New Carbon Tax on Cars

[hawk20]

New Vehicle Carbon Tax Introduced

Possibly in a sign of things to come in Britain, the French Government has introduced a carbon purchase tax on high polluting vehicles, with a tax credit for the more virtuous who buy a car with low CO2 emissions. Those vehicles that emit more than 160g CO2/km will be penalised, whilst those emitting less than 130 CO2/km will receive a tax credit.

Vehicles with an emission level between these two ranges with be excluded from either penalties or credits. Nearly half the new vehicles on the market are within this range.

Although the Government has yet to announce full details of how the system of penalties and tax credits will apply, it seems the penalty will be imposed at the time the vehicle is registered, whilst the tax credit will be given in the form of a price reduction at the time of purchase.

Lower polluting vehicles with emissions under 130 CO2/km will get a reduction in the price of the car of between €200 and €1000, depending on the level of emissions. Vehicles in this category account for around 30% of all new vehicles on the market.

The maxium reduction will only be available to vehicles emitting less than 100g CO2/km; €700 will be available to those emitting between 101-120g CO2/km; €200 for those between 121 and 130g CO2/km.

By way of example, a Citroen C1 or Renault Clio would earn a €700 credit, whilst a Citroen C4 or VW Polo, €200. Anyone buying a Citroen Xsara, Peugeot 307, or Ford Focus would get nothing.

Owners buying a new car emitting less than 130 CO2/km will also be entitled to a tax credit of €300 if they simultaneously scrap a vehicle over 15 years old. This is in addition to any commercial payment that may be made by the vehicle manufacturer.

A tax penalty will be imposed on those emitting more than 160C02/km, from €200 to up to €2600 for the highest polluters. The penalty will apply to around 25% of sales, including the Peugeot 607 and Opel Zafira (€200), the Megane II Estate, Golf 1.6 and BMW 3 Series (€750), the Nissan X Trail and Citroen C6 and 407(€1600), and the Citroen C6 and VW Touareg (€2600).

Motor bikes are not included in this new bonus-malus system, as it has been called.

Whilst the Government acknowledges that the impact of these proposals will be limited, they are proposing that the emissions limits be tightened every two years, with a view to encouraging car makers to produce more eco-friendly vehicles.

Nevertheless, there is widespread feeling that the measures are a step back from proposals agreed at the recent Grennelle d’environment, when it was anticipated that the carbon purchase tax would be one that was imposed recurrently each year on ownership of the vehicle.

Many also consider that the sums involved are simply not going to be significant enough to change buying habits.

 

[recycled]

yeah and the factories that produce thousands of co2 will nullify any effort by the car.
Charging people for co2 does not reduce global warming.

 

[television]

Thank you Hawk for writing all these things out and keeping us abreast of changes

Like recycled I have always failed to see what charging does to reduce anything

 

[crockers]

Damn it all ......... its cold so I am off to light a big coal fire.........

 

[Dryce]

A tax penalty will be imposed on those emitting more than 160C02/km, from €200 to up to €2600 for the highest polluters. The penalty will apply to around 25% of sales, including the Peugeot 607 and Opel Zafira (€200), the Megane II Estate, Golf 1.6 and BMW 3 Series (€750), the Nissan X Trail and Citroen C6 and 407(€1600), and the Citroen C6 and VW Touareg (€2600).

Motor bikes are not included in this new bonus-malus system, as it has been called.

If the overheads on a large car go up then the costs of leaving it stationary *go up*. It basically makes more economic sense to use it more once you have acquired it.

I'm really really p*ss*d off big time with government attitude to taxation on vehicles. I know plenty of people who put on high domestic mileage and throw money at the petrol pumps and the irony is they all run middle range to lower range cars. Their annual petrol spend is way above mine. Their actual average mpg is about the same.

So government rewards them with further discounts whereas all the people in my family use their larger cars carefully and actually spend less on petrol (and use public transport more).

The only fair way to do this is to give everybody a tax credit for X amount of petrol and then put a whopping great supertax on usage above that level. Difficult to implement. But it would hit the spot more effectively than upping vehicle taxes.

 

[jpwilliams]

yeah and the factories that produce thousands of co2 will nullify any effort by the car.
Charging people for co2 does not reduce global warming.

And did you know that the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere is 0.04%,so if it doubled overnight it would only increase to 0.02%.Who`s kidding who?

The Planet is warming up (as it has many times in history ) and there is nothing that man can do to stop it or to slow the rate of increase significantly. By all means let`s be careful about reducing waste and emissions,but to state that we are saving the planet is false and
a convenient reason/excuse for levying taxation.

 

[Dryce]

And did you know that the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere is 0.04%,so if it doubled overnight it would only increase to 0.02%.Who`s kidding who?

Well if 2 ppm of poison in a solution is fatal to you then doubling from 1ppm to 2ppm would 'only increase' it to the point where it would kill you!

The issue isn't the apparently small proportion but the impact. If the amount of CO2 is small but it has a significant impact then it doesn't take much of an proportionate increase of that small amount to have a measurable effect.

 

[Londonscottish]

I know plenty of people who put on high domestic mileage and throw money at the petrol pumps and the irony is they all run middle range to lower range cars. Their annual petrol spend is way above mine.

So government rewards them with further discounts

The only fair way to do this is to give everybody a tax credit for X amount of petrol and then put a whopping great supertax on usage above that level. Difficult to implement. But it would hit the spot more effectively than upping vehicle taxes.

I agree. I have a large engined car but 90% of my travel is by public transport (to work) on on foot (evenings and weekends). Meanwhile my car tax is going up year on year.

Other people I know live miles from work/shops/schools and spend half their lives on the road just to do the basics.

I should be rewarded for NOT using my car, shouldn't I?

 

[kikkthecat]

I believe I've said this before but if you want to know where the carbon is really coming from look in your tesco shopping bag.

An article in todays news was about prawns caught in Scotland, shipped to Thailand for peeling then shipped back to Scotland to be coated in breadcrumbs then frozen ready for sale. And as stupid as that sounds it happens to be true.

But of course scampi doesn't have a registration plate making it traceable, accountable and taxable.

 

[Venomous]

The Germans are having a STRESS..

 

[hawk20]

Well if 2 ppm of poison in a solution is fatal to you then doubling from 1ppm to 2ppm would 'only increase' it to the point where it would kill you!

The issue isn't the apparently small proportion but the impact. If the amount of CO2 is small but it has a significant impact then it doesn't take much of an proportionate increase of that small amount to have a measurable effect.

Yes but do have a look at what 100 top scientists say in this link: -
http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=44833

Basically that there is no real evidence that CO2 from human activity is a major cause of global warming. There has been no global warming since 1998 and even the warming before that is well within the variation in world climate that we should expect.

 

[Dryce]

Yes but do have a look at what 100 top scientists say i

Arguing that the amount of CO2 is small therefore changing the quantity has a negligible effect is not valid unless everything else is taken into account. That hasn't, in itself, got anything to do with global warming.

Problem is that a lot of the processes are not fully understood. Measurements are hard - in particular because of long term variation. I would suggest the statement 'there has been no net global warming since 1998' is a little unfortunate. That's a bit like saying 'there has been no net unemployment increase since September' in system that is cyclical over the year and there is an employment up turn towards Christmas. (The counter statement 'There has been net global warming since 1998' is just as crass).

So even though I don't have PhD I would have been inclined to ask the author to change some of the statements prior to putting my name to it even if I were in general agreement with what they were trying to say.

I think you'll find that the general consensus is that we are changing the climate. There is a lot of evidence.

However there are also some odd counter-signs. I would suggest anybody interested look at some of the data being reported on Mars and its polar caps.

People think that academia and science is a cold and systematic culture driven by cold analysis and sound theory backed by experiments and data gathering. My view is that there is rather more science based on advocacy than is generally admitted.

 

[KillerHERTZ]

CO2 is this decade's big fear, in the 1980's it was the ozone layer - remember that? it was dooming us all now its never mentioned.

CO2 is a big factor, so is NO2 which unlike the US is rarely mentioned over here.

People seem to forget that polliution is far more than just CO2, anyone ever mention the other crap that comes out of cars?

As said above, taxing people isnt going to make the world a better place.

 

[Dryce]

CO2 is this decade's big fear, in the 1980's it was the ozone layer - remember that? it was dooming us all now its never mentioned.

Actually it is.

Just the mainstream media have something else to promote.

That lack of balance and hype is one of the major problems in getting any sort of sensible long term message to people.

Mainstream media can be several years behind and has a narrow and short attention span.

AIDS is a similar example. Lots of mentions in the scientific press for some years before the mainstream media focused up on it. Now it's hardly ever mentioned but there is still medical and scientific articles appearing - if you look.

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

JP, would you please send me £4 and I'll double it by sending you £2.

i.e. 2 x 0.04% is 0.08%

CO2 is just one of a number of global warming gasses some others being methane (farming/landfill etc.), NOx (farming/Industry etc.) and water (vapour).

Slowing production of global 'warmers' is pointless if the 'sinks' (rain forests etc.) are also being decimated.

Global warming is a sympton of the real problem......population growth...but how do you address that

Cheers,

 

[jeremytaylor]

There was a very interesting item on the TV news about encouraging people to buy locally produced food, and wean them off things like all-year strawberries, to reduce food miles and reduce associated CO2 emissions. Makes perfect sense to me (if you are to assume CO2 is a problem ...)

Sainsbury manager said they were only responding to consumer demand in stocking things like year-round strawberries, or Peruvian onions during the UK onion season.

Government minister said we should carry on importing food from around the world, to support poorer communities, and sod the food miles CO2! But if you or I dare drive to the supermarket to buy said food, we are taxed to the hilt, for emitting CO2 from our cars on the way!!!

When on earth will we ever get coherent, joined-up thinking from this bunch of clowns we laughing call a 'government'??

 

[hawk20]

I suppose it depends on your point of view. Buying only fruits in season in the UK would be awful IMO. Fruits are in season in late summer/early autumn. That's it. I think it is lovely and healthy to have fruit all year round and welcome the vast choice and variety we now have.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Envy tax. Nothing more.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

Well if 2 ppm of poison in a solution is fatal to you then doubling from 1ppm to 2ppm would 'only increase' it to the point where it would kill you!

The issue isn't the apparently small proportion but the impact. If the amount of CO2 is small but it has a significant impact then it doesn't take much of an proportionate increase of that small amount to have a measurable effect.

co2 is a very weak climate change gas, and not a pollutant. To compare it with a poison analogy is a bit weak, considering that today's levels of atmospheric co2 are still far below what they have been in the distant past.

 

[hawk20]

Envy tax. Nothing more.

The trouble with holding that view is that it prevents any chance of understanding how strongly many, many people believe that man's CO2 is a major contributor to global warming. Give them the benefit of the doubt. They may be wrong but they really believe that life on this planet is under threat and that we could save it.

Fortunately, there are some top scientists questioning their logic -see this thread: - http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=44833

Only with good science can we stop the relentless flow of measures to make life a misery for many.