Possibly for the first time ever.

“What if some poor guy in Watts retires and says, ‘I want an SUV,’ ” Dymally [state representative from Compton] said. “Do you punish him for that?”

Yes. And it’s not a punishment. It’s a consequence. You drive a big polluting car. You should pay more to pollute. Period. It doesn’t matter if you live in Watts or Westwood.

The state of California is considering a “sin tax,” much like taxes on liquor and cigarettes, on folks who insist on driving SUVs that pollute more (Hummers, Tahoes, etc). You get a rebate if you drive something that doesn’t pollute.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group that worked closely with Ruskin [a proponent], estimates that California’s emissions could drop by as much as 57 million metric tons a year by 2030 as a result of the feebates. That would be equivalent to taking about 9 million cars and trucks off the road [emphasis added].

Opponents, including automakers and the United Auto Workers, warn that the fees could have a disproportionate effect on lower-income buyers who may need large family cars and businesses that haul equipment.

I’m waiting to see any data on that “disproportionate effect.”

One of the reasons we have such big environmental problems is that we consistently separate the cost of the product (the car) from the cost of the pollution the product causes (smog). It’s a terrible idea to separate the two. But here we are.