Motoring in Britain:- the future

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
no it is not . 0.57 bn difference.

Hmm..Me thinks you are now pulling one's leg..;)
A 12% difference in 11 years and more vehicles to spread it over.....:rolleyes:

More FACTS..

Summary Car CO2 emissions
• Average new car CO2 emissions fallen 13.1% since 2007
• CO2 data now available for approximately three-quarters of all cars in use
Total CO2 emissions from cars declining, despite more cars in use
and greater distance driven
 
You'll probably get one for about a fiver once your thru uni ;) the way these things depreciate is unreal. Its an immense car though. Being a scrooge I'd go for the V6 and save on fuel but you'd have great fun in it.

Probably a good idea not to buy new, though I did think VWs generally held their values fairly well.

The torque is what impresses me the most, they showed it pulling a 7-tonne combine harvester across a field, albeit with some slightly worrying white smoke from the exhaust.
 
You getting it? I saw one the other day, some presence it had, really low and wide and the noise from the exhausts alone made my day.

seriously considering it. if only to annoy the powers that be. and luckily i have family in mainland europe, for alternate registration purposes and to get a foreign plate for all those environmental reasons.

The wife has got the baseball bats out though as she is a bit on the (do you really need it ) side
 
Hmm..Me thinks you are now pulling one's leg..;)
A 12% difference in 11 years and more vehicles to spread it over.....:rolleyes:

More FACTS..

Summary Car CO2 emissions
• Average new car CO2 emissions fallen 13.1% since 2007
• CO2 data now available for approximately three-quarters of all cars in use
Total CO2 emissions from cars declining, despite more cars in use
and greater distance driven


exactly. so if the CO2 is reducing, then the tax bill should be reducing then. basically if everyone buys a blue motion the tax should read zero or will it still be 5bn? i think it would. they would just change the band and the polo would be in band G
 
seriously considering it. if only to annoy the powers that be. and luckily i have family in mainland europe, for alternate registration purposes and to get a foreign plate for all those environmental reasons.

The wife has got the baseball bats out though as she is a bit on the (do you really need it ) side

You do need it, for all the reasons listed above. And to rival Maffs new motor :rock:

I beleive they are LHD, you'll probably have a hoot over in the mainland with it.
 
exactly. so if the CO2 is reducing, then the tax bill should be reducing then. basically if everyone buys a blue motion the tax should read zero or will it still be 5bn? i think it would. they would just change the band and the polo would be in band G

They'd bump the VED up, and note what so far has been omitted from this thread. Fuel duty. If we all drove ecobox blue motions how do I guess that fuel duty would go up, to compensate for the lost revenue in CO2 based VED + we'd see more speed camera's and CC zones to net in the extra cash. The motorist loses everytime, why because none of its associationa (AA and RAC) fight its cause.

Probably a good idea not to buy new, though I did think VWs generally held their values fairly well.

The torque is what impresses me the most, they showed it pulling a 7-tonne combine harvester across a field, albeit with some slightly worrying white smoke from the exhaust.


Not all VWs hold values, W12 phaetons are one of the biggest depreciating things on the go. I'd love one, that sense of over engineeredness like draughtless heating etc. A master peice. The V10 AFAIK isn't the most reliable of lumps it has to be said, autocar IIRC had one, the gist of my tale was a new engine was needed after 10k miles.
 
Last edited:
exactly. so if the CO2 is reducing, then the tax bill should be reducing then. basically if everyone buys a blue motion the tax should read zero or will it still be 5bn? i think it would. they would just change the band and the polo would be in band G

No need to worry. There'll always be some fool keeps buying high emission vehicles so pays a lot of tax..

As an aside only 6% of cars sold in 2007 fell into the bands over 226g/km. Not worth bothering wasting breath about really..

For anyone that want's FACTS instead of pointless rants...

http://www.smmt.co.uk/downloads/SMM...id=261&catid=3753&maincatid=&fid=&fid1=&fid2=
 
Because the drivers that pay more pay a lot more. The drivers that pay less pay a little bit less. Clever eh, one hand giveth a little, the other taketh away much more....
.

No need to worry. There'll always be some fool keeps buying high emission vehicles so pays a lot of tax..

Thanks, you've illustrated my theory on how this new tax regime will indeed be a revenue raiser. By shifting the definition of a "high emission vehicle" the government can "move goalposts" to raise as much revenue from VED as it see's fit. an example is this 2001 model year fiasco

Given its track record with investing our money, can you really see it making a decent fist of defining a "high emission vehicle". It as I said earlier is a money making sham, nothing more or less. Nothing to do with cutting CO2 emissions, but rather profiteer out of this new fad.

If it genuinely cared for this CO2 "redherring" but for this purposes call it an issue, they'd legistlate draconianally against high emission car by saying "as of 2008 no new cars that emit over x g/km CO2 can be sold in the UK". The older more polluting cars would eventually die off.
 
Last edited:
No need to worry. There'll always be some fool keeps buying high emission vehicles so pays a lot of tax..

As an aside only 6% of cars sold in 2007 fell into the bands over 226g/km. Not worth bothering wasting breath about really..

For anyone that want's FACTS instead of pointless rants...

http://www.smmt.co.uk/downloads/SMM...id=261&catid=3753&maincatid=&fid=&fid1=&fid2=

But cars account for 24% of 3% of world wide CO2. So not worth bothering wasting breath about really...
 
But cars account for 24% of 3% of world wide CO2. So not worth bothering wasting breath about really...

This statement highlights your ignorance of the subject. Without wishing to be offensive may I suggest you do some more homework to better understand the subject.

A quick quote to help.

Although natural transfers of carbon dioxide are approximately 20 times greater than those due to human activity, they are in near balance, with the magnitude of carbon sources closely matching those of the sinks. The additional carbon resulting from human activity is the cause of atmospheric carbon dioxide rises over the last 150 years.


You may understand from that, that nature provides about 95% of the CO2 transfer, including emission and absorbtion, but there is balance so no net gain or loss.
Burning fossil fuels provides the rest, but there is no balance for that, just emission.
So indeed 24% of that additional CO2 is significant and a major problem.

On that note I'm off, so shall leave the chuckle Brothers to their 'thanks'...
 
All the really good scientists I have heard and read on this subject admit there is a lot more we don't know about climate, than we do.

The truly knowledgeable are rarely arrogant and certain they are right about everything.

We cannot yet predict the weather for next Friday week yet, let alone be sure about the effect on the weather in 100 years time of a bit more or a bit less CO2.

In any case absolutely nothing we do on this small island will make a blind bit of difference. Get China, the USA, Japan and India to agree and I'll support joining in. Till then forget it.
 
This statement highlights your ignorance of the subject. Without wishing to be offensive may I suggest you do some more homework to better understand the subject.

On that note I'm off, so shall leave the chuckle Brothers to their 'thanks'...

Pity you are so often abusive and so sure you know it all and nobody else has a view worth pondering.
 
Pity you are so often abusive and so sure you know it all and nobody else has a view worth pondering.

unless it goes with populus theory then people do get agitated. Heaven forbid that all those nasty people with big cars didn't actually effect global climates. Whats the world coming too ;)

Having studied the carbon cycle at university level, having seen scientific instrumentation in action (hence I question statements like, global temperatures have risen over 50 years) I feel I must comment and point out a few home truths about some of the facts that people put their faith into. The classic one are these atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature ones, DM mentioned data in his quote that refers back 150 years. How accurate will that be, the error level is too high to make statements that man made CO2 is a real issue.
 
Last edited:
I don't think any government of any leaning has the right to even consider road pricing until they get off their a**ses and start creating an integrated public transport system. Not all motorists are petrol heads - a lot of people would prefer to go by public transport if it was available, affordable, and reliable.
 
All the really good scientists I have heard and read on this subject admit there is a lot more we don't know about climate, than we do.

The truly knowledgeable are rarely arrogant and certain they are right about everything.

We cannot yet predict the weather for next Friday week yet, let alone be sure about the effect on the weather in 100 years time of a bit more or a bit less CO2.

In any case absolutely nothing we do on this small island will make a blind bit of difference. Get China, the USA, Japan and India to agree and I'll support joining in. Till then forget it.
Exactly. Thank you for saving me some typing!
 
Pity you are so often abusive and so sure you know it all and nobody else has a view worth pondering.

You have missed the point of the discussion.

The question was what to do given that the mandate was already set.

Eventually Recycled answered with an answer of Euthanasia and *** answered with ban sales of high emission vehicles.

Both seem a bit draconian and Stalanist to me..

Where do we start the culling..??
 
Last edited:
Having studied the carbon cycle at university level,

Bearing this in mind I'm assuming that you confusing carbon transfer and carbon emissions was an error.
B) Last time I looked man made Co2 emissions accounted for 3% of world wide CO2. Cars are about 1/4 of this 3% IIRC.

My understanding is that fossil fuel use and cement production account for 3% of carbon transfer, which happen to be uncaptured emissions.
Of course you might have contrary information.
 
I think that you should be able to drive any car that you want to. Road tax should be the same for everyone say £100.
Put the shortfall on the price of fuel.
Less people would dodge paying the road tax being a lower charge.
Everyone would have to pay for thier fuel. People with V8 and V12's doing only 2k a year would pay at 12mpg, and reps and long distance travellers getting 40mpg would pay for the huge mileages that they cover.
OAP's in their Nissan Micras just popping down the shops would pay very little, remember most have paid U.K. taxes all their lives.
Foreign visitors would have to pay our fuel prices. I would also have a charge at the ferry ports/tunnel crossing for foreign vehicles in leiu of road tax to use the roads, after all we pay their road tolls.
I cannot understand all the fuss when the result is so simple. Election loser maybe?
 
Once again you have missed the point of the discussion.

The question was what to do given that the mandate was already set.

Eventually Recycled answered with an answer of Euthanasia and *** answered with ban sales of high emission vehicles.

Both seem a bit draconian and Stalanist to me..

Where do we start the culling..??


Is ripping off people under the guise of global warming not draconian too?
A lot of poorer people have to drive and if this is nit checked, it will eventually filter down to the micras so do not think 1.0 litre cars are safe.
As soon as the big cars are forced off the road, the little ones will become fair game. When those go,bicycles, then shoes will be the target and then socks and then bare feet.

Nothing can interfere with the revenue generation cycle.
 
Last edited:
Is ripping off people under the guise of global warming not draconian too?

Compared to chopping peoples heads off, or gassing them, not really.

And of course, that depends on whether people really are being ripped off.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom