Why do they hate FreedomCar?

French government charges fees to new owners of gas-guzzling vehicles

Posted by Clark Williams-Derry (Guest Contributor) at 8:19 AM on 09 Dec 2007

Read more about: France | cars | fuel efficiency

France is supercharging vehicle efficiency -- not by doling out big R&D subsidies for cars that never make it to market, but by instituting a system of efficiency feebates.

In a nutshell: the French ministry of ecology has announced a program that would require purchasers of new gas guzzlers (luxury Mercedes, for example) to pay an extra fee for the privilege. That money is rebated to people who buy super-efficient cars. If it's done right, the system doesn't really involve taxpayers, since the rebates balance out the fees. And it gives huge incentives for sales of the most gas-miserly vehicles.

Voila -- instant fuel efficiency!

(Hat tip to Green Car Congress.)

For story: Why do they hate FreedomCar?
20 Comments | Post a Comment

Zoom

FWIW, Veejay Vaitheeswaran talks about his new book ("Zoom: the Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future") at Tech Nation:

Tech Nation

by odograph at 8:34 AM on 09 Dec 2007

Yeap

Feebates are a beautiful thing.
Too bad it's naming isn't that self explanitory.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 9:47 AM on 09 Dec 2007

What else could we call it?

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 9:48 AM on 09 Dec 2007

Bikers Should Be Paid For It

What about me, a bicyclist?

As I zoom past the cars stalled in traffic going down Canyon Drive, I think: these guys should be paying me by the mile for not putting one more car on the road.

Same thing with "smart" cars, fuel efficient cars and all the rest.

I still use less.

by jabailo at 10:02 AM on 09 Dec 2007

bikes

You've probably heard that Ontario, Canada, has excepted bicycles from sales tax?

by odograph at 10:34 AM on 09 Dec 2007

Yeah!

I love the idea. Let the idiots who buy Navigators subsidize the purchase of Priuses.

by infp at 10:42 AM on 09 Dec 2007

Target

Targeting luxury gas guzzlers is going to limit the pool of cash available for subsidizing green cars. The real volume gas wasters are SUVs and trucks that come under the 100k tax break rule encouraging purchase of these vehicles.

Anyone with a tax setup that allows these types of deductions for business will buy an SUV or truck instead of a car. The extra cab trucks are just an SUV with a truck bed added on the back.

So get rid of that tax break (subsidy) and divert the money saved to tax breaks that anyone who purchases a green vehicle can afford. Don't just tack on extra fees to luxury gas guzzlers, that's a high political profile mistake.

Eliminating subsidies is a better political sell than imposing new fees (taxes). The really big effective subsidies to remove are those for the oil industry. Most people despise big oil, so it's a big vote getter. Everyone except oil industry lobbyists and execs that is.

Anyway, vehicle size should not be the criterion for extra fees, it ought to be weight related fuel efficiency. The present tax structure lavishly rewards purchasers of vehicles over 6000 lbs that usually carry under 4 passengers.

4 passengers could travel safely and comfortably in a 1500 lb, 100+ mpg hypercar if subsidies impell mass production. Carbon fiber body/tubs that allow race drivers to walk away from 100+ mph crashes adapted to road cars, make safety and efficiency possible simultaneously in the same design.

Bicyclers already get a huge rebate, by not having to visit the gas pump and not paying for gas or paying road taxes. But a really great subsidy method for bikes and electric assisted bikes would be to devote subsidy cuts (from big oil) to bike trails, bike lanes, and bike racks on buses and trains.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 10:49 AM on 09 Dec 2007

BICYCLE SUBSIDY

As I zoom past the cars stalled in traffic going down Canyon Drive, I think: these guys should be paying me by the mile for not putting one more car on the road.

They pay for the road;

That you are zooming down.

That hauls your food and supplies to stores.

That provides you with police, fire and ambulance service.

With the bicycle lane that was another car lane, and could be again.

Etc. etc.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 12:14 PM on 09 Dec 2007

Plug it

<blockqoute>The real volume gas wasters are SUVs and trucks that come under the 100k tax break rule encouraging purchase of these vehicles.

So then plug the loophole.

Any good approach can still be implemented wrong ;D

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 12:26 PM on 09 Dec 2007

Good reply, Dr. X

Bicyclers already get a huge rebate, by not ... paying for gas or paying road taxes. But a really great subsidy method for bikes and electric-assisted bikes would be to devote subsidy cuts (from big oil) to bike trails, bike lanes, and bike racks on buses and trains.

Yup, subsidizing personal bicycles (as opposed to rental bicycles, as we have here in France) would yield no guarantee that they would actually be used, whereas funding bicycle infrastructure would remove some important constraints on their greater use.

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 1:03 PM on 09 Dec 2007

Thanks Ron

I forgot the best benefit bikers get, much better health. Exersize stimulated stress reduction and dopamine receptor restoration can't be beat.

The dopamine system restored, rejuventated by exersize, will tend to make you enjoy life like you did as a youngster. Making for much higher quality of life without the usual spending and consumption our consumer existence prizes so highly. Hard to even put a price on that.

Well, you can't just plug the loophole Grey, you need to apply the money saved to subsidize lighter, more efficient vehicles. I guess the carbon fiber industry does not have nearly the political clout of the steel industry.

Stop the tax breaks for the steel, divert it to subsidize carbon fiber bodies, frames, and safety tubs like the race drivers use adapted for regular driving. Cars that are carbon sinks? Hehey, well yeah.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:17 PM on 09 Dec 2007

Cyclists do pay for roads

They pay for the road;
That you are zooming down. Blah blah blah

I don't know about your area, Bill H, but in Victoria road costs are largely paid for with property taxes not gas taxes. Bicycles don't create potholes so they don't increase road maintenance costs like heavy cars/trucks. Virtually all bike lanes in Victoria do not eliminate any car lanes. Sometimes the road is widened slightly, sometimes a wide car lane is narrowed (discouraging dangerous speeding).

I don't know any cyclists who want to eliminate all non-bicycle traffic. It's dishonest to suggest that.

by katakanadian at 8:26 PM on 09 Dec 2007

Even better still

According to Am. Society for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) in this morning's "Peak Oil Review" weekly newsletter, the French aren't targeting luxury, they're targeting CO2:

France announced a feebate system based on CO2 emissions for new vehicle purchases. Under the plan, a bonus will be paid to buyers of new cars emitting less than 130 g CO2/km (about 30% of sales). Conversely, buyers of new vehicles that emit more than 160 g CO2/km (about 25% of sales) will pay a penalty. Buyers of vehicles emitting between 130-160g CO2 (about 45% of sales) will not receive a bonus nor will they pay a tax.

The 5% Project

by JMG at 6:11 AM on 10 Dec 2007

Information please

Ill-informed as I am, g CO2/km is a measure that I'd not encountered before. Seems like for much of our current discussion it's actually a more direct and useful measure of critical environmental impact than the mpg numbers we see bandied about all the time. Especially when we see the performance of (hypothetical) plug-in hybrids to "mpg equivalent" - which ultimately endorses gasoline as the gold standard of vehicle fuel.

Anyone have a link to tabulated g CO2/km data for vehicles commonly available in the US? How would a Prius rate on that scale? a Civic? A Hummer?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 7:30 AM on 10 Dec 2007

CO2

The EPA's Green Vehicles Guide includes a greenhouse gas score, but basically it is directly proportional to MPG. The carbon atoms in our fuel become CO2, or CO, and there are smog controls to reduce the later.

by odograph at 7:49 AM on 10 Dec 2007

Hmm

Not sure if I can see a benchmark to the French standard on the EPA site. A score of 10 (the very best score) per EPA allows up to 295 g CO2 equivalent emissions per mile, which translates to about 180 g/km. This is above the threshold for penalties in the French plan.

Am I missing something? Is there a difference between "CO2" and "CO2 equivalent"? Or is what passes for top of the line in the US that far below the minimum French standard?

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 8:53 AM on 10 Dec 2007

conversions

I'd think there would be a conversion factor. I don't have time to try my own math (based on my rusty chem degree) right now, but I did find another source in a quick search:

"Standard for passenger cars in Europe is 175 CO2 g/km which equals 6.6l diesel (43 mpg UK / 35 mpg US) or 7.5 l gasoline per 100 km (37 mpg UK / 31 mpg US) respectively."

From Low-energy vehicle at wikipedia.

The rude conversion from 31 mpg (gasoline) to 175 g/km says that "5425 / US mpg" equals grams per km.

by odograph at 9:24 AM on 10 Dec 2007

A US Feebate proposal already exists -

and will be voted on by the California Assembly in January.

Economic Analysis of Feebates to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Light Vehicles for California
Author: McManus, W.S. UMTRI
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/55180/1/U ...

California Cleaner Cars for all Consumers (CCCD)
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/catalyst/solutions-off ...

Support for Feebate strong in California
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/CCC ...

California AB 493
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/californi ...

by Jay Alt at 9:51 AM on 10 Dec 2007

Re: conversions

So inversely, the threshold for rebates from la France would be 5425/130 or about 42 mpg US or better and that for penalties would be 5425/160 or about 34 mpg US or worse?

Makes current CAFE proposals look pretty much, well, pathetic.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

by spaceshaper at 3:17 PM on 10 Dec 2007

curves

They are ahead of us, that's for sure. As I said in another thread, I think we still have our history as "oil producers" hanging over our heads. Gushers in Texas are too recent in memory for us to drive ... little French cars.

... but I think we're heading that way (aren't little German-Swiss cars sneaking in even now?)

by odograph at 3:33 PM on 10 Dec 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.