[quote=“syncretic, post:725, topic:15833”]
At the moment ICE vehicles are heavily subsidised because they do not have to pay for the costs to the health system and to individual health that they generate.
Instead of making it only for road maintenance only we need an air pollution tax as well.
[/quote] Hear, hear. The health costs associated with ICE vehicles which Syncretic rightly brings up, are immense.
Plus drivers paying excise on petrol and diesel while governments are subsidising fossil fuel industry - how silly is that?
Plus EV drivers are already paying tax on electricity (both the charging at home occasions and the using commercial chargers away from home occasions).
“Stand in any school car park at afternoon pick-up time and count the vehicles and buses with their engines idling.” quote from The Idle Off project https://www.idleoff.com.au/
1 Like
An internal consequence of the human condition.
Clear one hectare of land for housing, a farm or dam a river, to enable the human existence. That too is heavily subsidised, although the consequences more long lasting across in comparison multiple generations.
Which subsidy should be our greatest concern?
I’d suggest we are very content with the first subsidy. It provides employment and purpose. Ignorance is bliss in both examples if that is what a subsidy really is.
3 Likes
No product or service, including ICE or battery vehicles, pays the real environmental, social or economic cost of its manufacture, use or disposal. If one thinks this is a subsidies, then everything humans consumers or does is subsidised.
Using products and services have impacts and humans historically have accepted these impacts.
If we don’t allow the sale of any product which has an impact or ‘subsidy’, then there would be nothing to purchase. This includes essentials in life (food, water, shelter) and those things one wants to the wants to maintain lifestyles.
3 Likes
What are these heavy subsidies?
In what way is a one off project like land clearing comparable to continuing processes like burning hydrocarbon and releasing the products into the air?
Are you saying for life to continue it is inevitable that we poison ourselves with pollution and there is nothing can be done?
One simple example is loss of future opportunities such as for food production (ag land turned to housing) or ecosystem services (for land cleared or modified). These provide year on year benefit. Replacing land with housing, all alternative future long term benefits are removed,
No, that is not the case. Where unavoidable impacts occur, there are tools such as offsets to mitigate impacts.
Which ever of the three questions we will be a long way off the current topic.
It might be a little inept, but I see the propositions of subsidies as a very broad topic.
IE the receipt of any item or service for less than it’s full cost or value requires a subsidy, whether that be in hard currency, kind, or future debt against today’s borrowings. It may be a one off transaction or an ongoing repeated benefit.
I’d suggest politely we are as a global society where we are because of what we have without consequence taken or used along the way, IE for free and not accrued the true cost. Greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicle use is just one part of a greater concern. We are yet to place a true value on the losses within the environment, the cost of those impacts directly and indirectly on our daily lives, or the cost to undo what has been taken for free along the way.
In comparison.
‘Electric and Alternate vehicle fuels’ as a topic seems mostly about the possibilities, of progress of the technology, and it’s commercial delivery.
2 Likes
Ok let me tighten up to the focus and stick just to vehicle taxing. Part of the current situation is that ICE vehicle are taxed, that tax (which ostensibly go towards roads etc) is placed on fuel not on the vehicle itself. There is a lobby that says electric vehicles that don’t use such fuel are getting a free ride in comparison with ICE vehicles because they use roads too but don’t pay the tax. It is said that if that situation goes on unchecked as the proportion of EVs grows there will be a significant tax shortfall.
Proposition: before we have a knee-jerk solution and find other means to tax EVs to obtain apparent parity with ICEs let us look at all vehicles and all the costs that they generate, not just roads, and determine a tax regime that is equitable. Agree or disagree?
I agree in an ideal world, but difficult in reality as all extraneous costs will be difficult to quantify and each vehicle will have a different cost base depending on where they are made and the resources they consume. Some of the costs some businesses won’t want released as it may seen to have commercial in confidence or impact on the reputation of the business.
In relation to ‘road use costs’, an EV uses and creates the same wear on a public road as a ICE. If one has a pseudo-user pay system like that which exists in Australia where inputs to a a road vehicle (fuel) is taxed, then it is reasonable that EVs are also taxed so that they contribute equally to the public infrastructure/roads they use.
How this is done? Don’t know but a comparable way would be a tax on kilometres travelled by an EV (say $0.XY/km). This would be similar to fuel tax in some respects as the more fuel used (and kilometres driven), the more the cost on the public infrastructure and the more which should be contributed towards its upkeep.
Edit: Will it be liked by EV owners…no, especially when it is introduced as it will be seen as a new tax … even though currently they are currently not contributing to road use like their ICE counterparts.
1 Like
True but we don’t need it to be exact, the current system is very broad brush as it is - I am just asking that the brush cover known major costs such as health effects from particulate pollution.
Which is what the current lobbyists want - to restore parity between the two - and maintain the current inequity where ICEs pollute the air for free.
Even this are very difficult to estimate costs. In an urban area, there are numerous sources or particulates, one being from vehicle emissions. Other sources include tyre/road interaction which are not only generated by ICE but EVs as well. Other sources include industry, agriculture, vegetation, oceans, wood fired heaters and the list goes on. There are estimates of the impact of particulates on human health costs, but a singular cost towards a particular source is difficult and would be best etimates.
The other consideration is particulate have a cumulative effect. In some environments, ICE particulates would not pose a significant health issue…but in other areas, the particulates may push acceptable air quality over to being unacceptable.
In addition to this, pollution controls on vehicles also affect particulate emissions. A well maintained vehicle generally produces less particulates than a poorly maintained one…a new vehicle less than an older vehicle, idling verses highway movements etc. There are many factors which affect the amount of particulates which would be generated.
It is very complex…and to try and apportion costs would be challenging and would need to almost be on a vehicle by vehicle basis and not limited to ICEs.
Only if you aim for perfection. If you simplify and aim for more equitability than there is, rather than less, or something better than do nothing there will be an improvement.
A thought experiment. Epidemiologists can estimate costs due to morbidity and mortality per unit of pollution. The amount of pollution generated from any source can be likewise estimated, world wide there are pollution standards already. ICEs already are expected to be below certain bounds. It follows that one can calculate a cost per unit (say per kg of particulates) and use fuel consumed as a proxy for it as is done already where fuel used is a proxy for road damage done. Then it is a political decision whether to tax at that rate or some other rate that hopefully isn’t too far away. In parallel there is a second tax component per kilometer for road maintenance. This does not seem too complex to administer to me especially as half the collection mechanism already exists.
Bringing in a road tax (per kilometer) and abolishing the fuel tax looks quite wrong to me as it assumes particulate pollution health costs are quite insignificant compared to road costs.
I know, bringing in any new tax is politically fraught and requires courage, which makes it less likely to happen. If you are not going to adapt the tax regime at times of great change you will never do it and status quo rules forever - with all its existing inequities plus those generated by technological change on top for added height.
1 Like
Conciliatory:
Is the key point of discussion the health impacts of ICE emissions and government will to address this? It’s not really about batteries or hydrogen fuel cells or pedal power and land sailing. We as a community already share ALL Health Costs. Dissecting these is just as likely to be cause for concern and give rise to inequity which ever way it is apportioned. The impact is real, the cost at an individual level uncertain.
Are there ways government can better encourage the replacement of ICE with low emissions alternatives?
Keeping the status quo (or appearance of) is typically the political path forward.
Accept that a road user fee applied to non ICE use maintains the status quo. This might be a fixed cost which encourages higher mileage use over weekend toys that add little, or distance travelled plus vehicle class calculated to more fairly spread the costs recovered.
Like all things that benefit the community as a whole, is it more realistic to expect government to spread the cost of any transition across the community as a whole? Increasing taxation on the poorer part of the community, to the benefit of wealthier owners of Tesla EV’s or Hyundai Kona’s is a choice for our politicians.
A better solution may be to offer a means tested rebate/subsidy on all lower cost EV’s to reduce the upfront purchase cost. The goal to replace the oldest, least fuel efficient, lower valued ICE vehicles. It would be a good use of the luxury car tax.
For high use vehicles (Mostly in business use) the lower operating costs and tax deductions on ownership should be incentive enough. The option for one off increased concessions for tradies and small business is also well established.
It’s possible government has the tools, without a need to change the status quo.
Contradictions:
Accepted there are impacts of ICE use on individual health outcomes and agree that government has the ability to encourage/incentivise their uptake.
I don’t accept any report on the cost of health impacts of ICE use as implicitly reliable or representative of Australia. As a general reference and usefulness there will always be qualifications required in our discussion. The following ICCT report assessed some of the most likely impacts on mortality rates in Australia. The report attempts to distinguish between higher and lower density regions, but like others averages results over broad areas or whole continents. It suggests Australia has a lower risk and impact in comparisons.
Equity in taxation is a holy grail assuming current economic models and government responsibility.
Any suggestion ICE users pay an extra penalty on top of general taxation to fund healthcare appears a blunt tool. In any form it penalises those most reliant and least able to afford to replace their ICE vehicles. It’s a very unfair and inequitable proposal. I personally don’t agree with holding the less financially able in our community accountable for any negative outcomes of ICE use. Many would argue the benefits of employment and lifestyle choices made possible by the ICE far outweigh any negatives.
Equity and fairness where users pay a portion of road usage costs suggests non ICE vehicles will need to pay road use costs similar to their impact and need. Adding a road user charge (toll) for vehicles is not novel or a new form of taxation.
Overall, taxation appears an inappropriate solution to reducing ICE use. Especially given the uncertainties and inequity. It’s a poor tool reliant on an inappropriate report. That’s my viewpoint, and not a point of argument, with all due respect to those with respiratory complaints.
“Tilting at windmills” is one way to summarise the prospects of taxation resolving equity of personal health costs against community needs. This applies whether it arises from personal ICE usage, the transport of product to your supermarket, coal fired power or the dust from the nearby urban sprawl expansion project.
Alternately:
Increased uptake of non ICE low emissions road vehicles faces major challenges.
- The high upfront cost, investment required in current technology BEV or HFC vehicles.
- Development of new production capacity, investment and manufacturing transition from ICE to alternate powered vehicles.
- Rate of development (rollout) of alternate ‘green’ energy resources.
I‘ve discounted the need to consider entrenched petroleum oil industries vested interests. Coal and steam vs the horse. Oil vs coal and steam. Electric PV vs Oil. It’s a dead horse race, pardon the pun.
A realistic time frame for Australia to be low emissions road transport transitioned, 15-20years.
Technology change ‘S’ curves, fully considered. Faster if the world economy over invests, but unlikely given the dead assets at the endpoint as the newer vehicles last longer, and demand falls away? Conversion to flying car manufacture always a dream.
Personally, I’d prefer strategies which also change how the community is organised, reducing significantly the need for as many road vehicles. The potential includes a faster transition and greater energy efficiency per population.
A rather long answer to a yes or no question. As far I can tell it was a no.
Whatever happened to ‘the user pays’ principle? It is invoked from time to time when it suits to raise more money. Such as in this case to stop the EVs getting a free ride on the fuel tax. Are we agreeing that principles in Australian politics are elastic and are enforced when convenient?
1 Like
I’ve suggested an alternative way forward. Palatable to some or not. I guess I could have just said no.
It’s a question for which a yes or no is most inappropriate, and not informative. IMHO.
It’s applied as needed I think, and mostly for immediate benefit or need.
Yes, and it would appear that is always how election results are determined.
P.S.
We could also suggest more broadly those who have invested in solar PV, batteries, improved home energy efficiency are not getting full value for the indirect benefits those investments bring to the community. Yes, the user pays principle does not always apply exactly, if at all. Certainly not how I’d wish to see healthcare costs accrued. Scrap medicare, users pay?
Are you sure you are not a member of parliament? 
Yes. 
‘There is no such thing as a free lunch.’ Not guilty on that count either.
An interesting article regarding research into a new type of battery.
An article regarding a US company developing a system to modify diesel engines to run on ethanol and other fuels so as to reduce emissions.
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/clearflame-engine-technologies-takes-aim-183703995.html
1 Like
This has been around for at least 15 or more years. Many years ago I had a business contact me to discuss using LPG or ethanol in fleet vehicles to increase power output and reduce emissions.
At the time it was being tried on long haul fleet vehicles with some success. We opted not to try the technology as our fleet manager was concerned that it may impact on wear and tear on the standard direct injection and common rail diesel motors…as they were not designed with the purpose of being retrofitted with another fuel source.
4 Likes
