I think that these types of laws are certainly the way to
go in all countries , my only reservation is that all moneys
raised should be put good use in ways that directly lower
carbon and pollution output , ie networks of dedicated cycleways
away from main roads and linking communitys together.
Too much "green tax " is frittered away by local authorities
when it should be going to improve the lives of all !

It's too bad these governments ding the buyers when the auto companies really could meet the standards. The auto group should put the money into R & D instead of paying lawyers and lobbyist to fight the regulations and ad companies to spin the truth.

This is a move in the right direction, but all vehicles below 25 mpg should qualify for this progressive carbon type tax.

I would also agree to make vehicles with 35+ pmg, purchase tax and penalty free + a special progressive credit or subsidy for vehicles above 45 or 50 mph. The total program could be revenue neutral.

Applied nationally, this would make CAFE obsolete and non-required. Manufacturers would have to do better if they want to sell. They would quickly develop flex fuel Hybrids and PHEVs capable of 50+ pmh.

Such a tax would unfortunately a) never pass in the United States, and b) be devastating to the millions of working-class residents who commute every day via car. There does NOT exist throughout the US the sort of mass-transit infrastructure that does in Europe or Japan: we need cars to get around cheaply. In addition, the poorest residents tend to be the most polluting in terms of transit. Here in California, for instance, older and more polluting cars are all the more cheaper because they are less likely to pass the state's stringent smog requirements. As a result there are added expenses to getting your car to pass smog, and any further ones to an inefficient car would make transportation impossible for some and in turn have far-reaching economic consequences. In addition, transportation accounts for a smaller fraction of carbon emissions than home electricity use, and a tax on homes that use the most carbon seems as if would be much more effective at reducing GHGs and economically sound.

The post calls it a "car property tax." Are light trucks included? It would be very inflationary to put this tax on the pickup trucks used by your plumber, carpenter, electrician, etc. And these people couldn't just get a Prius. The stuff they haul around weighs more than a Prius. But if the tax doesn't apply to SUVs then the perverse effect would be to push people away from cars, as CAFE standards did two decades ago. A vehicle property tax could have a positive effect, but the devil really is in the details.

Raising the gas tax would be more fair, and much cheaper to implement. But of course it wouldn't be popular, and the auto, ethanol, and farm lobbies would fight like tigers to prevent it.

instead of taxing gas you could nail guzzler vehicles at registration. A component of vehicle registration could consider the fuel economy of the vehicle as well as emissions. Vehicles with poor fuel economy/emissions (as a class, not per vehicle) would pay much higher registration costs. You'd need stiff penalties for registering in another state.

Taxing gas is the easiest way to go, but it will increase the cost of many other goods and services. If we stay on the trajectory we're on with fuel prices a lot of this will not be necessary.

I'm all for gasoline tax - you need to tax consumption. If someone buys a truck, and only uses it when necessary - say, towing trailers, and they have a compact or a bicycle for every day commuting, they're being responsible, so they should be taxed less.

And I don't care about businesses having to pay more either. If you buy more stuff, you use more of resources, so again, you pay more. If the retailer has to increase price of the products due to gas, then so be it - it'll reduce consumption on that end as well - people need to think more before they buy something, they buy less stuff, so less fuel is wasted trucking around stuff people don't really need.

I favor the purchaser of any vehicle that is not commercially registered, having excess weight and poor mileage paying an up front tax when the vehicle is purchased and then increased registration fees every year that the vehicle is in service.

For example, if someone purchased a Ford Expedition or Excursion and they have no commercial reason to do so, they would pay a fee of 20% of the purchase price and 3x the normal registration fee for a vehicle of that price. That money would go to promote clean and fuel efficient vehicle purchases. (Feebate)

If someone had a vehicle for everyday driving and they bought an SUV or truck just to tow a trailer or similar infrequent usage purpose it would be quite easy for them to incorporate as a business and then license that vehicle under the business to avoid the added taxes. The increased insurance for a commercial vehicle is negligible if the miles the vehicle is used for are shown to be extremely low (one weekend a month, for instance).

Easier to get around that registration tax and initial purchase tax than to get around a usage tax on gasoline.

The poor with long commutes? Increased subsidized housing closer to areas of work or how about "gas stamps" like food stamps...you report a low income on your tax forms and are alloted gas credits based on the annual mileage you have reported during your emissions/safety inspections (they check the odometer from year to year and give you a receipt). If you don't do your emissions tests and register your vehicle like a good citizen, then you can't get the "gas stamps".

Local vehicle taxes based upon efficiency or consumption or emissions are a bad idea simply because they duplicate what the federal or state governments already do - or at least should be doing.

Our problems with fossil fuels and emissions are not local. They affect diplomacy and military actions. They affect our currency and general prosperity. Handling these problems is not why you have a mayor.

There is just no reason why your city government should be given more money because those problems exist. It will not improve anything except paychecks at city hall.

The federal government should be doing more with CAFE, emission controls, and as needed additional fuel taxes.

States are forming alliances to adopt the California model because the feds don't do much. State agreements are less desirable than uniform national policies but they are certainly better than varying rules for each city and town and county.

A tax is a tax, and politicians will spend its proceeds on what ever nonsense they think they can buy votes and campaign contributions with. That is the way the world works. Get used to it.

A tax based on MPG seems problematic with the advent of alternative biofuels. Does the EPA rate flex vehicles according to fuel type? What if you change fuels or fuel blends during the course of ownership? (likely in ethanol States.)

The taxes if used would be better applied to fuel type - with lower to zero taxes for the cleanest fuels (measured by a standard assay of pollutants per EPA.