A tax on new cars is the key proposal of the Conservatives' environmental policy review, to be presented to David Cameron this week.
The idea is one of a series of eco-taxes giving consumers new financial incentives to take environment issues more seriously.
The tax would depend on the amount of carbon dioxide a vehicle produces per mile travelled.
A sliding scale would put highpowered sports cars and SUVs in the most expensive bracket while making low-emission hydrogen fuel-cell cars exempt.
tinyurl.com/yqh2yv
|
We already have fuel tax and vehicle excise duty where the higher polluters pay more on an ongoing basis. Using CO2 may be an easy measure already to hand but is too narrow minded for everything and perhaps not the most appropriate at purchase.
How about a new car purchase tax based on the environmental impact of building the car and estimated disposal taking into account lifespan? Of course, it might slap a big tax on cars such as the Prius (and go easy on rugged long-lasting 4x4s), which would upset the traditional environmental lobby, but may open their eyes to the true environmental cost. I'm surprised it hasn't been thought about as a way of clawing back taxes from low-emission cars paying reduced VED, but in practice probably very difficult to grade different vehicles.
|
|
Land Rover now claim their vehicles are carbon neutral after 70k. Be interesting to see the Pious - sorry Prius claim. (given the issues with those batteries)
|
Did someone say 'Conservative'?
Makes it all pretty irrelevant doesn't it?
If the Tories have now decided to act against the motor industry and the retail trade (motoring link), one can't help wondering whether they have any traditional support sources left.
On the related point, all this carbon neutral and carbon offset stuff is more or less tripe, isn't it?
My pal's new Freelander has a sticker on the windscreen saying it is the subject of some sort of carbon offset that - I understand - involves planting trees.
In order to keep my garden tidy I destroy dozens - sometimes hundreds - of saplings a week. So much for saving the planet then...
|
So how much does it cost to build a car in environmental terms?
|
|
|
"My pal's new Freelander has a sticker on the windscreen saying it is the subject of some sort of carbon offset"
Land Rover now claim their vehicles are carbon neutral after 70k
I read the above on a sticker on the new Defender I had a play with.
|
|
|
|
|
What "issues" with those batteries? Or are you just posting random nonsense for a laugh?
|
What "issues" with those batteries?
Based I think on an old (and largely discredited) tree-hugging story about a Canadian nickel mine.
|
|
You're right Lud, I wasn't aware that it had been discredited though. It went along the lines of the extraction/pollution processes, the shipping and subsequent processing in Japan and linked to the ongoing disposal thereafter. We as company run two Honda hybrids, I as a Partner am yet to be convinced that they are as green as they are said to be - mind you the tax breaks we get are very good !
|
|
Of course we know cars aren't all that green PU, Priuses included. But the nickel mine story was rather unfairly angled to attack Toyota, with a photo taken from ground level in a rubbish dump purporting to depict what had happened to the mining area. The mine is quite an old one, vastly predating Priuses or nickel-iron batteries I believe.
|
|
|
|
Re: Prius batteries, The Mail on Sunday newspaper retracted an article linking Toyota's Ni-MH battery production to environmental damage said to have been caused by nickel mining at a facility now owned by Inco at Sudbury, "in order to prevent further misinterpretation",
tinyurl.com/2tw4ud
|
|
I stand corrected and withdraw my allegation !
|
|
You're right, I think I read the article in a discarded newspaper on a train.....serves me right.
|
I'm afraid most of this carbon neutralusage stuff can best be described as cow excement.
It tends to ignore certain items.. such as each car's share of the energy going into the infrastructure (cement manufacture is highly capital and energy intensive).
and it also assumes that using no carbon is a suitable state of affairs.
If you are dead, yes. And if we stopped using oil, about 75% of the world's population would die of hunger. (fertilisers and tractors).
Pity the Green miltants ignore these facts.
As for the Conservatives, their environment policy has been developed by Gummer (of BSE beefburger fame) and the son of a billionaire (Goldsmith)one of whose principal investments was US forests.. (and there is a classic case for Green issues).
And amongst other things it suggests removing GDP and replacing it with a Happiness Index...(I kid you not)..
It is not April 1st .. I seriously had to read it twice. These people do not live in the real wordl! (m
I actually do believe in the world is warming due to man's actions. I also believe most of the militants are 1> ignorant and 2> doing their best to ensure NONE of us believe a word they are saying cos they are extremists...
Since the chances of the Conservatives regaining power in the next 5 years are less than 25% imo, we can all rest easy. (they used to stand for low taxation in the past I believe:-(
madf
|
It was the Tory government who abolished Car Tax in 1992.
If Cameron insists on jumping on the Green Taxes bandwagon, he will remain Leader of the Opposition for the remainder of his short political career. I will vote for anyone brave enough to admit that even if we are responsible for climate change, we the UK, are simply not big enough as a country to do anything about it, and punitive envy taxes do nothing but generate ill feeling and take valuable money out of the economy.
I suspect I will be spoiling my paper then for the forseeable future.
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
I'm afraid most of this carbon neutralusage stuff can best be described as cow excement.
The whole carbon reduction thing rather reminds me of unilateral disarmament - we scrap all our weapons, but other countries don't.
What a great idea.
So tax ourselves into extinction, force all but the rich (all the trendy 'green' celebrities fly First Class/private jets across the world, and use vast amounts of resources) to live a 19th century existence through punitive taxation, while meanwhile the rest of the world does nothing.
So we reduce our output from 3% of the world's CO2 to 2.5%, and meanwhile the Chinese take up the difference in about a month of industrialisation.
|
|
>You're right, I think I read the article in a discarded newspaper on a train.....<
Well, at least the newspaper served a purpose twice before it was binned, so that must help save the planet somehow.
I guess you didn't take it home with you and compost it as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We already have fuel tax and vehicle excise duty where the higher polluters pay more
and there are also parking schemes where high emissions cars pay more, and congestion charge examptions for low emissions cars.
This new 'showroom tax' brings would bring to five the number of 'green taxes' on cars. Quite amazing really.
Have I missed any?
|
The Tories intend apparently, if elected, to increase taxes on large vehicles and make economical, low-emission cars more financially tempting.
This is very green for Tories, but loth as I am to admit it being an automotive libertarian it is also rational and sensible. Private drivers of such vehicles can afford it, or if not can downgrade.
The only worry I have is that some people need large-engined all-terrain vehicles for their work. Big road contractors can afford anything but small builders, hill farmers etc. may need some concessionary arrangement for working vehicles. Should be feasible.
|
This tax sounds very much like the 'gas guzzler' tax in the US.
Vehicles that have a combined economy figure of 22.5 mpg (presumably US gallons) or better pay no tax.
Vehicles with a combined economy figure of worse than 22.5 mpg pay tax on a sliding scale from $1000 to $7700.
However, the tax only applies to vehicles weighing less than 6000 pounds so most SUVs and pickups avoid the tax.
|
|
|
It's a difficult problem for any real or potential government to solve and there's no perfect answer. To be truly "fair" it would be necessary for the taxation to take account of (from the top of my head):
1. Environmental impact of manufacture and import
2. Fuel efficiency / CO2 per km of vehicle
3. Driving style
4. How vehicle is used (urban traffice jam vs. clear roads)
5. Number of people carried in vehicle
6. Extent to which the vehicle's use is essential
7. How long the vehicle is used before it's scrapped
8. How much of the vehicle can be recycled and any difficulties in scrapping
2, 3 and 4 are easily covered by CO2-based road tax and/or company car tax and by the tax on petrol
5 is hard to tackle with tax, but other incentives could be created (e.g. multi-occupancy vehicle lanes)
6 - arguably the London C-Charge is a version of this (as London does have a reasonable public transport system). However otherwise 6 would be hard to take into account as it is very subjective and any system would probably be open to absue. However tax breaks could be offered to the disabled
7 could be allowed for by road tax being reduced for older vehicles (don't hold your breath)
1 and 8 could be allowed for in theory but it would be far from simple to do so
|
|
DP, you are not the only one who will be spoiling their voting slip for the forseeable future!
|
Apparently the changes to the licence points system is going out to public consultation this week...
Where exactly do we get our copy to feedback our views?
Apparently the plan to ban after 2 speeding offences
Should someone tell them the bloomin obvious, such as speed limit changes every 2 feet, signs behind trees, road sign overload, and poorly designed roads probably could do with being sorted out before banning even more drivers for trivia
We wouldnt mind if they actually caught the kids driving through the city centre at 100 mph but generally they dont
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
