Livingstone's plans to steal more money
Discussion
This is the last straw. A riot is needed to stop this idiot
BN 08:47 London Mayor Plans Tripled Traffic Charge on Big Cars (Update1)
By Brian Lysaght
Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- London Mayor Ken Livingstone plans to
punish the drivers of large cars and trucks by tripling the daily
congestion charge they must pay in the center of the city to 25
pounds ($47.43) in a bid to improve air quality.
``One has to ask why people need four-wheel-drives in the
most densely populated part of Britain,'' Livingstone said at a
press conference today.
The plan will be introduced around 2009 after a legal
review, the mayor said in a press conference today. He also plans
to waive the charge for drivers of the least-polluting vehicles,
including hybrid and electric cars, he said.
Livingstone, serving his second term as mayor in the city of
7.5 million residents, has introduced policies to reduce
pollution in the city, saying that climate change is the biggest
issue facing Londoners. He favors higher taxes on air travelers
and has criticized drivers of ``Chelsea tractors'' as four-wheel-
drive vehicles are known in London.
``Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much
the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one
of the most polluting vehicles,'' Livingstone said.
The city introduced a charge on cars and trucks entering
central London in 2003, to reduce traffic and raise cash for
public transportation. The fee is currently 8 pounds a day.
Under the latest proposal, vehicles that generate more than
225 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer, which qualify in the
U.K. vehicle tax band G, would pay the 25 pounds a day.
Greenhouse Gas
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas produced by burning
fossil fuels, including gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
The group ranges from Peugeot 407 station wagons with 3.0-
liter gasoline engines to BMW 760Li and Jaguar XJ sedans with V8
engines, according to the Department for Transport Web site.
``These are family vehicles and this is clearly a further
taxation on the motorist from Ken Livingstone using the banner of
the congestion charge,'' said John Procter, a spokesman for the
U.K. carmakers group, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and
Traders.
Livingstone also plans to remove a 90 percent discount on
the charge for drivers of the largest vehicles who live inside
the zone. One in five vehicles in central London are band G.
The fee was increased to 8 pounds from 5 pounds in 2005, and
in February the zone will be extended westward to include the
borough of Kensington & Chelsea. The charge area currently takes
in London's West End shopping and entertainment districts and the
City financial area.
In October, motorists who drive gas-guzzling vehicles, such
as Porsches, Jaguars and Range Rovers, face triple parking fees
under a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions in an affluent area
of London.
Local government officials in Richmond, southwest London,
said they want to link the cost of residents' parking permits to
the volume of carbon dioxide their cars produce.
BN 08:47 London Mayor Plans Tripled Traffic Charge on Big Cars (Update1)
By Brian Lysaght
Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- London Mayor Ken Livingstone plans to
punish the drivers of large cars and trucks by tripling the daily
congestion charge they must pay in the center of the city to 25
pounds ($47.43) in a bid to improve air quality.
``One has to ask why people need four-wheel-drives in the
most densely populated part of Britain,'' Livingstone said at a
press conference today.
The plan will be introduced around 2009 after a legal
review, the mayor said in a press conference today. He also plans
to waive the charge for drivers of the least-polluting vehicles,
including hybrid and electric cars, he said.
Livingstone, serving his second term as mayor in the city of
7.5 million residents, has introduced policies to reduce
pollution in the city, saying that climate change is the biggest
issue facing Londoners. He favors higher taxes on air travelers
and has criticized drivers of ``Chelsea tractors'' as four-wheel-
drive vehicles are known in London.
``Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much
the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one
of the most polluting vehicles,'' Livingstone said.
The city introduced a charge on cars and trucks entering
central London in 2003, to reduce traffic and raise cash for
public transportation. The fee is currently 8 pounds a day.
Under the latest proposal, vehicles that generate more than
225 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometer, which qualify in the
U.K. vehicle tax band G, would pay the 25 pounds a day.
Greenhouse Gas
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas produced by burning
fossil fuels, including gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
The group ranges from Peugeot 407 station wagons with 3.0-
liter gasoline engines to BMW 760Li and Jaguar XJ sedans with V8
engines, according to the Department for Transport Web site.
``These are family vehicles and this is clearly a further
taxation on the motorist from Ken Livingstone using the banner of
the congestion charge,'' said John Procter, a spokesman for the
U.K. carmakers group, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and
Traders.
Livingstone also plans to remove a 90 percent discount on
the charge for drivers of the largest vehicles who live inside
the zone. One in five vehicles in central London are band G.
The fee was increased to 8 pounds from 5 pounds in 2005, and
in February the zone will be extended westward to include the
borough of Kensington & Chelsea. The charge area currently takes
in London's West End shopping and entertainment districts and the
City financial area.
In October, motorists who drive gas-guzzling vehicles, such
as Porsches, Jaguars and Range Rovers, face triple parking fees
under a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions in an affluent area
of London.
Local government officials in Richmond, southwest London,
said they want to link the cost of residents' parking permits to
the volume of carbon dioxide their cars produce.
There must be some sort of legal attack against all this nonsense.
Someone spends £50k on a Rangie in the full expectation of being able to drive or park it.
Then, all of a sudden, his road tax, parking permit fees, congestion charges etc are arbitrarily raised.
The Americans would be shooting folks over legislation like this.
We just seem to roll over and take it. Was Red Ken elected on this, in his manifesto?
Someone spends £50k on a Rangie in the full expectation of being able to drive or park it.
Then, all of a sudden, his road tax, parking permit fees, congestion charges etc are arbitrarily raised.
The Americans would be shooting folks over legislation like this.
We just seem to roll over and take it. Was Red Ken elected on this, in his manifesto?
Selfish meaning that driving a vehicle of a particular type is not the only wasteful activity which creates carbon emmissions carried out by people in London.
Yet it's the only one that people are being taxed for doing, and taxed heavily.
How about shopping at out of town centres like Bluewater, having a bath every day instead of a shower, using a dishwasher instead of washing up by hand in a bowl, having many electrical gadgets on all the time like computers TV, Video, Satellite, and any number of other effort saving devices; having more children than the average, going to a football match (all that energy needed to get 40,000 people to every game? what a waste!)
If I was to force all the activities that I do not participate in, and have no interest in, to be taxed based on some badly thought out environmental logic , then that is very selfish.
I have 4 cars, but always take the tube to work and have done for all my working life.
I drive well under the average annual mileage, and having checked my overall carbon footprint, I came out at the lowest end of the scale. I'm involved in schemes to introduce Biofuel filling stations and to convert cars to run on dual fuel and also Hydrogen hybrid cars, so I'd hardly describe myself as anti-environment. Yet 2 of my cars would fall into the catagory that means you are fined for being a "polluter" even though my own contribution to carbon emmissions as a whole are well under the average.
If a tax on carbon emmissions is to be implemented, it should be charged to all adults based on their net emmissions as an individual (and their dependants), not just on one activity you do.
The politicians think that if they introduce one scheme, pretend that it's aimed at SUVs, then they have done their bit for the environment. How laughable.
Also, carbon emmissions are not the only greenhouse gas, but it's the only one that the uneducated bandwagon environmentalists like Livingstone seem to spend their time thinking about. Idiot
Yet it's the only one that people are being taxed for doing, and taxed heavily.
How about shopping at out of town centres like Bluewater, having a bath every day instead of a shower, using a dishwasher instead of washing up by hand in a bowl, having many electrical gadgets on all the time like computers TV, Video, Satellite, and any number of other effort saving devices; having more children than the average, going to a football match (all that energy needed to get 40,000 people to every game? what a waste!)
If I was to force all the activities that I do not participate in, and have no interest in, to be taxed based on some badly thought out environmental logic , then that is very selfish.
I have 4 cars, but always take the tube to work and have done for all my working life.
I drive well under the average annual mileage, and having checked my overall carbon footprint, I came out at the lowest end of the scale. I'm involved in schemes to introduce Biofuel filling stations and to convert cars to run on dual fuel and also Hydrogen hybrid cars, so I'd hardly describe myself as anti-environment. Yet 2 of my cars would fall into the catagory that means you are fined for being a "polluter" even though my own contribution to carbon emmissions as a whole are well under the average.
If a tax on carbon emmissions is to be implemented, it should be charged to all adults based on their net emmissions as an individual (and their dependants), not just on one activity you do.
The politicians think that if they introduce one scheme, pretend that it's aimed at SUVs, then they have done their bit for the environment. How laughable.
Also, carbon emmissions are not the only greenhouse gas, but it's the only one that the uneducated bandwagon environmentalists like Livingstone seem to spend their time thinking about. Idiot
Edited by JenkinsComp on Wednesday 15th November 10:18
Edited by JenkinsComp on Wednesday 15th November 10:23
Not only is taxing someone simply on tailpipe emmissions total rubbish, but no thought is being given to the emmissions created by a vehicle as a whole.
A recent study in the USA that took into account the entire energy useage over the lifetime of a vehicle (including energy used to make parts, to transport factory workers to work and back, expected lifespan of the vehicle, fuel useage over time, and liklihood of recyclability) found that the Range Rover Sport actually was BETTER than the Toyota Prius.
A Scion (Toyota) hatchback, petrol powered, came top. RR Phantom, Porsche Cayenne, and Bentley came out worst.
A recent study in the USA that took into account the entire energy useage over the lifetime of a vehicle (including energy used to make parts, to transport factory workers to work and back, expected lifespan of the vehicle, fuel useage over time, and liklihood of recyclability) found that the Range Rover Sport actually was BETTER than the Toyota Prius.
A Scion (Toyota) hatchback, petrol powered, came top. RR Phantom, Porsche Cayenne, and Bentley came out worst.
I assume you don’t believe that stuff since you have four cars. I think the study is flawed and I go with US Life Cycle Analysis Institute who say manufacturing energy is about 10% of the total.
To me it’s the people who drive alone into a city in a large high consumption car that are the selfish ones. I agree that this charge is a blunt unsophisticated stick, but people using low consumption cars will be unaffected. It’s not cars of a particular type that would be affected, just cars with above average? carbon emissions. Obviously there are zillions of other ways to cut consumption, and whether Livingstone is able to target any of those I don’t know.
An aspect of the policy that troubles me is the number of passengers in a car. In my view if a car has a few passengers then it could be considered a bus and should be charge free. I have no idea how this could be administered and in any case it could lead to some bizarre behaviour.
Many claim there is a high cost to reducing carbon emissions but switching from high to low consumption cars is one of the easiest things we can do and has no financial cost in most cases.
Can Livingstone have much effect on the reduction of other GHGs? I suppose he could encourage eating less meat.
To me it’s the people who drive alone into a city in a large high consumption car that are the selfish ones. I agree that this charge is a blunt unsophisticated stick, but people using low consumption cars will be unaffected. It’s not cars of a particular type that would be affected, just cars with above average? carbon emissions. Obviously there are zillions of other ways to cut consumption, and whether Livingstone is able to target any of those I don’t know.
An aspect of the policy that troubles me is the number of passengers in a car. In my view if a car has a few passengers then it could be considered a bus and should be charge free. I have no idea how this could be administered and in any case it could lead to some bizarre behaviour.
Many claim there is a high cost to reducing carbon emissions but switching from high to low consumption cars is one of the easiest things we can do and has no financial cost in most cases.
Can Livingstone have much effect on the reduction of other GHGs? I suppose he could encourage eating less meat.
what is wrong with being selfish?
is this still a democracy or a dictatorship and if so who decided?
everyone is still free to be what they want to be or we have to be what eco-fascist and green communists have decided for us?
They are the minority and they are going to disappear one day after inflicting enough economic damage... they have lost their credibility for me
is this still a democracy or a dictatorship and if so who decided?
everyone is still free to be what they want to be or we have to be what eco-fascist and green communists have decided for us?
They are the minority and they are going to disappear one day after inflicting enough economic damage... they have lost their credibility for me
Edited by aston67 on Wednesday 15th November 15:55
Londoners I know are currently kicking themselves for having been dumb enough to have been taken in by Ken.
I don't think its a vote winner at all. Unless its the politics of envy and spite again.
Owning a regular family car and wanting to use it in the London charge zone could cost £6.5K extra when this is introduced.
Now here's the rub.
That charge zone is getting ever bigger. Soon it will encompass Heathrow. So - simply to pick up my wife from the airport in my only car will cost me £25...even if don't park and use the pick-up drop off...
I reckon the cabs will do a roaring trade in taking people to a park and ride outside the zone...
Believe me. This is coming.
I don't think its a vote winner at all. Unless its the politics of envy and spite again.
Owning a regular family car and wanting to use it in the London charge zone could cost £6.5K extra when this is introduced.
Now here's the rub.
That charge zone is getting ever bigger. Soon it will encompass Heathrow. So - simply to pick up my wife from the airport in my only car will cost me £25...even if don't park and use the pick-up drop off...
I reckon the cabs will do a roaring trade in taking people to a park and ride outside the zone...
Believe me. This is coming.
herewego said:
To me it’s the people who drive alone into a city in a large high consumption car that are the selfish ones. I agree that this charge is a blunt unsophisticated stick, but people using low consumption cars will be unaffected. It’s not cars of a particular type that would be affected, just cars with above average? carbon emissions. Obviously there are zillions of other ways to cut consumption, and whether Livingstone is able to target any of those I don’t know.
An aspect of the policy that troubles me is the number of passengers in a car. In my view if a car has a few passengers then it could be considered a bus and should be charge free. I have no idea how this could be administered and in any case it could lead to some bizarre behaviour.
Many claim there is a high cost to reducing carbon emissions but switching from high to low consumption cars is one of the easiest things we can do and has no financial cost in most cases.
Can Livingstone have much effect on the reduction of other GHGs? I suppose he could encourage eating less meat.
An aspect of the policy that troubles me is the number of passengers in a car. In my view if a car has a few passengers then it could be considered a bus and should be charge free. I have no idea how this could be administered and in any case it could lead to some bizarre behaviour.
Many claim there is a high cost to reducing carbon emissions but switching from high to low consumption cars is one of the easiest things we can do and has no financial cost in most cases.
Can Livingstone have much effect on the reduction of other GHGs? I suppose he could encourage eating less meat.
That's the trouble "To me it's only blah blah that's affected" well, you know what, other people have differnet lives to you and might already do something to offset their pollution like myself. They may be annoyed that they have no choice but to travel alone, and may not be able to afford multiple vehicles so have to buy one that suits all their needs. Why should people who go out of their way to offset their one so called indulgance in life (a car of their choice) be penalized?
There is no financial cost? Try telling that to a person who can't afford to live in london but has to use a car for their job such as folks who need to carry alot of stuff with them (tools, documents, products), and now has to pay even more tax.
Anyway, it's not the person driving that you should focus on if you want to reduce emmissions, it's why people are driving in the first place. If employers could assist firms to make their staff work from home where it is possible, you could massively reduce the amount of journies made by car. I could work from home, but my work won't let me. If there was a firm policy imposed by law, or a tax incentive to do so then they would have to allow me to.
If you could reverse Labours decision to let parents send their children to schools miles away instead of those in their immediate neighbourhood (a result of their reliance on league tables as a guide to how good a school is), and introduce a green bus service for schoolkids only, then you could vastly reduce the number of journies made by mums in SUVs whilst keeping their child safe.
Do that kind of thing and the roads would clear themselves up and there would be no need for unfair congestion/emmission charging. But of course the real reason for all this is to pay for the Olympics (huge recent tax bill they never though about! how co-incidental!) and to line the pockets of Livingstone, so this will never work.
Edited by JenkinsComp on Wednesday 15th November 12:13
JenkinsComp said:
Selfish meaning that driving a vehicle of a particular type is not the only wasteful activity which creates carbon emmissions carried out by people in London.
Yet it's the only one that people are being taxed for doing, and taxed heavily.
How about shopping at out of town centres like Bluewater, having a bath every day instead of a shower, using a dishwasher instead of washing up by hand in a bowl, having many electrical gadgets on all the time like computers TV, Video, Satellite, and any number of other effort saving devices; having more children than the average, going to a football match (all that energy needed to get 40,000 people to every game? what a waste!)
If I was to force all the activities that I do not participate in, and have no interest in, to be taxed based on some badly thought out environmental logic , then that is very selfish.
I have 4 cars, but always take the tube to work and have done for all my working life.
I drive well under the average annual mileage, and having checked my overall carbon footprint, I came out at the lowest end of the scale. I'm involved in schemes to introduce Biofuel filling stations and to convert cars to run on dual fuel and also Hydrogen hybrid cars, so I'd hardly describe myself as anti-environment. Yet 2 of my cars would fall into the catagory that means you are fined for being a "polluter" even though my own contribution to carbon emmissions as a whole are well under the average.
If a tax on carbon emmissions is to be implemented, it should be charged to all adults based on their net emmissions as an individual (and their dependants), not just on one activity you do.
The politicians think that if they introduce one scheme, pretend that it's aimed at SUVs, then they have done their bit for the environment. How laughable.
Also, carbon emmissions are not the only greenhouse gas, but it's the only one that the uneducated bandwagon environmentalists like Livingstone seem to spend their time thinking about. Idiot
Yet it's the only one that people are being taxed for doing, and taxed heavily.
How about shopping at out of town centres like Bluewater, having a bath every day instead of a shower, using a dishwasher instead of washing up by hand in a bowl, having many electrical gadgets on all the time like computers TV, Video, Satellite, and any number of other effort saving devices; having more children than the average, going to a football match (all that energy needed to get 40,000 people to every game? what a waste!)
If I was to force all the activities that I do not participate in, and have no interest in, to be taxed based on some badly thought out environmental logic , then that is very selfish.
I have 4 cars, but always take the tube to work and have done for all my working life.
I drive well under the average annual mileage, and having checked my overall carbon footprint, I came out at the lowest end of the scale. I'm involved in schemes to introduce Biofuel filling stations and to convert cars to run on dual fuel and also Hydrogen hybrid cars, so I'd hardly describe myself as anti-environment. Yet 2 of my cars would fall into the catagory that means you are fined for being a "polluter" even though my own contribution to carbon emmissions as a whole are well under the average.
If a tax on carbon emmissions is to be implemented, it should be charged to all adults based on their net emmissions as an individual (and their dependants), not just on one activity you do.
The politicians think that if they introduce one scheme, pretend that it's aimed at SUVs, then they have done their bit for the environment. How laughable.
Also, carbon emmissions are not the only greenhouse gas, but it's the only one that the uneducated bandwagon environmentalists like Livingstone seem to spend their time thinking about. Idiot
Edited by JenkinsComp on Wednesday 15th November 10:18
Edited by JenkinsComp on Wednesday 15th November 10:23
Absolutely and completely bang on! Couldnt agree with you more!
The only way to tackle the problem, and agreed climate change is a problem, is to look at peoples carbon "footprint" as a whole. NOT penalise them for a life style choice or in some cases a neccesary evil, with some illconceived, socialist edict.
Any vehicle that people can buy has to meet regulations covering everything from safety, emissions and recyclability.
The vehicle is approved by the EU, by the USA or wherever.
To then say that the purchaser of such a vehicle is somehow selfish, greedy, unthoughtful etc isn't right.
I live in a house much bigger than I need. Am I selfish? Should I move to a council flat?
I drive what I like, buy what I like and use my purchases in a legal honest decent manner, as the manufacturer intended. Am I doing wrong?
I think the greenies would have us all living in caves, windmill on the roof producing 1kWh per day. 40W per hour when the wind blows is enough for a small light bulb, in the cold. Sheer bliss, eh?
The vehicle is approved by the EU, by the USA or wherever.
To then say that the purchaser of such a vehicle is somehow selfish, greedy, unthoughtful etc isn't right.
I live in a house much bigger than I need. Am I selfish? Should I move to a council flat?
I drive what I like, buy what I like and use my purchases in a legal honest decent manner, as the manufacturer intended. Am I doing wrong?
I think the greenies would have us all living in caves, windmill on the roof producing 1kWh per day. 40W per hour when the wind blows is enough for a small light bulb, in the cold. Sheer bliss, eh?
sean5302 said:
Any vehicle that people can buy has to meet regulations covering everything from safety, emissions and recyclability.
The vehicle is approved by the EU, by the USA or wherever.
To then say that the purchaser of such a vehicle is somehow selfish, greedy, unthoughtful etc isn't right.
I live in a house much bigger than I need. Am I selfish? Should I move to a council flat?
I drive what I like, buy what I like and use my purchases in a legal honest decent manner, as the manufacturer intended. Am I doing wrong?
I think the greenies would have us all living in caves, windmill on the roof producing 1kWh per day. 40W per hour when the wind blows is enough for a small light bulb, in the cold. Sheer bliss, eh?
The vehicle is approved by the EU, by the USA or wherever.
To then say that the purchaser of such a vehicle is somehow selfish, greedy, unthoughtful etc isn't right.
I live in a house much bigger than I need. Am I selfish? Should I move to a council flat?
I drive what I like, buy what I like and use my purchases in a legal honest decent manner, as the manufacturer intended. Am I doing wrong?
I think the greenies would have us all living in caves, windmill on the roof producing 1kWh per day. 40W per hour when the wind blows is enough for a small light bulb, in the cold. Sheer bliss, eh?
With laws like this, we are no longer free.
herewego said:
mini_ralf said:
I wonder how long it will be before we're taxed for breathing. After all when we exhale we emit co2.
That's not from fossil fuel though is it. Unless you eat coal.
Right now though, even if you ran your car on Biofuel, Livingstone would still tax you for driving in the zone and emitting C02 regardless of where the fuel came from.
Edited by JenkinsComp on Wednesday 15th November 18:35
JenkinsComp said:
herewego said:
mini_ralf said:
I wonder how long it will be before we're taxed for breathing. After all when we exhale we emit co2.
That's not from fossil fuel though is it. Unless you eat coal.
Right now though, even if you ran your car on Biofuel, Livingstone would still tax you for driving in the zone and emitting C02 regardless of where the fuel came from.
Edited by JenkinsComp on Wednesday 15th November 18:35
There's not much about though and it won't go far in a gas guzzler.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff