Honda Insight Forum banner

Do you think that the gov't should offer incentives to encourage "green car" sales

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only if they offer it to anyone who has already bought an Insight while they're at it!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I talked to a reporter from a University newspaper last night about the Insight. One of the questions he asked me was if I thought that the Canadian government should offer incentives to boost "green car" sales. (Ontario gov't offers a rebate for 2002+ buyers - I've yet to fill out the paperwork to get it - but the feds aren't doing anything.)

My response to the guy was that the Insight alone was incentive enough, because I love driving it so much and that I would have paid 10K more. (Don't tell my Honda rep I said that! :D)

What do you folks think - would a government payout encourage better sales? Would the federal or province/state governments waving money at you to buy green have made an impact on your decision or would it have just been bonus money?

Opal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
I say yes (even though #3 is a great option :lol: )
just because look at Europe. The government taxes the heck out of gas, and now most of them drive small cars, and use their cleaner diesel.
but since anyone attempting the same here in the US would mysteriously disappear, incentives would be great!

after all, a "small business owner" can get 75k for an SUV, so why not give ~$5k to greener cars?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,448 Posts
To the extend they might limit it to vehicles that pollut X amount times volume or lower. In a way, seeing the US incentive phased out in the light that it encouraged people to buy the first hybrids, which were small and very fuel efficient, but now even the early buyers of the Escape hybrid will not be able to get the full $2,000, yet I would bet that sales on the Escape hybrid are going to be significant because it's an SUV, the public craves them.

I have mixed feelings about it. Really we are likely to see many SUV hybrids in the next few years and I can't see them really getting the environmental incentive unless they are like the electric RAV4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
The thing that bugs me is that I bought my Insight used for multiple reasons, including lower expense on the actual price of the car, and I can't get the tax incentive because (it is my understanding that) the incentive only applies to owners who are putting the car into service for the first time.
~Martin
2000 5 Spd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I think the tax incentives helped (atleast to make me look like a smart consumer to my friends). The actual monetary benefit was small and really didn't play into my decision to buy the car, though it did help convince my wife to buy hers. Her incentives to buy the car were ( in order of importance): she was jealous of all the attention I was getting, she likes small cars, it saves her money from gas purchase and tax incentive, it reduces the frequency of trips to smelly gas stations. My incentives were: to reduce greenhouse gas emisions, to look like the environmentalist that I claim to be.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
891 Posts
Martin, your understanding of the tax incentive is correct.

Government should play a role in protecting its people, and we need protection from pollution -- if left to our own selfish interests the tragedy of the commons shows us that we would destroy our common resources like clean air and clean water.

With respect to cleaner cars, tax incentives are one possible solution; a gasoline tax is another, and raising the CAFE requirement yet another.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
stupid California move

Maybe this was discussed elsewhere on the board, I'm still catching up with the week's postings? If so, apologies.

Did you see where CA re-affirmed it's mandate for zero emissions vehicles and, in doing so, decided not to incent or otherwise encourage SULEVs, hybrid or otherwise? What dinks. They could have made a move that would have encouraged progress in the short and medium term. Instead, they have just pushed things right back into limbo.

As I understand it, the Sierra Club (I'm an embarrassed member) and the electric car zealots, pushed thru this non-compromising, non-effective measure.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
Allnighte said:
just look at Europe. The government taxes the heck out of gas, and now most of them drive small cars
Glad that us in Europe got a mention. You're right in that Government (especially UK) taxes gas heavily. However it doesn't generally mean that people use their cars less or drive small cars (SUVs are un-necessarily popular for townies here as well). However people do have smaller engined cars in the UK compared to the US, with the majority of engines no bigger than 2 litre in size.

While we are are on the subject of taxes & incentives the Mayor of London has courageously decided to tax the car drivers that drive into central London at a rate of £5 ($7.85) per day - the congestion charge tax. Early indications show a reduction in traffic of around 20%. Of course sensible forms of transport like the Insight are congestion charge tax free! How would that tax go down in your home towns?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
498 Posts
I voted No!

I'll admit it: I voted no!

I think giving incentives to buy cars that save fuel is the wrong way. (Just as mandating fleet mpg is.) The better way is to tax gas. Although at first glance this might seem to have the same affect, it does have additional benefits:
-it adds an incentive to drive less for small and big cars alike
-it provides tax revenue that can be used for programs directly related to the burning of fuel (i.e. clean energy research).
-it gives an incentive to owners of old gas-guzzlers to replace them

ok now, flame away!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
I thought for sure we all would have picked #3. If they wanted to give me $ for something I have already done, why not?!?! They take money from me for something I have already done---work, why not the other way for once?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
652 Posts
Tax

Armin,
I agree with your comments. I oppose any special interest (that being us) legislation. Actually I think with todays technology we could get away from a representative democracy and to a direct one. I think that would effectively end the silly expenditures that our tax dollars sometimes support. Off course if you are counting on a government grant to support the study of fruit fly social behavior you would have to get a part time job. Have fun, Rick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
nope, CA re-instated the zero emmissions ruling

it looked like they were going to come to their senses, but then reversed direction. From the 3/29 SF Chronicle "State holds line on cleaner car rule
'Zero-emission' mandate to stay, despite resistance".

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 217448.DTL

______________Ron


Tim Maddux said:
Actually, they dropped the mandate for ZEVs, which is the opposite of what you state. There's a thread about it here:

http://www.insightcentral.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top