Connecticut General Assembly Bill 660 Hearing Friday March 17, 2006

Spokesman Available for Comment

Advocates of centralized planning are active in Connecticut. Under the banner of reducing air pollution and without any proof that such would even occur, legislation pending in the General Assembly would create an emissions- based vehicle "sales tax adjustment program." Translation: Using the tax code to sock it to those who drive larger, safer, more useful vehicles.

A major flaw in the legislation's premise is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles will result in cleaner air. Not so. The chief greenhouse gas emitted from motor vehicles is carbon dioxide (CO2) -- a harmless, naturally occurring gas that living beings exhale and plants "inhale" to create oxygen. US EPA does not even classify CO2 as a "pollutant." This is not an "air quality" issue.

Also, unlike true pollution or smog, CO2 is ubiquitous and additions to the atmosphere that may affect the earth's climate act globally not locally. So another major flaw in this legislation is the pain Connecticut motorists will suffer through higher taxes will all be in vain because rapidly growing CO2 emissions from developing countries like China and India will far outweigh reductions in not only Connecticut but even if the entire country were to adopt such legislation. All pain, no gain.

Citizens of Connecticut beware -- you may have to pay higher taxes for absolutely no benefit. Legislators should back off and breathe easy knowing that all cars regardless of their fuel economy rating are required to meet the same tailpipe emissions standards for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides -- true pollution. And EPA has already enacted even tougher regulations that require virtually all light trucks (SUVs, pickups, vans and minivans) to meet the same strict emissions standards as cars. The new vehicles today are 99% pollution-free.

Why should a family -- or businessperson -- pay a punitive additional tax for owning a larger vehicle that meets their lifestyle and/or business needs? Why give a tax break solely to those whose circumstances -- or personal preference -- allows the purchase of a small car? Using this legislation's same logic should we also penalize people for buying larger homes that use more energy than the average person? Should we limit the amount of computers, TV sets, electronic gadgets per household to limit personal energy consumption? Let's hope not and that the absurdity stops here.

Finally, the economic cost of motor vehicle crashes is staggering. If anything, the State should offer a tax incentive to those who buy the vehicles with the lowest fatality and injury rates -- larger cars and SUVs -- the ones currently in the crosshairs of Connecticut Big Brother.

SUVOA President Barry McCahill is available to argue that this legislation amounts to blatant discrimination against families, businesses and recreational enthusiasts who need larger vehicles and most important, will increase fatalities and injuries on Connecticut's highways.

SUVOA President Barry McCahill, is available for comment.

SUVOA is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the rights and serving the interests of 66 million SUV and light truck owners. For more information about SUVOA visit http://www.suvoa.com/.

PRNewswire -- March 16