Ken Livingstone has confirmed that the London Congestion Charge will in future exempt cars emitting less than 120g/km of C02. Although this is in line with the original thinking for revising the scheme, most recent reports had suggested that the proposed exemption would be dropped because of the large numbers of cars that were expected to sneak in under the limit.
Lots of the car-makers have put out press releases trumpeting which models in their ranges will be exempt. Renault claims that 31 models in its range will be CC free. Apart from Lexus' hybrids, which continue to enjoy the exemption as well, I think the classiest car to slip through is BMW's 118d - not the last word in prestige and luxury, but hardly the sort of hair-shirted economy motor Ken probably had in mind when he first thought of the exemption either.
Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Thursday, 20 December 2007
C-Charge chopping and changing
I was interested to see a brief report in yesterday's Times suggesting that Ken Livingstone was about to drop the Congestion Charge exemption he had planned to introduce next year for cars with official CO2 emissions figures of 120g/km or less.
Apparently, so many cars are now sneaking in under the limit that Ken is worried they will flood the streets of central London. I can see why he feels he has to make the change; after all, I don't suppose the BMW 318d was the sort of hair-shirted economy car he had in mind as benefitting from the exemption when he first suggested it. But on the other hand, the prospect of avoiding the C-Charge has obviously provided a useful spur to the car manufacturers to improve their emissions performance; they and their customers are probably entitled to feel cheated now that the proposed concessions won't be available. The real problem is that having been burnt once, the car-makers might not respond to incentives and initiatives of this sort in the future for fear of being messed about again.
Apparently, so many cars are now sneaking in under the limit that Ken is worried they will flood the streets of central London. I can see why he feels he has to make the change; after all, I don't suppose the BMW 318d was the sort of hair-shirted economy car he had in mind as benefitting from the exemption when he first suggested it. But on the other hand, the prospect of avoiding the C-Charge has obviously provided a useful spur to the car manufacturers to improve their emissions performance; they and their customers are probably entitled to feel cheated now that the proposed concessions won't be available. The real problem is that having been burnt once, the car-makers might not respond to incentives and initiatives of this sort in the future for fear of being messed about again.
Thursday, 14 June 2007
A couple more points from Sweden
A very full and interesting day finding out about renewable fuels in Sweden - more detail later but just a couple of quick thoughts for now.
The first is that Britain is a long way behind not just Sweden but several other countries when it comes to policies on renewables. Remember that for all its faults, the UK is usually several years ahead of continental Europe in most areas of public policy debate. Privatisation, deregulation, public-private partnerships, labour market reforms and a genuinely open market for corporate control; all were invented or reinvented in the UK, and eventually copied just about everywhere else.
But when it comes to facing what is probably the biggest challenge of the lot, climate change, Sweden's impressively comprehensive package of measures is far superior to the UK's miserably timid and piecemeal efforts. Ford, Saab and now Volvo have done their bit by offering cars in the UK market that can run on bioethanol-based E85, while Morrisons has been offering the fuel for over a year now at a limited number of forecourts at a modest 2p per litre price advantage compared with unleaded. That's all that's left of the smallish 17p per litre tax break E85 enjoys when other factors such as the underlying price of E85 and the cost disadvantages of distributing comparatively small amounts of the fuel are factored in.
It's difficult to see E85 taking off in a big way in the UK unless a far more attractive tax regime is introduced - in particular, some way needs to be found to shift the basis of the UK car taxation system and the London Congestion Charge from tailpipe CO2 emissions (in fairness, this was considered a rather bold and imaginative approach when it was introduced) to some sort of 'well to wheel' measure that reflects the 'built-in' carbon offset provided when the crops that are used to make bioethanol absorb CO2.
The second thought is this. We've now covered a number of cars that can run on E85 on the Verdict, and this has provided an opportunity to explain the issues involved - namely the limited number of refueling points, the higher octane rating E85 provides compared with unleaded, the mpg penalty of running on E85 and the small per litre price advantage E85 enjoys. More E85-capable cars are coming onto the market but the pros and cons of these models compared with their petrol-powered counterparts are always the same, so it's difficult to take the story forward. I think it may make more sense from now on for us to treat the E85-capable version of any car as our default choice for testing so that we can be as green as possible, but no longer to make such a fuss of the fact that a particular car runs on the stuff.
The first is that Britain is a long way behind not just Sweden but several other countries when it comes to policies on renewables. Remember that for all its faults, the UK is usually several years ahead of continental Europe in most areas of public policy debate. Privatisation, deregulation, public-private partnerships, labour market reforms and a genuinely open market for corporate control; all were invented or reinvented in the UK, and eventually copied just about everywhere else.
But when it comes to facing what is probably the biggest challenge of the lot, climate change, Sweden's impressively comprehensive package of measures is far superior to the UK's miserably timid and piecemeal efforts. Ford, Saab and now Volvo have done their bit by offering cars in the UK market that can run on bioethanol-based E85, while Morrisons has been offering the fuel for over a year now at a limited number of forecourts at a modest 2p per litre price advantage compared with unleaded. That's all that's left of the smallish 17p per litre tax break E85 enjoys when other factors such as the underlying price of E85 and the cost disadvantages of distributing comparatively small amounts of the fuel are factored in.
It's difficult to see E85 taking off in a big way in the UK unless a far more attractive tax regime is introduced - in particular, some way needs to be found to shift the basis of the UK car taxation system and the London Congestion Charge from tailpipe CO2 emissions (in fairness, this was considered a rather bold and imaginative approach when it was introduced) to some sort of 'well to wheel' measure that reflects the 'built-in' carbon offset provided when the crops that are used to make bioethanol absorb CO2.
The second thought is this. We've now covered a number of cars that can run on E85 on the Verdict, and this has provided an opportunity to explain the issues involved - namely the limited number of refueling points, the higher octane rating E85 provides compared with unleaded, the mpg penalty of running on E85 and the small per litre price advantage E85 enjoys. More E85-capable cars are coming onto the market but the pros and cons of these models compared with their petrol-powered counterparts are always the same, so it's difficult to take the story forward. I think it may make more sense from now on for us to treat the E85-capable version of any car as our default choice for testing so that we can be as green as possible, but no longer to make such a fuss of the fact that a particular car runs on the stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)