View Public Input on TCI-P

Studies and research project that this initiative (TCI) will only reduce global temperature by a minute amount; while costing Virginians an exorbitant (regressive) carbon tax on the fuel they need to travel all the while - reducing the revenue needed to maintain our roads. Electric vehicles' manufacturing process result in its own pollutants for a long time, and EV batteries are toxic and currently not being disposed of safely. There is no 'cost-benefit' to this proposed rule. As always, any increases in costs to companies will simply be passed along to their consumers. I am against this proposed rule and TCI. It flies in the face of logic.

Please don't pass TCI in Virginia. As I've lived in Virginia, one of the ways that my family has been able to make ends meet is the affordable energy prices compared to California, specifically gas prices are much more affordable. I understand that revenue raised will go to specific industries that may or may not be effective at discovering better energy efficiency. Also, I've read that there will be marginal climate change prevention. So it's a bad policy.

An increased and robust ability for the public to have transparency available to them regarding public works projects they fund seems a stellar notion. The more transparency the better!

The plan strikes me as a sensible step toward reducing particulate emissions, especially in communities near highways (which tend to be minority and/or low income) and toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Any increase in gas prices would be small in comparison to the normal fluctuations, and the combined revenue and cost savings in other areas (including health care) would more than offset those costs. I strongly favor the plan.

TCI-P,
"According to soil scientists, at current rates of soil destruction (i.e. decarbonization,.....),....we will literally no longer have enough arable topsoil to feed ourselves."

DECARBONIZATION is causing Soil Destruction!!!

What we NEED is to take the extra Carbon out of the air & put it directly into the ground, where it is needed.

We do not need to fully decarbonize the transportation sector, nor is it desirable as it will CREATE other severe problems like Soil Destruction.

We need to cut-out the middlemen, like the transportation sector, & simply use Carbon Capture to take excess CO2 out of the air & inject it into the soil where it is needed most.

Way too much emphasis has been put on Carbon in the atmosphere (which is very benign) & not enough focus on gases far more dangerous to Climate Change, from refrigerant used in Air Conditioners to Methane Gas (Methane's "global warming potential is 86 times higher than carbon dioxide when averaged over 20 years").

We NEED Energy Diversity, & not rely on just 1 type of energy (like electricity), to have a BALANCED approach to a Healthy Environment while meeting our Energy Needs in a Common-Sense Clean manner (like with Renewable Gasoline, Renewable Diesel, & other Biofuels for transportation, ALL of which are made from recycled EXISTING CO2).

We should NOT be wasting Time nor Money "reinventing the wheel", which creates additional unnecessary pollution.

Nor should we go to the extremes of fully decarbonization which will lead to other More Severe Environmental problems.

Keep in mind "The current industrial food system is responsible for 44 to 57% of all global greenhouse gas emissions." (The "current industrial food system", NOT transportation.) https://regenerationinternational.org/why-regenerative-agriculture

Regards,
Jeff

As I read between the lines of the TCI-P proposal, its effect will be to raise the price of fuel at the service station. This would of course burden the low income public that may need transportation to make a living. How about a proposal that does not effect the price of fuel at the pump but does provide incentives for different mobility purchase choices?

A recent report noted that "....higher emissions from the market shift to larger, more powerful vehicles have swamped potential CO2 reductions from electric vehicles by a factor of five." Maybe it's time to tax fuel inefficient cars, upon purchase, for the price of lifetime CO2 generation above that of a fleet equivalent EV. Consider: with the social cost of CO2 at $50/ton, and each gallon of gasoline creating 20 lbs of CO2, the social cost of CO2 is about 1$/gal. An EV with a 100 mpge rating would thus create a CO2 social cost of $2000 over a lifetime of 200,000 miles. A vehicle getting only 25 mpg would create a social cost of $8000, $6000 more the the EV. That would be the tax upon purchase. Inclusion of this real cost to the environment might motivate purchasers of new cars to consider buying an EV over a gas guzzler. Revenue raised could be used to offset EV purchases. Low income people don’t typically buy new cars and would thus not be burdened by this extra cost upon purchase of a used car that has already paid the CO2 charge. For cars driven in VT but purchased outside the State, an age proportional charge would be asessed.