Date:         Thu, 11 Jul 2002 02:05:01 +0100
Reply-To:     Clive Smith <clive.harman-smith@NTLWORLD.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Clive Smith <clive.harman-smith@NTLWORLD.COM>
Subject:      Re: Attention California Vanagonites
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Whilst risking all your wraths from a far and safe distance, it does need
pointing out that the US with 4% of the Worlds population, produces 25% of
its carbon pollution.
If I thought Americans were totally insensitive or unsympathetic to the fact
that Europe has taken a much more constrained and responsible approach by
using generally smaller vehicles, and pricing carbon fuels much higher - gas
is at least $4 a (UK) gallon - I'd not bother making the comparisons below:-
The massive trend towards driving heavy, uneconomical SUV's in Europe, just
to run kids to school or go shopping, simply as a status symbol and (some
would say selfish motives) is deplored by environmentalists - and on any
reasonable grounds one has to at least agree in principle.
The question is.... how do we distinguish between those that a) need SUV's
for everyday use and b) use their larger, uneconomical vehicles unwisely, or
not ? The answers are not easy to come by, if at all.

I would think that the sensible approach here, is to NOT make the tax
retrospective, and thus exempt vehicles of the age that all your vanagons
are - if I were in California, I'd start lobbying on this basis NOW. Perhaps
this will have an effect on prices of exempt vehicles - for instance, here
in the UK, vehicles under 1 litre were given a £50 tax exemption every year,
now this has been upped to 1200cc they do indeed fetch a premium, and
2nd-hand gas-guzzlers have been worth almost nothing for many years now.
Personally, even though owning one, I would be prepared to pay a premium on
road tax to own a vehicle over 1.5 tons, seemingly a good cut-off point
between a reasonable vehicular convenience and one that is obviously more of
an environmental (and crash damage to pedestrians) threat, however our
government prefers to leave that alone and rely on the poor fuel consumption
to 'naturally' regulate the mileage and hence pollution. However, since rich
people tend to use these vehicles, it is not a very good control.

As much as it hurts, it is a fact that without any controls, everyone here
at least is going to be driving about in 1.5+ ton monsters. Not long ago,
the majority of vehicles here were between half and one ton. Whether this is
a transatlantic trend or just the effect of affluence is not that important.
But the environmental effects of their production alone is something not to
be sniffed at, with Germany particularly working hard at making components
less damaging and even recyclable.

Maybe the best defence against this sort of legislation is first to show
sympathy with its goals... yet well informed about the pros and cons, and
with extremely well marshalled arguments for your side of the case. A
campaign, however big, without reasoned and rational arguments is a weak
one - get organised early.

Clive Smith
'88 1.5 ton monster motor!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Baker" <DBAKER5@KC.RR.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 1:29 AM
Subject: Attention California Vanagonites


> I just heard a devastating rumor the CA is considering a 50 cent/gal
> surcharge on gas and a 2 cents a mile tax at license renewal time for
> drivers of minivans and SUVs.  Would this also apply to our beloved VWs?
>
> Is this just a rumor, or are they really considering it?
>
> Dave in KC
> 85 Westy (who may think twice before visiting CA)
>