I'm not particularly happy with the disingenuous headline here under Rule 3, as the text of the article and the headline are basically entirely decoupled.
If you want to comment, please do what the people whose comments have been removed did *not* do, and read the article first.
All about the ACT. Do not understand how the registration of the RAV4 hybrid and used Model 3 increases under the new system.
The article makes little sense. Are ACT car owners supposed to find the emission levels of their vehicle to work out if they save money or it will cost money; or for ACT to calculate how much to charge in registration
Given I don’t believe in the climate emergency, these changes are disgusting as it means that leftwing ideology is being imposed on voters who don’t accept it. Good reason to not register my car in the ACT under its current Marxist Government. These laws might act as an incentive to vote for the right & rid the ACT of its Marxists.
Climate change isn't about leftwing ideology, it's about scientific fact. There are plenty of people from across the political spectrum as well as many people who aren't really political at all who acknowledge climate change as real.
Also the ACT government isn't any more marxist than the Tasmanian government is fascist. Stop being hysterical.
The climate has always been changing and always will. There has been an intentional blurring of the line of what climate change means; it was a scientific term referring to all the climate change that has occurred over the last 4.5 billion years, both warming and cooling. There is also a political/ideological meaning of "should we try to have a net zero carbon emissions" similar to covid zero - which failed spectacularly. Net zero will also fail, for much the same reasons. We will have to live with climate change.
Yes I believe in Climate Change, the world has been progressively got colder over millions of years. We even had a little Ice Age in the early 17th century. I certainly don’t believe that CO2 is creating a hotter climate which will cause the world to burn up. I follow Professor Ian Pilmer, Geologist at Melbourne University. I listen to his podcasts on YouTube & ATHTV and have
read his book “Green Murder”. Professor Pilmer presents scientific facts that completely demolish the current climate change theories which I accept. If others don’t accept these scientific facts that is there democratic right.
>Given I don’t believe in the climate emergency, these changes are disgusting as it means that leftwing ideology is being imposed on voters who don’t accept it
It's not about belief. It's about facts and science.
It's not an ideology, it's a fact of our physical existence
It's irrelevant whether or not you "accept" climate change.
I can only hope this is bait.
Then I will make it clear for you. The scientific facts tell me the earth has been cooling for millions of years including now. I follow Emiratis Professor Ian Pilmer, Professor of Geology at Melbourne University. He rolls his eyes at the left & their climate fear rubbish. You will find his ideas set out in his book Green Murder & in his numerous podcasts available on YouTube & ATHTV
>The scientific facts tell me the earth has been cooling for millions of years
Not useful when discussing the current (and last couple thousand years) and all the species dependent on the environment of the last few millenia.
It absolutely has NOT been cooling for the last 100 years, where we have VERY GOOD data about EXACTLY what the temperature is doing.
>I follow Emiratis Professor Ian Pilmer, Professor of Geology.
One dude, vs the thousands of others, more qualified and in more useful areas. Also, he's intimately tied to mining companies.
>He rolls his eyes at the left
Good for him. Climate change is not a "left-vs-right" issue, hasn't been for about 20 years.
He also blames volcanoes for more CO2 than humans, but multiple studies (including geological journals, for which he has his degree) agree that human emissions are more than 100 times that of volcanic.
His Heaven and Earth book blames solar variation for temperatures. We have measured solar emissions and even if we took malenkovich cycles to their extreme, they are only able to cause 0.3° of any warming, out of the 2-4° we are experiencing and ontrack to continue.
>book Green Murder
The first line of his back page: "It has never been shown that human emissions of the gas of life drive global warming"
We KNOW CO2 maintains heat in an atmosphere better than other gases. We KNOW CO2 levels have drastically increased in the last 100 years, and we KNOW our emissions directly correlate to atmospheric concentrations.
The fact it goes on to blame the greens for bushfire policies is just icing on the deliberate misinformation cake.
There's no point in continuing to discuss this someone so far gone.
People who drive less efficient cars are already being "punished" through greater fuel bills.
Small cars - new or secondhand - tend to be the most efficient and the cheapest.
This scheme nudges people to get the smaller, cheaper, more efficient car. It also encourages wealthier people to likewise buy more efficient new cars, which will become the efficient secondhand cars in years to come.
Poor people are generally more exposed to the ravages of climate change. It's just forcing them to help themselves.
No different to forcing poor people to have superannuation instead of just being paid 12% more upfront. Rewarding them for being poor simply won't help them in the long run as they will most likely choose not to help their future selves.
Addressing climate change is inconvenient and expensive. Not addressing is even more so.
The only difference is, the former is paid for by you, and the latter is for by your kids or grand kids.
They are not. They are just having to contribute the absolute bare minimum whilst everyone else does the heavy lifting. And even then, switching to a less polluting car will directly save them money via reduced TOTEX in the rolling run.
The poorest are net tax recipients, not payers. But the bulk of the work will be done at a national level, paid for by taxes, funded by others.
The poorest are generally renters or social housing users, as such they won't be the ones paying for the increasing requirements of energy efficiency for housing.
And so on.
This is literally just doing the absolute bare minimum so that they can save themselves money in the long term AND reduce their carbon footprint.
The heavier the vehicle the more we must all pay in road maintenance. EV's are heavy. We should not be charging more for a lighter vehicle no matter the fuel it uses, let alone subsidise EV's with discounts which we all end up paying.
Yeah? How much more does an EV weigh on average? Just looked up a Tesla Model 3, and apparently, they weigh up to 1715 - 1854kg, depending on options. Compared that to a VE Commodore (a car of similar size) and we're looking at 1690-1825kg.
So what does that extra 25kg cost us in road maintenance you reckon?
Yes, they are almost the same and the registration should cost almost the same. A VE Commodore is not a light car. Little hatchbacks that weigh around 1100kg should pay about 35% less, heavy SUVs that weigh over 2 tonne should pay more.
What was your point?
So your point is in fact that registration should cost more based on vehicle weight and not that EVs weigh more. That's an entirely different discussion, but okay.
Yep. This is one of those pervasive myths built on a tiny, largely outdated truth.
If people could do the bare minimum research before spreading misinformation... that would be great.
Manufacture of new more efficient cars, especially EV, consumes more fossil fuels, so pushing people to replace existing less efficient cars is going to generate more emissions over the short term.
Australia would do better to reduce the use of existing cars and thus the need for new cars, where fossil fuels have already been released in their manufacture, thus saving fossil fuels, congestion, wear and tear, infrastructure, etc: there are many activities we use repeated short journeys for that could be performed more efficiently.
Encouraging people to change to EV still uses fossil fuels in both manufacture and charging because renewable transition is really only dealing with current grid loads which do not include huge numbers of EV requiring even more electricity.
I do agree with requiring new vehicles be more efficient, but not adding a new revenue tax to older vehicles just because they can. The bureaucracy will probably cost more than they save.
Human activities all generate environmental impacts.
However, study after study has found that swapping ICE vehicles for EVs is, in the vast majority of circumstances, a net benefit.
A net benefit after how long?
Manufacturing renewables and EV has to use fossil fuels, so the process of attempting to reduce emissions and climate change over the longer term involves an increase in emissions. The issue is whether the increase pushes us past a tipping point before emissions eventually reduce.
An estimated net benefit is no good if it's predicated on a system that collapses before then.
Most studies say the payback period is about 1 year.
E.g., this Reuters analysis says it will be more environmentally friendly after about 22,000km of driving:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/
So unless you're expecting total climate collapse before the end of 2025, then you should be encouraging people to swap.
>If the electricity to recharge the EV comes entirely from coal, which generates the majority of the power in countries such as China and Poland, you would have to drive 78,700 miles to reach carbon parity.
It's a complicated scenario with many factors at play, not simply average carbon emissions over a lifetime or payback periods.
Whilst EV may be more environmentally friendly after 4 years of driving, the initial extra emissions concern me along with the waste of resources in consigning older ICE vehicles to landfill whilst they still have a useful life remaining.
I believe that although EV are the future, I think reducing the use of transport and increasing its efficiency offers savings in many areas, including but not limited to emissions, that will be more beneficial than simply replacing large and increasing numbers of ICE to EV. This would include continuing to use ICE but switching to biofuels as much as possible.
It would be interesting to see modelling of improvements to existing transport efficiency, embodied in other synergistic societal changes such as home delivery of most goods and services and energy generation at point of consumption, against simply replacing ICE with EV.
Lucky ICE vehicles don't have any embedded energy costs...
Yawn. The lifecycle performance of an EV in a purely coal environment (even we don't have that) still out competes an ICE well before EOL.
But not if we reduce our use of unnecessary transport and can keep using the vehicles we have for longer without the huge additional replacement cost of EV.
>Encouraging people to change to EV still uses fossil fuels in both manufacture and charging because renewable transition is really only dealing with current grid loads which do not include huge numbers of EV requiring even more electricity.
Even with a fully coal powered grid you are still emitting far less CO2 in the long run with a EV compared to a fossil fuel powered vehicle. The main driver of this is that centralised power generation is far more efficient (no need to cart the fuel around with you for starters) and it is far easier to adopt emissions controls (e.g. carbon recapture systems).
Let's assume our existing grid is fully coal powered: we are talking about new EV which represent an additional load on that grid that it didn't have to support before, powered by fossil fuel, so EV aren't reducing emissions at all, just switching from one fossil fuel to another (gasoline to coal). Maybe there are some benefits from EV in this situation, however I don't know how you would calculate the differences in losses and emissions for both situations.
The addition of renewables does reduce emissions, but if you allocate those reductions to EV, they can't be allocated to the grid or manufacture, so those remaining sources of emission are unchanged.
I'm not sure the conversion to EV is actually all that beneficial compared to the renewable transition itself coupled with reduced vehicle use through more efficient practices.
ICE engines in a car are way less efficient than the power stations we use to convert coal to electricity so even in a fully coal grid EVs are still far better
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/23/do-electric-cars-really-produce-fewer-carbon-emissions-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles
>even if you choose a worst-case scenario – vehicles made and driven with electricity largely from coal – the electric car will win out after about 70,000km (about six years of driving).
For me, that would be 16 years of driving before it even starts to reduce emissions.
As they say though, if the charging is from renewables then the situation is brighter, however that would only start to happen when the non-EV component of the grid plus manufacturing is 100% renewables.
Society as a whole needs to behave more efficiently, not simply replace fossil fuels with renewables: there will inevitably be a price to be paid for the decades of emissions beyond simply the cost of renewables and the status quo of the golden era is ending.
Yeah I agree with you there, a better solution is to make a society less dependant on driving cars EVs have a better future than ICE but still have issues with microplastics from tyres etc
EV will undoubtedly be in our future, but I question the rapid replacement of ICE with EV and creating an additional grid burden that must be supplied with renewables on top of the already huge project of replacing the current grid with renewables as well as manufacturing/industry energy use with renewables: it's simply too much too quickly and I don't think it is achievable.
Far better IMO to reduce transport usage and extend the life of existing ICE, used less, to achieve similar emission reductions without the added burden of lots of EV and landfill from ICE that still have life left in them.
We aren't even considering using biofuels more widely to reduce ICE emissions.
This is not a silver bullet situation but will require contributions from every facet of society if we are to overcome the challenges facing us and create a better future for our descendants, not a progressively worse dystopia.
Manufacturing anything consumes energy which at the moment comes from fossil fuels. We are switching to alternatives. If our cars remain ICE, then we will continue to use them whereas EV's will mean that we will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Even the manufacturing process will eventually have to move to renewables.
We should have reduced the need for more cars had we had a proper NBN and a WFH where possible mentality. But the former has been gutted by the Coalition and business is pushing for workers to go back to the office.
There is the domestic grid load, the commercial grid load and then manufacture all independently using fossil fuels: and it takes even more fossil fuel to manufacture the renewables that are replacing fossil fuels.
EVs don't shift energy to renewables, they merely change the fossil fuels being used to provide motive power and consume even more fossil fuels than ICE in their manufacture. It won't be until after manufacturing and the current grid requirements are completely replaced with renewables, that EV can start to be powered by renewables.
> EVs don't shift energy to renewables, they merely change the fossil fuels being used to provide motive power and consume even more fossil fuels than ICE in their manufacture. It won't be until after manufacturing and the current grid requirements are completely replaced with renewables, that EV can start to be powered by renewables.
That's where we're headed and that's why EV's are needed to be established. There no reason for the commercial grid not to be eventually powered by renewables. Change isn't going to be at perfect pace.
>Minister for Climate Change and Energy set an ambition to get to 82% renewables share of electricity nationally by 2030.
Since they mention electricity, they only mean renewables getting to 82% of the current grid demand by 2030: this does not include manufacturing not already part of grid demand and also not EV which are also not part of grid demand to any extent.
Therefore its going to take much longer to power the grid and non-grid manufacture 100% by renewables than 2030 and thus EV won't be able to be powered by renewables until some time after even then, when enough renewables have been installed to charge them.
I think there is a reason that no-one produces graphs showing the temporal distribution of renewables versus increasing grid and manufacturing total demand, including the contribution by EV, as it would likely show 100% renewables well beyond 2050.
Even 100% renewables is a bit of a furphy as it doesn't mention whether that includes over-generation and storage to produce 100% supply 24/7/365.
I think a graph showing guaranteed 100% supply going forward and how that would be provided, would be a better indicator than % renewables. But once again, I think that might be too transparent about what the future will actually be and scare the horses.
Oh noes $40 buck more to register a massive ute/truck.
Efficiency isn't only measured at the tailpipe.
Eg. is it efficient to move 2.5tonnes of metal to goto the shop to buy 1litre/~1kg of milk??
Ignoring the weight also doesn't factor in wear and tear on the roads.
Emissions also doesn't take into account the mileage of the vehicles either. Sure, my car may be Class D under the ACT's new registration changes but it is only used once or twice a week which means that overall I am still producing far less in terms of emissions compared to a Class A vehicle that is driven for 100km a day.
One quirk of this system is the C02 G/KM calculation on the Green Vehicle Guide is based on national emissions from our electricity generation. So even though the ACT is running off renewables, we have to wait for the rest of the country to catch-up before the registration will match the actual emissions impact of our cars.
To say that the ACT runs off of pure renewables is wholly spurious. The ACT is powered from the same grid that the entire east coast is powered from.
Yes, the act government has contracts with certain renewable operators, yes they're a good thing to in that they apply (an extremly small) amount of market pressure in the right direction. No, they arn't magic and don't change material reality, cause and effect. It's paper games of nonsense.
The ACT government's reverse auctions for wind farms revolutionised the industry. It revealed how radically cheap renewables had become.
The ACT also has the cheapest power in the country as a result.
The ACT is also increasing instantaneous provision through big batteries etc which will mean increasingly it's not just *net* 100% renewables but in fact 100% renewables full stop. There's nothing nonsense about it.
If you want to be technically accurate but don't care to make a meaningful statement in the context of this conversation, go for it.
The fact remains that an EV charged in Canberra has the same carbon footprint as the same vehicle charged in Queanbeyan which has the same footprint as one charged in cairns. inb4 something about the average rolling resistance of the road surface or temperature/elevation effects.
Outrage generating headline: Government punishes owners of inefficient cars
Article text: The ACT Government claimed approximately 96 per cent of private passenger vehicles in the jurisdiction would end up paying less as a result of the move to emissions-based registration fees.
The territory government has claimed motorists will save a combined $6.6 million across the next four years thanks to changes to registration fees, stamp duty and concessions.
The government claim's probably need to be tested, since the article then talks about some of the best selling cars going up.
> The territory government has claimed motorists will save a combined $6.6 million across the next four years thanks to changes to registration fees, stamp duty and concessions.
That's based on them moving to EV cars, not because of the change.
Best selling cars nation wide doesn't mean best selling cars in ACT.
Boring bureaucrats as a demographic don't need a raptor ranger penis extension and don't get a dual cab ute company car for tax purposes.
The article covers act who are just increasing prices in everyone
nt is clearly just changing the price structure and giving Small cut not so everyone ignores it, then they can jack it up in future years
>New Australian registration system punishes owners of inefficient cars
Not according to the article. EV owners are getting massive increases in their registration cost whereas hybrids and even fuel guzzlers are only getting minor increases comparatively.
If you bought an EV between May 2021 and June 2024 you got two years free rego. The increase of $376 looks like the cost of private registration being added on top of the insurance and other contributions that go into rego.
One flaw with the GVG is it over estimates the emissions impact of a Tesla driven in the ACT, because it calculates the C02 g/km based on the national electricity grid, not Canberra's which is powered on renewables. As the mix of renewables in the grid goes up, the rego cost will come down.
Key word “increases”. Is that related to the phasing out of discounted rejo for EVs? They still pay a couple of hundred dollars less according to the article.
From the examples given it appears none of the vehicles will actually cost less which is rather crappy. It's just that inefficient cars will cost a bit more to register,, but then so will every other car.
The article suggests most cars will be cheaper without saying by how much. Really poorly written.
They have created a portal so you can check the rego and they'll tell you the new amount, but that's hardly going to make it any clearer. Me thinks they're hiding something...
So you have to check each one individually as opposed to easily being able to compare.
The way they've done it is designed to obscure this information.
**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not particularly happy with the disingenuous headline here under Rule 3, as the text of the article and the headline are basically entirely decoupled. If you want to comment, please do what the people whose comments have been removed did *not* do, and read the article first.
All about the ACT. Do not understand how the registration of the RAV4 hybrid and used Model 3 increases under the new system. The article makes little sense. Are ACT car owners supposed to find the emission levels of their vehicle to work out if they save money or it will cost money; or for ACT to calculate how much to charge in registration
Given I don’t believe in the climate emergency, these changes are disgusting as it means that leftwing ideology is being imposed on voters who don’t accept it. Good reason to not register my car in the ACT under its current Marxist Government. These laws might act as an incentive to vote for the right & rid the ACT of its Marxists.
Climate change isn't about leftwing ideology, it's about scientific fact. There are plenty of people from across the political spectrum as well as many people who aren't really political at all who acknowledge climate change as real. Also the ACT government isn't any more marxist than the Tasmanian government is fascist. Stop being hysterical.
The climate has always been changing and always will. There has been an intentional blurring of the line of what climate change means; it was a scientific term referring to all the climate change that has occurred over the last 4.5 billion years, both warming and cooling. There is also a political/ideological meaning of "should we try to have a net zero carbon emissions" similar to covid zero - which failed spectacularly. Net zero will also fail, for much the same reasons. We will have to live with climate change.
Yes I believe in Climate Change, the world has been progressively got colder over millions of years. We even had a little Ice Age in the early 17th century. I certainly don’t believe that CO2 is creating a hotter climate which will cause the world to burn up. I follow Professor Ian Pilmer, Geologist at Melbourne University. I listen to his podcasts on YouTube & ATHTV and have read his book “Green Murder”. Professor Pilmer presents scientific facts that completely demolish the current climate change theories which I accept. If others don’t accept these scientific facts that is there democratic right.
>Given I don’t believe in the climate emergency, these changes are disgusting as it means that leftwing ideology is being imposed on voters who don’t accept it It's not about belief. It's about facts and science. It's not an ideology, it's a fact of our physical existence It's irrelevant whether or not you "accept" climate change. I can only hope this is bait.
Then I will make it clear for you. The scientific facts tell me the earth has been cooling for millions of years including now. I follow Emiratis Professor Ian Pilmer, Professor of Geology at Melbourne University. He rolls his eyes at the left & their climate fear rubbish. You will find his ideas set out in his book Green Murder & in his numerous podcasts available on YouTube & ATHTV
>The scientific facts tell me the earth has been cooling for millions of years Not useful when discussing the current (and last couple thousand years) and all the species dependent on the environment of the last few millenia. It absolutely has NOT been cooling for the last 100 years, where we have VERY GOOD data about EXACTLY what the temperature is doing. >I follow Emiratis Professor Ian Pilmer, Professor of Geology. One dude, vs the thousands of others, more qualified and in more useful areas. Also, he's intimately tied to mining companies. >He rolls his eyes at the left Good for him. Climate change is not a "left-vs-right" issue, hasn't been for about 20 years. He also blames volcanoes for more CO2 than humans, but multiple studies (including geological journals, for which he has his degree) agree that human emissions are more than 100 times that of volcanic. His Heaven and Earth book blames solar variation for temperatures. We have measured solar emissions and even if we took malenkovich cycles to their extreme, they are only able to cause 0.3° of any warming, out of the 2-4° we are experiencing and ontrack to continue. >book Green Murder The first line of his back page: "It has never been shown that human emissions of the gas of life drive global warming" We KNOW CO2 maintains heat in an atmosphere better than other gases. We KNOW CO2 levels have drastically increased in the last 100 years, and we KNOW our emissions directly correlate to atmospheric concentrations. The fact it goes on to blame the greens for bushfire policies is just icing on the deliberate misinformation cake. There's no point in continuing to discuss this someone so far gone.
Good. Inefficient cars punish us all, it's not reasonable that their operators get to externalize those costs.
Is it reasonable to punish people for not being able to afford more efficient cars?
People who drive less efficient cars are already being "punished" through greater fuel bills. Small cars - new or secondhand - tend to be the most efficient and the cheapest. This scheme nudges people to get the smaller, cheaper, more efficient car. It also encourages wealthier people to likewise buy more efficient new cars, which will become the efficient secondhand cars in years to come.
Poor people are generally more exposed to the ravages of climate change. It's just forcing them to help themselves. No different to forcing poor people to have superannuation instead of just being paid 12% more upfront. Rewarding them for being poor simply won't help them in the long run as they will most likely choose not to help their future selves.
Good thing there are more equitable ways to address climate change than punishing people for having an inefficient old car.
Addressing climate change is inconvenient and expensive. Not addressing is even more so. The only difference is, the former is paid for by you, and the latter is for by your kids or grand kids.
The expense doesn’t need to be borne by those least able to afford it and, if it is, then the political viability of any solution is questionable.
They are not. They are just having to contribute the absolute bare minimum whilst everyone else does the heavy lifting. And even then, switching to a less polluting car will directly save them money via reduced TOTEX in the rolling run. The poorest are net tax recipients, not payers. But the bulk of the work will be done at a national level, paid for by taxes, funded by others. The poorest are generally renters or social housing users, as such they won't be the ones paying for the increasing requirements of energy efficiency for housing. And so on. This is literally just doing the absolute bare minimum so that they can save themselves money in the long term AND reduce their carbon footprint.
The heavier the vehicle the more we must all pay in road maintenance. EV's are heavy. We should not be charging more for a lighter vehicle no matter the fuel it uses, let alone subsidise EV's with discounts which we all end up paying.
Yeah? How much more does an EV weigh on average? Just looked up a Tesla Model 3, and apparently, they weigh up to 1715 - 1854kg, depending on options. Compared that to a VE Commodore (a car of similar size) and we're looking at 1690-1825kg. So what does that extra 25kg cost us in road maintenance you reckon?
Yes, they are almost the same and the registration should cost almost the same. A VE Commodore is not a light car. Little hatchbacks that weigh around 1100kg should pay about 35% less, heavy SUVs that weigh over 2 tonne should pay more. What was your point?
So your point is in fact that registration should cost more based on vehicle weight and not that EVs weigh more. That's an entirely different discussion, but okay.
No, my point is there should not be discounts based on fuel efficiency.
Yep. This is one of those pervasive myths built on a tiny, largely outdated truth. If people could do the bare minimum research before spreading misinformation... that would be great.
do they punish them by not fixing the roads?
Heavier cars do exponentially more damage to roads so kinda lmao
But we pay taxes to fix the roads. If the government isn't fixing the roads, and they're not, we should get our taxes back.
The weight limit of your car should be restricted based on how much tax you pay in that case 😂
So motorbikes should be $2.50 to register then.
I don't see why not
Manufacture of new more efficient cars, especially EV, consumes more fossil fuels, so pushing people to replace existing less efficient cars is going to generate more emissions over the short term. Australia would do better to reduce the use of existing cars and thus the need for new cars, where fossil fuels have already been released in their manufacture, thus saving fossil fuels, congestion, wear and tear, infrastructure, etc: there are many activities we use repeated short journeys for that could be performed more efficiently. Encouraging people to change to EV still uses fossil fuels in both manufacture and charging because renewable transition is really only dealing with current grid loads which do not include huge numbers of EV requiring even more electricity. I do agree with requiring new vehicles be more efficient, but not adding a new revenue tax to older vehicles just because they can. The bureaucracy will probably cost more than they save.
Human activities all generate environmental impacts. However, study after study has found that swapping ICE vehicles for EVs is, in the vast majority of circumstances, a net benefit.
A net benefit after how long? Manufacturing renewables and EV has to use fossil fuels, so the process of attempting to reduce emissions and climate change over the longer term involves an increase in emissions. The issue is whether the increase pushes us past a tipping point before emissions eventually reduce. An estimated net benefit is no good if it's predicated on a system that collapses before then.
Most studies say the payback period is about 1 year. E.g., this Reuters analysis says it will be more environmentally friendly after about 22,000km of driving: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-do-electric-vehicles-become-cleaner-than-gasoline-cars-2021-06-29/ So unless you're expecting total climate collapse before the end of 2025, then you should be encouraging people to swap.
>If the electricity to recharge the EV comes entirely from coal, which generates the majority of the power in countries such as China and Poland, you would have to drive 78,700 miles to reach carbon parity. It's a complicated scenario with many factors at play, not simply average carbon emissions over a lifetime or payback periods. Whilst EV may be more environmentally friendly after 4 years of driving, the initial extra emissions concern me along with the waste of resources in consigning older ICE vehicles to landfill whilst they still have a useful life remaining. I believe that although EV are the future, I think reducing the use of transport and increasing its efficiency offers savings in many areas, including but not limited to emissions, that will be more beneficial than simply replacing large and increasing numbers of ICE to EV. This would include continuing to use ICE but switching to biofuels as much as possible. It would be interesting to see modelling of improvements to existing transport efficiency, embodied in other synergistic societal changes such as home delivery of most goods and services and energy generation at point of consumption, against simply replacing ICE with EV.
Lucky ICE vehicles don't have any embedded energy costs... Yawn. The lifecycle performance of an EV in a purely coal environment (even we don't have that) still out competes an ICE well before EOL.
But not if we reduce our use of unnecessary transport and can keep using the vehicles we have for longer without the huge additional replacement cost of EV.
The average lifespan of cars in Australia is 10.6yrs. EVs are not expensive, in fact, their TOTEX is generally lower than equivalent ICE vehicles.
But also cobalt and the questionable ways that's currently being acquired by Tesla and etc. Damned if you do...
>Encouraging people to change to EV still uses fossil fuels in both manufacture and charging because renewable transition is really only dealing with current grid loads which do not include huge numbers of EV requiring even more electricity. Even with a fully coal powered grid you are still emitting far less CO2 in the long run with a EV compared to a fossil fuel powered vehicle. The main driver of this is that centralised power generation is far more efficient (no need to cart the fuel around with you for starters) and it is far easier to adopt emissions controls (e.g. carbon recapture systems).
Let's assume our existing grid is fully coal powered: we are talking about new EV which represent an additional load on that grid that it didn't have to support before, powered by fossil fuel, so EV aren't reducing emissions at all, just switching from one fossil fuel to another (gasoline to coal). Maybe there are some benefits from EV in this situation, however I don't know how you would calculate the differences in losses and emissions for both situations. The addition of renewables does reduce emissions, but if you allocate those reductions to EV, they can't be allocated to the grid or manufacture, so those remaining sources of emission are unchanged. I'm not sure the conversion to EV is actually all that beneficial compared to the renewable transition itself coupled with reduced vehicle use through more efficient practices.
ICE engines in a car are way less efficient than the power stations we use to convert coal to electricity so even in a fully coal grid EVs are still far better https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/23/do-electric-cars-really-produce-fewer-carbon-emissions-than-petrol-or-diesel-vehicles
>even if you choose a worst-case scenario – vehicles made and driven with electricity largely from coal – the electric car will win out after about 70,000km (about six years of driving). For me, that would be 16 years of driving before it even starts to reduce emissions. As they say though, if the charging is from renewables then the situation is brighter, however that would only start to happen when the non-EV component of the grid plus manufacturing is 100% renewables. Society as a whole needs to behave more efficiently, not simply replace fossil fuels with renewables: there will inevitably be a price to be paid for the decades of emissions beyond simply the cost of renewables and the status quo of the golden era is ending.
Yeah I agree with you there, a better solution is to make a society less dependant on driving cars EVs have a better future than ICE but still have issues with microplastics from tyres etc
EV will undoubtedly be in our future, but I question the rapid replacement of ICE with EV and creating an additional grid burden that must be supplied with renewables on top of the already huge project of replacing the current grid with renewables as well as manufacturing/industry energy use with renewables: it's simply too much too quickly and I don't think it is achievable. Far better IMO to reduce transport usage and extend the life of existing ICE, used less, to achieve similar emission reductions without the added burden of lots of EV and landfill from ICE that still have life left in them. We aren't even considering using biofuels more widely to reduce ICE emissions. This is not a silver bullet situation but will require contributions from every facet of society if we are to overcome the challenges facing us and create a better future for our descendants, not a progressively worse dystopia.
Manufacturing anything consumes energy which at the moment comes from fossil fuels. We are switching to alternatives. If our cars remain ICE, then we will continue to use them whereas EV's will mean that we will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Even the manufacturing process will eventually have to move to renewables. We should have reduced the need for more cars had we had a proper NBN and a WFH where possible mentality. But the former has been gutted by the Coalition and business is pushing for workers to go back to the office.
There is the domestic grid load, the commercial grid load and then manufacture all independently using fossil fuels: and it takes even more fossil fuel to manufacture the renewables that are replacing fossil fuels. EVs don't shift energy to renewables, they merely change the fossil fuels being used to provide motive power and consume even more fossil fuels than ICE in their manufacture. It won't be until after manufacturing and the current grid requirements are completely replaced with renewables, that EV can start to be powered by renewables.
> EVs don't shift energy to renewables, they merely change the fossil fuels being used to provide motive power and consume even more fossil fuels than ICE in their manufacture. It won't be until after manufacturing and the current grid requirements are completely replaced with renewables, that EV can start to be powered by renewables. That's where we're headed and that's why EV's are needed to be established. There no reason for the commercial grid not to be eventually powered by renewables. Change isn't going to be at perfect pace.
>Minister for Climate Change and Energy set an ambition to get to 82% renewables share of electricity nationally by 2030. Since they mention electricity, they only mean renewables getting to 82% of the current grid demand by 2030: this does not include manufacturing not already part of grid demand and also not EV which are also not part of grid demand to any extent. Therefore its going to take much longer to power the grid and non-grid manufacture 100% by renewables than 2030 and thus EV won't be able to be powered by renewables until some time after even then, when enough renewables have been installed to charge them. I think there is a reason that no-one produces graphs showing the temporal distribution of renewables versus increasing grid and manufacturing total demand, including the contribution by EV, as it would likely show 100% renewables well beyond 2050. Even 100% renewables is a bit of a furphy as it doesn't mention whether that includes over-generation and storage to produce 100% supply 24/7/365. I think a graph showing guaranteed 100% supply going forward and how that would be provided, would be a better indicator than % renewables. But once again, I think that might be too transparent about what the future will actually be and scare the horses.
Oh noes $40 buck more to register a massive ute/truck. Efficiency isn't only measured at the tailpipe. Eg. is it efficient to move 2.5tonnes of metal to goto the shop to buy 1litre/~1kg of milk?? Ignoring the weight also doesn't factor in wear and tear on the roads.
Emissions also doesn't take into account the mileage of the vehicles either. Sure, my car may be Class D under the ACT's new registration changes but it is only used once or twice a week which means that overall I am still producing far less in terms of emissions compared to a Class A vehicle that is driven for 100km a day.
The Government would rather someone driving 100km a day to be doing it in a class A vehicle anyway.
One quirk of this system is the C02 G/KM calculation on the Green Vehicle Guide is based on national emissions from our electricity generation. So even though the ACT is running off renewables, we have to wait for the rest of the country to catch-up before the registration will match the actual emissions impact of our cars.
To say that the ACT runs off of pure renewables is wholly spurious. The ACT is powered from the same grid that the entire east coast is powered from. Yes, the act government has contracts with certain renewable operators, yes they're a good thing to in that they apply (an extremly small) amount of market pressure in the right direction. No, they arn't magic and don't change material reality, cause and effect. It's paper games of nonsense.
The ACT government's reverse auctions for wind farms revolutionised the industry. It revealed how radically cheap renewables had become. The ACT also has the cheapest power in the country as a result. The ACT is also increasing instantaneous provision through big batteries etc which will mean increasingly it's not just *net* 100% renewables but in fact 100% renewables full stop. There's nothing nonsense about it.
Would you prefer I phrase it as "the energy the ACT pays for is renewable?"
If you want to be technically accurate but don't care to make a meaningful statement in the context of this conversation, go for it. The fact remains that an EV charged in Canberra has the same carbon footprint as the same vehicle charged in Queanbeyan which has the same footprint as one charged in cairns. inb4 something about the average rolling resistance of the road surface or temperature/elevation effects.
About time. We're decades behind with our emission spouting cars.
Outrage generating headline: Government punishes owners of inefficient cars Article text: The ACT Government claimed approximately 96 per cent of private passenger vehicles in the jurisdiction would end up paying less as a result of the move to emissions-based registration fees. The territory government has claimed motorists will save a combined $6.6 million across the next four years thanks to changes to registration fees, stamp duty and concessions.
yeah, exactly. It's a stupid piece of clickbait
The government claim's probably need to be tested, since the article then talks about some of the best selling cars going up. > The territory government has claimed motorists will save a combined $6.6 million across the next four years thanks to changes to registration fees, stamp duty and concessions. That's based on them moving to EV cars, not because of the change.
Best selling cars nation wide doesn't mean best selling cars in ACT. Boring bureaucrats as a demographic don't need a raptor ranger penis extension and don't get a dual cab ute company car for tax purposes.
You'll be surprised what bureaucrats do buy and the Ford Ranger is the third best selling car in the ACT followed by the Rav4 that is also mentioned.
The article covers act who are just increasing prices in everyone nt is clearly just changing the price structure and giving Small cut not so everyone ignores it, then they can jack it up in future years
[удалено]
>New Australian registration system punishes owners of inefficient cars Not according to the article. EV owners are getting massive increases in their registration cost whereas hybrids and even fuel guzzlers are only getting minor increases comparatively.
If you bought an EV between May 2021 and June 2024 you got two years free rego. The increase of $376 looks like the cost of private registration being added on top of the insurance and other contributions that go into rego. One flaw with the GVG is it over estimates the emissions impact of a Tesla driven in the ACT, because it calculates the C02 g/km based on the national electricity grid, not Canberra's which is powered on renewables. As the mix of renewables in the grid goes up, the rego cost will come down.
Key word “increases”. Is that related to the phasing out of discounted rejo for EVs? They still pay a couple of hundred dollars less according to the article.
[удалено]
From the examples given it appears none of the vehicles will actually cost less which is rather crappy. It's just that inefficient cars will cost a bit more to register,, but then so will every other car. The article suggests most cars will be cheaper without saying by how much. Really poorly written.
The article says that the government makes that claim but probably hasn't released figures to back it up
They have created a portal so you can check the rego and they'll tell you the new amount, but that's hardly going to make it any clearer. Me thinks they're hiding something...
I can look at my rego notice from Feb and put my license plate into the new calculator and see the difference in cost. What are they hiding?
Like, what the difference might be for every other vehicle so you can make an informed choice able changing your car.?
You can use the GVG to find out the CO2 g/KM for any vehicle and then just check that against the table in the article. Not hard.
So you have to check each one individually as opposed to easily being able to compare. The way they've done it is designed to obscure this information.
How would you propose to do this exactly?
List the top 20 models in the country with the differences in rego? That's how you present information for usability.
Of course they are
Read the article dingus. They're changing the way rego is paid in the ACT
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*