Submitted by chrisdh79 t3_z9o3zu in Futurology
Panda_Mon t1_iyhvggd wrote
Wow, so it is once again the responsibility of consumers to fix pollution. This fee should be leveled against companies who produce the polluting vehicles instead of people who bought them. Consumers are not infallible. We don't have the time to research every implication of every product we buy. It is much more reasonable to have a company research the implication of each product they make, instead.
LastTrainLongGone t1_iyieppg wrote
Every petrol car sold in the UK since 2006 wouldn't have to pay this fee so it really is just keeping old polluting bangers off the road.
Diesel is 2015 so only 7-8 years there but given particulates and NOx in old models this seems pretty pragmatic to me.
BeersTeddy t1_iyk8gg2 wrote
Owner of a 15 plate "luxury ish car".
£12.5 to pay if I go there.
mpg111 t1_iyi3elo wrote
How is that relevant? All new cars sold in EU (and I guess UK) already comply - this applies only to older cars
tehrmuk t1_iyj2anv wrote
And by "old" you really mean "classic". My fifteen year old, 150000 mile bucket-on-wheels is exempt.
mpg111 t1_iyjbz10 wrote
Interesting. What is the reason for that exemption?
I_R0M_I t1_iyjp44g wrote
Well Euro 4 petrol came out in 2005. So any petrol after that is exempt. Would be my guess at the comment.
It's badly implemented though. It's only on Euro rating, not actual emissions.
IE a 2000 Honda Insight. 1L 3Cyl Hybrid, is euro 3, as euro 4 didn't exist. Has to pay. A 2005 Civic Type R, is exempt because its euro 4. Yet puts out 3 x the co2, more nox,and more pm.
That Insight is cleaner than a euro 6 diesel! Yet its written off as a more polluting vehicle! There will be plenty more examples, that's just once I've come across.
Delraey t1_iyla1gz wrote
Doesn't have to make sense. Just another scheme.
Foxboy73 t1_iyi3x8b wrote
Guess you haven’t thought of the fact that they’ll just pass this on to the customer anyways. You literally cannot force companies to pay their share in taxes since it all comes from their customers anyways. It all comes back to the consumer.
And before anyone says that they can just make it illegal think of it this way. If there was no customer than there wouldn’t be any money for taxes. Nobody is getting taxed unless they actually sell something, which requires a consumer. Also nothing is stopping a company from raising prices to counter taxes, unless you want to regulate prices but that hurts everybody.
HarryHacker42 t1_iyiyk9h wrote
If you make companies pay more taxes/fines for selling high polluting cars, they sell less cars. This has already been proven with US CAFE regulations. The companies will even make EVs or ultra-high-efficiency gas cars just to be able to sell luxury inefficient cars also. So the taxing does work to change company behavior.
Lelabear t1_iyid88k wrote
And its is not like we have been offered a lot of viable options, right? Shame on the whole industry.
HarryHacker42 t1_iyiyws5 wrote
In the EU, there are so many small cars with high efficiency engines. Even in the USA, they do make the Prius and cars like it. Its not like you have to drive a Dodge Ram Pickup rolling coal.
I_R0M_I t1_iyjq9qy wrote
It has nothing to do with efficiency (mpg), it's only to do with emissions.
A 5L Supercharged Range Rover is very poor efficency, around 15mpg. Yet its Euro 6. Despite being the the worst tax bracket (based on co2) there is.
Lelabear t1_iyj0e0h wrote
If they really wanted us in fuel efficient cars they could have phased out the gas guzzlers long ago and developed decent mass transit.
HarryHacker42 t1_iyj2enu wrote
If you play SimCity, you'll learn the time for Mass Transit is when the city is first developing. To tear up the city and put in mass transit later is really expensive.
The conservatives have been fighting against high efficiency vehicles since oil companies first started bribing them.
Lelabear t1_iyj40iz wrote
Except we had a decent infrastructure for mass transit with the trolley cars and rail lines when the cities were built, they tore it all up to put in roads and parking lots.
One-Gap-3915 t1_iyjmyuq wrote
> they could have phased out the gas guzzlers long ago
They have, gas guzzlers are taxed in the U.K. and the car industry is on notice that new petrol cars are banned from 2035 onwards. As a result the U.K. car market has shifted to offer many small efficient city car options.
> and developed decent mass transit.
We are talking about London, U.K. here. It’s literally had highly developed mass transit since at least the Victorian age.
One-Gap-3915 t1_iyjmj4y wrote
Literally every petrol car sold since 2006 is exempt. London also has great public transport and they’re expanding public transport frequency in outer London in coordination with this move. How is there a lack of options? People will just regurgitate ‘why do regular people have to make the changes’ even when policy makers have done every last thing to make it as painless as possible.
Lelabear t1_iyjnnkh wrote
Sorry, I am in the US and such measures are few and far between. My town has one bus service that runs a continuous loop, one taxi service that you have to book in advance, so not having a car really limits your ability to be spontaneous. Also we have lots of tradespeople who have heavy duty vehicles who face no penalties for their fuel use. Don't even get me started on the construction equipment, city vehicles and delivery trucks hogging the road.
One-Gap-3915 t1_iyjnzlq wrote
I hope things improve, I’ve seen a lot of positive noises from the US so hopefully there’s a movement building!
The trades vehicles point is interesting, it seems like in the US they all use heavy trucks, whereas in Europe the norm is vans like Ford transit.
Lelabear t1_iyjozpf wrote
Oh yeah, I can understand some trades require heavy duty lifting over rough terrain, but every yahoo with some extra bucks seems to think it is a mark of status to get themselves a fancy rig that guzzles the gas. I drive a 2003 Honda Element that meets all my needs, least I can do to keep it real.
Sinocatk t1_iyirq6x wrote
Poor people drive old cars. Rich people got subsidized to buy new electric cars.
Same with solar, wealthy people could afford the installation on their homes and took advantage of decent subsidies and electricity rates. Poor people couldn’t afford to do that.
I get that subsidies help the transition toward cleaner energy, it’s a shame that poorer people don’t really benefit so much from them.
tehrmuk t1_iyj1vsz wrote
My car is as basic as they come and is 15 years old with over 150,000 miles on it. It's a good example of what a poor person drives and it's exempt from the charge. People with cheap, old cars won't be affected by this. Owners of classic cars, performance cars or Chelsea Tractors will have to pay.
One-Gap-3915 t1_iyjnfoa wrote
This scheme literally offers up to £2k scrappage to upgrade car - again you just need to find a used car manufactured less than 17 years old. Wheelchair accessible cars get up to £5k scrappage.
All the criticisms people are talking about have been addressed in great detail in the scheme.
Cryptocaned t1_iyipusw wrote
during the worst financial crisis of the last decade they put in place extra costs for people forcing you to either pay because you have an older car or spend thousands on a newer car, when the reason you would probably have an older car is because you can't afford a newer car. Fuckers.
iWillNeverReplyToYou t1_iyjeumh wrote
You're conveniently forgetting option #3, take the bus. London has one of the greatest mass transportation networks human beings have ever created.
Cryptocaned t1_iyjgnws wrote
True, the only thing I can think of that would still be relevant would be if you were to drive somewhere outside of London. You could get the train if there was a station where you were going or you didn't have a time constraint.
Or if you were driving into London from outside you still have to pay to get into the city and then park I before you can get the tube
surnik22 t1_iyizc2w wrote
Ya that sucks for people who can only afford the old car they have.
You know what else sucks even more? 4000 people dying a year from pollution. Cars need to be disincentivized and public transit/bikes needs to be funded and incentivized. A fee to pollute the air other people have to breath seems relatively minor compared to people dying because of the pollution.
Artanthos t1_iyivusj wrote
The real answer is not the fee itself.
It’s the strong encouragement the fee incites to switch to electric vehicles.
NightlyWave t1_iyj182v wrote
How is it an encouragement to switch to electric when pretty much the majority of cars are exempt from the fee?
mudman13 t1_iyj5s82 wrote
Yet for people that cant afford to get a new one they continue to pollute the air and the fine does nothing to help. This policy is going to screw many people over. The old lady with her old car she uses to go the shops once a week or see some friends. The working class person in an HMO that uses it to get to work and back for nightshift. The low paid social worker that has to go to multiple houses. There is a cost of living and housing crisis people do not have savings let alone a spare 10k for a reliable car.
hyperlobster t1_iylw1v3 wrote
You don’t need £10K for a reliable car. You can get a decent ULEZ-compliant vehicle that will stay working for a fifth of that. Mid 00s Civic springs to mind.
Artanthos t1_iyjfr12 wrote
The new tax makes owning an older vehicle less cost efficient than buying a newer vehicle.
chubbachubbachub t1_iyjgads wrote
Exactly my thought. Same with plastic waste, consumers shouldn’t be solely responsible for the recycling of materials. Company’s need to be held accountable for products and their entire life cycle, not just to the shelf.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments