Oh wow, I didn't even read the text of this initiative that closely.
Cheers everyone, we're (hopefully) getting a discount on our tabs!
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Initiative 976
- Thread starter N8DGR8
- Start date
Cheers everyone, we're (hopefully) getting a discount on our tabs!
DustWindDude
Member
But this particular section refers specifically to fees for EVs. The standard $30 tab fee is already referenced in another part of the RCW. If the intent of this initiative is to set the fee at $30 for any passenger vehicle, this entire section should have been stricken. This initiative is too ambiguous and very poorly written. This is one of the reasons it is likely to get scrapped by the courts.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I think that's unlikely. The intent could not be more clear. $30 for registration for vehicles <10k lbs. It's not like this initiative barely passed. It passed by a 10 pt margin. The WA AG is also required by law to defend the initiative. My bet would be that the EV fee is scrapped. Hopefully they look to raising the tax on fools fuel to fill the funding gap. Once EVs are >80% of cars they can start introducing a per mile fee or something...
There would be a lot more people against raising gas tax than EV fees. And the implications of higher gas tax have bigger ripple effects than EV fees. It’s flawed thinking that squeezing out gas vehicles with rising taxes is a good idea. That will simply transfer to higher cost of other products and not make that great of and impact in reducing gas cars. Show me an EV that can pull a 20k work trailer on weekdays and 15k RV on the weekends. Heck if it wasn’t for Tesla there is no way I’d even consider the stupid looking EVs out there.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
In todays climate (no pun intended) a higher fee on fools fuel would probably receive more support in WA than a higher fee on EVs. Even if there was more support for an EV tax the reality is that we need to be kicking our pathetic addiction to fools fuel and a tax on EVs isn't going to help.
Electric trucks are coming... do you think there would be more or less interest in building them if the cost advantage was diminished?
I agree that electric trucks are coming and I look forward to that. Not because they’ll magically fix all our problems, but when the technology matures enough, they’ll be more superior than ICE. But I don’t see that happening in the next decade. At least not where they’ll make more sense then the current gas/diesel offerings. A true shift to EVs will happen when they start making more economic sense for buyers than ICE (Model 3 and Tesla’s supercharger network come to mind). Punishing people to force to buy something they don’t want or can’t afford by raising gas taxes is not the answer in my opinion.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??????
A fee on fools fuel that better reflects the damage it's doing is one way for EVs to make more economic sense.....
I would prefer something like a 5% tax on equities trades >$1M to pay for a $10k upfront credit on the purchase of an EV and better public transit to make it easier on low/middle income people but I'm not picky....
When the time comes where battery technology is cheaper and more advanced, EVs will naturally start overselling ICE. Money for subsiding them goes so far, when the current EV offerings are laughable at best (again, besides Tesla to some degree) and don’t fit everyone’s lifestyle due to range or charging options. There is no need to shove them down peoples throats prematurely, that strategy always backfires. It’s a slow process and I think Tesla is at the start of it. That’s why I buy as much of their stock as I can
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's just a technological problem. The LAMEs (Legacy Auto Manufacturing Enterprises) peddle their POSs because they can. Why cannibalize a profitable product for long-term profit? We don't have time for this to work itself out 'naturally'.
Another option would be a punitive fee at the point of sale for new ICE. This would spare the middle/lower classes since they mostly buy used. IMO at the bare minimum we should stop making new ICE.... The first rule of holes (if you find yourself in one) is to stop digging.... A 40% sin tax on new ICE would probably dampen sales significantly.
Yes I agree that the manufacturers choose not develop EVs, simply judging by the looks of Prius Prime or Bolt, however the tide is turning. And that’s where the organic adoption will occur. I don’t buy into the man-made climate hysteria of the last coupe decades, because absolutely nothing changed since so there is defiantly plenty of time.
Your idea of 40% tax on ICE or simply cut all manufacturing of them is just idiotic. I won’t even mention the used car part (go buy a used Leaf and see how you like it). Just because an EV works for you at the moment doesn’t mean the rest of us should suffer the higher costs and inconvenience, to prevent your perceived climate doom that should have been here years ago.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Well... I guess this conversation is over if facts, logic and ethics mean nothing to you....
Which fact do you think is not true?
1) CO2 levels have risen >40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted more than twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise
3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in global average temperature of >3C.
The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?
Please show me what has changed in terms of global impact the last 50 years that could have been prevented by man. The planet cools and warms up beyond our control over many centuries. It happened before and will keep happening.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I did. CO2 levels are 40% higher because of man. That's math. Atmospheric temps are now higher by ~1C. That's physics. That 1C increase causes A LOT of problems beyond just temperature. Some heat waves are now ~100x more likely; Severe heat waves ~5x more likely. 1C is the average... the extremes are far higher....
This graph shows why floods and droughts will get exponentially worse with a small rise in temperature. Severe rain of 48" of rain in 24 hours would be 30" if CO2 was 280 instead of 410ppm.... warmer air can hold more moisture which means vegetation and the ground dries faster and more rain can fall.
Then there's the jet stream which essentially controls our weather. A flat jet stream means cold air stays where it's cold and warm air stays where it's warm. The bigger the deference in temperature between the poles and the equator the flatter the jet stream. The poles are warming MUCH faster than the equator. Making the jet stream wander more meaning more cold snaps and heat waves....
Last edited:
Yet nothing has changed. Miami still has a beach and we get rained on in Seattle. What did change was the media exploiting every natural disaster and man-caused accidents as climate change indicators.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Reality disagrees.... Houston would disagree... the amount of rainfall they received from Harvey would be statistically impossible if not for CO2 being >400ppm. Paradise, CA would disagree. The camp fire would not have been nearly as catastrophic without moisture content driven to statistically impossible levels without CO2 >400ppm.
The Oceans disagree.... they're absorbing >90% of the added thermal energy.... the equivalent of ~3 Hiroshima-size bombs every second of every day..... more fuel for Hurricanes.
Your level of willful ignorance is beyond pathetic.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Yes... the fools fuel addicts are exploiting everyone else which is pathetic. And yes taxing them to discourage further damage is one solution.
whitex
Well-Known Member
If you have robotaxis, they form a train whenever needed, riding 80mph bumper to bumper like rail cars on virtual rails. No need for actual rail cars, rail stations, etc. Also, the the rail tracks are empty most of the time (between trains) while with robo-taxis you get to utilize them a lot more efficiently.
I'm pretty sure in a dense urban area, an uncomfortably packed train is always going to move more people than robo-taxis bumper to bumper with just one person per car. Autonomous micro-buses full of people might be an exception. I bike to work, but my observation is that the free-ways are already bumper to bumper stopped. I was in Montreal last week. It always amazes me to see an entire city block of people moving at once on a train that comes every 5 minutes.
Robotaxi can also have ride sharing like uberPools. Why people would like to be “uncomfortably packed” when they have other decent choice? 5 person cars bumper to bumper with no empty railway in between would have comparable efficiency as trains with everyone seated.
Similar threads
