Electric vehicle war, is gas soon to be toast?

[Azure]

Ford & GM would be making more EVs if they could actually get the parts to make them. There is a huge constraint in the supply chain when it comes to battery production, and each quarter every single EV maker is talking about this specific issue. Even Tesla at 300k+ shipped vehicles has this issue.

You simply cannot restrict ICE and incentivize EVs if the EVs are not readily available to buy.

Once they are, buy all means lets do it. In the meantime it seems like a much better idea to simply incentivize EV purchases and let the market run its course.

All, you didn't answer my question in regards to fuel efficiency standards. Why not force that a little more?

[MegaErtz]

I'm watching the Los Angeles Mayoral Debate tonight. One of the main issues is what the city can do to provide car chargers for people that live in apartments.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

The other thing is if someone has a truck to use for weekend stuff or as a non-primary vehicle, they certainly aren't putting the same amount of miles on, so its even less of a concern.

Hilarious watching the government and people stumble all over this issue.

I would suspect the amount of people who just have a vehicle hanging out in the driveway all day until the weekend is pretty low.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I would suspect the amount of people who just have a vehicle hanging out in the driveway all day until the weekend is pretty low.

Where do you live? In my neighborhood pretty much everyone does. My truck gets about 10k a year, mostly camping trips

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Where do you live? In my neighborhood pretty much everyone does. My truck gets about 10k a year, mostly camping trips

Are you rich?

Ontario. Most families have 2 cars but also 2 people who work each day.

[Azure]

It is kind of a moot point anyways.

Overall we need a transition to EVs with a renewable power source to charge them. But it will take time, and it makes zero sense to punish the 'consumer' for the fact that we can't build EVs fast enough, or have the grid capable of charging them all.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is kind of a moot point anyways.

Overall we need a transition to EVs with a renewable power source to charge them. But it will take time, and it makes zero sense to punish the 'consumer' for the fact that we can't build EVs fast enough, or have the grid capable of charging them all.

How is anyone being punished right now?

[Azure]

Talking about a tax on certain type of vehicles....

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

Talking about a tax on certain type of vehicles....

Who?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Who?

The Net-Zero Advisory Body, ie: a bunch of people who actually have zero authority on the matter.

Their submission starts on PDF page 178, and #23 recommends that the Federal government "broaden Canada’s existing Green Levy (Excise Tax) for Fuel Inefficient Vehicles to include additional ICE vehicle types, such as pickup trucks".

Originally Posted by Canada.ca

Automobiles that have a weighted average fuel consumption rating of 13 or more litres per 100 kilometres will be subject to the excise tax at the following rates:

at least 13 but less than 14 litres per 100 kilometres, $1,000;
at least 14 but less than 15 litres per 100 kilometres, $2,000;
at least 15 but less than 16 litres per 100 kilometres, $3,000; and
16 or more litres per 100 kilometres, $4,000.

For greater clarity, the formula in the Notice of Ways and Means Motion for calculating an automobile's fuel-efficiency rating is as follows:

.55A + .45B

Where A is City consumption and B is Highway consumption.
[source]

The excise tax is paid one time; at the time of purchase from new.

A 2021 F-150 5.0L V8 4x4 gets 14.7L/100KM city and 10.7L/100KM highway. That gives it a 12.9L/100KM Weighted Fuel Consumption, meaning it should see no surcharge.

Here's a list of 2021 vehicles and their excise tax under the Green Levy, if any. (Note: It's barely any.) Most trucks would see a $1,000 surcharge. There are six vehicles that currently see the maximum $4,000 surcharge: the two variants of the Bugatti Chiron, and the four variants of the Lamborghini Aventador.

Frankly, I think it's a bunch of whining on Azure's part. It certainly isn't unreasonable that pickup trucks be subject to the same fuel consumption excise taxes as large SUVs considering that most people treat them the same way.

[Azure]

Uhhh, I was literally just responding to the poster who suggested there should be a tax on the people buying F150s to go to the lake on the weekend.....

I feel it isn't fair because there is no clear alternative available, i.e. the electric truck.

Jeepers people.

[Fuzz]

The alternative is smaller more efficient vehicles. You can still buy your truck, but paying an extra tax doesn't seem unreasonable.

[Azure]

It is unreasonable when it cannot differentiate between people who require the truck for work, and people who use it strictly for pleasure.

Are we going to start taxing truck trailer owners as well, because they emit more carbon than F-150 owners.

The goal should be to develop EV sources, and incentivize people to buy then. The market will do the rest.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is unreasonable when it cannot differentiate between people who require the truck for work, and people who use it strictly for pleasure.

Are we going to start taxing truck trailer owners as well, because they emit more carbon than F-150 owners.

The goal should be to develop EV sources, and incentivize people to buy then. The market will do the rest.

Are you sure truck trailer owners aren't already taxed more in license fees, etc?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is unreasonable when it cannot differentiate between people who require the truck for work, and people who use it strictly for pleasure.

Are we going to start taxing truck trailer owners as well, because they emit more carbon than F-150 owners.

The goal should be to develop EV sources, and incentivize people to buy then. The market will do the rest.

Im sure measures could be made for fleet vehicles and other commercial operations. Perhaps truck owners using their vehicles for commercial activities can write off the additional fees as a business expense

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Azure

Uhhh, I was literally just responding to the poster who suggested there should be a tax on the people buying F150s to go to the lake on the weekend.....

I feel it isn't fair because there is no clear alternative available, i.e. the electric truck.

Jeepers people.

Cappy is saying ICE restrictions, ie: you can't sell them period.

Anyway, pickup trucks being subject to the same Green Levy as other vehicles doesn't guarantee they would pay the tax in the first place.

The alternative is that manufacturers make their ICE pickup trucks more fuel efficient in the interim to avoid the tax. Manufacturers wouldn't even have to try very hard to get their vehicles below the threshold for the weighted fuel consumption average, Ford already did it with the F150 running the 5.0L V8.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The alternative is smaller more efficient vehicles. You can still buy your truck, but paying an extra tax doesn't seem unreasonable.

Only issue is the federal government cannot even decide what their priorities are. They just gave GM $290 million to add a third shift to their truck plant and produce even more pickups. So how do they justify taxing them further if they are 'bad'.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Only issue is the federal government cannot even decide what their priorities are. They just gave GM $290 million to add a third shift to their truck plant and produce even more pickups. So how do they justify taxing them further if they are 'bad'.

The priority there is clearly votes as the needs of Ontario and Quebec trump environmental priorities.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The priority there is clearly votes as the needs of Ontario and Quebec trump environmental priorities.

Yep - its the Alberta oil argument.

Although tbf - some of the money will go to setting up one of the plants for electric vehicles.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is unreasonable when it cannot differentiate between people who require the truck for work, and people who use it strictly for pleasure.

Are we going to start taxing truck trailer owners as well, because they emit more carbon than F-150 owners.

The goal should be to develop EV sources, and incentivize people to buy then. The market will do the rest.

It doesn't need to differentiate. Increasing the cost changes demand and Spurs alternatives.

The goal can't be "become carbon neutral without causing any economic pain", because then you don't become carbon neutral. It should be "become carbon neutral doing the least economic possible". The timeline is set. By increasing cost pressure, less people will buy low efficiency vehicles for work and leisure. It will suck for some, for others it'll be more expensive. What else do you propose?