Trans-portability Theory
{ From Special
to General }
Einstein's
came up with “ Theory of Special Relativity “ in 1905
Then , he
proposed “ Theory of General Relativity
“ in 1915
Context :
Highlights :
In a report
titled ' Transforming India's
Mobility ' NITI Aayog had suggested ,
# using the feebate mechanism to incentivize
the use of green mobility
technologies
# identifying potential mechanisms
# develop a regulation for incentivizing
green mobility technologies with a
feebate mechanism.
Proposed Methodology :
NITI Aayog
wants to levy a " Penalty " on 2
wheelers ( 2 crore getting sold per year in India - and almost all use Petrol – a polluting fuel )
and,
Use this
money ( Rs 500 per 2 wheeler = Rs 10,00 cr / year ) to give " Subsidy " to Electric Vehicles ( non - polluting )
For
calculating that
·
Penalty for the polluting 2
wheelers , and
·
Subsidy , for the Electric Vehicles ,
NITI
Aayog proposes to use the following “ factors “ of usage :
# " Energy Used "
( Polluting Petrol
vs Non polluting Electricity )
#
TIME of usage (
Weekday
Working Hour )
#
LOCATION of use ( Vehicles
entering City Centre )
Also
envisaged in another report of NITI Aayog ( Goods on the Move ) :
# Charging
trucks to enter the city during congested periods while incentivising them to
enter
during night time ( with both, costs and savings being passed through to the
receivers of those goods )
Let us call
this proposal of NITI Aayog , “ Theory of Special Transportability “
So , why is Heavy Industries Ministry objecting ?
·
There is already a 16 per cent Feebate in place
as EVs attract 12 per cent GST whereas the IC-engine vehicles attract 28 per
cent
·
NITI proposal could
lead to a hike in prices
·
Practical challenges associated with the
collection of the tax , once introduced
·
Who will collect it as now all cesses have been
subsumed under the GST ?
=======================================================
My
Take :
·
NITI Aayog proposal is more of a “ Special Theory “ which takes into account only 3
factors ( Energy type / Time / Location
)
·
It ignores the following factors :
Ownership – Purpose – Age of Vehicle –
Capacity – Where used – When used
·
Despite a 2 wheeler using “ dirty petrol “ , if
ALL of the above mentioned factors were taken into account , there will be scenarios when a
2-wheeler is causing less HARM to the environment than even an Electric car
!
·
All of these factors ( of usage ) do not cause
“ identical “ impact on the environment . It is therefore essential to assign different “ Weightages “
to each factor , depending upon it’s “ Harm Potential “
·
Since ALL
vehicles are causing at least “ some and VARYING
amount “ of HARM to the environment , throughout
the day ( and night ) , there is no case for penalizing “ some ( by permanent “
branding “ as bad vehicles ) and subsidizing
others ( by permanent branding as good vehicles )
. This is a flawed argument !
·
No proposal
must depend upon “ human intervention / discretion “ , which will , not only make it difficult ( more likely, impossible ) to implement ,but will invariably
lead to increased corruption
!
·
A proposal must
be seen as “ just – impartial – unbiased “ and
must get implemented consistently and automatically “ without
fear or favour “ ! Only then it will be respected even if it is “
disliked “
My proposal :
Envisages a
technology-based platform which collects a “ TRANSPORT TAX “ from ALL vehicles ,
# Automatically - Consistently
# Every Hour
# Without human intervention
-
based on integrated Pigouvian approach to transport tax pricing
You might
even want to call ,
Transport : an
Integrated Logistic Plan ? ,
-
a “ Theory of
General Transportability “
====================================================================
11 Dec 2018
www.hemenparekh.in
/ blogs
