04-02-2007, 02:13 PM | #1 | |
195
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24,636
|
Supreme Court rules EPA must take action on CO2
Interesting decision, available here.
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...05-1120All.pdf One thing that struck me, though, was this paragraph: Quote:
|
|
04-02-2007, 02:21 PM | #2 | |
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 13,514
|
Quote:
*snicker* |
|
04-02-2007, 02:48 PM | #3 | |
•••••••
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: '11 1M
Location: Churzee
Posts: 17,741
|
Quote:
__________________
2011 1M |
|
04-02-2007, 10:07 PM | #4 |
Western Anomaly
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: White Orca
Posts: 16,651
|
autos pay the most proximal cost, but it sounds like lots of other unregulated industries will be under scrutiny, too.
i've got to say, without knowing the details, i'm sort of in support of it if builds the same tax structure as there is in the UK for vehicles and CO2 emissions taxes.
__________________
|
04-03-2007, 12:11 PM | #5 |
The user formerly known as rwg
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: Z4
Location: Vegas baby!
Posts: 8,261
|
Can you please explain to me why you think taxing displacement makes sense? Gas consumption, fine. Horse power even, fine, if you are trying to engineer society. Displacement? So a more efficient larger engine for a particular car is penalized? I don't get it.
|
04-03-2007, 12:30 PM | #6 |
•••••••
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: '11 1M
Location: Churzee
Posts: 17,741
|
Pushrod and leaf spring tax!
__________________
2011 1M |
04-03-2007, 12:49 PM | #7 |
The user formerly known as rwg
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: Z4
Location: Vegas baby!
Posts: 8,261
|
It's not just pushrods (although the Corvette highway mileage is a good example). Didn't the 330 get better mileage then the 325 in the e46, for example? And they got rid of the 2.5 litre engine b/c it wouldn't meet emissions standards. You want to tax the ability to meet the emissions standards? I just don't understand the reasoning for a displacement tax when your goal is reduced fuel use.
|
04-03-2007, 03:55 PM | #8 |
Carmudgeon
Join Date: Jul 2004
Carmudgeonly Ride: Invalid Carriage
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,932
|
Taxes on CCs are the work of certain oversea legislatures that quite frankly don't know that much about cars. The Nissan 3.7 V6 is more fuel-efficient than the 3.5, for example.
Gas tax will never be passed, even though everyone claims lowering our ever-increasing gasoline consumption is in our best interests. |
04-03-2007, 07:01 PM | #9 |
Western Anomaly
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: White Orca
Posts: 16,651
|
it's not displacement per se, it's how many kilos of CO2 per year that is taxed, in addition to displacement and fuel efficiency. all three are taxed.
__________________
|
04-03-2007, 07:56 PM | #10 |
The user formerly known as rwg
Join Date: Oct 2003
Carmudgeonly Ride: Z4
Location: Vegas baby!
Posts: 8,261
|
Oh, that makes much more sense, then. /sarcasm
Edit: If the goal is CO2 emissions, fine, tax that. If it's gas mileage, fine. Tax that. Don't add something completely nonsensical like displacement. |
Bookmarks |
|
|