Gonna file this under “Christmas Family Dinner Rebuttals” for later.
Pfft you’re gonna believe some ivory tower elites in…
checks notes
…Alberta?
I’d wager a guess and say that most used their carbon tax refund like I did which was pay bills/buy groceries
Now tell this shit to lil PP and his cult.
It also had a negligible impact on carbon emissions.
In part because the idiots who opposed it bought bigger shiny new trucks they’ll never use for purpose. Filled up their extra large tanks and burned as much fuel as they could in spite.
Vehicle taxes should be based on weight and square-footage between the bumpers. All of a sudden a compact pickup gets taxed like a minivan and the Ram 23,000: Spousal Abuse Edition, with the same size box, gets taxed like a tank. This also evens the playing field a bit with ridiculous EVs like the Cybertruck (3 tons) and Hummer (4 tons) that put extra wear on the road. (For comparison an Ioniq 5 SUV only weighs 2 tons)
That’s a decent idea.
Also, for comparison, my first car, a 1991 Pontiac firefly (don’t worry I never use that as a security answer), weighed about as much as an actual firefly.
On a windy day I would have to steer into the wind to no be blown off the road.
I had a Suzuki Sidekick, it had more in common with a kite than a modern SUV. It also was the best winter 4x4 I have ever driven, I would buy a EV version of that no questions asked.
I think a better idea would be removing the footprint (square footage) calculation from CAFE ( I know it’s an American standard but we also use it and their market heavily impacts what vehicles we get regardless). As it is now, it penalizes smaller more efficient cars for not being more-efficient-enough over big trucks. I don’t know about you but I’d love it if we got an influx of small hot hatches and compact pickups, they might not be as efficient as some of the small cars today, but likely better than all the boring and not-great-at-anything compact crossovers we see so many of these days.
