🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov5.090403.6194@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>The majority of economists believe that a pollution tax would cut pollution
>quickly and efficiently. Air care is sort of a tax, but not really:
>you either pass and get your insurance, or don't pass, and no insurance.
>Instead of causing a scramble, and windfall profits for mechanics, the
>govt could raise money by charging a sliding scale tax based on the
>emmissions. Ie, a car with x% of NOx or CO or whatever, would have to
>pay $50 or $100 or whatever. More pollution, more tax. 
 
 The government could certainly use more tax revenue; but the object
 of this program is not to raise money, rather it is to reduce
 pollution by keeping excessively polluting vehicles off the road.
 Instead of "more pollution, more tax" it's "more pollution, no
 operate."
 
>Qualifying for insurance (spreading and managing risk
>among a large number of policy holders) has absolutely nothing to do with
>polluting  ...
 
 Perhaps.  But the time at which you pay for permission to operate
 your vehicle is the time at which that permission is made conditional
 on also paying for insurance on it, so why shouldn't it also be the
 time at which that permission is made conditional on the vehicle
 producing no more than a permissible level of pollution?  Look at
 the black box at the top right of your form; first comes annual
 license fee, then insurance.  Then look at the form title; it's
 your owner's certificate of insurance _and_ vehicle license.
 
>I also think it's very inconsistent to be basing the tests on the year of
>the car.  ...
 
 Newer cars are less likely to pollute, so it makes sense to use
 the limited available resources on testing older cars until this
 program gets its collective ass fully in gear.
 
> ... Just look at the black filth pouring out of [various vehicles]
 
 It may look horrible, but the invisible gasses are what is causing
 the most damage to the atmosphere.