Study: Improvements in Large Truck Aerodynamics Could Save US Nearly One Billion Gallons of Fuel Annually
Oshkosh Truck Unveils Series-Hybrid Refuse Vehicle

Mayor of London Announces Plans for Emissions-Based Congestion Charging

London_cc_ext
In 2007, London is almost doubling its congestion-charge area with the orange-shaded extension to the left. The original C-charge area is to the right. Click to enlarge.

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today announced that he will take forward the policy of reducing London’s CO2 emissions by introducing emissions-based charging to the existing congestion charge scheme.

The Mayor had asked Transport for London (TfL) earlier this year to produce such proposals designed to discourage the use of cars producing high levels of carbon emissions, and to encourage drivers to switch to cars with low levels of CO2 emissions. (Earlier post.)

Under the emissions-based Congestion Charging proposals, the following charges would apply:

Emissions-based Congestion Charging
TierVehicle BandCO2Charge
1 A and B
(Euro-4 compliant)
< 120 g/km £0 (100% discount)
2 C, D, E, F 120-225 g/km £8 (US$15) (as now)
3 G > 225 g/km £25 (US$47)

The proposal calls for the introduction of the 100% discount for the least polluting vehicles in 2008. The surcharge for band G vehicles that emit the most CO2 is expected to be possible from 2009/10, although the Mayor has asked Transport for London to examine the possibility of an earlier start date.

The 90 per cent resident’s discount currently enjoyed by those living within the congestion charging zone, will be withdrawn for vehicles in band G.

Londoners are becoming increasingly aware of the need to tackle climate change and reduce CO2 emissions. Most vehicles that will be charged £25, in Vehicle Excise Duty Band G, are high priced models. Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one of the most polluting vehicles. By making these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact of their choice of new car on the environment and the planet.

We are already cleaning up London’s fleet of public vehicles through measures like the introduction of Hybrid buses. These new proposals will tackle pollution from private vehicles, and ensure that London is leading the way in the fight against catastrophic climate change.

—Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone

(Hat-tips to Chris and Jamie!)

Comments

George

Andrey writes: As I remember right, humankind emits about 70 B ton of carbon dioxide yearly. Just for breezing, we emit about 6 B ton of CO2 yearly. There is an article with some calculations on efficiency of local (California) CO2 emission reduction:

http://www.mine-engineer.com/commentary/california-co2-folly.htm

Andrey, more right wing spewage, this time from Charles Kubach, yet another non-scientist attempting to influence public policy from a position of ignorance. For what it's worth, humans and animals are close to carbon neutral because the carbon they exhale came from their food, the carbon content of which was recently fixed from the atmosphere. There are other complexities, but fundamentally, Kubach is just another of your right wing ideologue BS spewers.

Thomas Pedersen

Telecommuting could also be a way to revive small villages. They might feature an office complex where people working in different companies, but living in the same village could sit together and enjoy the companionship while doing their job.

Some further IT development is needed, but no doubt we will get there within a decade.

mahonj, I liked your comment - some nice points.

Andrey

“I have been collecting some of the insults levelled at AGW (Antropogenic Global Warming) sceptics: cash-amplified flat-earth pseudo-scientists; the carbon cartel; villains; refuseniks lobby; polluters; a powerful and devious enemy; deniers; profligates; crank scientists. The list is endless. I remember the reaction of a Canadian scientist who dared to ask critical questions at a meeting on global warming. He was totally taken aback by the virulent reaction, “it was as if I was back in the Middle Ages and had denied the Virgin Birth”. A common slur is also that all sceptics are in the pockets of the oil industry.

The global warming debate has left the realm of science a long time ago. It has become totally politicised. Any scientific criticism is not met with a scientific response, but with name-calling and a stepping up of the scare tactics. Some sceptics have even lost their jobs or are told to shut up or else. Many of the global warming doomsayers seem to be obsessed with a longing for Apocalypse.”

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=14429&cid=18&cname=Opinion

wintermane

A dear friend asked me why only now did the gop and so on and so forth "support" global warming stuff.

I said it was simple. WE dont.

We can however use the funds we gather selling it to you to build for what WE KNOW is comming.

Why does the gop love h2? Why do they love grass based fuels and so on?

Well simple. Because even after the world completely and drastaicaly changes you can make h2 out of anything organic and you can be sure at least grass and algae will likely grow.

On short we pln for the worst while you for some reason still hope to save a happy ending.

pizmo

Any scientific criticism is not met with a scientific response, but with name-calling and a stepping up of the scare tactics. Some sceptics have even lost their jobs or are told to shut up or else. Many of the global warming doomsayers seem to be obsessed with a longing for Apocalypse.

Oh, gawd. Could you (or he) be any more of a drama queen? That's right -- the vast majority of humankind (you know, the ones who accept global warming as fact) long for the Apocalypse. I know when I get up in the morning, I meditate very calmly for 20 minutes, praying for the Apocalyspe to come. Then I go out and cash all the fat checks I get from the government by bilking people with my GHG Jihad.

Good that clear-eyed people such as yourself (and about 6 other human beings at this point) can see right through this global scam perpetuated by 6,499,999,994 billion people.

The comments to this entry are closed.