ken livingstone is a fool he does not know what he is doing he is just increasing the amount of congestion in london.

Noone in Europe "needs" a car with > 225 gms/km, especially in London.

Older cars may have higher levels of CO2, but modern cars are more efficient and getting better.

Americans may "need" to pull a boat in a vehicle that does 0-60 in < 10 seconds, but the rest of the world gets by without.

But from a congestion point of view, giving low CO2 cars a zero rate is madness, better to give them a very low rate (say £4/day). A small car takes up more than half the road space of a larger one, so 2 small cars is worse than 1 large one (in terms of congestion). Hence low, but not zero charges,

As people have been saying CO2 is a global problem and really needs agreement at UN or EU level.
Going on a solo run in London, or even Britain is a pointless gesture.
At EU or global level, it makes sense.

The only benefit of individual countries trying it is that you could review several schemes and pick the ones that seemed to work best. But there are so many national cultural issues, that what works for Korea (say) might not work for China or the US.

True. No-one needs a car with > 225 g CO2.
Indeed I would say that today this figure is already around 150 g CO2/km. Studies have shown what the manufacturer averages in CO2 are:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Publications/2007/2007-11_car_company_co2_report.pdf

If you've gone and chosen to spend more on a manufacturer with a documented poor average (i.e. VW with an average of 166 compared with the French, Italian and Japanese, all with averages of around 140-150) I think it's only fair that you should be given a higher tax rate for your wise choice. Some really big cars in Europe e.g. Citroen C5 emit 159 g CO2/km. I would bring the 225 level to to 170 at least. I say "at least" because looking at what has happened in Europe with Citroen, Fiat, Toyota etc these measures are having a very positive effect on car manufacturers. Models have already come out to specifically meet the 120 g threshold, either straight out or by choosing certain optional packs. In other words it would probably be a good idea to go eventually even lower than 170. One should wait for the manufacturers to adapt, and then, once adapted, take another small step in the right direction.

@Anne

As several people have already pointed out, CO2 goes hand in hand with the other emissions. If you visit the database at
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk
you can see this for yourself.

For example, if you compare a VW Touareg 5.0 TDI with a Citroen C1 1.4 HDi, you have that
Touareg (g/km):
CO2 333, CO 0.424, NOx 0.336, HC+NOx 0.393

C1 (g/km):
CO2 109, CO 0.180, NOx 0.240, HC+NOx 0.280

You don't only have a threefold increase in CO2, but also a 235% increase in CO, and a 40% increase in NOx and HC+NOx. Consider also the difference in footprint of the vehicle with the huge CO2 and what effect this has on congestion. It would take a heck of a lot more small cars on the road than some people are claiming to make up for that.

For a very simple idea of what this stuff does to you, you can visit:
http://www.nsc.org/ehc/mobile/mse_fs.htm
" * Hydrocarbons react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight and elevated temperatures to form ground-level ozone. It can cause eye irritation, coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath and can lead to permanent lung damage.
* Nitrogen oxides (NOx) also contribute to the formation of ozone and contribute to the formation of acid rain and to water quality problems.
* Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, deadly gas. It reduces the flow of oxygen in the bloodstream and can impair mental functions and visual perception. In urban areas, motor vehicles are responsible for as much as 90 percent of carbon monoxide in the air. "

This is the info on the NSC. In Europe studies have shown that car emissions are linked to a whole host of very serious health problems.

To increase pollution for a very important or life-threatening reason would have been one thing. To dramatically increase pollution for the totally gratuitous reason of showing your fellow citizens just how stupid you can be is very different. This is also a cultural problem. There should be a stigma attached to owning such vehicles whereas many people still perceive these vehicles as status symbols even today. All large cities in Europe should be doing what has been done in London.

oops, I meant 135% for the carbon monoxide

Anne I fully agree that emissions are emissions wherever they come from and demonisation of any particular source for the sake of it is bad.

But I doubt that hypothetical Prius driver is driving around for the hell of it and they have probably chosen a low emissions car because they need to drive so much. And I doubt that hypothetical tractor driver reallyneeds to drive a high emissions vehicle.

The fact is that climate change is not going away and cheap oil is running low and strong measures need to be deployed to mitigate the impact of both of these. This is one of those measures.

If the inefficient vehicle driver doesn't mind paying the extra fuel costs, contributing disproportionately to the demand on taxpayer funded medical services, given that the choice is there when buying a new car to use less resources which are costs everyone ultimately pays for, then they should be prepared to pay that much extra in hard cash as well.
When the eco cars are seen as the better choice and the 'luxury'? guzzlers as indulgence, consumers will feel the change and vote with their feet.
The manufacturer's will try harder to achieve market share and the healthy city vision will have a free kick.
Far from annoying the majority of residents, who don't own a motor vehicle, are socially aware and conscious of the problems of urban air quality, these measures will gain grass roots support.
The complaining motorists will find that their blustering will have them in good standing at the next aerobics class.

“As several people have already pointed out, CO2 goes hand in hand with the other emissions.”

It is true for Europe, where there are significantly different emission standards for diesel and gasoline vehicles, plus different emission standards depending on weight of the vehicle.

It is not the case in US/Canada. From dieselnet:

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld_t2.php

“Under the Tier 2 regulation, the same emission standards apply to all vehicle weight categories, i.e., cars, minivans, light-duty trucks, and SUVs have the same emission limit… The Tier 2 standards apply … additionally to “medium-duty passenger vehicles” (MDPV). The MDPV is a new class of vehicles that are rated between 8,500 and 10,000 lbs GVWR and are used for personal transportation. This category includes primarily larger SUVs and passenger vans… The same emission limits apply to all vehicles regardless of the fuel they use. That is, vehicles fueled by gasoline, diesel, or alternative fuels all must meet the same standards. Since light-duty emission standards are expressed in grams of pollutants per mile, vehicles with large engines (such light trucks or SUVs) have to use more advanced emission control technologies than vehicles with smaller engines in order to meet the standards.”

Tier 2 was phased-in at 2004-2007. And of course, it is about real pollutants, like NOx, PM, HC or CO, not CO2.

Karl-Uwe wrote: Consider also the difference in footprint of the vehicle with the huge CO2 and what effect this has on congestion. It would take a heck of a lot more small cars on the road than some people are claiming to make up for that.

This is not true. Most of the congestion is caused by the lag in driver response when accelerating from a stop. Each car tends not to start going until the one in front of it goes. Also, the low CO2 emitters are likely to be slower than the high emitters. If anything, switching from fast larger cars to a lot more slow small cars will make congestion worse, not better. There should be at least a modest congestion charge on all cars. I would rather see the charges based on particulate and HC emission than CO2, because those have much more impact on the livability of the city. The London plan is still useful in that it will push manufacturers toward more responsible products.

I am unaware of emission standards in Europe based on the weight of the vehicle. I know that in France, Spain, Italy and the UK the standard is the CO2 level, irrespective of the car weight. For example in both Spain and the UK the lowest level is 120 g CO2/km (irrespective of car weight). The new taxes/rebates in France and Italy are also based on CO2 and don't depend on car weight.

The extremely high CO2 level and much higher footprint and congestion problems is both a well-documented one and a matter of simple common sense. I don't know about this driver-response lag theory and what such a statement is based on. But if it were true surely this is a secondary issue?

From the outset, the London Congestion Charge has had the effect of drastically reducing the number of SUV vehicles entering the restricted zone. This effect went hand in hand with excellent improvements in congestion and the time it takes to go from one part of the city to the other. This is detailed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

One can also just use one's common sense. How many drivers have seen a monstrous SUV blocking traffic at an intersection or when turning into a street simply because its sheer size made this enormously difficult? or blocking a street trying to park the car in a spot which is big enough for a normal car but where the tractor will fit only with a lot of imagination..... In a street of a given size, if more than twice the Aygos will fit in one direction than a tractor such as an Audi Q7, then it will take this many more cars to get to the critical point of causing a traffic jam (e.g between two traffic lights). The day-to-day examples are too numerous to list....

INTERESTING! YOU MUST SEE: http://www.spymac.com/details/?2343829

Stan,
Have you actually been in London the last two years, and if not, have you ever been there at all? Have you really ever been to Europe, visited historical city centers originally build to accomodate horses and carriages, and seen people trying to work their SUV's through those streets? Have you ever been in a traffic jam in such a city, or did you ever had to pleasure to live there and see your street blocked by the ridiculous amounts of cars on weekends because somehow people believe that city center is just one big shopping mall with the parking spaces conveniently located in front of the individual stores? Even better than the US malls, were you may have to park half a mile from the entry to the mall. Ken Livingstone is as right as can be with this policy. I can't wait for the day that my own city implements such a scheme, even if it would mean I'd have to leave my car parked in a garage outside the charge zone (I need to rent a parking space anyhow). Driving a car in a historical European city center is difficult with a small car, but with an SUV it is just ridiculous, dangerous, dirty, and I would say bordering on the antisocial. And I am by no means a leftie, just an inner city apartment dweller fed up with the traffic jams beneath his window.

Petroleo:

Some people simply don't mind poisoning you, the inner city dweller, for their own convenience. It is worth the tradeoff, especially when it is your health that is being traded off.

Someone once suggested that we could make a lot of progress, fast, if the ends of the tail pipes were inserted into the passenger area of the vehicle. People should be required to inhale their own fumes directly before they are released into the open air.

here! here! for Tom Street

the other day I was in a beautiful renaissance city square when I noticed some elderly fellows gesturing at a young couple with a pram. I soon realized that what had happened was that the couple had met some friends in the square and had not noticed that the baby in the pram was not that far away from two SUVs and their wonderful tailpipes. The grannies were advising the couple to at least chat with their pram a bit further away from the tractors (which they promptly did of course).

Feeding the tailpipes back to the passenger area would be such a fitting and just solution to the SUV mess!!!!! Brilliant!

...and this is still hot off the press...

A tram and bus just collided in Milan, with at least one victim and scores injured. The story so far is that the whole thing was caused by a Swiss businessman in a SUV.

Milan have just had their first experimental month of a system similar to the London Congestion Charge, but where the fees are not so steep (yet).
I hope the authorities come down even harder there on SUVs as a result.....

You missing the point, guys.

Congestion charge for the city is supposed to decrease congestion and decrease in-city emissions of harmful emissions, like smog-forming NOx and CH, and PM (causing such small things as asthma, respiratory diseases, lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and many others). Instead, Red Livingston is fighting Global Warming. CO2 does not affect health.

Big vehicles is undeniably bad choice for city commute, especially in European capitals. As such congestion charge should be calculated as weight, classification, or footprint of the vehicle. CO2 emissions are not adequate approximation for this. As for harmful emissions, CO2 emissions are downright poor choice, promoting proliferation of diesel powered vehicles, which are still very dirty, especially without DP filter. But apparently Londoners are thinking that “emissions” are CO2 only…

Andrey, if you check the car database at http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk
and take a look at any car you like, you will see that higher CO2 goes hand in hand with the other emissions (there's an example above, but you can pick any cars you like).

The congestion has improved in all three European cities with this system (London, Stockholm, and Milan) and again you only have to check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge
to see just how dramatic these improvements have been for London. Milan, despite enforcing weaker penalties, also noticed extreme improvements in contaminant levels after just one month!

As pointed out above, perhaps the website should be renamed Green Car Hating Congress....
The positive effects of congestion charges, the negative effects of contaminants in our cities, the singularities of SUVs (ranging from higher parking, highway and entrance tolls to higher petrol bills, insurance and safety risk to pedestrians, and a definitely antisocial behavior) are all as plain as black and white.

One has to wonder what the motivation is behind all this blind criticism for measures whose positive effects are all too well documented. Sprechen sie deutsch perhaps? Are the France and Spain sales figures for January scaring somebody? Is that it......?

Karl,
I wonder what the agenda is.
Ignorant belief in business as usual indicating an unwillingness to listen and learn.
A personality disorder related to the need to control where blustering has worked so far, at least they think they have convinced someone when the audience quietly disappear into the background. Thinks "I must be right as after I explain to these idiots how they can't possibly be right and that the fact that they will end up taxing poor kiddies skateboards, boy that'll scare the hell out of them!"
Conspiracy theories, not that I believe in that stuff but you'd have to allow the possibility.
My guess would be that he standard of writing suggests this is possible but they obviously do more damage to their cause than good. Double agent?
I rather think the first two possibilities provide all the answer I need.
But those anti green commentators do in some weird way help the rest of us recognise the sheer ignorance and belligerence of those we may meet from time to time.
I tend to agree some of the more notorious commentators add "local colour"

That's simply not the way it is. The "I must be right" attitude comes about when one makes unsubstantiated claims. I believe it's rather rude to make unsubstantiated claims on this or any other blog.

The only hidden agendas which can be deduced are the ones I've indicated (and I've provided links there as well). What is there not to be understood about the London Congestion improvements after the LCC was introduced?
"TfL's report in June 2007 found that the level of traffic of all vehicle types entering the central Congestion Charge Zone was now consistently 16% lower in 2006 than the pre-charge levels in 2002"

"There were 2,598 personal injury road traffic accidents inside the zone in the year before the scheme. This fell by about 200 each year to 1,629 in 2005.

"Overall traffic emissions change 2003 versus 2002"
Charging zone Inner Ring Road
N20 PM10 CO2 N20 PM10 CO2
13.4 -15.5 -16.4 -6.9 -6.8 -5.4
Overall traffic emissions change 2004 versus 2003[96] -5.2 -6.9 -0.9 -5.6 -6.3 -0.8

With the Milan measurements after the first month of operation the data is as follows....
- 24.5% reduction of vehicles entering the restricted zone
- approx 24000 extra passengers taking public transport
- 30% reduction in PM10
- 25% reduction in NOx

The LCC wikipedia and VCAcarfueldata links are both in plain English. What exactly of the above data were you not able to read for yourself? Assuming you had no trouble reading this data for yourself, then this begs the question:
what is your agenda then?

"I rather think the first two possibilities provide all the answer I need."
.. then you manage to please yourself rather easily..
Double agents? Why not go straight for triple? I confess then... I'm the real mastermind behind the LCC system and I'm really out there to get a higher voter approval for it....
Taxing poor kiddies skateboards ?!$%#?
Your wild email could have said anything at all. It did not address the topic (LCC) at all. Note how my reply to your wild email still kept to the LCC topic....

oops... I meant "wild comment"

Karl-Uwe

First, let me make it clear that I am in favor of the congestion charge.

However, some of the confusion here may be due to the fact that while the number of vehicles has decreased within the zone, the congestion may have increased due to the fact that certain lanes have been converted to bus and bicycle lanes. I read this elsewhere and am sorry but do not have the reference.

Some may quibble with the terminology used to describe the charge. Fine. Call it what you like but it is cutting down on all major pollutants, including co2.

Further, congestion isn't necessarily a bad thing if people have reasonablly comfortable alternatives. I can imagine a situation where there are just a few lanes left for those who insist on taking their cars into the inner city. This, of course, would be an extremely miserable state of affairs for those driving -- which would be a good thing.

When I used to live in Germany, I used public transit because it was cheap, efficient, pleasant, and faster than using the automobile. Even if I had not been concerned about the environment, I would have chosen the world class transit system over the crowded, unpleasant, and dangerous, and slow personal mobility system any day.

Most Americans, however, are conditioned to using the automobile and have a difficult time transitioning to a public transit system, regardless of how efficient. Using the bus, especially, is considered to for the lower classes.

Must make public transit sexy.

I've also read scathing articles on the LCC on the Times, and of course a lot worse on tabloids and such. The latest I've read from TransportforLondon, who are the ones with the raw data, is that there is a further improvement on the 16% quoted by wikipedia:
"The point to remember is that congestion charging has successfully reduced traffic in the original zone by 21 per cent - some 70,000 cars every day - and has prevented London from grinding to a halt."
If they've gone from 16% to a more recent 21% then presumably there is a further improvement.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/5474.aspx

Even the Financial Times, who have written all sorts of things on the topic, have made a very interesting and positive point:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cd14541a-d90c-11dc-8b22-0000779fd2ac.html
"...
The initially controversial charge has produced the most striking changes in commuting patterns seen in a big city anywhere in the world, inspiring global interest and imitation.

A rare political consensus has also been achieved: none of the three main parties' candidates in this year's London mayoral election advocates toll-free motoring."

If one compares public transport systems in the US with those in Germany I suppose then they may seem world class. My experience in the US is limited to only a couple of months work in Pasadena, California, but even there I either rode my racing bike (and I wasn't the only one, I must say, there were quite a few of us...) or used the bus, which admittedly was a rather sad affair.
I wouldn't have said however that the German system in particular is world class, but rather that in Europe public transport is often seen in a different light. I've used the public transport systems extensively in Europe, having lived for years in each of Spain, France and The Netherlands, and to a more limited extent (months) in other European countries, including Germany (in two different cities). From both a price and a quality point of view the Germans, at least in my opinion, are the bottom of the pack. The price of the German ICE system is the worst I've seen, when compared to the AVEs, TGVs, Eurostars, Thalys and so on. I only use the ICE if it's for work and I'm not the one ultimately paying for the ride. At the same time, to the best of my knowledge (and as can be inferred on the dbahn website itself) the Germans were the last to use high-speed tilting trains in Europe (the Portuguese use this on their main line, as do the Spaniards in Valencia, in the UK with Virgin, in Italy it's used a lot, Finland, etc. etc.) I've been on trains between Munich and Strasbourg (France) that were very outdated, more expensive than high-speed trains in other countries, and whose engines broke down twice making the trip 7 hours longer than necessary (this happened on two separate trips). Of course I've experienced difficulties (given the years I mentioned earlier) in other countries, but never quite as extreme as this. Compare the price and quality (number of lines, rolling stock, etc) of a Munich metro ride with a Madrid metro ticket.... The last time I was in Madrid they had added another couple of lines to the system and I was shocked at what had been done in so little time since my previous visit....for example there's a line now which reaches Madrid airport, as well as an entirely new system to the South of the city. So upon arriving at Madrid airport, you buy your ticket for 1 euro something (not sure what it is nowadays) use the metro to get into town or to go wherever you like (including buses and trams with the same ticket) until you get off ...
in Munich airport you'll spend seven euros (the lat time I was there, admittedly I rarely go there anymore) for a twenty minute ride and get that "Veee are ze bessst!" look from the person at the counter, instead of a very pleasant and smiley "Hola buenos dias..."..... In Toulouse (where I've also lived) I've ridden on trams with no driver and Alstom are, to the best of knowledge, the leaders in Europe in heavy transport systems, with others such as CAF, Ansaldo and Irisbus offering a good quality/price ratio on their product ranges. This last company (which is a Franco-Italian JV) has sold EV buses to several major European cities for public transport....

Am I thickskinned or just thick?,
Cmon, a little humour ? shouldn't hurt even though your comments were not the subject of comment.
I note occasionly the writers name appearing at the top of the next post can mislead the reader.
I was however exhausted after travelling all over Europe twice and several states of the USA.
The social aspect of mass transport is one area that inconveniance can be moderated. Buskers or jesters?

Is it ever going to be possible to design a system that will stop us complaining, I think not but -

I would like to add to this discussion that transport gridlock compounds fuel consumption as the extra numbers of vehicles are using substantial quantities of fuel hours as the journey takes longer. The vehicles are running way below optimum efficiencies. This inefficient area of operation results in higher noxious emissions than indicated by the increased fuel consumtion.
If all else were equal the cost per kilometer goes way up making it more attractive to ride on mass transport systems.
Resource allocation priority allows for a better funded and appointed service as on all levels it becomes the sensible option for the responsible authorities.
That this scheme recognises that cities are ultimately a living environment and the role motor vehicles have played , owing to historic priority, in limiting the amenity is encouraging to planners around the world.

That drivers will naturally complain about penalty charges is not reason to burden the majority of inhabitants with spiraling noxious air.

@Rafael,

You concede that commercial lorries delivering food, fiberm, medicines or spare parts will not be taxed only if they alter their hours of operation from a possible 24 per day to 18:00 to 07:00. Do you agree that this wil raise costs to operate in these off hours?

Or that these rather arbitary hours of operation can later be altered and shrunk? So in essence, you agree with me.

Red Kenny is taxing lorries delivering goods and removing waste that allows a concentrated city to survive. Further unlike personal vehicle selection, trucks will never be downsized enough to meet his arbitrary definition of a polluter via CO2 emissions.

Lining your pockets while not actually stealing is a long loved byproduct and method of acquiring power, influence and off book favors. Why is it that most politicans end up as multi-millionnaires when their salaries would never allow them to accumulate that kind of wealth without actually stealing it?

From LBJ's Radio and TV station licences, to payments for libraries, or invitations to "invest" in commodity trades, or fees for representing business before regulatory agencies. These are all legal activities. Politicians find a way to legally accumulate fortunes. Red Kenny is no different.