View Single Post
Old 08-31-2012, 07:23 PM   #15 (permalink)
christofoo
Master EcoModder
 
christofoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 292

00C - '00 Toyota Corolla
90 day: 43.54 mpg (US)
Thanks: 147
Thanked 190 Times in 73 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by meanjoe75fan View Post
How would this accommodate EVs?

On a PER-BTU basis, electric power can produce anything from no CO2 to more than petroleum. How do you assign a CO2 score?
Sorry if I misunderstood the question... Revenue-neutral GHG tax means it gets taxed at the provider. If you use a technology that releases a disproportionate amount of CO2 you'll end up paying higher GHG tax.

The whole point of GHG tax is it's not biased toward specific technologies. It's the level-est playing field you can get. Why should regulators care whether you're reducing GHG through EV use or biodiesel or ecomodding?

Still, grid power would probably change over time, since it would penalize coal in proportion to GHG damage. So in the end EVs would probably still have ultra-low operating costs and be even greener than if we stick to CAFE alone.

The real issue is if we stick to CAFE and never implement GHG regs, then farming and industrial sources may go unmodified, which is just plain silly, if environmental protection is the goal.

Even if oil (cost and security) is the goal rather than environmental protection, farming is a very big user, and not regulated by CAFE.

But I digress. And I should probably just post a link to more info, since I'm not totally an expert on the subject.
http://zfacts.com/carbonomics
http://zfacts.com/node/257

Last edited by christofoo; 08-31-2012 at 08:23 PM..
  Reply With Quote