This would make sense if global warming actually existed or if there was any proof that it, if it exists, was human-induced and not due to an outside force.

I'm all for reducing pollution but last time I checked a single 18 wheeler emits more pollution going down a city block than most weekend sportscars do in month.

If they wanted to actually reduce pollution they would do it on a consumption basis.

What's more fair, the new viper owner who drives 2,000 miles a year who pays 2,500 'gas guzzler' tax, or my company who gets a FREE Ford F450 from the gov't that drives 25,000 miles a year averaging 10 mpg?

Something is a little out of whack here, and I'm on both sides.

 

The difference is that an 18 wheeler or company truck are presumably doing things for the public good, like delivering your food and other stuff to feed the consumption that our economy depends on. They also provide jobs for drivers, mechanics, and loaders/unloaders.

 

No problem. Keep spreading the gospel of why these laws are have-you-seen-my-baseball retarded.

 

Global warming isn't the only issue and its probably not the main issue. I'm thinking parts of California would like to reduce their smog and improve air quality before they become comparable to large cities in China.

As far as global warming its not a bad thing people are trying to prevent it whether it exist or not. Lets see pros: reduce the consumption of a limited resource (fossil fuels), reduce dependence on foreign countries that may not be so nice, reduce pollution = better air quality, new technology and possibly jobs, and I'd rather be safe then sorry. The con, we might waste money doing it but is money really a precious resource or something and a lot of that spending might be creating jobs.



And no I'm not saying that this law would reduce the amount of gas guzzlers on the road. Suv's are already more expensive, whats another $2500.

 

But what's the only way to discourage people from using SUVs to commute and drive a lot? You got it, a GAS TAX. Do you think anyone buying a $50k Yukon is going to care about an extra $2500? That's less than the sales tax in most states.

This law is about punishing people who buy new SUVs and other large/powerful cars, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't stop people from using gas, or give them an incentive to drive less. It just raises the price of entry to the cars people want by a grand or two. That's it.

 

You people are quick to give the government more control over your lives. Oh, yeah, they are coming for the SUVs now. But wait, more folks will be on the list. Next it will be cars that weigh over 3, 000 lbs. Then cars with only two seats. Then cars with over 200 horsepower. Then government mandated governors that won't allow the vehicle to exceed the posted speed limit. Then black boxes that the police can download speed, location, number of people in the vehicle. Then mileage over 5,000 miles per year will be taxed. Go ahead, get your friends in the government involved.

If you want to encourage people to save fuel, why not give certain vehicles a gas tax break? Continue to give income tax credits.

I saw an article the other day the the energy dept. in California is thinking about having all thermostats in the state hooked up to a central agency that will be able to control heat/cooling in every building.

Once you give those people control of something, you will never, ever get it back. And you will live to regret it.

 

That's illegal; in the Constitution it states you can't punish people for things that were done before it was banned. For example, in the 50s it was OK to hire illegal immigrants to work in a household. If you still have a migrant worker in your house, it is not illegal because the original action was legal at the time it happened.

 

I really wish that taxes on gas were increased, maybe two or three fold, taxes on engine size were established and all cars changed excise taxes equally to one percent (1%) af the car's purchase price. We also need more high priced toll roads. Then and only then will my daily commute be free of traffic.

 

Ex poste facto laws are only applicable to criminal offenses. It would not be politically acceptable to tax older cars based on their pollution, but it would not be unconstitutional.

 

Absolutely. An SUV is less efficient as a commuter vehicle than say an S2000. The problem is an S2000 is less efficient than a Fit or Focus. So the same logic that was used to ban the SUV could then attack the sports car. Unlike the SUV which at least has a few legitimate uses (if very rarely used), the sports car has basically no such redeeming functionality. We drive them because they are fun, not because on occasion we claim to need to take our family, dog, cat, horse and a bushel of grain up the side of the mountain