What a Darling Wheeze !

[Splatt]

Just a rumour, but there is the suggestion that the Chancellor in his forthcoming budget is going to introduce an additional "Forecourt Levy" on new cars as one of his environmental measures. It will be graduated so that the most polluting vehicles will pay most. Not a money making ploy to fill the black hole in his revenue income you must understand but a serious attempt to save the planet. How "Green" is that ? .

 

[SLinKyjoe]

Just a rumour, but there is the suggestion that the Chancellor in his forthcoming budget is going to introduce an additional "Forecourt Levy" on new cars as one of his environmental measures. It will be graduated so that the most polluting vehicles will pay most. Not a money making ploy to fill the black hole in his revenue income you must understand but a serious attempt to save the planet. How "Green" is that ? .

is that the gaz guzzler tax they have in america? or a form of it at least?

Along with the new car tax, the tax for a new registration and the road fund licence and VAT. then theres the fuel they put in, and then you get to drive it. Oh, dont forget the insurance tax.


And thats after they have taxed you on your earnings before you paid for it!

 

[hawk20]

Just a rumour, but there is the suggestion that the Chancellor in his forthcoming budget is going to introduce an additional "Forecourt Levy" on new cars as one of his environmental measures. It will be graduated so that the most polluting vehicles will pay most. Not a money making ploy to fill the black hole in his revenue income you must understand but a serious attempt to save the planet. How "Green" is that ? .

I think we have to accept that many people believe (rightly or wrongly) that global warming threatens the planet and that man is a major contributor to the problem via CO2 emissions. Their beliefs are genuine. Many also believe, again rightly or wrongly, that the UK can make a significant contribution. And that cars can be part of that.

Seems to me our best strategy is either to try to persuade them they are wrong, or come up with sensible suggestions for cutting CO2 from the worst offending cars.

The £400 VED is unlikely to deter purchasers of 4/5 litre cars and 4x4's because it is too small a proportion of total costs. A £5,000 tax on cars in Band G (226 or more gms/km of CO2) at time of purchase would, I think, really make people think twice. And if all Europe did this, then we just might see the stupid and never ending arms race between Merc and BMW and others coming to a sensible end. The E class in around 1990 had a biggest engine of 2.8 litres, then 3.2, then 4.3 was it, then 5 litres, then 5.5 and now 6.3/6.2. Few love cars more than I do but the power output now placed in the hands of ordinary drivers for use on UK roads with a 70 mph max speed limit makes absolutely no sense at all IMO.

Those who don't want to see the biggest polluting engines taxed out of existence need to come up with alternative ways to dramatically curb their sales or taxes will be used. Rightly or wrongly.

 

[NewMB]

A gas guzzler tax for most poluting cars is one thing, but there are other ways of making it more fair.

We all pay road tax etc. But someone who does say 10K mls per year pay the same as someone (ie sales rep) who does 40K mls per year?

Do like other countries, scrap the road-tax and increase fuel rates... this way, you drive more, you pay more. Simple and fair, I think.

Needless to say (but I'll do it anyway) someone who does drive 40K mls (in say a Mondeo Diesel) per year obviously lets out ALOT more CO2 than someone who does 10K mls per year in a S600....

 

[jberks]

Hawk,
Whilsty I see your point, I have to disagree.

Yes, an AMG kicks out big buckets of Co2, as do range rovers and other SUVs but.. these make up such a minute proportion of the cars sold in the UK that any further restriction on these will be both innefective and irrelvant.

Innefective as most buyers of £60,000+ cars may grumble but will still buy these gas guzzlers and irrelevant as, if we restricted all cars in Euope to 3l and under, it would make no difference whatsoever as 99.99% of cars already come under that banner. Co2 is a direct result of burning fuel. ok an obvious statement but it therefore follows that the more Co2 you put out, the more fuel you've used and therefore the more it has cost you in fuel tax. Factor in the VED and the fact that you're probably going to lose over £30k in depreciation in the first 2 years, if you're still prepared to buy such a beast, another 5k on the purchase price won't deter you. After all, if you can afford £20,000 a year to run your car, another £1500 over 3 years of ownership isn't going to scare you.

I accept the MB/BMW/Audi arms race but this is nothing more in reality than a showcase for their wares. They know the vast majority of customers do not have bottomless pockets and whilst drooling over the latest 8l beats in the showroom, their order will be for a 2l diesel.

Take me as a case in point. I'd love an AMG, but, whilst pretty well paid, I can't in all honesty justify the cost of running one. Sure I could buy a 2-3 year old one but the maintenance, servicing, tyres, insurance and fuel costs make it an unrealistic proposition.

Look at the US as a perfect example. Home of the 5l V8. Not any more. Now fuel prices have risen, though still well below our levels, people have switched to buying more fuel efficient cars and the makers of silly V8s are in trouble. The rich will continue to buy the Hummers, 7l pickups and Bentleys but they are the minority and a small irrelevant one at that. They serve as an aspiration to most and that's a positive, but few of us (or them) realy believe we will ever own such a machine.

Personally if I do, it will probably be a restored 500SEC but only if I can guaranteee that the mileage I cover will be less than 5k as the fuel costs prohibit any more than that, and at that level, my friend with his diesel mondeo will be spewing out more Co2 than me.

Therefore, this is nothing more than pointless political posturing. It may bring in a couple of million for the treasury but little more, if it stops a single sale I'd be very surprised. So why do I care?

Because it panders to the very worst in our society. Those that use their 'concern' for these issues to mask, what is in reality their jelousy and venom towards those that have worked harder than them, risked everything on a venture or simply been luckier and have achieved more. They say they don't want a big car and anyone who does is a selfish b'sd, but the truth is simply that they can't afford one, can't admit this to themselves so wrap up their green eyed monster in a green banner. As I said to several of these people over the years, come to me when you can afford such a car with ease and maybe I'll believe you. One chap did get to that financial position. He has a big car and a 4 bed detached. Nuff said.

I have worked with a few 'right ons' over the years (IT has lots of 'right ons') and whilst these people openly display zelot like views on the environment, sex discrimination, wealth distribution and race relations. Few if any truly believe in these views but in pretty much all cases I have seen, they are simply using these concepts to hide their anger at their own failure, embarresment of their own bigotted feelings and as a good excuse to attack those they are jelous of. In other words, they are dishonest, and I don't want to pander to them.

As a friend who comes from a deprived mining village, is fond of saying. "Why is it that those who have nowt, always want to share?" A lot of wisdom in that statement.

 

[st13phil]

Hawk,
Whilsty I see your point, I have to disagree.

Yes, an AMG kicks out big buckets of Co2, as do range rovers and other SUVs but.. these make up such a minute proportion of the cars sold in the UK that any further restriction on these will be both innefective and irrelvant.

<< snip >>

Therefore, this is nothing more than pointless political posturing. It may bring in a couple of million for the treasury but little more, if it stops a single sale I'd be very surprised. So why do I care?

Because it panders to the very worst in our society.

Well said jberks, you saved me mucho typing

This sort of taxation will have as much effect on CO2 emissions as would the installation of a garden gnome at the end of my street, i.e. none whatsoever. It is all about the politics of envy and nothing to do with climate change. Funny that jealousy is green in colour, isn't it?

 

[hawk20]

Therefore, this is nothing more than pointless political posturing. It may bring in a couple of million for the treasury but little more, if it stops a single sale I'd be very surprised. So why do I care?

Because it panders to the very worst in our society. Those that use their 'concern' for these issues to mask, what is in reality their jelousy and venom towards those that have worked harder than them, risked everything on a venture or simply been luckier and have achieved more. They say they don't want a big car and anyone who does is a selfish b'sd, but the truth is simply that they can't afford one, can't admit this to themselves so wrap up their green eyed monster in a green banner. As I said to several of these people over the years, come to me when you can afford such a car with ease and maybe I'll believe you. As a friend who comes from a deprived mining village, is fond of saying. "Why is it that those who have nowt, always want to share?" A lot of wisdom in that statement.

Oh Jberks such well argued points and some wise words as ever. There is no doubt in my mind when I hear Ken Livingstone that his hatred of money and riches and those with big cars is powerful. And I'm sure you are right that for many envy and jealousy are in there amongst the motives for their 'green' campaigns.

BUT you must also accept, IMO, that many many people genuinely believe the world is coming to an end if we do not deal with man-made CO2. And that includes many politicians in all parties and in all countries. It does not include me, yet. But it does include many people who I respect. Those of us who love cars must come up with ways of reducing CO2 from our activity, or they will do it for us in ways we may not like.

It is no use saying big cars don't make much as a percentage of the total. The search is on for every way we can think of to reduce CO2 from us.

My view is that overpopulation is the biggest issue. And the numbers double every 40 years. By not tackling that, all other efforts are doomed to failure IMO. But I have convinced nobody and accept the mass view is 'cut man-made CO2' however we can'

If car makers came up with their own plan, they could negotiate voluntary agreements with the govt. Like the ciggy people did for years, the food people and so on. But they have done nothing. The engines get bigger and bigger. The adverts emphasise performance more and more. Silly low profile tyres that raise CO2 levels are fitted to more and more cars. More and more car makers are bringing out performance versions 'to compete with Merc and BMW'. Stupid, idiotic Lemmings, pandering to the little boy in all of us, the desire for two exhausts, or four, and bigger and bigger wheels, and useless AMG kits that add nothing to performance, sports this, sports that, nothing but policies and products that give clear signs that madness rules and govts must act to restrain this out-of-control beast.

 

[hawk20]

We all pay road tax etc. But someone who does say 10K mls per year pay the same as someone (ie sales rep) who does 40K mls per year?

Do like other countries, scrap the road-tax and increase fuel rates... this way, you drive more, you pay more. Simple and fair, I think.
..

A tax on new band G cars would mainly hit the better off who could avoid it by buying cars not in band G. The S class can be bought in band F form (the S320cdi which I had. 35mpg. Great car).

But taxing fuel more highly would hit less well off people.

We tax whisky to deter heavy drinking. But those who drink very little have to pay it too. Sadly, tax is a very blunt instrument.

I would prefer measures that do not put up the cost of living (like banning band G cars after a sensible time lag, fitting cars with limiters and so on)

 

[Splatt]

A tax on new band G cars would mainly hit the better off who could avoid it by buying cars not in band G. The S class can be bought in band F form (the S320cdi which I had. 35mpg. Great car).


I would prefer measures that do not put up the cost of living (like banning band G cars after a sensible time lag, fitting cars with limiters and so on)

There is just one problem; according to city analysts the Cancellor needs to take £240 per household in his budget to counteract the downturn in revenue due to the slowdown of the economy. Now, he can do this by the hacneyed devices of upping the duty on fags, booze , increasing income tax and national insurance. All of which will make him as popular as a f@rt in a spacesuit cos this is a sum that will not slip under the sight line . Or he can come up with a totally new tax sold on the pretext of envromentalism which can of course start moderately low and when once on the statute book can be jacked up when required.

 

[st13phil]

BUT you must also accept, IMO, that many many people genuinely believe the world is coming to an end if we do not deal with man-made CO2. And that includes many politicians in all parties and in all countries. It does not include me, yet. But it does include many people who I respect. Those of us who love cars must come up with ways of reducing CO2 from our activity, or they will do it for us in ways we may not like.

It is no use saying big cars don't make much as a percentage of the total. The search is on for every way we can think of to reduce CO2 from us.

The real issue is that, as you quite accurately state, "many many people genuinely believe the world is coming to an end if we do not deal with man-made CO2". While I accept that statement as true, I do not concur with their view, mainly as I have yet to see any real science that provides evidence to support it that hasn't been "doctored" in some way or another. Those who argue most strongly for action to be taken say that we must do something to mitigate against man-made climate change now even though there is no sound evidence to support such action just in case they are right (which, in the view of many climate scientists they are not). Their argument amounts to no more than this: I have no evidence that what you are doing is bad, but you must stop doing it because it may be.

Once you understand the basis of their argument, it is clear that any notion that ridding ourselves of the opportunity to purchase the minute number of cars which produce the most CO2 per mile today will somehow placate the climate lobby is incorrect. They will not be placated. They believe that zero man-made CO2 emissions is the target and personal transport is their chosen battleground.

While they may have genuinely held beliefs, my view is that those beliefs are false. Instead of aquiescing to their demands, we should be working to expose the man-made climate change lobby as the mixture of misinformed people, snake-oil peddlars, and charlatans that they are.

 

[hawk20]

There is just one problem; according to city analysts the Cancellor needs to take £240 per household in his budget to counteract the downturn in revenue due to the slowdown of the economy. Now, he can do this by the hacneyed devices of upping the duty on fags, booze , increasing income tax and national insurance. All of which will make him as popular as a f@rt in a spacesuit cos this is a sum that will not slip under the sight line . Or he can come up with a totally new tax sold on the pretext of envromentalism which can of course start moderately low and when once on the statute book can be jacked up when required.

A fairly big tax on band G cars won't raise much money. They are not a big share of car sales. Big engined cars are dying. It will just accelerate the death. The Kengestion charge has been the biggest nail in the coffin. Not just a couple of grand tax when you buy, but £25 per day, every weekday, week after week, month after month. A real drag.

 

[hawk20]

While they may have genuinely held beliefs, my view is that those beliefs are false. Instead of aquiescing to their demands, we should be working to expose the man-made climate change lobby as the mixture of misinformed people, snake-oil peddlars, and charlatans that they are.

I agree with much of what you say. But the problem is that they just might be right and then, if we do not act now but wait till we are convinced, it will be too late. Powerful argument called the precautionary principle or somesuch.

So IMO while trying to dissuade them, we also need to show we are taking action to minimise the dangers. Either the car industry does something sensible to cut emissions in a big way, or politicians will do it for them. Sadly, that is the choice.

Endless threads about the action against cars is just to raise money do not really help. We need to accept that these people really do believe what they are saying. They really do believe all human life is in peril. We have to meet them half way or convince them they need not worry. Hard to do.

 

[Splatt]

A fairly big tax on band G cars won't raise much money. They are not a big share of car sales. Big engined cars are dying. It will just accelerate the death. The Kengestion charge has been the biggest nail in the coffin. Not just a couple of grand tax when you buy, but £25 per day, every weekday, week after week, month after month. A real drag.

Who says it will only be G band cars? . The CO2 charging was supposed to be income neutral and what happened ? The average family 2lit car ended up in Group F (or E if they were lucky). Neutral would have been group D

 

[hawk20]

I hope it is only band G.

My two 2 litre cars are both band C but they are diesel. The whole CO2 thing is clearly bad news for petrol engined cars- so far.

 

[jberks]

Personally I reserve judgement on the whole global warning issue. I suspect there is some truth to it, albeit overstated by the 'believers'. What I object to are the cries of Heresy to anyone who dares question it - this pushes many including myself towards the non belivers camp. After all, if the evidence was that convincing, we wouldn't need the religion aspects, it would be sef evident.

Irrespective though, reducing fossil fuel consumption is no bad thing whatever the motives.

What irritates me is that, even if the greenies are spot on, taxes like this are fiddling while Rome is ablaze. Fixing the wrong problem in the wrong way. Hitting gas guzzlers will in reality have zero impact on Co2 emmissions. It looks good to the green eyed brigade but proves and achieves nothing.

Simple changes like, for example, legislating that all electrical equipment sold in the UK after 2010 will have a maxmum 0.001ma current usage when not active (standby for example) would have 10x the effect but they shy away because it doesn't allow them to blame the decadent rich for all our woes. (Cars manage it after all). Legislating that all new builds will have ground source heating and solar panels would also make a drastic difference and add proportionately little to the overall cost - but they don't. Have they bothered to count the Co2 cost of all those set top boxes we are going to need to buy for the digital switch off and legislated around current usage? nope. I suspect that alone will account for double the Co2 output of all the gas guzzlers.

No, instead, the put a silly innefective tax on maybe 10,000 out of the 2.5 million cars sold in the UK every year (if it stops 2% of that 10,000 I'll be very surprised) and claim green credentials. Sadly that is what this bunch of cowards are all about. Never go after the big effective targets (who have lawyers and lobbyists) but instead try to clobber the unfashionable little guy who can't fight back. Thye will no doubt herald that this was effective as next year they will show a reduction in big cars sold, utterly ignoring the current financial crisis that will actually have caused it.

You could see it as, at least, something, but I just see it as another spin based lie.

 

[st13phil]

Endless threads about the action against cars is just to raise money do not really help.

No, but they make some of us feel better .

We need to accept that these people really do believe what they are saying. They really do believe all human life is in peril. We have to meet them half way or convince them they need not worry. Hard to do.

I have no difficulty in accepting that the climate change lobby fervently believe that we are all marching headlong towards a man-made climate catastrophe as I already do accept that that's what they believe. jberks has beaten me to the keyboard again with

What I object to are the cries of Heresy to anyone who dares question it - this pushes many including myself towards the non belivers camp. After all, if the evidence was that convincing, we wouldn't need the religion aspects, it would be sef evident.

There is more than a faint whiff of "religious fervour" about the whole climate change lobby and none are so hard to convince they are wrong as the committed zealot.

Regarding the "precautionary principle" argument, the beauty of this from the zealot's point of view is that it is impossible to defeat. It's a bit like the "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Impossible to provide an answer that doesn't damn you further.

We do indeed have a hard battle to fight.

 

[Splatt]

No, but they make some of us feel better .I have no difficulty in accepting that the climate change lobby fervently believe that we are all marching headlong towards a man-made climate catastrophe as I already do accept that that's what they believe. jberks has beaten me to the keyboard again withThere is more than a faint whiff of "religious fervour" about the whole climate change lobby and none are so hard to convince they are wrong as the committed zealot.

Regarding the "precautionary principle" argument, the beauty of this from the zealot's point of view is that it is impossible to defeat. It's a bit like the "have you stopped beating your wife?" question. Impossible to provide an answer that doesn't damn you further.

We do indeed have a hard battle to fight.

Now that the Pope has decreed that it is a mortal sin not to recycle and to pollute which are the CO2 bands that will condemn the owners of such cars to eternal damnation, will it be just band G or will E and F also get a dose of fire and brimstone ??

 

[hawk20]

Now that the Pope has decreed that it is a mortal sin not to recycle and to pollute which are the CO2 bands that will condemn the owners of such cars to eternal damnation, will it be just band G or will E and F also get a dose of fire and brimstone ??

You are kidding? I hope. Surely he hasn't has he? I can't believe any sane Pope would go that far. I assume you are joking.

 

[st13phil]

I assume you are joking.

Unfortunately he's not

 

[st13phil]

...will it be just band G or will E and F also get a dose of fire and brimstone ??