Talk:Feebate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Point 1

The claims made in this article are not clearly supported by research. I am fairly certain that no one has shown that car purchasers fail to account for gas prices and driving costs when purchasing a car. In general, the feebate system is not thought to be more efficient than changes in the gasoline tax or regulation. --Taxandspend 11:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfair language

As a petrolhead and anarcho-capitalist I disagree with the opening line which declares "gas-guzzling" (cutesy American dialect and pejorative anti-car scare-mongering environmentalist language in itself, vehicles don't guzzle gas, they combust petroleum to produce torque) vehicles to be "socially undesirable items". The government imposing such fees may regard them as such, and may describe them as such to PR justify such a fee. But I contend that they are not socially undesirable, for reasons including - 1 dimension road space is non scarce, oil is not running out, vehicles have no real negative externalities on society unless recklessly driven. Only a few asthmatics suffer from smog and other noxious gases are now mostly removed by the exhaust and things like BlueTec. The only other output is CO2. Which is a VERY MINOR contributor to global warming, compared to say, CFCs and farting of methane by termites, its No 1 producer, AND solar cycles, AND water vapour AND the fact that the planet is leaving a mini-Ice Age. Most greenhouse gases overall are produced by heavy industry and electricity generation, which has little to do with heavy or powerful cars. These things are debatable, but to call gas guzzlers overall "socially undesirable" is far too biased to use in this article. Global warming is junk science and people need to stop listening to Al Gore and find these things out for themselves. --81.105.245.251 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While I concur Al Gore is alarmist, that might be necessary for people to react to climate change (warming); which is not junk science as higher tree lines, open Northwest passage, and higher Alaskan highway maintenance costs attest. Moreover, methane from higher cow populations and melting permafrost may have significant effects for the next solar cycle. - RoyBoy 19:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that the OP complains of "unfair language" while calling global warming "junk science" and claiming that "vehicles have no real negative externalities on society unless driven recklessly." Kettle, meet pot. There's no question that the post is written with a pro-environment slant which should be revised, but your comments are just as bad--if not worse--in the other direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.235.151 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Minor modifications

I was reading the article and added a broader definition of "Feebate" programs, as the idea is being adapted to non-energy/transportation sectors, such as manufacturing. I also tried to make the language more objective regarding the impact of feebates. Any tax or surcharge that the government imposes always has unforeseen consequences and even though I am, in general, a supporter of Feebte program, especially those that reduce the consumption of gasoline, I feel it is not proper to ignore this side affect. - Stehen740 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen740 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV removed

I updated the article and removed the NPOV tag, please use {{POV-section}} or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. - RoyBoy 19:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)