View Full Version : 4x4's to pay £1800pa road tax...
...if government officials get their way.
The environmental pressure group wants a new, £1,800 punitive tax band, to be paid annually, for all cars which exceed 250g/km - "roughly 25mpg," says Greenpeace's Mark Strutt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4829628.stm
If that gets through, there should be some very cheap 4x4's on the used car market.
falling rain
07-08-2006, 20:08
Ridiculous in my opinion. Some people need a 4X4 for there jobs. Will the forestry workers, game keepers farmers etc be exempt from this if it goes through? I must admit there are an awful lot of people driving them now for the school run. I think they've taken over from the Volvo estates for that one :rolleyes:
BorderReiver
07-08-2006, 20:12
With a bit of luck there will be an exemption for proven cases of need.
Yet another stealth tax, which the government are good at. All it will do is force me (and those like me) to charge more money from the customers. Grrrrrrrrrrrr.........
wingstoo
07-08-2006, 20:56
If that gets through, there should be some very cheap 4x4's on the used car market.
Don't think so some how...
LS
Spacemonkey
07-08-2006, 21:03
Agree with LS.. After Janet Street Porter and her cronies got green laning more or less banned from everything bar BOATS I was expecting a glut of cheap XR400 trail bikes for sale (I'm in WIltshire which is FULL of lovely long BOATS..) but sadly not...
They're also on about lowering Motorway speed limits. Yeah, cos that will make a difference... Peopel will do the same speeds, but the old bill will just be able to fine more for speeding, but that's not the plan surely..? Sorry, getting political again, so I'm off....
I think they are trying to focus people on the wrong argument, as is often the way.
If they get this tax on 4x4's, they will then focus on some other vehicle (Luxury car market? Limo' hire?). All the while the real options for longer term sustainability are being overlooked because they would cost a lot of money in the short term. I'd love to fill my rook with PV cells, but the deal is too dodgy in the short term, let alone the long term.
Bless 'em and their ways
bogflogger
07-08-2006, 22:50
Good! About Time Too!
CUE: Fatuous Arguement about how 'Your' 4 x 4 is Essential for pulling Tree Stumps (on one Afternoon a Week) while Ignoring the other Six and a Half Days when you just use it to Commute, or go to Sainso's in.
CUE: Fatuous Arguement about how 'Your' 4 x 4 runs on Bio-Diesel or LPG - As if this Somehow Reverses the Pollution effects of Hauling Several Unnesscary Tons of Metal from A to B, Every Time One or Two Humans need to move a few Miles.
Everyone Must Change Their Ways Except You Personally! :cool:
Let's hope that someone, somewhere in that there government will laugh at the report and file it in the bin where it belongs.
Spacemonkey
07-08-2006, 23:32
Good! About Time Too!
CUE: Fatuous Arguement about how 'Your' 4 x 4 is Essential for pulling Tree Stumps (on one Afternoon a Week) while Ignoring the other Six and a Half Days when you just use it to Commute, or go to Sainso's in.
CUE: Fatuous Arguement about how 'Your' 4 x 4 runs on Bio-Diesel or LPG - As if this Somehow Reverses the Pollution effects of Hauling Several Unnesscary Tons of Metal from A to B, Every Time One or Two Humans need to move a few Miles.
Everyone Must Change Their Ways Except You Personally! :cool:
...and you spend all day riding miles and miles around London carving up other road users at silly speeds delivering pointless packages on an emission free motorbike, non? :argue: :) (obligatory smilie to make everyone feel happy again)
bogflogger
07-08-2006, 23:41
Not for the last Six Years I Haven't.
Plus,The largest Bike I Worked was a BMW 850cc and weighed just over 500lb.
As opposed to several Tons of Chassis, Bodywork, Glass, Ancillary Motors, etc,etc, All requiring an engine of 2+ Litres to haul All this Dead Weight - with consequent increases in pollution.
I Also doubt wether the Transplant Surgeon Waiting at the OR Table for the Kidney I was delivering, or the Patient, thought my job was pointless.
No Contest Really. :cool:
In fairness, if the argument is carbon pollution, then the real figures are mpg and annual mileage. If you are gonna levvy a tax againt high polluting vehicles, then that tax should be levvied against all vehicles which do less than the set mpg (I think the figure bandied about is 25mpg).
Why single out one particular style of vehicle? There are lots of old jags and porches out there that suck fuel and are far worse for the environment than many 4x4's.
Equally, it isnt just mpg's, it's the amount of miles you actually do.
If I do 5,000 miles a year and you do 20,000 miles a year, and both vehicles do 25mpg, you are shoving 4x the carbon into the environment than I am. If I own a 4x4 and you own a jag, then I'm gonna be paying a carbon tax for your pollution. Surely it's the amount of miles that should be taxed (as well as the vehicles efficiency), rather than just the "style" of vehicle?
What about a fairer solution...
How about each and every vehicle on the road being put into an emmisions banding, based on the g of CO2 it puts out per mile, then when the vehicle is MOT'd, the mileage is recoded and DVLC send you a 'carbon bill', based on the recorded mileage of the vehicle x the CO2 banding it falls into.
That way high mileage, high polluting vehicles would be hit hardest (regardless of style/make/model) and low mileage drivers running efficient vehicles would pay the least ...even nothing in some cases.
bogflogger
08-08-2006, 00:44
That's Fair Enough!
Just to make my position clear, I do not hate 4 x 4's provided they are actually being used for their intended purpose IE: Rural Workhorses.
My Issue is with the 98% that are nothing more than "Lifestyle Accessories" :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: that spend most of their running time, Belching out Pollution whilst stuck in Gridlock, with only One Occupant.
Oh, and Audis, BMW's, Ford's, Mercedes, Vauxhall's.....and.....Volvo's .....And.......... :p
That's Fair Enough!
Just to make my position clear, I do not hate 4 x 4's provided they are actually being used for their intended purpose IE: Rural Workhorses.
My Issue is with the 98% that are nothing more than "Lifestyle Accessories" :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: :yuck: that spend most of their running time, Belching out Pollution whilst stuck in Gridlock, with only One Occupant.
Oh, and Audis, BMW's, Ford's, Mercedes, Vauxhall's.....and.....Volvo's .....And.......... :p
That's the point, yes they are lifestyle accessories for 95% of owners. But so what?
The key issues are annual mileage and mpg (or gCO2 per mile). If your 4x4 is relatively efficient and your annual mileage is low, then you as an individual are a low carbon polluter, lifestyle choice or not.
The mom-trucks that do 50 miles a week taking the kids to school and going to sainsbury's are not the problem. They are low carbon polluters. The problem is those 2.0 litre rep mobiles, that screech up the M6 at 95mph, doing 70,000 miles a year with one person in the driving seat. Those people put 10x the carbon into the environment than the mom trucks.
I do agree though, that old series Landies are a poor choice for the environment, unless you really, really, really, genuinely need one. I often hear of them doing 20mpg or less.
Still, the important figure is how many miles you do. If you are a very low mileage individual, you can afford some lattitude in your vehicle (and lifestyle) choice. If you are a high mileage individual, then you are a high polluter by definition, and you should be under financial pressure to make sure those high miles are done in a vehicle which pollutes as little as possible. I'd like to see company reps driving nissan micra's.
You could own a lamourghini countach that does 6mpg, but if you only do 50 miles are year in it, you are a low polluter.
Yes, 4x4's are, on the whole, not very environmentally friendly. But the key issue is not the vehicle itself, but how it's used. Based on that simple truth, I dont think the vehicle alone should be taxed, but instead tax a combination of the vehicle, plus how a person uses it.
bogflogger
08-08-2006, 04:51
I Can see the logic of what you are saying Martyn.
I Can also see that most people have an Obsessional Affair with what is After All, Nothing but a Steel Box on Wheels, yet the "From my Cold Dead Hands" Mentality, seems to Rule Most Peoples Ideas on Change or Downsizing Vehicles.
Therefore, the Only way to get People Out of "Status" Cars (not just 4 x 4's) is to make it HURT to Run One.
Also, I Do Find it Difficult to buy into this idea of "Trading" in Pollution Credits, it is Not a Currency.
Basically, you are either Polluting (Running ANY Vehicle) or you are Not (This Might Seem Simplistic, But it IS the Bottom Line).
The Problem with all the "Life Cycle" Analysis and "Hair Splitting" is that it Always Ignores This Basic Fact, in the Covouted Mental Gymnastics Involved in Trying to Prove that Black, is in Fact, White.
I have even seen (Apparently Serious) attempts to prove that the Cycle Industry is a Monster, Devouring the Earth's Resources and leaving a trail of Destruction and Pollution in it's Wake.
I Gave up Listening to all this "Greenwash" after reading Far too much of this Arrant Nonsense, usually just produced as Propoganda to Justify the Actions of one particular "Special Interest" group or another.
wingstoo
08-08-2006, 07:21
It doesn't really matter anymore as it was on the BBC news last night that the Government had REJECTED the proposal...
LS
this was my 4x4 untill a prat in a white van overtuck on a blind corner.
if i had been in a small car what would have happend?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/biglizard/crash/100_0335.jpg
i live in cumbria not in a big city and i understand the problems 4x4s course in the city but why should we all be branded status symbol drivers.
a 4x4 is the most practicull thing for me to have.
wingstoo
08-08-2006, 07:35
Hi Sparks,
Haven't you had that ding knocked out yet...If it wasn't for the type of vehicle you would be playing a harp by now...
Have you done the guy for personal injury...?
LS
bogflogger
08-08-2006, 07:39
HOORAY........Go and pump a few Hundred Litres of Poison into the Atmosphere to Celebrate! :cool:
wingstoo
08-08-2006, 07:48
HOORAY........Go and pump a few Hundred Litres of Poison into the Atmosphere to Celebrate! :cool:
Nah, lets not, lets get them all gas converted so we have less...And use them only when required...
LS
bogflogger
08-08-2006, 07:55
Sounds like a Good Plan :beerchug:
gregorach
08-08-2006, 09:39
...if government officials get their way.
Since when were Greenpeace "government officials"?
Part of the problem with the argument is that it tends to end up focused on 4x4's, when they are not (alone) the issue. Indeed, there are more arguments for having a 4x4 then for the high emission executive cars. It is this simplistic approach that clouds the issues involved, and end up taking the argument down the wrong track.
What would be helpful would be a relatively fair and balanced report comparing emissions from food miles, private aircraft use (can you imagine how much lead is coming from that), commercial road use, private car use...... A whole range. That might inform people like me a bit better, and persuade me of some arguments. At the moment it's all a bit piece meal, with people basicly shouting at me, telling me to stop what I'm doing, and that I'm a bad person for ever having thought about doing it in the first place! Does such a report exist? There seem to be some very informed people on this board, so perhaps some one could help me out?
And there are so many issues that need addressing to bring the world to a fair and healthy place. If some one is less passionate about this particular one, it doesn't mean they aren't trying to "do their bit" in another arena. I may not appear to be changing on this issue, but it doesn't mean I'm changing on another. I suspect the same is true for other people as well.
Paul
if you listen to the beeb & gov spokes people they've stopped (more or less) saying 4x4 now refer to " the most polluting cars"
My 90 does28 or so mpg, so should be ok. If the dispute I'll get it on a rolling road to prove it.
All as it runs on recycled veg oil will I get environmental discount.
If the money that they are propseing to charge would actually go into a project to help the enviroment , it wouldnt be too bad . But you know it wont so the whole thing is pointless , it will force people to drive without tax , which in turn will cost the goverment (read tax payers) a lot more than it is worth .
This is definately not worth while . What needs to be sourced is an alternative fuel/engine that does not produce the harmfull emmisions .
I have 2 4x4s , both do around 35/40 miles to the gallon , so where does that leave me ? Normal tax , i doubt it . If this gets through it will be yet another example of what a waste of space our government is .
Pumbaa
anthonyyy
08-08-2006, 10:04
Good news if they have the courage to do it.
MagiKelly
08-08-2006, 10:26
How's this for an idea. Why not just levy a tax on the fuel. That way the people who are burning the most, pay the most. Simple. So simple in fact it is already the case. So those driving high mileages or gas guzzling cars are already paying more, to try and encourage them to use less fuel.
If you want them to be more discouraged then put up the tax on the fuel.
Anyone who is actually interested in saving energy and efficiency would not introduce whole new procedure for gathering more money, creating more paperwork etc when there is already an efficient and existing way or applying tax to fuel use that is directly linked to the fuel used.
Surely I am not the only one who sees this :rolleyes:
BorderReiver
08-08-2006, 10:26
I am coming round to the idea that "saving the environment from global warming" is a total waste of time.
What's it matter if the climate does overheat? It's been that way before,the arctic was tropical forest for goodness sake. :rolleyes:
It may be uncomfortable for us humans but that's alright 'cause it's our fault this time.
To me a far worse problem is the destruction of habitat for the rest of the life forms.As a parasite species we are rapidly taking over the living spaces of all the others.A few more degrees and a few more storms are not as bad as acres of concrete or soya or wheat.
All our concerns seem to be focused on how we will be affected.This is the barrier that must be overcome to get some sense into the discussion.
gregorach
08-08-2006, 10:53
Re increased fuel duty: I think the standard objection to this is that it risks being regressive - people who aren't that well off but have to commute to work end up a much higher percentage of their income. The other interesting thing about fuel duty, at least as it is currently structured, is that it competely swamps any signal in the price of fuel itself. So we have a situation where the price of oil has gone through the roof, but consumers don't really notice because the fuel duty overwhelms the effect.
As for why climate change is bad, even ignoring the human aspect (which is appallingly misanthropic in my opinion - the people who will do the most suffering are not the people who's fault it is)... The last time climate changed this much, species were able to adapt by migration. That is no longer possible on anything like the same scale, due to habitat destruction and islandisation. Entire ecosystems will simply dissappear. It's not just the climate change, it's the climate change in conjunction with all the other environmental destruction we've caused that's the real kicker. The global ecosystem's ability to withstand change is already severely damaged, we're already into a mass extinction event, and climate change is only just getting started.
dommyracer
08-08-2006, 12:17
Ban petrol.
mojofilter
08-08-2006, 12:39
Too many people spend too much time worrying too much about what other people are doing, all the while taking the 'holier than thou' stance. :rolleyes:
My hatch does 23 to the gallon, where is the anti hot hatch lobbyists, shock horror, thare arn't any, obviously its not cool to be anti hot hatch, yet.
Also they conveniently forget to point out that we are among the highest taxed on fuel in the world, so anyone who chooses to drive a vehicle with high fuel consumtion is already paying through the nose for the privelege.
I need a breath of fresh air now. :rolleyes: Shall I take the 23mpg hatch or the smokey old Rangie.... :D
BorderReiver
08-08-2006, 12:48
As for why climate change is bad, even ignoring the human aspect (which is appallingly misanthropic in my opinion - the people who will do the most suffering are not the people who's fault it is)... The last time climate changed this much, species were able to adapt by migration. That is no longer possible on anything like the same scale, due to habitat destruction and islandisation. Entire ecosystems will simply dissappear. It's not just the climate change, it's the climate change in conjunction with all the other environmental destruction we've caused that's the real kicker. The global ecosystem's ability to withstand change is already severely damaged, we're already into a mass extinction event, and climate change is only just getting started.
My points exactly. :eek:
We are concentrating on one tiny part of the problem and ignoring the rest.
There have always been extinctions,there will always be extinctions,it's part of the life of the planet,it's natural.Some things die out,some climb to the top of the chain and then they go.We will be extinct in our turn.
Look at the amount of diversity at the moment.That is after at least one mass extinction.The next one will be after a natural event,like an asteroid strike,or more likely an enormous volcanic eruption.
I'm not misanthropic at all,I just think we take ourselves far too seriously.We are only one species and to the planet we are as important as the fruit fly. :p
Bootstrap Bob
08-08-2006, 13:43
I agree with MagiKelly 100% and have been saying this for years along with the motoring organisations.
Remove the road fund license completely thereby removing those who dodge it and increase the tax on fuel to cover it. In one move you have not only removed a problem but you are helping the environment too. The vehicles that burn the fuel pay more and those that don't, well don't :) This would be a huge incentive for people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
I take your point Gregorach about those who are less well off but would it really make a difference if they don't have to pay road fund license? They are not being penalised and have the same choice as everyone else.
Before anyone has a go at me you should probably know that I own a Landrover which I have as a hobby and limit to 2000 miles per year. And even worse, I drive over 20k miles a year for my job so what I am suggesting would adversely affect me. I see it as an incentive to find a job nearer to home.
pothunter
08-08-2006, 16:18
Hi Bootstrap
Would never work for 2 reasons:
1 It is a logical step.
2 What would all those cival servants find to do at that currently issue exise licences?
Although seriously it would be a huge step forward.
Happy travels, Pothunter.
jdlenton
08-08-2006, 16:47
I see it as an incentive to find a job nearer to home.
i did that 18 month ago when my boy was born i used to drive 40k plus a year for work now i ride a bike to work every day best move i ever made.
I say dump the 4x4 and get a mountain bike :D
granted jon p would have a hard time hauling bricks around on a mountain bike :eek:
ducks and runs for cover :theyareon
bambodoggy
08-08-2006, 17:10
I say dump the 4x4 and get a mountain bike :D
granted jon p would have a hard time hauling bricks around on a mountain bike :eek:
ducks and runs for cover :theyareon
Lol....I'd have a heck of a job towing my 1.5T stump grinder or my chipper and various chainsaws on a mountan bike too!!!!!
I do use my motorbike to do most of my quoting on though so I guess I'm doing my bit too. We've also desided to have our next holiday in Cornwall rather than Marakesh where we were planning to go so that's good too. :)
I heard somewhere that one medium to long haul flight emits roughly the same ammount of carbon per person as if that person drove a car all year.... so even if you don't drive at all but you take one holiday abroad each year you're as bad as any motorist out there! :rolleyes:
We recycle all our newspapers, plastic bottles, tin cans and glass and our veggie matter is composted. Our house is heated via a carbon neutral woodburning stove and all the chippings and grinding spoil I create at work goes to a recycling place where it's turned into bricketts and then goes on to fuel powerstations.......I wouldn't say I am 100% green but I do as much as I can and I feel I do a fair ammount in the name of "greeness" and so I don't feel to bad about driving my 4x4. It would be nice to have it for work only and have a greener car for domestic use but that in itself is cost prohibitive for me with two lots of MoT, Tax, insurrance and service etc and also means I've used up all those other resourses in the manufacter of yet another car.
Enviromental issues are seldom as black and white as many that shout the loudest on both sides would have us believe....there's more shades of green in there ;)
The problem with the Chelsea tractor lot is that taxing them won't work....they already can afford to buy a nice big shiney expencive 4x4 (and other high polution cars) and run them and pay more fuel duty as they use more and pay the higher road tax band and live in Central london.......these people have money and if they want a 4x4 then they'll have one...meanwhile those in the country where it might be useful to have one will no longer be able to afford one. Yet another case of taxing the poor while the rich can afford it.
Just my thoughts anyway....
Bam. :)
Spikey DaPikey
08-08-2006, 17:12
How's this for an idea. Why not just levy a tax on the fuel. That way the people who are burning the most, pay the most. Simple. So simple in fact it is already the case. So those driving high mileages or gas guzzling cars are already paying more, to try and encourage them to use less fuel.
If you want them to be more discouraged then put up the tax on the fuel.
Anyone who is actually interested in saving energy and efficiency would not introduce whole new procedure for gathering more money, creating more paperwork etc when there is already an efficient and existing way or applying tax to fuel use that is directly linked to the fuel used.
Surely I am not the only one who sees this :rolleyes:
Wot he said :cool:
BorderReiver
08-08-2006, 17:46
How's this for an idea. Why not just levy a tax on the fuel. That way the people who are burning the most, pay the most. Simple. So simple in fact it is already the case. So those driving high mileages or gas guzzling cars are already paying more, to try and encourage them to use less fuel.
If you want them to be more discouraged then put up the tax on the fuel.
Anyone who is actually interested in saving energy and efficiency would not introduce whole new procedure for gathering more money, creating more paperwork etc when there is already an efficient and existing way or applying tax to fuel use that is directly linked to the fuel used.
Surely I am not the only one who sees this :rolleyes:
People (voters) would notice any new increase and not be happy. :p
At the moment it's split between Road Tax and petrol.First you increase the petrol duty;a little while later you increase the road tax;then you increase the petrol and so on.Then you introduce new vehicle tariffs so no one is really sure if they are paying more or not. :eek:
And you want to spoil it for them. :puppy_dog Naughty MagiKelly :p
wingstoo
08-08-2006, 20:07
I hope they don't start on other things that cause pollution...I wonder how much greenhouse gas is produced by us lot having knives made, leather tanned, boot soles made, clothing manufactured, water bottles created, getting to and from bush moots, flying Mors in to the UK etc etc
LS
MartiniDave
08-08-2006, 20:36
I'm a little amused by the concept of limiting 4x4 ownership to people who "really need" them. If we apply that logic to to eferything in life all the shops will be pretty quite at the weekends, after all, who "really needs" just about anything you care to name?
If we all look at our kit, are we really that green? Knifes from all round the globe, shirts from New Zealand, cooking pots from China, hats fom Australia and South africa, training courses run in exotic locations, all requiring huge amounts of transport.
Those who live in big cities, with comprehensive and useful public transport systems may be able to cope without a car, but every bite of food you eat, every stitch you stand up in, has been transported to you, and not on a donkey cart - well, maybe the first part of the journey from the sweat shop.
If you live in a more rural area there usually isn't any option but to travel by car to and from work.
Its a bigger problem than just picking on the next handy minority group you fancy having a dig at.
bogflogger
08-08-2006, 20:43
Surely, it would be more relavent for YOU to look at these issues Yourself, rather than "THEM" having to kick up a fuss?
And as for the "Caring, Enviromentally Friendly, Eco- Aware, Outdoor Industry" :- you only have to unpack one Delivery of 250 of the Same Model of Rucksack, Packed 25 to a Heavy Cardboard Box, each wrapped in it's own Heavy Guage Polythene Bag, with 3-4 Glossy Plastic Paper "Swing Labels" attached, to See Exactly how "Committed" the Gear Manufacturers are to Enviromental Issues.
MartiniDave
09-08-2006, 07:59
Bogflogger, I quite agree with what you just said. There is much more than just one issue driving climate change. Similarly there is more than one reason I drive a Landrover. For me it fills the roles of about 4 other classes of vehicle - and I really don't want to buy one of each :rolleyes:
As for the unnecessary packaging and waste in the retail industry my wife works for "a large supermarket" who have just started to encourage re-use of carrier bags, but they themselves recycle NOTHING internally, the amount of goods, including foodstufs, they put in the compactor is really criminal!
I don't know how to make it all change, or even how to make any real difference. Ideas anyone? (Realistic ones that is)
Dave
mojofilter
09-08-2006, 10:56
I agree with MagiKelly 100% and have been saying this for years along with the motoring organisations.
Remove the road fund license completely thereby removing those who dodge it and increase the tax on fuel to cover it. In one move you have not only removed a problem but you are helping the environment too. The vehicles that burn the fuel pay more and those that don't, well don't :) This would be a huge incentive for people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.
I take your point Gregorach about those who are less well off but would it really make a difference if they don't have to pay road fund license? They are not being penalised and have the same choice as everyone else.
Before anyone has a go at me you should probably know that I own a Landrover which I have as a hobby and limit to 2000 miles per year. And even worse, I drive over 20k miles a year for my job so what I am suggesting would adversely affect me. I see it as an incentive to find a job nearer to home.
taking an average of 30-mpg for 12000 miles pa, to cover the 180 odd RFL, it would add about 10p to a litre of petrol. This will come soon anyway, so why would they want to lose out on the RFL. I am guessing here, but I'd imagine that there are probably more low mileage vehicles than high ones, and the government dont really care about whats fair or the environment, only what they can rake in. :yuck:
Grooveski
09-08-2006, 11:18
....and they wouldn't want to lose out on the multiple vehicle owner bonus.
You can only use one vehicle at a time, so if I'm out on the bike the car and dirt bike are lying at home not using any fuel. The way things are just now the gov are still getting their pound of flesh for them. Can't see them wanting to change that cosy little setup.
Fair few folk sticking up for bikes as environmentaly sound. Personaly I reckon they're as bad if not worse. Going thrash happy I can bring consumption down to 25mpg no bother and chewing up a pair of tyres every 3000-odd miles is bad news. :(
I am starting to think this is a tad discriminating against 4x4 drivers .
If you look at all the things that cause CO2 emissions in this country alone , you have all transport and a lot of industry , even your pint is fizzed up with CO2 ! I would hazard a guess that what 4x4s put out in the way of polution is quite a small percentage of what our country pours out in total . Then if you step it up to a global level , you have the americans with their huge gas guzzlers , Chinas new export boom . As a British person who is trying to protect the enviroment , you dont stand a chance against the whole world (not that the fight isnt worthy) realisticly you will never change the minds and habits of all those people . So why pick on 4x4 drivers ? Blatent discrimination
Pumbaa
BorderReiver
09-08-2006, 11:35
I am starting to think this is a tad discriminating against 4x4 drivers .
If you look at all the things that cause CO2 emissions in this country alone , you have all transport and a lot of industry , even your pint is fizzed up with CO2 ! I would hazard a guess that what 4x4s put out in the way of polution is quite a small percentage of what our country pours out in total . Then if you step it up to a global level , you have the americans with their huge gas guzzlers , Chinas new export boom . As a British person who is trying to protect the enviroment , you dont stand a chance against the whole world (not that the fight isnt worthy) realisticly you will never change the minds and habits of all those people . So why pick on 4x4 drivers ? Blatent discrimination
Pumbaa
Because they are a minority old boy. :rolleyes:
HMG "seen to be doing something" without the majority of voters getting upset. :cool:
Ogri the trog
09-08-2006, 11:54
Have to agree,
I can't say that I'd be glad to see it but putting RFL onto the fuel itself is the only fair way to go. I have a 4x4 and to get out to do shopping etc in the winter I damned well need it. Even with it we get snowed in an average of four days each winter - no great shakes in some books but I could no longer afford the taxation, and had to rely on 2 wheel drive vehicles, I'd have to save all my work holiday for the days when I couldn't get off the hill. I use a very economical (up to 70 to the gallon) car to commute to work normally but when the going gets icy, theres only one alternative.
Ranting now, better stop.
Ogri the trog
Klenchblaize
09-08-2006, 12:06
Good to know this proposal floats the boat of at least one member.
Hey chaps, I’m all for going back to horse & cart provided it’s a totally level playing field, as in there being no chance of an outraged and confused Series 3 BMW driver undertaking me in the “Slow Horse Lane”! :lmao:
Cheers
How did they come out with the figure of £1800 ? Thats an extra £1600 on currant road tax , i would like to see a break down of how they came up with that figure . Handing it to the government or them to spend as they please is just not acceptable . Justify your costings , without discriminating . What about White van man and all the HGVs on our roads , they produce more emissions .
Pumbaa
MagiKelly
09-08-2006, 12:25
Another thing to remember is no matter how much road use is taxed, every last drop of oil is going to be burned. Probably in aircraft as there are less alternatives to fuel these. So environmentally we are going to be in the same place. the only difference will be how much the government raked in during the process.
someone mentioned the bike industry not being very good for the environment, there have been people who complained about the amount of damage they do when used on little tracks at high speed. Also us cyclists seems to want the most hi tech matrials going which normaly means it's not good for nature to abtain them.
I'd much rather see a policy of no road tax and all the funds coming from teh price of fuel, it would mean people might use public transport more, people who bring their cars over from france etc would pay to sort out british roads while we do the same from them if we take our cars over there and of course it may mean that people who need big cars some of the time wouldn't have to pay extra tax to use a smaller car the times when they don't need the large car/4x4
of course that wont happen :rolleyes:
Spacemonkey
09-08-2006, 20:08
So why not tax bovine products instead? They as worldwide whole produce more greenhouse gasses than the evil motorist. And if evil 4x4s are so bad why not ban them altogether along with tobacco and alocohol? Or could it simply be the usual government ploy of 'You can do what you want as long as you pay extra to us to do it' ? Me cynical? Nah.... never....
jdlenton
10-08-2006, 09:29
So why not tax bovine products instead? They as worldwide whole produce more greenhouse gasses than the evil motorist. And if evil 4x4s are so bad why not ban them altogether along with tobacco and alocohol? Or could it simply be the usual government ploy of 'You can do what you want as long as you pay extra to us to do it' ? Me cynical? Nah.... never....
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
falling rain
10-08-2006, 09:47
In fairness, if the argument is carbon pollution, then the real figures are mpg and annual mileage. If you are gonna levvy a tax againt high polluting vehicles, then that tax should be levvied against all vehicles which do less than the set mpg (I think the figure bandied about is 25mpg).
Why single out one particular style of vehicle? There are lots of old jags and porches out there that suck fuel and are far worse for the environment than many 4x4's.
Equally, it isnt just mpg's, it's the amount of miles you actually do.
If I do 5,000 miles a year and you do 20,000 miles a year, and both vehicles do 25mpg, you are shoving 4x the carbon into the environment than I am. If I own a 4x4 and you own a jag, then I'm gonna be paying a carbon tax for your pollution. Surely it's the amount of miles that should be taxed (as well as the vehicles efficiency), rather than just the "style" of vehicle?
What about a fairer solution...
How about each and every vehicle on the road being put into an emmisions banding, based on the g of CO2 it puts out per mile, then when the vehicle is MOT'd, the mileage is recoded and DVLC send you a 'carbon bill', based on the recorded mileage of the vehicle x the CO2 banding it falls into.
That way high mileage, high polluting vehicles would be hit hardest (regardless of style/make/model) and low mileage drivers running efficient vehicles would pay the least ...even nothing in some cases.
They can take our land and our women, BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM :headbang: - or something along those lines (braveheart)
You should run for PM Martyn - that sounds like a very good plan you've suggested there :You_Rock_
I don't think there will ever be a fair way to this solution, there will always be the one's that can afford and masses who can't, but do.
Our Government is just trying to find other ways of squeezing more money out of us.
falling rain
10-08-2006, 10:30
[The problem with the Chelsea tractor lot is that taxing them won't work....they already can afford to buy a nice big shiney expencive 4x4 (and other high polution cars) and run them and pay more fuel duty as they use more and pay the higher road tax band and live in Central london.......these people have money and if they want a 4x4 then they'll have one...meanwhile those in the country where it might be useful to have one will no longer be able to afford one. Yet another case of taxing the poor while the rich can afford it.
Just my thoughts anyway....
Bam. :)[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Money is absolutely no object to these people and they'll pay whatever it costs - Money no object
Because they are a minority old boy. :rolleyes:
HMG "seen to be doing something" without the majority of voters getting upset. :cool:
That sums up the government's rather cynical thinking in a nutshell. The more logical carbon weening incentives/strategies mooted by several members in this thread are potentially vote losing wisdom.
Morally, the more pertinent question we should all be asking ourselves is: "what I am I doing to reduce my ecological footprint?". Hats off to Bam for a very comprehensive range of re-cycling and conservation initiatives in his household.
Returning to the specific question of vehicle cost-to-the-environment: My wife and I moved closer to our places of work 12 years ago. We both walk or cycle to work. When we moved the number of miles we completed in our car annually dropped from circa 25k to <5k.
Now, when we do use our vehicle in the city, it is usually to carry passengers or objects that could not be carried any other way. Where we use our vehicle most is on camping holidays. Latterly our holidays of choice have been the Pyrenees and Alps for hiking in out of the way places. The old vauxhall estate struggled with the long haul there and the off-road trail-head approach routes were completely off-limits...so I traded it in on something more appropriate...
http://www.notquite.free-online.co.uk/Big%20Blue%20web/photos/DSC01657.JPG
I like the idea that Richmond council had recently, that didnt go down very well in the media. When applying for parking permits in the city you have to pay a lot of money for a "gas guzzler" compared to a smart car.
Superb, I thought. I live in the sticks. No chance that there will ever be any kind of parking scheme applied to me here. What I hope that this would mean is that those people living in the city who want to use a large engined vehicle would have to think about it more before they purchased it. Yes, there are some people who would not worry about spending an extra £1000 per year to park, that is just the way the world is.
I do think that the whole situation is being blown out of proportion. Whilst I say this, I do agree that we do need to do something to reduce our carbon footprint. Take this for an example:
CO2 from vehicle use accounts for about 22% of the UK emissions annually. So, what does this cost to put right? BP are running an initiative called Target Neutral. I chucked my details into the calculator at
Target Neutral (http://www.targetneutral.com/TONIC/index.jsp)
For each vehicle that we use, the annual payment is less than £20. That was based on me doing over 25K per year in an L200 and the Defender doing approx 10K.
If it only costs £20 per year to do (only slightly more than the basic Full Member rate on here) then lets do it. If my £20 goes to planting trees and setting up sustainable projects, then lets do it. Next time the government start talking about charging £1800 for car tax then I want to know if all the extra cash will go into reducing the impact of the vehicle being taxed - not into keeping Tony Blair in sound bites, or flying him around the world to smile nicely for piccies after some other pointless talks about securing more carbon based fuel supplies.
If all car use accounts for 22% of CO2 given off in the UK, think how £100 per year could offset our contribution for all of it.
If companies want to use outsourced manufacturers in china, india or anywhere else that may not have much of an environmental record, or is a long way away, then they can easily fund the counteraction of the carbon footprint. In the same way, if I want to buy a shirt that started life in New Zealand (lets just forget about the harm that New Zealand Lamb does) then I should be able to buy with the knowledge that I can offset the harm that I have done buy paying someone to plant some trees.
The politicians are either ignorant or devious. I just cant make up my mind which.
I have recently bought a L/R disco, several reasons for it really, I sometimes need more than 5 seats( done several longish journeys and had to take two cars), I wanted something that could tow properly, I want to do some more green laning/off roading(yes I know it is not essential, but it makes me smile :rolleyes: ), I wanted a car that is nice to drive, I want to be able to carry a lot of gear sometimes and I have always wanted a Landrover :eek: .
My first choice would ahve been a 110 Landrover but one of the deciding factors was that it might be too big for most of the time, the disco is a compromise, it get s all the people and gear in when I need to and I can get it to where I want to go!
It does cost a little more to tax and insure than my wifes small car,and we were expecting more fuel costs per mile too, but as we have found out her smallish(petrol) mazda has almost the same fuel consumption! We don't often need a second car but at weekends and the occasions when my wife has to attend conferences etc it became a a pain trying to borrow a car or work with just the one. I NEED a car for work 3 or 4 days a week, the other days it makes life a lot easier, my wife NEEDS a car a couple of days a month other days she walks or gets a lift. When I looked for a new (second hand) car and I decided a Landrover would be my ideal car we discussed all the options and taking into account fuel costs decided that a second small economical car would be the best choice. Most days I could use that to get to work and the Landrover was available when I needed the extra space(or wanted to play off road), or we needed to use the two cars. There is no point(economically or ecologically) me using the small car (I prefer to drive the Landrover :p ) if there is no difference in fuel use.
I am toying with the idea about using some form of Biodiesel, for ecological and hopefully economic reasons, but am still researching what to use and how, it is not an easy thing to get a definite answer on. Biodiesel as far as I can see is by far the best way to go ecologically but where are the campaigns to make it more available? There was a huge push to get rid of leaded fuel, from the oil companies adn the government with tax incentives, where is the campaign for changing to Biodiesel?
Perhaps there isn't as much money in it, it wouldn't pay the oil companies and the government would find it hard to keep track of Tax, checking if someone is using cherry diesel (the oil companies put die in it)is fairly easy, if the use of biodisel become more widespread they would not be able to tell if it is diesel bought from a pump(taxed) or filtered from the chip pan(untaxed) I dont think putting red dye into chip fat would go down too well!
gregorach
10-11-2006, 09:49
The big problem with biodiesel is that it's difficult to scale. We use a heck of a lot of fuel - to replace a significant proportion of Britain's diesel fuel with biodiesel would require turning all of our agriculutre over to fuel. The current EU initiative to introduce 5% biodiesel can only be met by importing palm oil from Indonesia - where it's grown on land that used to be rainforest, until it was all burned. By the time you compare the carbon savings from the biodiesel to the emissions caused by growing it, it's a net loser.
One thing that's just occured to me that seems to get completely overlooked in many of these debates is the role of road haulage. Compared to a 48 ton truck, a 4x4 isn't really a big deal. Interestingly, heavy goods vehicles are also responsible for the vast majority of road wear. Moving that freight to rail or canal would reduce both emissions and road works! :)
The entire 4x4 debate is a red herring. I drive a deli and will continue to do so. I drive a lot for work. I carry kit and clients on and off road. I dont give a damn about it.
I had done the biggest carbon reducing act possible choosen not to have children.
How much carbon is one pampered European going to produce in our already over populated land?
The politicians are either ignorant or devious. I just cant make up my mind which.
I think you need to give them full credit on both fronts.
We already have an effective fuel tax co2 calculator - it's called Petrol. If you use more petrol (e.g. your car does less MPG) then you have to buy more Petrol - hence you incur a higher cost.
It would be nice to think that the government is thinking of these from a green or `carbon neutral` standpoint, but until the government deploy's all the revenue generated from `green` taxes into green projects I'll still call this another stealth tax.
I don't mind paying tax for using a car - this is a priviledge not a right for myself. Charging people 1000UKP per year for a carpark place when the cost of the car is 30-40K is nothing.
Along with all the politician's mumbling's, don't kid yourself that these people are looking at this from a purely green point of view. Taxes mean money to them. Look at places like Norway - I believe they kept all the taxes thay they obtained from the oil / gas industry and have placed them into a long-term bank account to assist the country in moving on from oil after it runs out. We need more of this kind of long-term thinking in this country.....
the mps bang on about 4x4s etc but they go to house of commons in jags, 4x4s etc.the ones that cycle have a car delivering paperwork to work.janet street porter goes on about 4x4s on greenlanes as she is a rambler then goes to australia business class goes walking through the outback but with a 4x4 following so she only has to carry lunch and a drink,two faced or what ,best way to beat this is a tax exempt 4x4.i own a 1962 landrover swb it has a 3.5 litre v8 with a 3 speed auto.it does about 12 mpg.free tax. insurance is about £200 fully comp with restricted mileage.its sorn at the mo as i had to track down some ignition parts.but its fun when going.
Silverback
22-11-2006, 11:01
I think you are all being a bit harsh on our poor old government. It seems very few of you are aware of the incredibly high costs associated with running a country so badly :D
I think that it's a good idea but only should apply to those who use them in urban environments becasue people like farmers do actually genuinly need them.
I like the idea that Richmond council had recently, that didnt go down very well in the media. When applying for parking permits in the city you have to pay a lot of money for a "gas guzzler" compared to a smart car.
Superb, I thought. I live in the sticks. No chance that there will ever be any kind of parking scheme applied to me here. What I hope that this would mean is that those people living in the city who want to use a large engined vehicle would have to think about it more before they purchased it. Yes, there are some people who would not worry about spending an extra £1000 per year to park, that is just the way the world is. There is another way of looking at this. Those people who live in the city often do less miles per year. It isnt just the size of the engine, you have to also factor how many miles a year you travel.
If you do 35,000 miles a year in an economical vehicle that does 40mpg, you will be burning 875 gallons of fuel. If I do 5000 miles a year in a 4 litre 4x4 that does 16mpg, I will be burning 312 gallons of fuel a year. Even though I live in the city and drive a smokey old gas guzzler, your carbon footprint is still nearly 3x mine.
Any form of taxation which looks at CO2 emissions cannot look at engine size alone, it must also account for an individuals annual mileage. Mileage is far more significant, regardless of what vehicle you drive, or whether you live in the town or in the country.
In my opinion, we should be given an individual allowance - say 500 gallons a year, each. You can burn it in whatever vehicle you like, but pass 500 gallons and you get yer backside taxed into orbit as a high CO2 emitter.
wingstoo
27-12-2006, 08:19
There is another way of looking at this. Those people who live in the city often do less miles per year. It isnt just the size of the engine, you have to also factor how many miles a year you travel.
If you do 35,000 miles a year in an economical vehicle that does 40mpg, you will be burning 875 gallons of fuel. If I do 5000 miles a year in a 4 litre 4x4 that does 16mpg, I will be burning 312 gallons of fuel a year. Even though I live in the city and drive a smokey old gas guzzler, your carbon footprint is still nearly 3x mine.
Any form of taxation which looks at CO2 emissions cannot look at engine size alone, it must also account for an individuals annual mileage. Mileage is far more significant, regardless of what vehicle you drive, or whether you live in the town or in the country.
In my opinion, we should be given an individual allowance - say 500 gallons a year, each. You can burn it in whatever vehicle you like, but pass 500 gallons and you get yer backside taxed into orbit as a high CO2 emitter.
Good grief Martyn...It is amazing how owning a 4X4 changes people, I have been having this argument with the "Greenies" on another forum for a couple of months...
My Land rover might be 3.5Ltrs of grunt but it is more environmentally friendly than a 1300 Ford Escort doing the daily grind, mine does less than 150 a month on LPG, (very rarely do I put petrol in) LPG may be a fossil fuel but it is soooooo much cleaner than any other fuel...In fact they could increase my fuel cost by 50% and I will be happy.
LS
There is another way of looking at this. Those people who live in the city often do less miles per year. It isnt just the size of the engine, you have to also factor how many miles a year you travel.
If you do 35,000 miles a year in an economical vehicle that does 40mpg, you will be burning 875 gallons of fuel. If I do 5000 miles a year in a 4 litre 4x4 that does 16mpg, I will be burning 312 gallons of fuel a year. Even though I live in the city and drive a smokey old gas guzzler, your carbon footprint is still nearly 3x mine.
And just think...if you had an economical car it would be even less. :dunno:
But yeah your right engine size alone isn't going to be enough for the reason you state.
hardyferret
27-12-2006, 11:15
Someday,
One of these little grey men who supposedly govern us, might just do a radical thing, and make a decision, which is based on reason. Like abolish road tax and put say another 5p on a litre of fuel.
This would be fair, because
1 those who do large mileages and create pollution would pay proportionally. I run my own firm with high mileage and would accept this
2 Vehicles with high fuel useage (like mine) will pay for this
3 tax dodging will be a thing of the past
4 limited mileage users and economic vehicle users ie pensioners etc will be rewarded
5 the choice is given to the individual on how he/she travels (god forbid freedom of choice under socialism!!!!)
I have always thought road tax ridiculous, and would love to see the above system even though my Land Rover is a tax exempt historic military vehicle (restored)
kind regards Hardyferret
ArkAngel
27-12-2006, 11:59
Vehicles with emmissions over 250 eh?
My 2.0 focus is in the 205 bracket for which i pay the princely sum of £195 road tax.
Along with it's Super unleaded fuel it has now tuned into a very expensive car to run, as i only do about 8000 a year. SWMBO has a turbo diesel focus so thanks to it's economy we use hers for long journey's.
My next car will be a cheap shopping box no question, my circumstances have changed and i do not need a car that powerful (if i ever did!).
I would hope that the same principle would be applied for C, E and S class Mercs. 5,6 and 7 series BMW's.
4.0litre V8 supercharged Jaguars etc etc.......you get the idea
Nathan Sturgess
08-01-2007, 12:34
One of the worst things for carbon emissions is cows. Also would global warming not happen even if there were no motorised vehicles. The last ice age didn't end because people were driving cars too much. Did it?
And just think...if you had an economical car it would be even less. :dunno:
You are right andy, it would - and if I rode a pushbike to work or walked it would be even less.
Has anyone got a 200cc engine for my Landy? :)
wingstoo
08-01-2007, 20:49
I did a carbon output test for my landy using this website... http://www.carbonneutral.com/cncalculators/flightcalculator.asp#CarbonNeu tral_Flights_CalculatorMy output was, according to the site less than 1 tonne per year.
LS
Minotaur
11-02-2007, 17:53
Good! About Time Too!
CUE: Fatuous Arguement about how 'Your' 4 x 4 is Essential for pulling Tree Stumps (on one Afternoon a Week) while Ignoring the other Six and a Half Days when you just use it to Commute, or go to Sainso's in.
I agreed, but the people that need targeting are at the start of the chain not the end.
Sort the fuel first!
4x4 are the big problem?
What about lorries? This is yet another 'Green Movement' pointless gesture, that the Government like because it makes them money for doing nothing.
CUE: Fatuous Arguement about how 'Your' 4 x 4 runs on Bio-Diesel or LPG - As if this Somehow Reverses the Pollution effects of Hauling Several Unnesscary Tons of Metal from A to B, Every Time One or Two Humans need to move a few Miles.
What pollution effect from Bio-diesel? It is a renewable energy source, it can also be recycled from a waste product that is not used at the moment. It would help poor farmers all over the world to make money. It would be better for the enviroment because you would not have to transport it all over the place. It works better in older vehciles so it could have an effect in the Third world.
What is the 'Green Movement' doing, lets stop 4x4's.
The oil/car companies must fund them, or be laughing their rear ends off.
Everyone Must Change Their Ways Except You Personally! :cool:
Everyone must change their ways. Bang on the money, not 4x4 drivers or motorbikers but everyone. Easiest way to do that, sort the fuel.
Is the Green Movement the most pointless waste of time ever?
What changes have they had on cars?
They are now so advanced that the only way to get them repaired is by a dealership.
What is the effect on the enviroment, none.
What is the effect to the driver? You pay more. You get taxed more, because they want you to stop driving, but have done nothing to sort Public Transport.
What have the Green Movement ever actually acomplished to help the enviroment?
It is actually scary when you think about it, they have done more damage to the enviroment, they should actually campaign against themselves.
You know why they have to put up the tax up again, because exactly what everyone said would happen the last time. It just made the ownership of 4x4 in London, more of a status symbol.
havingagiraffe
12-02-2007, 16:52
(god forbid freedom of choice under socialism!!!!)
:offtopic: Post Clause IV? :lmao:
twisted firestarter
13-02-2007, 12:30
- Scrap car tax
- Increase fuel prices at the pump
- Reduce the duty on Biodiesel
- Try driving a little less each year
The argument that we would need to cover the land with biodiesel crops is fatuous. Rapeseed is the most viable UK crop and it yields 915 lbs. oil/acre. Algae on the other hand is the most efficient biological producer of oil on the planet. Diatom algae is the perfect biodiesel crop which contains approximately 50% oil, although currently the best extraction methods yield 30-40%. Overall It yields 40 times more oil than Rapeseed by area and has the added bonus of 'eating' carbon dioxide too.
There is no competition for land to grow food crops either because it can grow in saline water. It grows quicker in hot climates so may need to be imported but hey,our climate is hotting up anyway! I have heard of one or two people here in the UK who are trialling it in polytunnels on a small scale! This is a real renewable solution waiting to be tapped into but I suspect it will not happen until the powers that be have extracted every last drop of money from our dinofuel reserves.
gregorach
13-02-2007, 12:40
What have the Green Movement ever actually acomplished to help the enviroment?
You mean aside from banishing the killer London Smog, cleaning up Europe's rivers to the point where fish can actually live in them again, reducing the nitrous and sulphuric acid pollution that was killing our forests, eliminating CFCs, restricting the use of some extemely dangerous pesticides, campaigning for improved fuel efficiency, banning commercial whaling, changing fishing practices to reduce by-catch... I could go on. ;)
Celtic Dragon
13-02-2007, 13:36
I want to see how they will calcualte what a 4x4 is if they get their way.
will be very intresting to see for me as I drive a car yet its a 4x4 too, I have an Impreza.
Minotaur
13-02-2007, 20:12
This is a real renewable solution waiting to be tapped into but I suspect it will not happen until the powers that be have extracted every last drop of money from our dinofuel reserves.
The major companies are never going to go for Biodiesal, unless pushed, because they cannot control it. Any idiot can do it on a small scale, and older less complicated cars are better for it.
I want to see how they will calcualte what a 4x4 is if they get their way.
A very good point, there are loads of cars now that are 4x4, (Golf GTI for one), so are they going to be included in this, money grabing, sorry, this seriously considered enviromental measure.
You mean aside from banishing the killer London Smog,
Was that not caused by the change in fuel, due to the need for more powerful higher temperture furnaces. Not really sure about that.
cleaning up Europe's rivers to the point where fish can actually live in them again,
Fisherman, not the Green Movement. They did this on Countryfile, the water companies were like you lot can sod off. Come here nice fishermen who actually do stuff. It was brillant.
Plus do not forget the Mink!
Bye Bye, Water Vole!
reducing the nitrous and sulphuric acid pollution that was killing our forests,
Was this not for medical reasons?
eliminating CFCs,
When did that happen?
restricting the use of some extemely dangerous pesticides,
Was this not for medical reasons too i.e it was in paint varnishes and things. By the way good going, we should know the effects of their replacements in 20 or 30 years. Heaven forbid, we actually stop poisioning our food and water supply + Plus lets get the wildlife as well this time, no half measures.
campaigning for improved fuel efficiency,
Yes, lets use the polluting fuel more efficienctly. Donations from the car/oil campanies arrive swiftly afterwards. Think about it, more and more cars, more and more fuel, so effect in the minus. Way to go, Greens.
This measure actually manages to make the wrong people money and polute the enviroment even more. Rocket science.
banning commercial whaling,
Now you really are having a laugh!
Last big meeting, whales are still in decline. Plus has not using harpoons, put the shark population in danger, so now we are wiping out two groups.
changing fishing practices to reduce by-catch...
I did wonder what we had done, to suddely start effectivily wiping Cod, Tuna, and abeltrosses off the planet.
I could go on. ;)
So could I.
My personel favorite recently was they may have to join forces with the Countryside Alliance to get the Fox Hunting ban over turned, or watch as they are wiped out too.
Got to love it.
We saved them! Bang! What are you doing? Vermin, got to be controlled. Doh!
You actually have to admire us as a species.
We could go down as the first species ever to do it to ourselves.
twisted firestarter
14-02-2007, 02:07
"The major companies are never going to go for Biodiesal, unless pushed, because they cannot control it."
Hello Minotaur :) I have to take you to task there- what do you propose the oil companies will sell when the oil reserves run out?
.............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. ........
also I think you will find that I have never posted on commercial whaling, you seem to have got a bit confused there and I just want to clear your mistake up.
"Quote:"
Originally Posted by twisted firestarter
banning commercial whaling,
"Now you really are having a laugh!
Last big meeting, whales are still in decline. Plus has not using harpoons, put the shark population in danger, so now we are wiping out two groups."
.............................. .............................. .............................. .............................. .......
I love nature and the great outdoors but also love 4x4's (Land Rovers, VW Syncros etc). I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I probably ride a push bike and walk as much as I drive. Surely the point is to take some personal responsibility, Biodiesel is not going to save the world but it is a stepping stone away from our dependence on fossil fuels. :rolleyes:
gregorach
14-02-2007, 09:59
[London Smog]
Was that not caused by the change in fuel, due to the need for more powerful higher temperture furnaces. Not really sure about that.
No. Clean Air Act 1953.
[Cleanup of European rivers]
Fisherman, not the Green Movement. They did this on Countryfile, the water companies were like you lot can sod off. Come here nice fishermen who actually do stuff. It was brillant.
And "fishermen" and "the green movement" are completely orthogonal, right? Errr, no.
Plus do not forget the Mink!
Bye Bye, Water Vole!
Pardon? What has that got to do with cleaning up industrial pollution?
[Acid rain]
Was this not for medical reasons?
No. Not that it would make any difference if it were - it's still an environmental issue.
[Banning CFCs]
When did that happen?
Montreal Protocol, 1987.
[Banning dangerous pesticides]
Was this not for medical reasons too i.e it was in paint varnishes and things. By the way good going, we should know the effects of their replacements in 20 or 30 years. Heaven forbid, we actually stop poisioning our food and water supply + Plus lets get the wildlife as well this time, no half measures.
OK, so because it was motivated by the effect that environmental pollution was having directly on human health, rather than some mythical "pure" environmentalism, it's not part of the environmental movement? The robot people have a saying: "does not compute". I agree that we haven't perhaps been as successful as one might like, but would you really rather go back to massive use of DDT?
[Fuel efficiency]
Yes, lets use the polluting fuel more efficienctly. Donations from the car/oil campanies arrive swiftly afterwards. Think about it, more and more cars, more and more fuel, so effect in the minus. Way to go, Greens.
I'll grant you, Jevon's paradox is a major problem here. At least we're trying.
This measure actually manages to make the wrong people money and polute the enviroment even more. Rocket science.
Only if you assume that transport growth wouldn't have happened otherwise. That is a completely unfounded assumption.
[Commercial whaling]
Now you really are having a laugh!
Last big meeting, whales are still in decline. Plus has not using harpoons, put the shark population in danger, so now we are wiping out two groups.
Some whale species are in decline, some are in recovery. If it weren't for the efforts to restrict commercial whaling, those species would now almost certainly be completely extinct.
[fishing by-catch]
I did wonder what we had done, to suddely start effectivily wiping Cod, Tuna, and abeltrosses off the planet.
Cod and tuna fisheries are collapsing due to overfishing, plain and simple.
The environmental movement is not perfect. We have not achieved as much as we would wish, and some of the things we have achieved have had unintended consequences. But I dread to think what the European environment would look like today without what successes we have had.
twisted firestarter
14-02-2007, 11:55
I'll grant you, Jevon's paradox is a major problem here. At least we're trying.
Nicely put gregorach :)
I had never heard of Jevon's paradox so looked it up. It does seem to apply to the oil reserves but my take on it is that whether we have 200mpg cars on the roads or 2mpg cars the oil will dissapear just as fast. I am interested in the concept of 'peak oil' which is the notion that we are reaching the apex of the worlds oil reserves and from here on it will become scarcer. The oil companies will go back to the smaller reserves which they overlooked before as not being economically viable. I for one would be glad to see diesel/ petrol at £5 per gallon to start with. It would certainly make people reconsider whether their journey was necessary and would make each journey a more memorable experience!
This website gives a good description of peak oil- http://www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/
Fisking makes for a very tiresome read.
I want to see how they will calcualte what a 4x4 is if they get their way.
will be very intresting to see for me as I drive a car yet its a 4x4 too, I have an Impreza.
If the original post is correct ITS not 4x4s
...if government officials get their way.
The environmental pressure group wants a new, £1,800 punitive tax band, to be paid annually, for all cars which exceed 250g/km - "roughly 25mpg," says Greenpeace's Mark Strutt.
if so its all vehicules Not just picking on 4x4's which is fairer
hopfully done at the MOT reading for the year so a bit of fettleing before and after ;) ;)
so if you want a v8 petrol make sure its Tax exempt :lmao:
Duncan
Celtic Dragon
17-02-2007, 14:06
If the second quote is correct Duncan, them my scoob is safe, its 225 but round town I'm lucky if I see 25 mpg!! Hell I barely see 32 on a motorway!!
Minotaur
18-02-2007, 23:42
"The major companies are never going to go for Biodiesal, unless pushed, because they cannot control it."
Hello Minotaur :) I have to take you to task there- what do you propose the oil companies will sell when the oil reserves run out?
Electrictity or Hydrogen. Look at the direction the car companies are taking. It is not towards Green fuels.
also I think you will find that I have never posted on commercial whaling, you seem to have got a bit confused there and I just want to clear your mistake up.
Sorry, missed that one in the edit. Fixed now.
Minotaur
19-02-2007, 00:58
No. Clean Air Act 1953.
Was not sure on that one as I said.
And "fishermen" and "the green movement" are completely orthogonal, right? Errr, no.
Err, yes. The Green Movement are against fishing, a form of hunting so BAD. Where as the Fishermen, want fish to catch so have actually cleaned the rivers. The water companies knowning this and knowing without them they will not meet their clean water targets, have sided with the Fishermen several times, against the Greens.
Pardon? What has that got to do with cleaning up industrial pollution?
NOthing, just a river related Green success story. Green movement against animals dying so fur bad. Mink get released and evolution takes over.
No. Not that it would make any difference if it were - it's still an environmental issue.
No, the thing was no-one seem to care about the Enviromental issues, but the fact that it might actually be killing people seemed to have an effect.
Montreal Protocol, 1987.
There still in use though?
OK, so because it was motivated by the effect that environmental pollution was having directly on human health, rather than some mythical "pure" environmentalism, it's not part of the environmental movement? The robot people have a saying: "does not compute". I agree that we haven't perhaps been as successful as one might like, but would you really rather go back to massive use of DDT?
My problem with the Green Movement is it is all show and no result or an anti-result. This is a good example, we have swaped a dangerous poison for a group of chemicals that no-one, I will repeat that, NO-ONE knows what they do.
You can go and get tested and you will have these chemicals running in your system. There is a diet or lifestyle women who want to conceive can undertake, it takes two years to get this crap out of their systems. They do not kill you, they are monstrogenes and DNA effectors in high enough quanties. We do not know what they do in low quanties or mixed togeather.
They are in the water supply, the food we eat, and the air we breathe, but at least we got rid of DDT in the UK. We import a lot of our food from other countries, wonder what they use?
I'll grant you, Jevon's paradox is a major problem here. At least we're trying.
No effect, or worse effect.
The only fuel that seems to be effected is petrol, the vehicles that must do the most miles in the world use diesel.
All of the car companies efforts are going towards cars that need massive industry or power stations behind them.
The Green Movement wants us to stop using cars, or to drive newer ones.
Jevon's Paradox is irrelavant. We do not need to stop using fossil fuels because they will run out, at this rate that will be the least of our problems. We need to stop using fossil fuels because they have an effect on the enviroment. We need to do something that effects the world, not just the UK. The obvous solition is Bio-Diesel. Effect the most vehicles in the shortest amount of time, we got rid of five star in next to no time.
Only if you assume that transport growth wouldn't have happened otherwise. That is a completely unfounded assumption.
We have expensive, next to useless public transport. We have next to no means of safe predestrian transport. We still build roads, and railways the old way.
Transport growth was so on the cards.
Go to Holland, as the Green Movement and others keep saying, thats what we are aiming for. I really want to know the drugs they are taking? I've been to Holland, they have an intergrated transport system, with modern trains, and tracks. Cycle paths everywhere, in the middle of nowhere the footpaths are big enough for bikes and people. I actually saw my second recumbent bike there. A recumbent bike on an uninterupted straight can do 40 miles an hour. Do you know what comes first for their transport planners? People or bikes, not cars.
Plus they have a speed limit of 55. Guess the only time on the whole journey we sat in traffic for more than 15 minutes? Yes thats right, when we got back to England. They have two lane Motorways, it makes no sense, to me still, but whatevers goes on in Europe, as far as transport goes seems to work.
I cycle, I like to go places on my bike, I have been knocked down twice on the pavement.
Some whale species are in decline, some are in recovery. If it weren't for the efforts to restrict commercial whaling, those species would now almost certainly be completely extinct.
I belive the word you were looking for was 'still' to go in front of 'in decline'. That's the word restrict, the Green Movement has not stopped it, they may have slowed it down, and yet again the change of practice has put another species on the block.
Cod and tuna fisheries are collapsing due to overfishing, plain and simple.
Yep, another massive success, loads of peoples living and communities ruined, and no effect whatsoever on the fish stocks.
The environmental movement is not perfect. We have not achieved as much as we would wish, and some of the things we have achieved have had unintended consequences. But I dread to think what the European environment would look like today without what successes we have had.
I have to agree, without the Green Movement, we would already be Norway. My problem is could they actually campain for the right things, the logical things, the things that are going to work. Watch the news and see what gets the most Green press. Fox hunting, animal testing, and car use. All major concerns, when we are under 20 foot of snow.
If the original post is correct ITS not 4x4s
if so its all vehicules Not just picking on 4x4's which is fairer
It isnt fair, my defender puts out 282 g/km which would get me slapped with the £1800 tax bill, but I do less than 4000 miles a year - that's 1.1 tonnes of CO2 a year.
Put that next to a 1.6 eurobox that puts out 200g/km and an owner who does 20,000 miles a year and they are putting out 4 tonnes of CO2 a year. Their personal carbon footprint is 4x mine, yet they get low tax and I get taxed £1800 a year. How is that fair?
The only thing that is fair is to tax the fuel, because it's both CO2 efficiency and total mileage that are the problem. Taxing fuel is the only form of taxation that fairly addresses both issues.
You are right Martyn, but the yoghurt knitters would say that if you did your 4k miles in a eurobox you would only be putting out half a ton.
Scuba Pete
19-02-2007, 10:30
I agree with you Martyn.
If they taxed fuel then you would have a lot of angry motorists. But by picking on the 4x4 market etc they are limiting the number of people they will be upsetting. There will be a lot of talk about how they are evil, and the greatest polluters, but as it has already been pointed out you have to factor in the mileage you do as well. I guess they think that will be easier for the public to swallow.
When I had a car I used to drive a Shogun, it was great and I miss it a lot. My fuel bill was larger then I would have liked but it fitted my needs well. Not that I feel I have to justify it’s use to anyone, but it was great for diving, Camping and for my old IT business where I did a lot of onsite work. When I bought it I knew it would cost more in fuel, but that’s a price you pay.
The only fair way to reduce the number of cars on the road, and the journey’s we make is to tax the fuel. I would like to see the extra money generated go into the public transport system to lower the costs for everyone.
This will be very unpopular but I can’t see any other fair way.
dommyracer
19-02-2007, 13:28
Fuel is already taxed.
Fisking makes for a very tiresome read.
Doesn't it just.
Burnt Ash
19-02-2007, 13:39
There was an interesting artricle by Bryan Appleyard in yesterday's Sunday Times Magazine (February 18, 2007). His thesis, in essence, was that 4x4s amounted to diddly-squat in the grand scheme of global carbon dioxide emissions, climate change, etc. What they are, however, is a jolly good excuse for socialists/greens/sandal-knitters, etc., etc. to hate people who are a bit richer than themselves. I quote: "class hatred, envy and gender are distorting the facts"
Personally, I agree. The inescapable problem is that there are too many humans on the planet. At over 6.5 billion of us, that's more than three times too many according to some whose knowledge of such matters greatly exceeds my own.
The 'sinners' of Richmond and their Range Rovers have SFA to do with it.
Burnt Ash
The taxation of 4x4 owners to help fight global pollution is just another money grabbing idea from some snotty nosed government employee to raise yet more money for those greedy idiots in parliament who couldn't organise a decent p**s up in a brewery!
The pollution caused by Oil refineries and the like in a single week far outways any caused by vehicles. You only have to see the Flare stacks on a night time when, because they can't do it during the day, they open up and release excess pressure from the units which causes a 50 - 100ft dirty orange flame to erupt from the stack which bellows thick black smoke which can't be seen at night!
Now thats what I call pollution!!
But if the government raised their taxes the owner companies, mainly American probably, would pack up and leave, set up in a third world country and carry on. So they get away with it.
So to all you eco warriors out there who like jumping on the bandwagon, but mostly still eat the food produced by our farming communities and enjoy walking, camping or riding your bicycles in the countryside which is managed by decent people who use Landrovers and the like to get about and manage the land that you enjoy so much! Leave the 4x4 drivers alone!
Oh except those rich Suburbanites, as I like to call them who only buy 4x4s as a fashion statement to impress their friends on the school run / shopping run. You can hassle them as much as you want and the government can take as much money as they like off them!!!:D
gregorach
19-02-2007, 14:52
Well, I don't want to get bogged down trying to dispute Minatour's bizarre characterisation of the "Green Movement", even if it does appear to be a large collection of straw men... Just one example, then I'm out of here:
The Green Movement are against fishing, a form of hunting so BAD.
Really? I think you may be confusing the larger "Green Movement" with the Green Party of England and Wales there... I'm in the SGP, and we have no policy against fishing that I'm aware of. I personally have nothing against fishing. The "Green Movement" is a very big tent, and I certainly don't agree with everybody in that tent about everything - none of us do.
Your basic operating assumption seems to be that if anyone has actually achieved anything positive in relation to the environment, then they're by definition not part of what you regard as the "Green Movement". That's a rather closed-minded attitude, in my opinion.
I'm outta this thread.
dommyracer
19-02-2007, 15:17
I love this thread, its like a weekly digest of the Daily Express.
Scuba Pete
19-02-2007, 15:29
Fuel is already taxed.
Doesn't it just.
Don't I know it, my meaning was to tax it more.
Silverback
19-02-2007, 15:30
Oh except those rich Suburbanites, as I like to call them who only buy 4x4s as a fashion statement to impress their friends on the school run / shopping run. You can hassle them as much as you want and the government can take as much money as they like off them!!!:DThat's a bit strong Greg - some of those speed humps at Tesco's can be really tricky :lmao:
It isnt fair, my defender puts out 282 g/km which would get me slapped with the £1800 tax bill, but I do less than 4000 miles a year - that's 1.1 tonnes of CO2 a year.
Put that next to a 1.6 eurobox that puts out 200g/km and an owner who does 20,000 miles a year and they are putting out 4 tonnes of CO2 a year. Their personal carbon footprint is 4x mine, yet they get low tax and I get taxed £1800 a year. How is that fair?
The only thing that is fair is to tax the fuel, because it's both CO2 efficiency and total mileage that are the problem. Taxing fuel is the only form of taxation that fairly addresses both issues.
i didnt say fair i said fairer ie every body is het up that this is a 4x4 tax only even now :rolleyes:
its not acording to the very first post
its a tax one a high emission vehicular so the Thread Title is missleading
it should be 'High Emissions Vehicules to pay £1800pa Road tax'
so what happens people stop buying landrovers new and second hand etc
or low MPG petrol cars for that matter
well i suspect 4x4s will appear that are lower emission etc and converion stuff for existing
If they do the emissions based on the yearly MOT test and not new manufactures figures you will see cars just under gradually creep up over the years and into the high tax :eek:
mainly i was trying to point out that most of the posts here have the wrong end of the stick if you have a 4x4 does not mean you WILL pay the tax (if it happens) unfortunatly if it happens a lot of people Will get bitten untill better performance 4x4s are avalible.
See still not reading the actual 1st post correctly
But by picking on the 4x4 market etc they are limiting the number of people they will be upsetting.
The taxation of 4x4 owners to help fight global pollution is just another money grabbing idea
ATB
Duncan
PS Ill Get My Coat :swordfigh :lmao:
twisted firestarter
20-02-2007, 08:34
So to all you eco warriors out there who like jumping on the bandwagon, but mostly still eat the food produced by our farming communities and enjoy walking, camping or riding your bicycles in the countryside which is managed by decent people who use Landrovers and the like to get about and manage the land that you enjoy so much! Leave the 4x4 drivers alone!
Wow Greg! you were really ranting there and I find your comments offensive. You seem to completely overlook the middle ground and catagorise everyone either as an 'Eco warrior' or a '4x4 driver' which is a load of tosh. I don't think I'm unique here in aspiring to own another Land Rover but still being concerned about the state of the planet. I spend a similar amount of time walking, cycling and driving and enjoy all three, they are not mutually exclusive. Clearly there is a crisis looming with demand for oil outstripping supply and reserves diminishing, probably not for a few years but certainly for our children and theirs. No one is purer than the driven snow when it comes to being 'green' but the point is that everyone should at least do something on a personal level, even if it is just recycling instead of tossing everything in the bin. I find your comment on Landrover users managing the countryside plain ridiculous. maybe you are referring to the giants of the farming community who seem to be going more and more towards monoculture across the countryside whilst leaving it completely featureless and devoid of habitat for wildlife?
Scuba Pete
20-02-2007, 08:52
[QUOTE=FGYT]
See still not reading the actual 1st post correctly
Quote:
But by picking on the 4x4 market etc they are limiting the number of people they will be upsetting.
[QUOTE]
If you notice I added the "etc", implying the other groups. I understood the thread fine thankyou. However it is titled 4x4 tax, therefore I used them as an example in the reply. Obviously it will affect many other cars as well, but it think the majority of people that will be hit on this forum will be 4x4 owners.
Myself I would love to get another one but if they tax them this high it will not be an option for me, even though I will be only using on the weekends.
Something has to be done about congestion, pollution and the rising cost of oil but no one wants to pay for it. All I would like to see is a fair system linked to the actual contribution you make to these problem rather than the fact your vehicle may be less efficient as another.
. The problem is those 2.0 litre rep mobiles, that screech up the M6 at 95mph, doing 70,000 miles a year with one person in the driving seat. Those people put 10x the carbon into the environment than the mom trucks.
I. I'd like to see company reps driving nissan micra's.
.
Found this interesting, as I am one of those people who drives a rep mobile! The goverment introduce very heavy taxation on company cars based on emmision about 5 years ago where by you pay between 15 and 35% of the value of the car in tax ! This from my experiance (3 rather large medical companys) has had a significant knock on affect as lower emmision cars are currently the choice of most reps within these companys. I myself chose to drive an audi A3 with 123 g/kg emmision but I still pay nearly 3k a year in tax.
One of my previouse company's I need to drive alot of kit around, so I had a vieto (van). For those that do need more space for work a comercially classified vechile would be the right option as tax is minimal.
I am currently very lucky with my current company, we are actively encoureged to use public transport where possible, the others I worked for weren't so keen! Maybe tax breaks for company's who's employ's use public transport?
I too would love a big 4x4, the tax would grate me! may be we should be taxed on our actual milage! against our engine size and do away with any other form of vechile taxation
Found this interesting, as I am one of those people who drives a rep mobile! The goverment introduce very heavy taxation on company cars based on emmision about 5 years ago where by you pay between 15 and 35% of the value of the car in tax ! This from my experiance (3 rather large medical companys) has had a significant knock on affect as lower emmision cars are currently the choice of most reps within these companys. I myself chose to drive an audi A3 with 123 g/kg emmision but I still pay nearly 3k a year in tax.
One of my previouse company's I need to drive alot of kit around, so I had a vieto (van). For those that do need more space for work a comercially classified vechile would be the right option as tax is minimal.
I am currently very lucky with my current company, we are actively encoureged to use public transport where possible, the others I worked for weren't so keen! Maybe tax breaks for company's who's employ's use public transport?
I too would love a big 4x4, the tax would grate me! may be we should be taxed on our actual milage! against our engine size and do away with any other form of vechile taxation
its happening a lot a freind of mine has been told to hand in his 4x4 company car a Nissan and choose a smaller more eco freindly car as its not the image the company wants for its reps
yes you do pay tax on the car but you dont have to buy one why not car pool then No Tax :D
you would all be able to have a normal taxed 4x4 under the proposed tax it just has to have low emissions :rolleyes: which should be possible with todays technology just theres been little incentive to make one untill now :eek:
Duncan
its happening a lot a freind of mine has been told to hand in his 4x4 company car a Nissan and choose a smaller more eco freindly car as its not the image the company wants for its reps
yes you do pay tax on the car but you dont have to buy one why not car pool then No Tax :D
you would all be able to have a normal taxed 4x4 under the proposed tax it just has to have low emissions :rolleyes: which should be possible with todays technology just theres been little incentive to make one untill now :eek:
Duncan
We do car pool for those that can, we have a sales force of about 300, so in some areas it can be difficult,
Agree with the emissions technology, since the company car taxation there has been a large decline in emissions of rep mobiles A3 1.9 tdi 123g/kg and I think the BMW 320 tdi is about 170. If this could be done with 4x4 then it would make a difference
Alot of companys are down sizing their cars with alot of reps in 1.4-1.6 tdi Golf varients. The BMW AUdi Merc are normally for senior positions
Wow Greg! you were really ranting there and I find your comments offensive. You seem to completely overlook the middle ground and catagorise everyone either as an 'Eco warrior' or a '4x4 driver' which is a load of tosh. I don't think I'm unique here in aspiring to own another Land Rover but still being concerned about the state of the planet. I spend a similar amount of time walking, cycling and driving and enjoy all three, they are not mutually exclusive. Clearly there is a crisis looming with demand for oil outstripping supply and reserves diminishing, probably not for a few years but certainly for our children and theirs. No one is purer than the driven snow when it comes to being 'green' but the point is that everyone should at least do something on a personal level, even if it is just recycling instead of tossing everything in the bin. I find your comment on Landrover users managing the countryside plain ridiculous. maybe you are referring to the giants of the farming community who seem to be going more and more towards monoculture across the countryside whilst leaving it completely featureless and devoid of habitat for wildlife?
Ooooo!:lmao:
Some people bite so easily!!
twisted firestarter
20-02-2007, 11:37
chomp chomp...:swordfigh :lmao:
Spacemonkey
21-02-2007, 00:16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg
Oh except those rich Suburbanites, as I like to call them who only buy 4x4s as a fashion statement to impress their friends on the school run / shopping run. You can hassle them as much as you want and the government can take as much money as they like off them!!!
That's a bit strong Greg - some of those speed humps at Tesco's can be really tricky
Have you seen the state of London's roads??? My MX5 gets killed everytime I have to drive in once a fortnight. Honestly, I've seen some bits that if they were green lanes they would have been TROd. The Ridgeway is better condition than some London Streets.
chomp chomp...:swordfigh :lmao:
:BlueTeamE Tou-chez!!(??)
twisted firestarter
21-02-2007, 22:02
:BlueTeamE Tou-chez!!(??)\
Come on Greg, there there, put the gun down and give me a hug :grouphug:
\
Come on Greg, there there, put the gun down and give me a hug :grouphug:
:grouphug: There you go now!!!!:)
Minotaur
27-02-2007, 13:13
Found this interesting, as I am one of those people who drives a rep mobile! The goverment introduce very heavy taxation on company cars based on emmision about 5 years ago where by you pay between 15 and 35% of the value of the car in tax ! This from my experiance (3 rather large medical companys) has had a significant knock on affect as lower emmision cars are currently the choice of most reps within these companys. I myself chose to drive an audi A3 with 123 g/kg emmision but I still pay nearly 3k a year in tax.
First green story about cars I read was an Autotrader photographer, that dumped his company car because of this tax. He bought one and LPG'ed it, and made money on his travel because the company had to pay him mileage. This was back in the day when you had to have your own fuel tank at home.
I too would love a big 4x4, the tax would grate me! may be we should be taxed on our actual milage! against our engine size and do away with any other form of vechile taxation
The whole engine size thing has never made sense to me because the biggest engines are diesel, but a smaller petrol engine is going to polute more.
What they should do is have a tax disc(sort of like the US), across the board, so we all pay the same nonimal fee as an MOT/insurance check. Also any vehicle on the roads has to have this disc so if you come from abroad, you still need to buy one. Then put the rest on fuel, which means high milage pay more, and you can give a tax bump to the bio-fuels to make them even more attractive.
Then we re-do the Railways to the Japanese standard i.e as fast as posible, with the motorways following the same lines, with all new roads and all roadsworks being done with Dutch style cycle/footpaths.
There was a Government white paper knocking around which said they were going to have to remove all fosil fuel vehicles from London by 2012, because of the Building damage. Anyone know what happened to this?
Watch vans because the tax man has done or is doing something so you have to prove they are only used for work or they become company cars.
John Dixon
01-04-2007, 21:40
so can any one help me what will i have to pay for tax on my M reg Discovery this year???
and where is this money going to???
Graham_S
01-04-2007, 21:50
i'm going to pick up a suzuki jimny as a 4x4
it has low emissions so i won't get stung by car tax
so can any one help me what will i have to pay for tax on my M reg Discovery this year???
and where is this money going to???
£96 for six months paid last week :(
It is classed the same as a van(sort of) apparently and should be going up by £5 per year for the next 3 years, this is going by info from Martyn and other stuff I have read up. So it should be around the £200 mark a year, not the £400 that soem will get stung for!
boisdevie
02-04-2007, 07:52
Greenpeace were talking about all those vehicles which are not that economical in terms of MPG. It was the original poster that linked this specifically to 4x4s. I don't see anything wrong with the principle that the polluter pays. But I suspect there's far more pollution created as a result of the homes we live in and the lifestyles (hate that word) that we lead. Don't see the govt having the guts to really tackle those though.