Letter in local paper.



Matt B wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >
> >> So, you see, motorists already pay 5x over for their /actual/ CO2
> >> through fuel duty. Why should they pay again through CO2 related VED,
> >> and again via CO2 related congestion charge rates, and again via CO2
> >> related residents parking permits?

> >
> > Until they have amortised the average construction, sales and disposal
> > costs of that class of car?

>
> Like we expect users of other products to do? Ah but we don't, do we.
> Tell me again why all this stuff should only apply to motorists.


It should apply to all products.

>
> > It's not just use now that is the issue, but the overhead in
> > production/disposal and the effect of a car biased economy in selef
> > perpetuating carbon use by preventing more carbon friendly modes of
> > transport.

>
> As far as the government, the councils and various anti-car
> organisations are concerned though it seems to be. VED, congestion
> charging and residents parking permits based on the marginal CO2
> emissions produced using a car is their best offering.


There is a certain amount of inertia when you want to change the
taxation policy of a whole country.
>
> We could tax CO2 emission, cradle to grave, for each product and service
> we buy. The price of petrol would, of course, have to plummet.

Non sequitor.
> The
> cost of electricity, gas, and water would have to soar. Manufactured
> goods would have to be assessed, taking into account such things as
> their design, manufacturing, shipping, maintenance, and
> disposal/recycling energy consumption.
>
> Cars, being quite a complex and energy intensive manufactured item
> would, no doubt, have to have quite a high CO2 tax applied, but, judging
> by the results of a two-year study in the US, published in April 2006,
> hybrids and luxury/executive saloon cars would attract the highest tax,
> and simpler more robust and less technological 4x4 and SUV type vehicles
> would have to be taxed relatively lightly. Bicycles, TVs, washing
> machines, computers, and everything else we 'need' would all have to be
> assessed.
>
> I predict riots similar to those that the introduction of the poll-tax
> provoked when the apathetic masses realise that a poor man's possessions
> do not result in less CO2 release than a rich man's possessions in their
> total life cycle.


But part of the issue is disposal. There are ways and means of
designing for effective recyling that are not currently encouraged.

I'm not convinced that this is an appropriate forum for my profound
cogitations on an effective environmental reform for taxation policy.
It is however inspired by a fiscal initiative that raised the cost of
every second hand car in Norway by 500 GBP - by giving money to the
owner.

...d
 
Matt B wrote:

> BTW the myth that the Prius is 'green' was exploded by a recent (April
> 2006) two-year study in the US into the cradle to grave CO2 emissions of
> cars. Simple, robust cars came out as much greener than the Prius in
> whole-life terms. In a table published in 'What Car' the Prius came
> 74th, behind 'gas guzzlers' such as the Jeep Wrangler (1st), Jeep
> Cherokee (8th), Land Rover Freelander (19th), Range Rover Sport (48th),
> Land Rover Discovery (53rd) and the Toyota Land Cruiser (71st).


Huh?!

Even if it is true that simple cars create less CO2 than high-tech ones
(which is plausible, but I'd have to read the report) - how could the Jeep
Wrangler come first?!

Surely a simple, small car would still create less CO2 emissions than a big,
simple car? I'd have thought something like a basic Japanese Small car,
built in Britain, would come top.

--
Jim
 

Similar threads

S
Replies
0
Views
721
S
S
Replies
1
Views
685
T
S
Replies
41
Views
2K
P
S
Replies
0
Views
270
S
S
Replies
89
Views
2K
A
S
Replies
16
Views
449
UK and Europe
Jeremy Parker
J
S
Replies
3
Views
387
P