.

California’s global warming legislation requires...

LOL! California lawmakers are the laughing stock of the world. California became the eight largest economy by encouraging people and businesses to locate there. Now they've legislated, regulated, and spent themselves into bankruptcy. So what is the solution: California decides, based on the false Globalwarmism religion (what ever happened to separation of church and state?!?), to drive even more businesses out of the state by jacking costs up to please one religion.

Once again, is is proven that liberalism/socialism doesn't work. Good luck California tax payers! You work for the state now. The Great Experiment of letting states show what does and doesn't work... works!

Praise be unto Algore!

.

http://www.rfid-ready.com/20090221824/transportation/enigma-launches-new-rfid-tagging-systems-for-drivers-and-passengers.html

With the advent of new vehicle tracking technology, California will be able to monitor all vehicle traffic and demand VMT taxes for those who drive too much. Suggestions that a VMT cap of 7500 miles seem reasonable. If you want to drive more than that you will have to buy VMT credits or simply take a bus. Most likely the VMT Department that will arise to administer this will also issue travel permits to destinations on the approved list.

It would be easier and much simpler to use extra fuel tax to have all users pay for overuse of highways, roads and streets. Fuel tax has a direct relationship with GHG emitted by every vehicle. It could be applied progressively and be limited to an extra $0.50/gal/year not to over-upset the economy. It should have started in 1974.

Tax credits or partial refunds could compensate low wage earners and users with higher fuel economy vehicles.

Fuel tax is the easiest tool, but it's too easy for governments to it use to excess beyond what is fair and reasonable.

The UK has done this, and has gone far beyond the levels of duty that would have long ago persuaded the majoprity of the driving population to buy the most efficient sized vehicle. The government is out there to get the very minority that have so called gas-guzzlers and hurt the general public in the process with gas prices which is taxed by over 300%.

The fuel protests of 2000 brought this into check. But now we have another annual stealth tax based on CO2 emissions. The fairness of this apporoach is brought sharply into check when comparing between:

- a large but low income family which owns larger car but only use it occasioinaly, say for 5000 miles. They get clobbered £400 ($700) but generate less carbon than;

- the single suburbanite who has a smaller car and uses it to get just about everywhere, say 20,000 miles, and only has to, say pay £100 ($160), even though his carbon footprint is probably more than double the family, and many times over the net footprint per family member.

Then we get "right-on" local authorities such as Richmond-upon-Thames who have a ridiculous scheme to charge for resident permits and public parking based on Co2 emissions - so that tells me that people get hammered also because they are not using their cars like the government has asked us to? Which way really to we turn without ending up being taxed to death?

disproportionately more than the single suburbanite who drives absolutely everywhere to go to work 30 miles away and so on.

Scott:

You described an unfair carbon tax or vehicle tax.

A fuel tax is fairer because you pay as you use.

Low wage earners could be compensated with tax credits.

Fuel taxes should go into a restricted transportation fund. This fund could be used to:

1- improve electrified public transportation.

2- improve highways, roads and streets.

3- accellerate the transition to electrified vehicles.