That's not right. It will emit CO2 when it is used and not otherwise. If the tax is on use, then people may buy a car and drive it less, so that it lasts 30 years instead of 15. Furthermore, a tax on use will change use of cars already made.lpm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 9:28 amIt makes sense because it's the decision to manufacture a car that matters - make the car and it will emit it's lifetime's CO2 over the coming 10 to 15 years. It's locked in. That would only change if it's scrapped early, and obviously scrapping things early is bad economically and environmentally.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:32 amThat makes absolutely no sense. The harm you are trying to mitigate depends on the amount of fuel burned, so should be taxed on that basis.
If a household needs a large car occasionally, taxing use may mean the household acquires a large car and a smaller, more economical one, so While taxing the car means they'll just have the large car and use it for everything as the cost is a fixed cost.
There is absolutely no way we can predict what will happen in 100 years, let alone 500 or 1000. Changes in technology or society may mean that CO2 ceases to matter or can be sufficiently easily reduced.We don't really care when a machine emits its CO2 because that CO2 is going to remain in the atmosphere for 500 to 1,000 years.
It's clearly not inevitable. If you reduce your usage sufficiently it may end up lasting so long that it becomes obsolete before it has emitted its "quota" of CO2.As an example, in 2008 I chose to purchase a new car and my decision will have triggered a Toyota factory to build a similar new car. On that decision day I committed a car into existence that would burn approximately 30 tons of CO2 before it dies. Maybe driving styles and types of journeys will flex that a bit, between 25 and 35 tons, but the fundamental outcome is inevitable - build that car and 30 tons of CO2 will follow.
If they're rich enough, they won't care (but neither will taxing it help). Otherwise they will take into account its resale value when they want to replace it. If the tax is on fuel, then whoever buys it next willbe willing to pay less if it is less economical. I would even expect this to amplify the effect of its efficiency as people who buy new cars include more of those who want to show off, while those who buy second hand include those who are more concerned by value for money - which includes the price that they in turn will hope to get when they eventually sell it (or how long it will last for, if they're intending to run it until the end of its useful life).The person who buys a new Range Rover is responsible for the car's entire lifetime's emission but will only think about their own fuel burning during the first three years. The initial decision maker should carry most of the tax burden.