

[RZehr]

So would you want to buy a “rural exempt” car that was prohibited from driving in or through any city? How would that work?

Maybe then the city cars would be prohibited from leaving city limits as well.

Why? Do they cause more pollution or damage in rural areas?

Robert is saying that since he doesn’t drive in areas with smog problems he shouldn’t have to deal with emissions restrictions. Well, OK, that would mean creating a separate class of cars that could only be operated in rural areas.

What would be the environmental argument for prohibiting clean cars from operating in rural areas?

And, in point of fact, the cleanest emissions cars are those that burn the least fuel. So they get higher mileage not lower mileage.

I’ll let any anti-regulation folks make that argument, and I imagine they would come up with something. But I would simply say that the proposed bifurcation would be received as an attack and a counter attack would be expected. It’s just a bad strategy. Because it’s a political matter.
California doesn’t plan to prohibit Texas plated, coal rolling vehicles from entering the state after 2035. Pennsylvania, with all its vehicle inspections, doesn’t prohibit Oregon plated vehicles from entering, in spite of Oregon having zero inspections.
The only thing similar that I know of, is some semi trucks are prohibited from entering certain ports unless they have clean emissions.

[Ken]

Maybe then the city cars would be prohibited from leaving city limits as well.

Why? Do they cause more pollution or damage in rural areas?

Robert is saying that since he doesn’t drive in areas with smog problems he shouldn’t have to deal with emissions restrictions. Well, OK, that would mean creating a separate class of cars that could only be operated in rural areas.

What would be the environmental argument for prohibiting clean cars from operating in rural areas?

And, in point of fact, the cleanest emissions cars are those that burn the least fuel. So they get higher mileage not lower mileage.

I’ll let any anti-regulation folks make that argument, and I imagine they would come up with something. But I would simply say that the proposed bifurcation would be received as an attack and a counter attack would be expected. It’s just a bad strategy. Because it’s a political matter.
California doesn’t plan to prohibit Texas plated, coal rolling vehicles from entering the state after 2035. Pennsylvania, with all its vehicle inspections, doesn’t prohibit Oregon plated vehicles from entering, in spite of Oregon having zero inspections.
The only thing similar that I know of, is some semi trucks are prohibited from entering certain ports unless they have clean emissions.

Yes but in all those instances you have to change your plates and pass emissions within 30 days of bringing your car into a new state. Robert was talking about being allowed to live and drive in Fresno with a higher polluting car because it wasn’t Los Angeles. The only way to accommodate multiple different emissions standards within a single state without compromising air pollution restrictions would be to restrict where the higher polluting vehicles could operate.

Or we can just sell and use cleaner cars everywhere.

[Neto]

If road taxes continue to only be paid through taxes on fuel purchases, then owners of electric vehicles will continue to use and damage roadways w/o contributing equally to their upkeep.
In a similar type issue, the Amish here in Holmes County voluntarily pay into the roadway upkeep fund. (Both steel wheels and horse shoes do a great deal of damage to paved surfaces.) But there are also many heavy trailers and tractors which are used in business operations (non-farming business, such as construction, tree services, etc.) and these "vehicles" and trailers are not licensed. So the burden of repairing the damage they cause to the road ways falls on those who have vehicles and trailers which are tagged. Some of these equipment owners may well be making voluntary payments, but that is not readily apparent, as it would be if they simply registered their trailers, and paid the fees any other owner would be required to pay.

[Neto]

Why? Do they cause more pollution or damage in rural areas?

Robert is saying that since he doesn’t drive in areas with smog problems he shouldn’t have to deal with emissions restrictions. Well, OK, that would mean creating a separate class of cars that could only be operated in rural areas.

What would be the environmental argument for prohibiting clean cars from operating in rural areas?

And, in point of fact, the cleanest emissions cars are those that burn the least fuel. So they get higher mileage not lower mileage.

I’ll let any anti-regulation folks make that argument, and I imagine they would come up with something. But I would simply say that the proposed bifurcation would be received as an attack and a counter attack would be expected. It’s just a bad strategy. Because it’s a political matter.
California doesn’t plan to prohibit Texas plated, coal rolling vehicles from entering the state after 2035. Pennsylvania, with all its vehicle inspections, doesn’t prohibit Oregon plated vehicles from entering, in spite of Oregon having zero inspections.
The only thing similar that I know of, is some semi trucks are prohibited from entering certain ports unless they have clean emissions.

Yes but in all those instances you have to change your plates and pass emissions within 30 days of bringing your car into a new state. Robert was talking about being allowed to live and drive in Fresno with a higher polluting car because it wasn’t Los Angeles. The only way to accommodate multiple different emissions standards within a single state without compromising air pollution restrictions would be to restrict where the higher polluting vehicles could operate.

Or we can just sell and use cleaner cars everywhere.

You might be "blaming" Robert for something I said, but if so, I wasn't advocating that. Besides, a passenger vehicle is generally used predominantly in and around the area of residence. People just driving through or visiting an area are not the primary users of the roadways.

[ken_sylvania]

And, in point of fact, the cleanest emissions cars are those that burn the least fuel. So they get higher mileage not lower mileage.

The federally mandated emissions controls on semi trucks have resulted in lower miles per gallon, not higher. So we now pay tens of thousands more for the truck, then burn an extra 30,000 gallons of fuel (adding $100k to $150k in fuel costs) by the time the truck gets to the 1 million mile mark (in addition to thousands extra in maintenance costs) and you call it progress and celebrate the positive environmental impact. Oh yes, and in addition because of the weight of the emissions control system the truck is heavier and so can carry 2-3% less product while the operating costs remain the same, meaning for every 100 trucks there are now an extra 2-3 trucks required.

[Josh]

Better to have one big high-efficiency coal power plant than hundreds of thousands of internal combustion engines idling away in the city, many of them old and poorly maintained.

Doesn't your state have smog checks / emissions checks? There is no allowance for "old and poorly maintained" (unless someone is driving without a registration).

[Josh]

So would you want to buy a “rural exempt” car that was prohibited from driving in or through any city? How would that work?

Maybe then the city cars would be prohibited from leaving city limits as well.

Now we're talking.

[Josh]

If road taxes continue to only be paid through taxes on fuel purchases, then owners of electric vehicles will continue to use and damage roadways w/o contributing equally to their upkeep.
In a similar type issue, the Amish here in Holmes County voluntarily pay into the roadway upkeep fund. (Both steel wheels and horse shoes do a great deal of damage to paved surfaces.) But there are also many heavy trailers and tractors which are used in business operations (non-farming business, such as construction, tree services, etc.) and these "vehicles" and trailers are not licensed. So the burden of repairing the damage they cause to the road ways falls on those who have vehicles and trailers which are tagged. Some of these equipment owners may well be making voluntary payments, but that is not readily apparent, as it would be if they simply registered their trailers, and paid the fees any other owner would be required to pay.

Ohio surcharges EVs an extra $100/yr because they are not paying fuel road taxes, and (currently) no additional tax is imposed on electric car charging.

[Ken]

Better to have one big high-efficiency coal power plant than hundreds of thousands of internal combustion engines idling away in the city, many of them old and poorly maintained.

Doesn't your state have smog checks / emissions checks? There is no allowance for "old and poorly maintained" (unless someone is driving without a registration).

Mine does. But apparently not OR according to RZehr. But even cars that meet emissions standards pollute more in aggregate than a coal fired powerplant producing the same amount of energy.

[Ken]

If road taxes continue to only be paid through taxes on fuel purchases, then owners of electric vehicles will continue to use and damage roadways w/o contributing equally to their upkeep.
In a similar type issue, the Amish here in Holmes County voluntarily pay into the roadway upkeep fund. (Both steel wheels and horse shoes do a great deal of damage to paved surfaces.) But there are also many heavy trailers and tractors which are used in business operations (non-farming business, such as construction, tree services, etc.) and these "vehicles" and trailers are not licensed. So the burden of repairing the damage they cause to the road ways falls on those who have vehicles and trailers which are tagged. Some of these equipment owners may well be making voluntary payments, but that is not readily apparent, as it would be if they simply registered their trailers, and paid the fees any other owner would be required to pay.

Ohio surcharges EVs an extra $100/yr because they are not paying fuel road taxes, and (currently) no additional tax is imposed on electric car charging.

WA also charges a surcharge for both electric and hybrid vehicles.