« Electrovaya Delivers Plug-in Escape Hybrid to NYSERDA; Application of New MN-Series Li-Ion Cells | Main | Toyota Expects to Sell 200,000 Tundras Annually in US »
London Launching Consultation on Higher Charges for Gas Guzzlers
8 August 2007
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, announced that Transport for London will start a consultation on Friday on a scheme to charge the cars that emit the greatest amount of greenhouse gases—such as the “Chelsea tractors” (SUVs), some high powered sports cars and expensive luxury vehicles—up to £25 (US$51) per day to drive in the present central London Congestion Charging Zone. (Earlier post.) The zone covers parts of Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea.
Cars driving outside the present congestion charging zone will not be affected. Within the congestion charging zone, the highest CO2 emitting cars, which represent just 8% of cars registered in London, would face the higher £25 charge and lose their entitlement to the residents’ discount.
Some of the worst examples produce two or three times as much greenhouse gases as the average family car.
The great majority of drivers within the zone would be unaffected and the least polluting vehicles will receive a 100% discount and not pay any congestion charge at all.
The proposed new charges are as follows:
Low-CO2 emitting cars will receive a 100% discount (£0). Includes cars in Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) Bands A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which also meet Euro 4 air quality standard.
The majority of cars—VED Bands C, D, E and those in F with emissions up to 225g CO2 per km—will continue to pay exactly the same daily charge as at present: £8.
The highest CO2 emitting cars—VED Band G and equivalent vehicles (above 225g CO2 per km), as well as those registered pre March 2001 with engines larger than 3,000 cc—will pay £25 a day.
Transport—excluding aviation—accounts for 22% of London’s CO2 emissions, with cars accounting for nearly half of this. According to a poll conducted by MORI for the Mayor, 64% of Londoners think the most polluting cars should pay a higher congestion charge.
The consultation will start on 10 August and end on 19 October.
August 8, 2007 in Climate Change, Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (50) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/20692354
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference London Launching Consultation on Higher Charges for Gas Guzzlers:
Comments
Consider what would happen if large metropolitan US centers adopted similar charges (taxation)!? $51 per day to drive a large SUV or pick-up truck would generate a lot of sorely needed revenue to rebuild our nation's bridges and roadways.
Rural areas and farms (where large vehicles actually may serve a real purpose) would be exempt, of course. Conceivably, these charges would only affect urban/suburbanites who insist on driving over-sized vehicles merely for reasons of preference (i.e. appearance of status/prestige) vice necessity.
If CAFE is any precedent, Detroit + Toyota would lobby hard to defeat any such measures here in the US.
Posted by: DieselHybrid | Aug 8, 2007 6:27:52 PM
I think you'd have a huge outcry with regular people, too. Vehicles that size are much more common here. NYC has already run into problems implementing its own congestion charge plan.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 8, 2007 7:05:43 PM
I know some some would see this as an intrusion on their personal liberty but liberty shouldn't extend to the freedom to add extra pollution to the environment.
DieselHybrid: it would be even better if most of that revenue went into new public transport systems instead of reinforcing the infrastructure of road based fossil fuel tranportation
Cervus: There will be opposition but the history of most significant change is that it gets knocked back lots of times before it succeeds.
Posted by: critta | Aug 8, 2007 10:06:51 PM
Critta:
We live in a representative democracy. If such a tax represents the will of the people, that's one thing. If it's being simply imposed for the sake of "the common good" without the support of the public, that's quite another.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 8, 2007 10:46:47 PM
We live in a representative democracy. If such a tax represents the will of the people, that's one thing. If it's being simply imposed for the sake of "the common good" without the support of the public, that's quite another.
By that criteria, pretty much most things that get passed through legislatures are "quite another" thing. The "will of the people" is also a farce, especially in a nation where people are uninformed, manipulated, and/or apathetic.
Posted by: jack | Aug 8, 2007 11:34:34 PM
This amounts to a post-sale feebate. Which is an excellent way of discouraging inefficient vehicles. Even better would be a feebate taken at the time of vehicle purchase. Bring it on.
Posted by: BlackSun | Aug 8, 2007 11:38:31 PM
Jack:
Frankly, passing taxes like this without public support amounts to tyranny. It ultimately doesn't matter if people are uninformed. Our representatives in our legislatures are supposed to represent the will of their constituents. In my own state, we rejected (by referendum) a new tax on in-state oil production last year.
If the people of London supports this, fine. If not, what right does their government have to impose this tax?
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 8, 2007 11:54:46 PM
Tyranny? Hardly. We wouldn't have any taxes if they were decided by a popular vote. Tell me how many taxes have been introduced in your state by referendum?
Nor is it a restriction of liberties. Because no one's stopping you from doing anything. You'll be able to drive around London all day but either you'll have to pay to do it in a high emission car or you can swap the car for something cleaner and not pay (and save money day to day). It's quite simple.
Posted by: Scatter | Aug 9, 2007 1:29:58 AM
Good on you Ken !
Pity he´s not got the prime minister´s job
Posted by: andrichrose | Aug 9, 2007 3:11:07 AM
Scatter.
I live in Colorado. Under state law, all the tax increases over the last several years have been subject to a vote of the people. Most of them have passed. So, at least here, when people are presented with a common sense need to increase taxes, they respond. This includes money for things like open space and even carbon taxes in Boulder, Colorado.
While I support high taxes on gas guzzling, co2 spewing vehicles, especially in the city where they make no sense anyway, it still should be recognized that London is only addressing a small part of the overall problem. What is being done to address the other 80% of the CO2 problem?
With respect to these taxes, London sorely needs to upgrade its tube system due to massive overcrowding at this time. For those like me, who desire to use public transportation, it is very frustrating to try to take a subway and not even be able to get on the train because of overcrowding.
Posted by: tom | Aug 9, 2007 5:39:04 AM
Good work. That's a good system. But tax increases are one thing and wholly new taxes are another. The congestion charge would never have been introduced if it had been put to the vote!
London is addressing the rest of the problem. It is fast becoming a world leader for implementing progressive policies on climate change. The aim is 20% reduction by 2010 and 60% by 2050 (1990 B/L). Check out the LCCA website for more information:
http://www.lcca.co.uk/server/show/nav.005001
I agree the tube is in bad need of an overhaul - an upgrade will be more or less impossible. It (along with most of the rest of the UK's transport infrastructure) is badly suffering after decades of underinvestment. Cross Rail (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/) will help but there's a lot of work to be done.
Rush hour can certainly be unpleasant on some of the lines but on others it's fine and away from rush hour it's a quick and efficient way to travel. Londoners grumble about it a lot but it's the oldest and one of the largest underground systems in the world. It's over 150 years old!
Posted by: Scatter | Aug 9, 2007 6:21:07 AM
Jack:
Frankly, passing taxes like this without public support amounts to tyranny. It ultimately doesn't matter if people are uninformed. Our representatives in our legislatures are supposed to represent the will of their constituents. In my own state, we rejected (by referendum) a new tax on in-state oil production last year.
If the people of London supports this, fine. If not, what right does their government have to impose this tax?
You miss what I first said. If you apply this "counter to the will of the majority" = tyranny logic, then pretty much everything done by government -- particularly federal and state -- is tyrannical. It would be an endless list to show legislation and/or policy that goes counter to what the majority want or need. That you have an obsessive focus on taxes indicates that you don't actually have a concern for "tyranny" but rather for a notion that taxes are confiscatory.
Posted by: jack | Aug 9, 2007 7:13:14 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure this legislation makes sense. I can see having a congestion charging zone (even though I may not agree with it) in an area where pollution is particularly high, or the roads simply cannot handle the amount of traffic.
However, basing the tax on CO2 output doesn't make sense. If you believe in AGW, CO2 is not toxic on a local scale, it has a global effect, and charging larger CO2 emitters extraordinary amounts of money if they drive within a small radius of land seems ineffective. I suspect this is either "feel-good" legislation, or just another attempt at extracting more cash from the constituants. I suppose time will tell.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 9, 2007 9:51:30 AM
Jack says ... "That you have an obsessive focus on taxes indicates that you don't actually have a concern for "tyranny" but rather for a notion that taxes are confiscatory."
Don't feed the troll Cervus.
Posted by: | Aug 9, 2007 9:56:43 AM
Don't feed the troll Cervus.
Hi, TThoms. Trolling?
Posted by: jack | Aug 9, 2007 10:30:03 AM
Jack:
I did not miss what you first said. I disagree with it. I do think that taxation without the consent of the public is a confiscatory practice and tantamount to government theft.
A Google search for Londoner opinions, a poll from March 2003 shows that 2/3 of Londoners agreed that the congestion charge successfully reduced traffic. Now, this revised congestion charge may actually be popular. Ergo, it's not confiscatory.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 9, 2007 11:15:47 AM
Jack:
I did not miss what you first said. I disagree with it. I do think that taxation without the consent of the public is a confiscatory practice and tantamount to government theft.
A Google search for Londoner opinions, a poll from March 2003 shows that 2/3 of Londoners agreed that the congestion charge successfully reduced traffic. Now, this revised congestion charge may actually be popular. Ergo, it's not confiscatory.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 9, 2007 11:16:50 AM
Ouch. Server hiccup.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 9, 2007 11:17:29 AM
I did not miss what you first said. I disagree with it. I do think that taxation without the consent of the public is a confiscatory practice and tantamount to government theft.
Precisely, and that's why you ignore the basically commonplace rejection of the "will of the people" pretty much everywhere. To get worked up about it in a specific case that just so happens to be an important axe that you grind means that your supposed outrage that the "will of the people" isn't being followed is actually a conditional outrage.
For example, what percentage of the population think that taxes are confiscatory and tantamount to theft? I can guarantee you it's a minority position, to be generous. Yet I am certain that you would be more than happy if the government were to eliminate most forms of taxation and spending, despite the fact that the "will of the people" would want otherwise.
The "will of the people" would much rather have $2.50 going to the government and $0.50 going to oil producers for every gallon of gasoline, instead of the other way around, and this could probably be accomplished with aggressive taxation over a limited amount of time, yet today the president claimed that a 5 cent, 3 year temporary increase in the federal gas tax for fixing bridges is out of the question, as it would "hurt the economy."
When you live in a plutocracy, it doesn't do much good to be selective in your outrage over the fact that democracy is a marketing slogan, not reality.
Posted by: jack | Aug 9, 2007 11:31:14 AM
Jack:
And this is the point where an endless verbal tennis match starts and we spend the next 50 posts sniping at one another because we disagree on fundamentals. I'll pass, thanks. In my experience it's not worth the time and energy.
Posted by: Cervus | Aug 9, 2007 11:54:46 AM
And this is the point where an endless verbal tennis match starts and we spend the next 50 posts sniping at one another because we disagree on fundamentals. I'll pass, thanks. In my experience it's not worth the time and energy.
Not sure what "fundamentals" you're referring to. You first expressed outrage that somehow you felt the "will of the people" wasn't being honored, that we live in a democracy, etc. I simply replied that the "will of the people" is rarely, if ever, honored, and even when it is, the notion that the "will of the people" reflects an informed, engaged, rational electorate is also without real basis.
So, your outrage was simply a function of what "will" you felt was being thwarted, not the fact that democracy wasn't working.
Point is, you're perfectly entitled to your biases, opinions, ideology, or whatever, but please don't couch it in something that isn't what it really is.
Posted by: jack | Aug 9, 2007 12:10:21 PM
I would support this if there were some exemption for small tradesmen and delivery trucks. They really need access to inner cities to do their work. Of course it would be great if they used the smallest size vehicles or better yet electric trucks that would accommodate their goods and tools but every trade and delivery business has different space and payload needs.
Posted by: Michael | Aug 9, 2007 1:18:32 PM
The proposed change will affect *only* vehicles in the so-called G band, defined as > 225g CO2/km in the NEDC. In US terms, that's any vehicle achieving less than ~25MPG on gasoline or ~28MPG on diesel. Given that fuel costs are over $7/US gallon either way in London, only quite affluent people can afford to own and operate such vehicles as it is.
The likely result will be a switch to even more expensive vehicles offering similar performance and luxury but emitting substantially less CO2. London might be Europe's test market for MB's DiesOtto and GM's Volt. Alternatively, new high-end shared chauffeur services may spring up, permitting passengers to split the congestion charge. Market externals are a proven way to influence consumer behavior, even if tripling an already high tax overnight is fairly draconian.
For vehicles emitting less than 225gCO2/km, the congestion charge will remain at GBP 8, with exemptions for residents. Vehicles emitting less than 120gCO2/km will be exempt altogether, which actually makes little sense if the objective is a reduction in traffic volume.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Aug 9, 2007 2:24:47 PM
Rafael:
Not being very familiar with London, is the given area a residential, financial, or business district? The only way I see people "upgrading" their vehicles is if they live there, or they had to go to work there every day. Even so, I really don't see this affecting CO2 emissions or, as you stated, releving congestion. It just appears to be another tax.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 9, 2007 3:19:06 PM
Even so, I really don't see this affecting CO2 emissions or, as you stated, releving congestion. It just appears to be another tax.
"In 2006 the latest report from TfL stated that congestion was down around 26% in comparison with the pre charge period and traffic delays had also been reduced."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Effects
Posted by: jack | Aug 9, 2007 3:37:23 PM
"Vehicles emitting less than 120gCO2/km will be exempt altogether"
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 9, 2007 6:37:33 PM
"Vehicles emitting less than 120gCO2/km will be exempt altogether"
You already stated that, yet posited that congestion wouldn't go down -- that it was just another tax. In reality, congestion is down 26%.
"They can never admit even one instance of government intervention doing good overall for society as opposed to the effects of the market. This isn't a matter of preference, it's absolutely crucial to the function of the ideology. If they ever do that, then it's an admission that social engineering can work, the market can fail, and it's just a matter of figuring out what is the proper mixture to have the best society."
Posted by: jack | Aug 9, 2007 6:42:51 PM
Number of Band G models for sale in UK = 932
Number of Band B models for sale in UK = 73
Number of Band A models for sale in UK = 1
Ratio of Band G models to Band A&B models = 12.6
Posted by: jack | Aug 9, 2007 7:32:18 PM
Let me try to explain it to you simply. The current system may have reduced congestion. But this new law will make 120g /kg cars exempt. This will most likely undo the reduction in congestion.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 9, 2007 8:09:44 PM
Let me try to explain it to you simply.
Ha.
The current system may have reduced congestion. But this new law will make 120g /kg cars exempt. This will most likely undo the reduction in congestion.
And this is based on what exactly? The new system increases the cost to come in the zone for a good number of vehicles, while reducing it for others. As I've shown, there are far more Band G vehicles for sale than Band A or Band B ones, so it's a little odd that you think you can predict precisely what will happen with the change. It certainly seems that the people who put this system together have a lot more data than you or I do and have run models to see what the potential effects will be. Regardless, the congestion charge (egads! a tax!) has worked beautifully to this point.
Did I explain that simply enough for you now? I'm sorry I didn't spell it out in single syllable words for you earlier.
Posted by: jack | Aug 9, 2007 8:17:38 PM
...as the number of type A and B cars increase in use in that area. It would seem to me that the exemption must be undone if they mean to retain their reduction in congestion.
It would be interesting to know the current number of A and B cars already in use in these areas.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 9, 2007 8:25:34 PM
Ratio for sale does not equal ratio in use.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 9, 2007 8:27:35 PM
..as the number of type A and B cars increase in use in that area. It would seem to me that the exemption must be undone if they mean to retain their reduction in congestion.
I'm sure they'll adjust the standards as the situation changes, as evidenced by this proposed change.
It would be interesting to know the current number of A and B cars already in use in these areas.
Band A is probably negligible, at best, seeing as only one non-electric vehicle fits in that band. Band B is much more common.
Ratio for sale does not equal ratio in use.
Gee, you don't say.
According to this document, nationally Band A and B account for about 30 percent of private car sales. Band G is a spin-off of the prior Band F, but according to that document, it should account for about 20% of vehicle sales.
These are national figures, and since London is obviously more wealthy relative to the rest of the country, I would guess the proportions change somewhat for them.
One also needs to take into account the different congestion effects of longer, taller, and wider vehicles, including parking.
Posted by: jack | Aug 9, 2007 8:39:03 PM
"Within the congestion charging zone, the highest CO2 emitting cars, which represent just 8% of cars registered in London."
If the article is right, only 8% are type G.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 9, 2007 8:42:59 PM
@ jack -
the number of models currently available in the various bands merely indicates that the UK market for high fuel economy vehicles is small. The proposed changes to London's congestion charge would skew demand and, car makers would respond accordingly. After all, avoiding a high tax is worth a significant premium on the purchase price.
Btw, the article states that only 8% of LDVs actually *registered* in London are currently in band G, though I suspect the figure is higher out in the suburbs. The band classification applies to new and legacy vehicles alike.
@ tthoms -
details on the original and expanded geographic limits of the congestion charge zone are documented here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge
http://www.cclondon.com/download/DetailMapECCZ.pdf
The area covered is about 17 square kilometers of central London, with just two exempt thoroughfares.
The congestion charge applies only on weekdays and has eliminated a lot of non-essential traffic. However, eliminating it again for vehicles with high fuel economy will likely reverse some of the congestion gains.
A similar argument was advanced in the case of HOV lane permits for single-occupant hybrids in California, but those were strictly limited to 58,000 decals on a first-come-first-served basis. Afaik, no such ceiling is proposed for the exemptions in London, though it might be wise.
Posted by: | Aug 10, 2007 4:37:22 AM
Dear anonymous:
I have read the articles given and I can't say that the logic of the idea makes a whole lot of sense to me. It would seem to me that this plan would only encourage drivers to change cars only if they have to be in the zone on a regular basis, i.e they work or live in the area, during times of the charge. The effects on CO2 emission would seem negligble, and with ~8% of the cars(admittedly registered in London) seeing an increase in toll, while ~30% (if Jack's source is right)become exempt, it wouldn't seem to improve congestion over the current model.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 10, 2007 8:40:07 AM
TThoms - did the original taxation scheme to limit congestion work or not? You're quibbling over the new changes (which are an evolution of the program), but you're having a hard time admitting that government intervention is having a positive effect.
Posted by: jack | Aug 10, 2007 9:40:34 AM
No, if you re-read my posts, I never said that the original plan did not reduce congestion. I did say that this proposal does not promote anything useful. It's just "feel-good" legislation (See how were fighting global warming?)
As for the original legislation, it has reduced congestion in that area, and has reduced pollution in that area. Whether it has an overall positive effect, factoring economic growth, and the possibility of relocation of drivers and shoppers (and thus pollution) to other parts of London, is debatable.
Posted by: tthoms | Aug 10, 2007 10:17:22 AM
I did say that this proposal does not promote anything useful. It's just "feel-good" legislation (See how were fighting global warming?)
A strong majority of people consider dealing with global warming important. Your values are in the minority.
Posted by: jack | Aug 10, 2007 6:18:57 PM
Jack, you're wrong.
Posted by: | Aug 11, 2007 1:30:49 AM
anon: here in Canada a majority (4/5) do consider it a problem.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/22/environment-poll.html?ref=rss
tthoms: jack is just twisting your words to be irritating, it's what he does best.
Posted by: Neil | Aug 11, 2007 3:18:51 AM
tthoms: jack is just twisting your words to be irritating, it's what he does best.
Hi, Neil. Whining again?
You must be seriously traumatized by that X Prize thread to still be running around b!tching about me. Funny how you ran away when I asked you the very same questions you asked of me, and when I refused to, you said "I rest my case."
Stop being such a weak-kneed cheerleader and stick to discussing topics. Think you can handle that, Neil? No?
Posted by: jack | Aug 11, 2007 3:48:33 AM
I have to admit jack, your one of the best trolls I've ever seen. You're doing a marvelous job of disrupting just about every thread you can find. You must love the attention.
Posted by: Neil | Aug 11, 2007 4:26:15 AM
I have to admit jack, your one of the best trolls I've ever seen. You're doing a marvelous job of disrupting just about every thread you can find. You must love the attention.
Gee, Neil, do you think if you call me enough derogatory names on multiple threads that that will somehow resurrect your absymal performance on the X Prize thread? I know how dearly you cherish EVs and to have it demonstrated to you that the X Prize is simply a sham, and that you therefore are a willing dupe, has obviously made you feel so insecure that you must now follow me about and making no effort to make topical contributions. Meanwhile, "anonymous" comments keep getting made calling me a "troll" on thread after thread.
That, my friend, is the very essence of trolling.
I pity you. I really do.
Posted by: jack | Aug 11, 2007 4:30:10 AM
Get in the last word, NeilTroll. You'll "win."
Posted by: jack | Aug 11, 2007 4:32:33 AM
Thanks, jack and Rafael, for bringing the issue into better focus.
Neil should rejoice over this, since EV and PHEV will likely be exempted from taxation.
tthoms, you obviously are not a believer in global warming. But, know this, also, that reducing high CO2 emitters will also reduce emission of other pollutants such as NOx, PM, HC and CO. The more fuel they burn, they more they will pollute for a given level of emission control technology. Air pollution is most serious in the densily populated inner city.
Also, the narrow streets of inner London (and other Europe cities) can hardly tolerate the large dimension of too many larger vehicles.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 11, 2007 1:23:46 PM
Thanks, jack and Rafael, for bringing the issue into better focus.
Neil should rejoice over this, since EV and PHEV will likely be exempted from taxation.
tthoms, you obviously are not a believer in global warming. But, know this, also, that reducing high CO2 emitters will also reduce emission of other pollutants such as NOx, PM, HC and CO. The more fuel they burn, they more they will pollute for a given level of emission control technology. Air pollution is most serious in the densily populated inner city.
Also, the narrow streets of inner London (and other Europe cities) can hardly tolerate the large dimension of too many larger vehicles.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Aug 11, 2007 1:24:44 PM
Large 2 tonnes (4x4) + Pick-ups gas guzzlers have no business in city centres. Short of a total ban (as was done with smokers in many places), this penalty (to pollute) is fully justified.
The world needs more mayors like London has.
Posted by: | Aug 12, 2007 8:01:54 AM
120 g/km means that lots of normal diesel cars can be exempt, no need for the idiotic G-Whizz or electric Smart. The petrol Smart is 117 g/km and so Congestion Charge free.
Posted by: John Baldwin | Aug 13, 2007 6:25:44 AM
I wish there were a registration surcharge for large gas guzzling SUVs in all states. They are using much more fuel than they need to and causing problems. We could fix bridges and advance alternatives with the revenue. It would be politically unpopular, but that is part of leadership, explaining to the people why this is necessary.
Posted by: sjc | Aug 17, 2007 8:56:35 AM
