For example, rather than taxing a Hummer, the Hummer could buy a credit from a Prius owner, or a Tesla owner.

In fact, I've proposed this idea as a way to encourage mass transit and bicycling.  In my opinion, drivers should be buying credits from me, because I bicycle and thus reduce pollution.  A bus rider could then get some "free rides" purchased for him via an Exchange on a state sponsored website by gas guzzlers.

Bicyclists could save or pool their credits to use the money for more bicycle trails and lanes and increased safety.

I like jabalio's idea as well, even though I fear it would become a logistical nightmare!


www.campusprogress.org

Why should someone buying a large SUV that drives it 2,000 miles/yr pay a de facto carbon tax higher than that paid by someone who buys a Prius and drives it 20,000 miles/yr?

The gasoline tax is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to CO2 emissions and is the best device to tax those emissions.

...very true, but then we'd haveta figure out how much every individual drove, how much gas mileage they got on each trip, etc.

It could work in principle, but to actually enact it would be a logistical and legislative (possibly judicial) challenge.

Could work if we required some sorta senor on all vehicles that'd calculate emissions per trip and then upload said data to the proper agencies.

Research has shown that consumers react far more to lump-sum purchase costs of the car, rather than changes in the incremental cost of the fuel, when making purchase decissions.

While it would be more "accurate", taxing fuel would be less effective, or require a much larger prohibitive cost before they take action.

Specifically though, the whole point of this legistlation isn't neccisary to stop bad driving.

It's to reduce the relative purchase cost of greener car technologies.

Technologies which would not be commercially competative otherwise.

-David Ahlport

Yes, a Prius that goes 20,000 miles may be like a Hummer that goes 2,0000 miles...but is that the point?   I mean, if the only point of a Prius is to encourage people to use it 10 times as much, then doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of the Prius with regard to husbanding resources?  

So, a tax on resources is not the right approach.   A tax on not using resources is.   A bicycle that does not use resources should be rewarded.

So, a tax on resources is not the right approach.   A tax on not using resources is.   A bicycle that does not use resources should be rewarded.

Thats what a tax on resources would achieve.

The "reward" is that you aren't paying the carbon cost associated with it.

And does "A tax on not using resources". Even make sense?  If you read that literally, you are asking to levy a tax against people who ride bicycles.

-David Ahlport

That is true. In order to receive value from a more-expensive commodity, they use it more, and they use it in more-liberal ways (in terms of cars, that would mean more-spirited driving).

What's missing from the article and Grist's report is that California used to have a 2% tax on vehicle license fees; the more your vehicle was worth, the more you paid to renew your license plate.  While there are a few exceptions -- notably hybrids -- the more expensive vehicles generally get worse fuel mileage and pollute more (they have bigger engines).  Governor Schwarzenegger, who Grist likes to commend for pro-environmental policies, repealed this generally environmentally friendly tax almost as soon as he took office.  The proposed plan would put money back into the state's coffers that was removed by his repeal of the vehicle license fee.

In addition to a much higher gasoline tax, heavily taxing the most polluting and gas guzzling vehicles should be also be done.  Ideally, these vehicles should not even be allowed to be produced, but until humans evolve enough to realize that the environment is far more important than petty personal freedoms, we can't realistically expect anything like that.