Save money now: 27 ways to lower your utility bills
In the current economic climate, its been a bit rough for those that want to go green on a budget. Not everyone can...
Read the rest of this articleIn the current economic climate, its been a bit rough for those that want to go green on a budget. Not everyone can...
Read the rest of this articleAlthough fuel taxes encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles such as the Toyota Prius and Chevy Volt, these vehicles still use roads and cause road wear. But funding to repair roads comes from fuel taxes, and, as more people drive the Prius and Volt and other fuel-efficient cars, the revenue from fuel taxes can no longer cover required highway spending. A solution to this funding shortfall is to tax drivers per mile rather than per gallon.
The Highway Trust Fund, financed by federal fuel taxes set at 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel in 1993, provides funding to repair and build federal highways. Since 2008, however, highway spending surpassed the revenues from the trust fund. To make up the shortfall, the Treasury has had to provide $30 billon to the trust fund.
As a way to address the shortfall, the Senate asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to assess the feasibility of taxing people on how many miles they drive, rather than on how many gallons of fuel they consume. The CBO concluded that, with current technology, “electronic metering and billing are making per-mile charges a practical option.” A mileage tax is a better way to charge the actual users of the highway system.
Such a tax, however, should account not only for miles traveled but also for the weight of the vehicle. For example, one tractor-trailer causes road damage equivalent to 9600 cars. Although requiring tractor-trailers to pay their proportional share of the road damage would raise the cost of freight and the prices of goods, by not doing so compels automobile drivers to subsidize the trucking industry. A more equitable tax on heavy trucks would be fairer, and would even benefit local economies by making local products more competitive.
An alternate solution to taxing either fuel or mileage is to privatize roads and pay tolls, which would definitely ensure that users pay for the highways they drive on. Of course, that would put the transportation infrastructure – so essential to economic development – in the hands of unaccountable (and even offshore) corporations.
For the last 60 years, development was built around gas-powered automobiles, which fomented wasteful habits and suburban sprawl. Taxing miles driven would help ensure that the actual users, even Prius and Volt drivers, pay for highway improvements. Such as tax would also encourage smarter development and walkable communities. Any mileage tax however, should be tiered by vehicle weight so vehicles that cause the most road wear, such as tractor-trailers, pay their fair share.
Why Tainted Green? Literally, green is only a color. But in typical human fashion we've pumped a cacophony of additional meanings and symbolism into the word. Green has become a marketing tool used by companies with impunity to wrap their products in a balmy haze of "ethical" and "conscientious" approval.
That's where Tainted Green steps in. We are seekers of truth, and we support the fundamental drivers behind the green movement. Ideas like permaculture, renewable energy, and recycling make sense, but companies that express support for green without a wholesome process behind it have tainted the meaning of green. And so, our focus is to create green content that pushes the ideology forward while pointing out which parts look like this year's marketing baggage. Welcome to Tainted Green, where we focus on unearthing the truth about green.

Comments
I think taxing base on miles driving will the just create bigger government and how would you police it. I don’t think we should tax EV for the roads yet. We need to keep the cost of them down so more can be purchased. In fact we do pay taxes for charging on the electricity. Learn more about my Volt at http://voltfansite.com
If we begin taxing per mle to account for damage to the road system, then why don't we have a carbon tax on fuel to account for the damage to the environment?
Most damage to raods is actually caused by the weight of the vehicles driving on them. Usually, high-mileage cars, such as the Prius, or Volt, weigh much less than their gas/diesel counterparts. The damage done to the roads is therefore less. An exmple would be a 5,000 lb. SUV vs. a 3000 lb. Prius or a 3500 lb Volt. Over the life time of the vehicles, the SUV will cause much more damage to the roads than will the Prius. Therefore, the fact the Prius, using fewer gallons per mile, pays for less road maintenace (through gas taxes) is actually much more fair than charging the same tax for both vehicles on a per-mile basis.
If you consider the the much reduced carbon footprint of both the hybrids and electric cars vs. the larger, less efficient cars, the societal gain would not be to make an additional, regressive tax on the newer, higher mileage vehicles.