Transportability 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 will 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
You might
even want to call ,
Transport : an
Integrated Logistic Plan ? ,
-
a “ Theory of
General Transportability “
====================================================================
11
Dec 2018
www.hemenparekh.in / blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment