mdooher:

 

You aren't getting it. I am happy to pay for my pollution, but not if the money just gets redirected into your pocket

 

Oh, I'm beginning to understand the type of person that you are 🙃

MikeB4:

 

mdooher:

 

No, I'm not, unless you mean subsidised by myself? I have paid more tax than I have consumed. perhaps if I live long enough that will change, but I can't see it

 

 

Nope,  but I will leave it here I hate brick walls they hurt.

 

Come on Mike, If I have paid more tax than I have consumed how am I subsidised? Happy to be proven wrong

Obraik:

 

You should pay more to someone to do the right thing as that offsets those that are doing the "wrong" thing.

 

I'm not against EVs paying RUC and I believe that it is inevitable. However, I don't think that should happen until other mechanisms are put in place that see ICE vehicles pay their way for the environment and health costs they create. AKA, the feebate scheme that's being talked about again.

 

Whether someone is doing the "right" thing or "wrong" thing is irrelevant. People should pay the cost of their activities. The whole cost. ICE users have been under-paying for a century or more. Taxation/fees/feebates/subsidies are mechanisms whereby the cost (or benefit) to society is added to the production+distribution costs to ensure that the consumer pays the true cost.

mdooher:

 

Come on Mike, If I have paid more tax than I have consumed how am I subsidised? Happy to be proven wrong

 

I'm curious how you measure how much tax you have consumed.

But I'm happy to save you the time of waiting for Mike -- I'll prove you wrong now.

Certainly if you grew up in NZ you have been subsidised for the first 15-20 years of your life (primarily education, but also health, defence, police, transport, and a host of others probably including social welfare) when you paid no tax. You are of course still consuming those services, possibly excepting social welfare, although I'd argue that the absence of starving poor on the streets and breaking into your home is a benefit to you. When you've finished paying your childhood subsidies off, you can start paying up front for the health and social welfare (and all the other services) that you will consume towards the end of your life. What's left over you can spend on V12s, so long as you pay the social cost.

mdooher:

 

You aren't getting it. I am happy to pay for my pollution

 

Indirectly you're highlighting the issue here that we need to actually reduce emissions, not treat them as an inconvenience we can simply continue producing and just pay a bit more for.

What's the panels view on hybrids?

I see them as an option that greatly reduces emissions (quick look appears to be more than 50% drop over equivalent model - my research is into a 2021 Toyota Yaris).

Whilst obviously still emitting, it appears a genuine pragmatic move forward. 

The ICE power output is also greatly reduced, despite being the same capacity as the non hybrid model, suggesting that power unit is more tuned for efficiency/lower emissions too.

Yetti92:

 

I'm more shocked that you can't buy a "dirty" car soon but you can still buy a used imported 1, 2 or 3 crash star rated car no worries at all...... 

 

....

 

I'm aware of that, it's more the point that they haven't done anything about the safety of used imports at the same time as emissions.

 

NZ has had emission's standards for some time, so you can't import a Land-cruiser 4.2 diesel to NZ anymore, but they are still sold in kenya etc:

https://www.toyotakenya.ke/en/range/toyota-kenya/land-cruiser-70-series

(although we do have an exemption for 20+ year old stuff that badly needs to be closed.

Re safety we have done stuff to improve the safety of used imports. Most recent would be the ESC requirement for imported vehicles. Kicked in for new vehicles on 2015, and all vehicles in 2020. Have had the frontal impact standard for some time and it gets updated regally.

Not sure we should be restricting imports based on star rating. There are multiple different star rating system's with different limitations. Personally while disappointing I wouldn't consider the likes of the 3 star rated ford mustang so dangerous we need to ban it from our roads.

Also note that the clean car standard does not block the import of high emissions vehicles. If you want a Y62 patrol, or a v12 Rolls Royce, as long as the importers fleet average is below the threshold, or they pay the fine you can get your hands on the car.

I don't think emissions and safety need to be dealt with at the same time. They are separate issues.

Regarding the alternative of directly using ETS or carbon tax on petrol / diesel in place of this scheme. Yes it would work, and theoretically it would be quite efficient. Sadly it has a number of key issues:

• To achieve targeted emissions reductions charges would need to be massive (say an extra $1 - $2 /L). Probably not politically workable.
• Highly regressive. Those with access to capital could simply swap their Audi Q7 for an Audi Etron and avoid the high priced fuel. The family with 5 kids running a 1997 estima, living from paycheck to paycheck will have to pay the higher price of fuel or be priced off the road.
• for the first owners of cars (especially rental fleets), fuel costs represent a small chunk of the total ownership cost. For the new car buyer who holds a car for three years, typically deprecation would dwarf fuel cost. As such economy is likely to be a minor buying criteria compared to say purchase price. However odds are that that car will remain in NZ's fleet for 15 odd years. Same deal for used car buyers, but less years. The clean car standard is highly targeted to influence new (and use car buyers), and hence influence what flows into the used fleet.

Should note various NZ governments have agreed to reduce emissions under various climate agreements. We now have to make good on those deals. Light vehicles has been identified (rightly in my mind) as low hanging fruit to reduce our emissions. Reducing emissions in this area is relatively cheap to the economy compared to for example closing down a bunch of heavy industry or dairy farms.

vexxxboy:

 

am i missing something here, can someone explain to me where the 4 million electronic cars are coming from to replace the fossil cars in the next 10 years and how many of them will be under $10,000 that the majority of people will spend on a car and for most that is a struggle to afford, i would buy  a electric car in a heartbeat if they were around $5,000 and will the infrastructure be in place to charge 4 million cars on peoples travels , if it has been answered please forgive me and point me in the right direction to where the info is.

 

Yeah. You are missing something.

The clean car standard is not a proposal to replace the entire light vehicle fleet with electric cars by 2031.

Currently we import around 300,000 light vehicles a year. Roughly half used. This will continue.

What will change is that come 2023 importers will need to pay a fairly light fine if their fleet average is over a prescribed emissions number. The result of this is that it is likely dealers will price cars under the number (especially well under such as electric cars) a few thousand cheaper than cars around the number. Likewise if you want to buy a new v8 Nissan patrol it will be a few thousand more expensive. Some brands like toyota may drop non hybrid variants from some models to keep their fleet emissions down.

Used market will continue as normal, but from 2023 model year and later stuff will be a bit cleaner than what we see today (more electric, hybrid, diesel, smaller engine options etc). Come 2033, stuff like the 62kWh leaf e+ should be around that 10k pricepoint similar to 2011 leaf's today.

re infrastructure for EV's we don't need infrastructure to charge 4m EV's now because we don't have that many. Infrastructure will keep rolling out, I havn't seen any indication this will be a major issue. Note that even when the clean car standard takes full effect in 2025, the bulk of vehicle entering our fleet won't plug in.

If we follow the UK example (unlikely, we seem to be 5-10 years behind), and only allow registrations of pure electric vehicle's from 2035, it will still take 15 + years for the bulk of the non-EV's to flush out of our fleet. So we only need to be ready 4m pure electric cars in the year 2050. 

afe66: From an immediate health point of view, crap smoking cars adds to worsen health outcomes now vrs worrying about co2 emissions on country level

I think it is ironic that people are told to go for a walk to stay healthy, yet many will walk on pavements of roads and breathing in these toxins, which could be doing even more harm. 

I think one problem is that we have let in cheap overseas gas cars over the last few decades, because they were cheap, and it also helped reduce inflation .

IMO we need a decent subsidy or tax break in NZ to buy an EV, and it shouldn't be restricted to more budget EVs, which are often pretty crap. I understand they gave businesses one in Oz, and heard of quite a few people buying EVs like tesla. 
IMO the Model 3 is the gold standard of an EV that is both affordable (70k-80k  ish isn't too bad for the tech in it, and if you compare the price of what we were paying for a standard car in the 90's, and then take into account inflation.  Since then mass production has brought pricing down a lot. The Model 3 does what an EV should do. That is perform better than a petrol car, and have a similar range. Durability and build quality compared to true Japanese built cars, like Toyotas however may not be quite up there yet. I have been looking at EV options myself for a family member and so far the Tesla model 3 stands out, but no way to test drive in Wellington from what I can see. ALthough I have seen quite a few driving around.

Labour however have to be careful they don't become too nanny state with these types of changes. I remember they were bringing in all these types of things back in 2007-8, like banning incandescent light bulbs, when there weren't good cheap alternatives except for horrible CFLs. However they got voted out, and the incandescent lightbulb ban got canned by National. Today we can still buy incandesent bulbs,  even though other countries are phasing them out or banning them, and LEDs are now more affordable and widespread.

mattwnz:

 

it shouldn't be restricted to more budget EVs, which are often pretty crap.

 

The government will have a hard time justifying some of their spending choices (or lackthereof, perhaps) if it wants to give subsidies to people who can afford to buy brand new Teslas. 

If it really is urgent, zero-rate the GST off private imports of EVs like Leafs and exempt EVs from FBT to get them into company fleets. 

At the moment if you have a fleet of cars to choose from, the EVs make the least sense because the FBT is derived from the taxable value, which is higher because EVs currently cost more. So it makes sense to put someone in the cheapest thing you can get away with as a company car. 

These are all changes you can make now without the existential issues of giving Remuera millionaires a kickback for buying a Model X over an Audi Q7 (or e-Tron, I guess).

The gap between internal combustion cars and EVs is going to drop through technology alone whether New Zealand has incentives or not, and I think there are people who need that money more at the moment, to be honest. But the two changes above could be quickly and simply and would get some results for a fraction of the cost, and that's before you even look at rebates for solar etc. 

MikeB4:

 

mdooher:

 

 

 

But I want to by a V12, I don't want my purchase to subsidise yours. 

 

 

so what you are saying is you want to be selfish and not give a toss about those living now and those to come. Talk about the ultimate NIMBY attitude. 

 

Also, I'd buy a V12 in a heartbeat, but I'd also be quite happy to limit the usage of it under a cap (5,000km a year etc). Most insurers will make you nominate a limit for a classic anyway so I don't see the issue. 

GV27:

 

Also, I'd buy a V12 in a heartbeat, but I'd also be quite happy to limit the usage of it under a cap (5,000km a year etc). Most insurers will make you nominate a limit for a classic anyway so I don't see the issue. 

 

Classics are already exempt in the current proposal

V12 engines in modern cars are limited to very expensive and very exotic stuff. I don't think a $500k ferrari or Rolls Royce should be treated any differently to a Cheaper car with less cylinders and comparable consumption (say Y62 Nissan patrol).

Should note that policies that encourage owning more vehicles (such as a km cap) arn't ideal from an emissions reduction perspective. A lot of emissions embed in the manufacture of a car.

Scott3:

 

Yetti92:

 

I'm more shocked that you can't buy a "dirty" car soon but you can still buy a used imported 1, 2 or 3 crash star rated car no worries at all...... 

 

....

 

I'm aware of that, it's more the point that they haven't done anything about the safety of used imports at the same time as emissions.

 

 

NZ has had emission's standards for some time, so you can't import a Land-cruiser 4.2 diesel to NZ anymore, but they are still sold in kenya etc:

https://www.toyotakenya.ke/en/range/toyota-kenya/land-cruiser-70-series

 

(although we do have an exemption for 20+ year old stuff that badly needs to be closed.

 

Umm you can buy the land cruiser 70 and 200 series with 4.5 litre v8 diesel. Toyota.co.nz