Why is high CO2 emission penalised by the UK tax system?
Discussion
I'm hoping someone can help answer what may turn out to be a very stupid question, but one that has foxed me so far. Follow this though and please point out where it goes wrong!
1) Car engines are powered by the combustion of petrol or diesel, i.e. hydrocarbons.
2) The end result of hydrocarbon combustion is water and CO2.
3) Incomplete or inefficient combustion leads to the production of other end-products instead of CO2.
4) So surely a very high efficiency engine would emit *more* CO2 than a low-efficiency engine, because it's closer to complete combustion of the fuel source? But isn't that what we want; burning fewer dinosaurs?
The "illogical extreme" here is that you pump a litre of fuel into two engines, one very high efficiency and one very low, and the former pumps out a load of CO2, produces plenty of power to go with it, and is high tax, and the latter produces barely any power or CO2 but lots of e.g. black carbon and is cheap to tax.
So what's wrong with the above, and why do we tax high CO2 emitters more (I mean from the perspective of "they use less fossil fuels" - I appreciate that the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is a negative). Is it just a balancing act, and someone decided that using more fossil fuels but emitting less CO2 was better than the inverse scenario?
Thanks!
1) Car engines are powered by the combustion of petrol or diesel, i.e. hydrocarbons.
2) The end result of hydrocarbon combustion is water and CO2.
3) Incomplete or inefficient combustion leads to the production of other end-products instead of CO2.
4) So surely a very high efficiency engine would emit *more* CO2 than a low-efficiency engine, because it's closer to complete combustion of the fuel source? But isn't that what we want; burning fewer dinosaurs?
The "illogical extreme" here is that you pump a litre of fuel into two engines, one very high efficiency and one very low, and the former pumps out a load of CO2, produces plenty of power to go with it, and is high tax, and the latter produces barely any power or CO2 but lots of e.g. black carbon and is cheap to tax.
So what's wrong with the above, and why do we tax high CO2 emitters more (I mean from the perspective of "they use less fossil fuels" - I appreciate that the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is a negative). Is it just a balancing act, and someone decided that using more fossil fuels but emitting less CO2 was better than the inverse scenario?
Thanks!
Why do governments push hard for speed cameras and fines ?
Simple answer it's an easy measurement to use to generate huge sums of money from people.
It is nothing about the environment, cleanliness or anything, it's just an easy way to quantify charging people. It's not about how much pollution caused, it's not about how clean or dirty or anything remotely like it etc etc
It's all just a scam to generate money that the authorities have all colluded together on. Then they start shouting taglines about the environment etc ( or in terms of speed cameras, road safety....even though everyone with a brain knows it is utter bulls
t ) and the propaganda train starts and how dare anyone question their motives.
Simple answer it's an easy measurement to use to generate huge sums of money from people.
It is nothing about the environment, cleanliness or anything, it's just an easy way to quantify charging people. It's not about how much pollution caused, it's not about how clean or dirty or anything remotely like it etc etc
It's all just a scam to generate money that the authorities have all colluded together on. Then they start shouting taglines about the environment etc ( or in terms of speed cameras, road safety....even though everyone with a brain knows it is utter bulls
t ) and the propaganda train starts and how dare anyone question their motives.'Incomplete Combustion' isn't really something you get in modern cars. Euro 4 limits for cars were 1g/km, compared to a pretty average 1.6 litre petrol car which might make 150 or so g/km of CO2. Basically if you burn more fuel, you make more CO2, CO output is negligible on a fully functioning modern car.
If your agenda is reducing emissions then it's as good a thing to tax as any.
If your agenda is reducing emissions then it's as good a thing to tax as any.
SamR380 said:
'Incomplete Combustion' isn't really something you get in modern cars. Euro 4 limits for cars were 1g/km, compared to a pretty average 1.6 litre petrol car which might make 150 or so g/km of CO2. Basically if you burn more fuel, you make more CO2, CO output is negligible on a fully functioning modern car.
If your agenda is reducing emissions then it's as good a thing to tax as any.
A fixed annual payment, is in no way whatsoever a method of reducing emissions. It doesnt account for whether that vehicle sits in a garage 24/7 with the engine never even running, or does 100,000 miles per year.If your agenda is reducing emissions then it's as good a thing to tax as any.
So it is an utterly stupid means of taxation if that is what they are trying to achieve.
But anyone with any sense knows it's just an easy revenue stream
haydnwilliams said:
Why is high CO2 emission penalised by the UK tax system?
Because it was a good excuse for Gordon Brown to bleed us once again and have a jolly good orgasm.If CO2 were a problem, the government would prohibit the growing widespread felling of trees to feed domestic wood burners.
Hint...trees absorb CO2.
mybrainhurts said:
growing widespread felling of trees to feed domestic wood burners.
I expect you will find that trees aren't felled for fuel, particularly not in a growing (sic) amount as you suggest.Trees are felled for many purposes, managing forestry being the most likely & for timber being well up there too.
Wood for fuel is a consequence not the aim.
stevieturbo said:
A fixed annual payment, is in no way whatsoever a method of reducing emissions. It doesnt account for whether that vehicle sits in a garage 24/7 with the engine never even running, or does 100,000 miles per year.
So it is an utterly stupid means of taxation if that is what they are trying to achieve.
But anyone with any sense knows it's just an easy revenue stream
It’s pretty clear isn’t it. So it is an utterly stupid means of taxation if that is what they are trying to achieve.
But anyone with any sense knows it's just an easy revenue stream
If the govt want less xyz type of cars on the road they tax that sort which in turn decreases demand for new versions of that &Or encourages OEM to make them differently.
As for the VED there has to be a minimum fixed element and then a variable part. That is and always has been the way.
Just you wait until EVs are no longer free and the cost per mile is indifferent to normal fuel - the tax revenue is required period.
mybrainhurts said:
Because it was a good excuse for Gordon Brown to bleed us once again and have a jolly good orgasm.
If CO2 were a problem, the government would prohibit the growing widespread felling of trees to feed domestic wood burners.
Hint...trees absorb CO2.
Gordon who?If CO2 were a problem, the government would prohibit the growing widespread felling of trees to feed domestic wood burners.
Hint...trees absorb CO2.
Young trees are helpful with using Co2, mature trees are not so it's beneficial to the environment to grow them then cut them down to use, before re-planting new ones.
The limits for carbon monoxide and for hydrocarbons are 1g/km and 0.1g/km. If you are leaving enough incompletely burnt fuel in the exhaust to make any significant reduction in the CO2 output, your car would fail emissions standards. In any case, carbon monoxide extends the atmospheric lifetime of some stronger greenhouse gases, and some of the hydrocarbon emissions are themselves stronger greenhouse gases than CO2.
Welshbeef said:
- the tax revenue is required period.
Motorists alone should not be the source of extorted monies to run the country. That is an unfair burden placed on them, with no justification for doing so.Even worse when they are using falsehoods to justify the monies extorted.
As you say, if everyone did somehow move to non polluting vehicles ( impossible, as even electric are terrible, some worse than conventional ) and all that so called environmental taxation etc stopped....then what reason would the governments give to extort more money from us ?
stevieturbo said:
Motorists alone should not be the source of extorted monies to run the country. That is an unfair burden placed on them, with no justification for doing so.
Even worse when they are using falsehoods to justify the monies extorted.
As you say, if everyone did somehow move to non polluting vehicles ( impossible, as even electric are terrible, some worse than conventional ) and all that so called environmental taxation etc stopped....then what reason would the governments give to extort more money from us ?
That sounds so naive. Even worse when they are using falsehoods to justify the monies extorted.
As you say, if everyone did somehow move to non polluting vehicles ( impossible, as even electric are terrible, some worse than conventional ) and all that so called environmental taxation etc stopped....then what reason would the governments give to extort more money from us ?
It’s not a taxation on motorists, it’s a taxation on the ability to pay. So, what do you suggest?
Tony1963 said:
That sounds so naive.
It’s not a taxation on motorists, it’s a taxation on the ability to pay. So, what do you suggest?
Of course it is taxation on motorists....Do people who do not own a car pay it ? It's pretty clear who either has blinkers on or is naive.It’s not a taxation on motorists, it’s a taxation on the ability to pay. So, what do you suggest?
It's blatantly obvious what should fund the running of the country if there must be taxation, and that's standard income tax, or the VAT on goods.
There is no sense singling out motorists for huge tax burdens, other than them being an easy cash cow.
I don't think it is quite that clear-cut if I am honest.
I get what you say about motorists, but the same is true about drinkers, smokers etc.
Basically anyone with money in their pocket is being disproportionately taxed "because they can afford it" so it isn't really just motorists is it?
I get what you say about motorists, but the same is true about drinkers, smokers etc.
Basically anyone with money in their pocket is being disproportionately taxed "because they can afford it" so it isn't really just motorists is it?
E-bmw said:
I don't think it is quite that clear-cut if I am honest.
I get what you say about motorists, but the same is true about drinkers, smokers etc.
Basically anyone with money in their pocket is being disproportionately taxed "because they can afford it" so it isn't really just motorists is it?
Exactly. I get what you say about motorists, but the same is true about drinkers, smokers etc.
Basically anyone with money in their pocket is being disproportionately taxed "because they can afford it" so it isn't really just motorists is it?
Ever bought/sold a house? Spend a few K on a watch?
The country needs cash to run itself. And nobody really wants it to be them who pays for it. If you live with your parents and own a few cars, then yes, you’re hit heavily with tax. But if the government changed it all over to income tax, for example, most working people would pay the same. That’s the mathematical logic.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff