Brilliant solution. It is timely. Why take so long to complete and publish the report? How would it work across state borders? Could it be replicated in other countries?

The idea that awareness of your consumption rates can make you cut consumption is confirmed by experiments on home electricity use.

All solutions of this kind depend on a high level of social integration and on trust that data are used according to strict and auditable rules.

If we have the time, this kind of approach has much to offer. Even if we don't, it is still worthwhile. It could become an element in a carbon rationing system

I love the idea of people being more aware of their mileages. However, I would never, EVER endorse a plan in which a government places a GPS in my car. Who knows what other information they could collect with it? It would be all too easy for people in power to become corrupt--I could see this turning big brother, and quick.

I'd love better way to deal with the tax problem, but I also value my privacy very much, as well.

I live in an isolated are and must drive 80 miles to the doctor, clothing, hardware, mechanic, etc. Does the milage tax have adjustments for rural folks who must make long drives to reach services?

I must be missing something here. It sounds like a Prius driver and an SUV driver will be paying the same amount of tax if it is a mileage tax. Under the present gas tax system it seems to me there is an incentive to drive a vehicle that uses less gas. What am I missing?

Dick, you are absolutely correct. The mileage-based taxation is regressive, compared to the very simple solution of increasing the tax rate for the fuel, which is really what we should be looking at. Complicating the equation serves no real purpose but to involve the government more in our personal lives. All that need be done to cure the "problem" is to increase the present gas tax to cover the shortfall of revenues. We don't need more intrusiveness, which involves more government employees to monitor the system. The proposal is illogical, wasteful and destructive of liberty. Sure would be nice if Oregon could stop trying to compete with their northern neighbor for the title of "Most Socialist State."

Most states impose mandatory annual or bi-annual inspections, in which mileage is one input data point along with insurance information, etc. That is the opportunity for imposing fees, not tacked onto gas taxes somewhat arbitrarily. The concept of mileage-based taxation is fair, but the means for gathering that information (passively via GPS) is flawed and borderline unconstitutional, like Stephanie says, above.

There are other ways to impose "congestion-based" taxes, if necessary, but the purpose and scope of that porgram needs to be clearly defined and segregated from budget-gap-filling.

If the Terrapass stated mission is to focus on our carbon footprint, how does a mileage-based tax square with that? What is the relationship between miles driven and carbon emitted? In short, it depends on what and how one drives. A mileage tax ignores that simple fact. Your position does not address that question. Neither have your replies to any of the comments so far. Clearly, Adam, your position is more about enhancement for the state(s) tax base as opposed to reducing the motorist's carbon footprint. That's what all these comments have been trying to tell you, but your replies so far are more defensive than insightful. Different and more intrusive taxes are NOT the answer, but increasing present taxes will probably be effective in reducing carbon footprint. Stick to the real issue and you probably won't get all the comments that you simply "don't get it".

I know people who won't even get an EZ-Pass because they are afraid that the government will use it to track them. This self-selected group that was used in the Oregon study loved it because they obviously are not the type of people who are worried about this sort of thing.

I fear that this particular system will encounter too much of this type of resistance if an attempt is made to take it national. Why not make it part of your annual tax filing. Allow self-reporting with spot-check audits.

To agree that "people who drive more emit more carbon" would indeed make this an ecological discussion rather than political. There is a serious flaw in that twisted logic, however. Driving a Prius at 50 MPG, for instance, probably produces 1/10 the CO2 as a Sierra pickup at 20 MPG. Why should both vehicles be charged the same mileage tax? Your argument that such a tax works in Oregon begs the question of what environmental benefit is derived from a mileage tax? The short answer is: NONE. There is absolutely no benefit derived by the motorist.
The only benefit is to the states, who would enhance their tax revenues with such a scheme. Is this web page devoted to the environment, or to a political agenda? There is absolutely no benefit derived by the motorist or the environment. In fact, the environment could suffer. This scheme would be a disincentive to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, inasmuch as their tax would be the same as that for a larger fuel hog that could be used for car pooling. You haven't addressed similar questions from readers of your blog, so I conclude that your mind is made up and you choose not to be swayed by the facts.

I don't subscribe to the Terrapass newsletter to read political blogs and I suspect there are a goodly number of environmentally-oriented readers who feel the same. For whom does the Oregon scheme work? Your article infers that it works for the state, but is curiously silent as to the benefits for the environment or the motorist.

A logical and sincere question may seem surreal to you, Adam, but that is generally a condition more accurately attributed to one with a closed mind. Please don't reply with personal attacks on the individual commenters. That only brings into question the logic of your own assumptions and doesn't answer their concerns.

- How does a car using 20% as much gas emit 10% as much carbon?

- How can you separate politics and environmentalism?

- How does increasing the cost of driving result in no environmental benefit?

- A fuel-efficiency neutral tax such as this provides no incentive to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, but it is not a DIS-incentive. There is a difference.

- Not every act of public policy needs to be centered around convincing drivers to purchase hybrids. This act would reduce the amount of miles driven by EVERYBODY.

- How do you manage to dress yourself in the mornings?

I agree with Tom: what do we do about Oregonians (and other citizens as such a plan is implemented around the nation) who are located in areas that require lots of travel to reach jobs and services? How do we make this equitable for them?

I drive 60 miles a day to reach my job, and I live in the greater Portland area. This tight economy should be showing us all that living close to your work maybe laudable, but not very practical a lot of the time. Let's not forget that many people who live in rural areas provide the rest of us with necessary food and other goods. Are we going to pay more for those essentials as a mileage tax is passed on to the consumer? Do we really want to make things like food more expensive for all citizens? Seems rather regressive to me.

I agree that we have to do something about roads and infrastructure costs, but this may not be the most equitable solution.

Helen, are you a farmer? If so, why do you live 60 miles from your farm? If not, then why are you grouping yourself in with farmers, who have no commute because they live at their job?

The problem is that gas tax revenues are falling and need to be made up. More gas taxes are already paid by people who live in rural areas because they use more gas. Now, more mileage taxes will be paid by people who live in rural areas because they drive more miles.

These types of taxes are intended to promote density. They promote density by providing financial incentives to moving closer to where you work. That means in order for it to have any effect, it MUST, by definition, be more expensive for people who live in the exurbs.

I'm all for the mileage tax so long as a multiplier is used for the weight of the car because heavier vehicles cause more road wear than lighter cars. That solves the problem of high mileage cars being taxed the same as low mileage SUVs and helps encourage people to drive smaller cars. If the multiplier is not used, I'm against the program.

Jesse, to answer your questions in order:

A car burning 20% the fuel of another can emit 10% the carbon with a more efficient combustion process and better treatment of the exhaust gases.

Environmentalism and politics are rather easily separated by those who value both. Otherwise, there would be no conservative conservationists. The fact that they exist should obviate your question. If I, like you, thought that political and environmental issues were inseparable, then I would ask why the Soviet Union was not the most environmentally friendly government the world has ever seen? We all know the mess they left in Eastern Europe and even worse, in Chernobyl. I would posit that conservation and politics have little to do with each other. By treating them separately, we may avoid alienating those who agree with us in one area, while opposing us in another.

Increasing the cost of driving in and of itself does not benefit the environment; it just makes everyone poorer. If that is the objective here, it stands a good chance of success.

I disagree that a mileage-neutral additional tax, as you describe this, is not a disincentive to operating more fuel-efficient vehicles. It raises the proportion of total taxes paid by those with fuel efficient vehicles. A larger vehicle is more attractive, based strictly on being able to carry a larger payload for the same tax/distance.

I doubt that such a mileage tax would reduce the miles driven by everybody. Some, like myself, already drive as little as we can. I don't know anyone, in fact, who goes out driving because it's cheap. It has nothing to do with hybrids, just logic.

I manage to dress myself every morning quite well, thanks, but that last remark inflicted some doubt on the validity of your entire point.

Don't tell me this is not a way for the government to track our living habits. Don't tell me that they have any business snooping into how many miles we drive. And also don't tell me they won't know our whereabouts if a scanner recording our mileage has a specific location. DUH!

The Iron Curtain fell when the government relaxed its control over the economy. Think about it.

Global warming is real and must be dealt with, as an emergency issue. I agree completely. But let's not be short-sighted about the effects of how things are regulated. We Americans are so used to our freedoms that we can't fathom what is to come given the government overstepping of the boundaries.

Another person posting here mentioned having to drive 80 miles just to get to the store or hospital: Really should such people be taxed for their necessary mileage? I agree with his point.

There are many ways to go to curb congestion and global warming. This "Solution" poses more problems than it solves.

PS If the government poses a tax on our *lifestyle* (which is what this amounts to) what's next?

Do you know that California already proposed another such "Solution" for "emergency" situations which would have required Californians to purchase a remote-controlled heating device to their homes? That the State of California----ie Governor Schwartzenegger----would have controlled the heating of our homes via remote control, at the vague pronouncement of "Emergency" ? Do you know that they already are forcibly spraying private properties---that's private back yards----with pesticides never before tested on human beings, ignoring all complaints of ensuing illnesses and saying "nothing proves otherwise" than that the illnesses bear no connection to that spraying? Do you know that court orders have been issued to force such health-harming sprays through, all in the name of an "emergency" moth which according to the government of Australia poses no threat to crops? If they were really serious about eradicating an "emergency" moth, wouldn't they be spraying agricultural areas and not urban areas of human beings?

Repeat: If the government tracks our mileage, what's next? Think about it.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves". ---Paul Revere the younger

It is very interesting how the government can come up with so many ingenious ways to fleece their citizens out of tax dollars, but can not find a way to cut spending or balance their budgets. This punishes people who have to live in cheaper communities that are sometimes far from their jobs, or families with both parents working that have no way of living close to their jobs. The first way to meet government short falls should be to cut spending. Also, the government created these expressway systems specifically for people to drive. Why not spend money to develop fast and convenient public transportation systems before taxing citizenry for following the program that was laid out 50 years ago, namely to drive everywhere.

Just a side note. The major city close to where I live decided to add a fancy taxing system on parking meters. Guess what, people burn, tamper with, and demolish these meters and the streets are often deserted, meaning much lower tax revenue.

Wonder how some one with an electric car would feel about this?

A mileage tax, I would maintain, is greener than a fuel tax, if either:
1. The tax is set at a level that makes the car owner or driver pay more in mileage tax than he would have paid in fuel tax , or
2. The psychological effect is to make the driver more conscious, mile on mile, of the tax he pays, even if he pays no more tax in aggregate, and if it thus makes him moderate his car use.

A mileage tax is greener than a car tax or a car registration fee, because it is based on mileage and not on mere right to drive the car on the roads. The same would be true of car insurance, if it were charged by the mile.

There is a better way; check it out at
http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/should-a-mileage-tax-eventuall.php#1317472

Adam, heavy vehicles tear up the road much more than the rest of us.

That is why SUVs should still pay more than lightweight cars(typically also more fuel efficient).

Why not have a weight tax?

I guess my environmental credentials aren't what I thought they were. I think that this is a ludicrous idea. I'd love to see insurance based on miles driven (and how they were driven). But taxing miles rather than (or in addition to) gallons of gas does nothing to encourage people out of their 12 mpg SUVs.

Reading the comments, people are shooting off into all sorts of different fees and taxes. I think we should make it simple: increase the federal gas tax by a dime every four months for the next five years, or longer. Any faster and we'll risk both inflation and making the economic picture worse. I also think that something like London's congestion charge makes sense in urban areas plagued with congestion and pollution. Anything more becomes too complicated and will make the large majority of Americans (who do care about the environment) think environmentalists are a bunch of tree-hugging elitist wackos who don't understand the difficult (read rural poverty, among other things) lives people lead.

A gradually phased-in gas tax (rather than a mileage tax) will both discourage unnecessary driving (hopefully encouraging mass transit usage) and encourage people to drive more efficient cars. I think that's our answer.

As to the weight tax; I don't know how many states do this, but Michigan's annual registration fee is based in part on weight. It wouldn't be a bad idea to weigh weight more heavily, as long as some consideration is given to the poor people who are stuck driving a 30 year old 2-ton car 20 miles to the nearest store for a loaf of bread.

Adam,

It appears that you view opposing comments that disagree with your stance as a challenge to a war of wits. You quote your statistics as though they were the absolute gospel. In fact, many people base their purchases on fuel mileage, despite your statistics as to costs. You are very selective as to what statistics you quote, as is GM when they say they have the most fuel efficient fleet. The fact is that most purchasers are not buying a fleet, but a single vehicle.

The proof that your statistics are invalid can be found in the sales numbers last summer, when gas prices spiked. Fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids has record-setting sales, whereas SUV sales were in the toilet.

I think that your statistics will be viewed as less than reality by the readers who can think beyond simple statistical propaganda.

Funny how you say the Oregon mileage based tax study was successful, yet you didn't say what the measure of that success was. I assume that the only success was in the ability to impose an intrusive additional tax on the populace, while ignoring the fact that increasing the present fuel tax is far more logical and fair.

I know you stated that the fuel tax is too low, but raising it is much simpler and more effective than imposing the mileage tax that you flog, despite the shortcomings your readers attempted to point out. This is not a duel, Adam. You are not required to parry each thrust of the commenters. The overwhelming number of comments should give you pause, if you're really open to discussion.

He didn't say that car buyers weren't influenced by mileage. He said they weren't influenced by the gas tax. There is a difference.

So arguing (as you and others have done) that mileage tax which doesn't take efficiency into account somehow influences whether or not people will buy a hybrid is inaccurate.

Once more, with feeling: A gas tax DOES incentivise the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles.

Unless you're just totally in denial, like Adam, look at the fuel cost in Europe due to high fuel taxes. Then look at the vehicles that Europeans purchase. That is the true picture, despite Adam's rhetoric to the contrary.

Facts are facts, Adam, but don't be swayed by them. Keep on spewing the party line. Perhaps your argument will be more believable if you use all CAPS in your replies.

"Increasing the cost of driving in and of itself does not benefit the environment" says Howard Fuller.

What is your evidence for that statement? Clearly, increasing the cost of driving reduces the amount of driving, and that benefits the environment. There may be other pluses and minuses to consider, but you cannot dispute this basic truth.

My concern with the mileage tax as proposed by Adam Stein is that it is intended to boost the revenues of the highway departments, which, granted, have found themselves underfunded relying mainly on gas taxes.

However, it's vital to direct a significant portion those increased revenues to transit, to highway maintenance, and to efficiency measures such as traffic management, accident response, etc.

Otherwise, you may be decreasing the driving with one hand(thru the mileage tax), while increasing driving with the other hand (by financing road expansions).

And there is an equity issue here. I remember the story of a young teacher who complained that her school did not pay her enough to live close to the community in which she taught and now she was going to be punished further with higher taxes to drive to her school.

I agree that we should not subsidize long commutes, but you must recognize the fundamental unfairness facing this teacher. This is a case where environmentalism exacerbates the considerable economic inequality in our society. The solution here is to provide excellent, cheap transit -- and that takes money. That's where the mileage taxes should go.

I do not understand the basis for your question. Applying a tax to any actiity does not, in and of itself, provide a benefit to anyone except the taxing entity. Public benefit is only derived when the collected funds are used for projects or policies perceived as filling a public need.

Increasing the cost of any activity, such as driving, does not provide a benefit to the public unless the activity is somehow modified or diminished in a manner that also diminishes harmful environmental effects derived from driving, such as air pollution, traffic congestion or the need to fund other transportation projects.

Making driving more expensive is not a valid goal in and of itself in a free society. It should only be, at best, a means toward a goal or goals. There must be a countervaling public benefit for any taxation. Otherwise, taxation becomes an exercise in social engineering as opposed to a funding mechanism.

Hello, Gee some very interesting comments. We are really looking at it at the end of the hose aren't we? Sorry to be a supply side guy, tax the barrel, tax the gallon refined. Again in 2008 Exxon-Mobil and Chevron made more profit than any corporation in the history of captialism. Oh, sure we can pass some of that to speculation; yet, the profit was still per barrel. If you get the money there per barrel and per ton of coal, the whole captialism system absorbes the tax. A new system on top of a system, with all the addition carbon to make it go, is the problem. Drinking to get drunk is just that.
thxs dm

If anyone is reading this far... The problem with the "resounding success" of the Oregon study is that it was designed to be successful. How can a study be valid when it is conducted on 299 people willing to have GPS installed in their cars for the purpose of tax collection? A much more valid solution would have been to randomly pick 299 registered car owners, and then see their reaction, and analyze those results.

If I have time to read the report, I will, but from your summary, I can't understand how overhead is low, privacy is protected, and evasion is difficult. The overhead to install GPS receivers and wireless transmitters in ever car, wireless receivers at every pump, and servers to handle the database requirements (especially if further calculations on fuel efficiency are required), and maintenance to keep all this running, doesn't strike me as low. You said privacy was protected because the state only gets odometer information. Then why is a GPS receiver necessary? Just read the odometer information (most are electronic these days anyway). And evasion is difficult currently, when there is a gas tax to supplement- but if that goes away, and a GPS receiver is tampered with, how is that detected? Now we will have to have gas pumps (or electric charging stations) that won't work unless you're GPS reports that it is tamper free. Now I'm driving somewhere and my GPS breaks and I can't buy gas (or plug in to recharge).

And come on, one participant needed a GPS to realize how short distances were in her neighborhood? Who were these volunteers?

Conclusion: flawed study that was designed to be successful, unrealistic and complicated implementation, and unnecessary as there are alternate means to accomplish this goal. Such as: tolls, gas tax as a percentage of gas price and not a flat rate, holding governments accountable for spending.

Oregon already has required checkups every 2 years. Why not charge based off an odometer reading then instead of tracking where people go.

Once GPS is required in ever car, the government will be able to track you in your vehicle wherever you are. If the GPS device in your car knows where it is, then the satellites providing the GPS do as well. It's a very small step to store all that information.

Wow. This is a criminally stupid system. A gps in my vehicle monitored by the state? Really? You're kidding right? Absolutly not. Calling this a success is like congradulating Hitler on a job well done.

Wow.

[Ed. -- Wow, indeed. A Godwin's Law violation in reference to a road toll system. You're kidding, right?]

There is an obvious counter to the argument that gas taxes are ineffective: Europe. The results are obvious: their cars are more efficient, they use their cars less, the roads are far better maintained, etc, etc

I think that vehicles should be taxed, and liability insurance assessed by the vehicle's weight. I'm incensed that I pay the same rate for liability in my 2500 lb. Toyota as someone in a 6500 lb Escalade, even though its' proven that the owner of that porker is six times more likely to kill me, injure me, or damage my vehicle than the other way around. Small vehicle drivers have have subsidizing these pigs for to long. The mileage tax is yet another subsidy. As Senator Lloyd Bentsen said, it's feeding the wrong end of the horse.

[Ed. -- this obvious counter has been addressed many times over here. European gas taxes are politically impossible here. No one questions that they can work in theory. They don't work in practice.]

An additional point:

One of the biggest complaints leveled against gas tax in this blog is that it falls as cars become more fuel efficient.

At the same time, one of the greatest benefits of mileage tax is that "It turns out that all participants reduced their driving relative to the control group".