Autocar - First for car news and reviews

Advertisement

Top bloggers

Advertisement

Tue
Feb 12 2008

Ken's CO2-charge will make London a laughing stock

Hilton Holloway

Anybody old enough to remember those Nuclear-Free zones of the 1980s? Looney left local councils declared a small area of a city as a ‘nuclear-free zone’, to demonstrate their right-on credentials.

Lots of people scoffed. Would the Soviet Union, if it decided to nuke the UK, carefully avoid flattening its fellow communists? Would radiation fallout not drift across into the most ideologically-sound streets?

Well, the Nuclear-Free zone is back, but this time it’s called the London Congestion Charge.

Today, Mayor Ken Livingstone announced what has been threatened for the last two years. That cars in Band G (that’s emissions of 225g/km and above) would be charged £25 per day to move in the zone. And if you live in the zone, the 90 percent residents discount will be dropped, too.

Still, if you have a car in the A and B bands, entrance will now be free, instead of £8. There again, if too many of us buy these cars –such as Mini Cooper diesels - Band B will likely be charged at £4 per day from 2010.

The new regime comes in on 27 October and Red Ken says: "The CO2 emissions from the most high powered 4x4s and sports cars can be up to four times as great of those of the least polluting cars. The CO2 charge will encourage people to switch to cleaner vehicles or public transport and ensure that those who choose to carry on driving the most polluting vehicles help pay for the environmental damage they cause."

The C-Charge zone is a tiny – though influential – area in the middle of a very large city. How can virtually banning larger-engined vehicles make any difference at all to real-world CO2 levels? And petrol engines are far from 'polluting'. In fact, they are much cleaner than diesel engines - especially those engines in London's worn-out black cabs.

But why does micro-CO2 reduction make such a difference in Chelsea and Kensington, and yet there’s no need for a charge a few hundred feet away in North London, or in the East End? The only possible conclusion is that London is sliding back into the bad old days of political posturing, with politicians trying to impress their fellow ideologues across the world rather than actually achieve anything useful.

Red Ken may be pleased that, at the fag end of his political career, he has temporarily stopped Porsches moving in central London during the day. But the rest of us can see this move for what it is: the last thrashings of a bedsit revolutionary.

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Hilton Holloway

Has two product design degrees and used to design mountain bikes. Realised that cars were a lot more interesting in 1990, and has been writing about them ever since.

Comments

danny77 February 13, 2008 2:19 PM

The people that buy supercharged Range Rovers will just throw a diesel mini into the car collection as a third or fourth car. I think he should have kept it free for EV's and alternative fuel vehicles instead.

Postman Pat February 14, 2008 1:23 PM

All right minded people living in London know that Livingstone is a clown, however I still haven't heard what the Tories or Lib Dems are going to do about the Con Charge, when/if they win the Mayoral election?  Perhaps this is something that Londoners should be asking when they all come knocking at our door's in the next few months?

JJBoxster February 14, 2008 6:06 PM

All vehicles (cars, vans, trucks etc) account for just 0.6% of man-made omissions. Even if CO2 was a climate issue (which it isn't) Ken would be about as effective at making a difference as a fly at stopping the annual migration of the wilderbeast. Who said politicians haven't a clue?

iluvforbyfors February 15, 2008 12:14 PM

You may like to know that a new Dodge Durango with a 5.7 litre Hemi V8 engine & 345 bhp is built to Californian emission standards which exced euro lV, this means they have zero emmissions and negligible C02 output, not even registering on the VOSA equipment all new American vehicles are tested at SVA prior to UK registration, this means that one new American vehicle is cleaner than over 30 mid 1980's UK cars. Hiltons blog hits it on the nail, since the 1970's Red Ken has been on the poitical circuit along with other SWP notables George Galloway, Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda with an anti-car, anti-entrepreneur, anti-everthing that isn't Left wing, Gay/Lesbian or Black agenda. It is through apathy that such people gain power - wake up Londoners and motorists  vote for Boris in the upcoming mayoral elections and get rid of the Red Flag over London. It doesn't matter how well off you may be £25 per day, £125 per week, £500 per month, £6,000 per year,  to take your car into London is beyond any sense of reason.

cjultra February 15, 2008 10:34 PM

If we were to better design roads to make them flow (put in one way sytems) to turn a 1 lane either way into a 3 lane one way system, repair road surfaces and the hardcore beneath them, remove sleeping policemen that force motorists to slam on their brakes then only to put their foot on the gas pedal again, allow 'give way left turns' on roads with more than 1 lane at a set of lights and to only allow a pedestrain crossing timing phase if people press a button at a set of lights instead of a whole junction lifeless allowing only ghosts to cross the road, allow some juntions to have flashing amber lights at clossings to warn motorists to give way and treat like a roundabout during the twilight hours. Allow free travel over the QE2 Bridge/Dartford tunnel on europe's bussiest road and river crossing, lessening the wasted fuel sitting in traffic due to drivers having to pay at the kiosks, as I'm sure, the payments made since building these crossings have surely paid for itself and not blow the fumes along the river into london when the tidal flow travels into London. This would speed up the traffic flow in London and large cities and lessen the emissions effect the government want to show the rest of the world.

I would also like to state that if they want to impose legislation to road users coming into London with such vehicles exceeding the 225g/km, surely they should ban black cabs, coaches and buses that exceed the CO2 emissions in London instead of allowing them carry out their business during peak hours. This would allow central London to breathe again.

OnstwedderJP February 16, 2008 10:12 AM

JJBoxster is wrong on two counts. Road traffic is responsible for about 20-30% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, depending on which country you live in. And greenhouse gas emissions really do matter, unfortunately: all the evidence and science makes it clear that the planet is warming at a rate never seen before. We don't know all the consequences, but they're overwhelmingly likely to be negative. Food production will become less efficient, extreme weather events will become more common, flooding will threaten hundreds of millions of people. Not those in Central London, though (including me) - we have the money to buy our way out of the problem. But for those of us with a social conscience, man-made climate change is a problem we caused and we need to solve. Ken's approach is wrong, but the problem is real.

JP Onstwedder

The Master February 22, 2008 5:27 PM

I ask you this: how does narrowing London's roads, manipulating traffic lights, banning right and left turns, introducing bus lanes and cycle lanes, ang generally furring-up London's arteries help reduce congestion? I live in North London where you can't pass buses at stops anymore because TFL has pushed the pavement out forcing you to either wait for the bus to move off, or risk a dodgy overtaking manouvre.

Who are these "town planners"? and how did these loony ideas ever make it off the drawing board?

If the polluter pays, why are we being charged for parking where there is no pollution being produced?

The idea of a mayor for London was a bad mistake, as is the incumbent of that office and his acolytes.

JJBoxster February 23, 2008 7:06 PM

CJUltra - very good (wise) post.

JP Onstwedder - I haven't got my facts wrong on vehicles contribution to world CO2 levels (it's 0.5% - half of 1%). And I'm also not wrong about the climate being absolutely fine, rosey in fact. You choose to believe speculative computer models and that CO2, which has never been a tempreture driver (in fact quite the opposite) in Earths history. It would take you about 2 hours research to get clued up and sort the fact from the fiction. Well worth it if you don't want to go round with "The End is Nigh" banners for the next coupl of years until the truth comes out.

Will86 March 3, 2008 1:21 PM

I am quite concerned about Ken Livingstone. I do not believe he actually understands climate change or CO2. He is simply out to make money. This theory is borne out by his policies.

Why should the congestion charge be decided on CO2 emmissions? A Porsche 911 takes up less space than a Ford Mondeo therefore causes less congestion. This is not a congestion charge its an emmissions charge.

Why aren't taxis included in the congestion (emmissions) charge? The smokest vehicles in London are the Black Cabs and they spend their whole time in London.

Ken loves hybrids because they are green. But actually they are terrible for the environment because of the complex materials used to make them, and then there are the batteries which are an environmental nightmare. A Mini Cooper D is better for the environment, or even the New Focus 1.6TDCI. Both have emmissions less than 120g/km.

And my favourite one is this - Ken wants us to buy low emmission cars which is fine. So I buy my 1.6TDCI Focus and can drive into London for free. Oh but if too many of you buy low emmission cars he will charge us all too.

Finally CO2 isn't really a problem. The planet can cope if we don't cut all the forests down. Its other greenhouse gases like methane than we really need to watch. Its 23 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Jonah March 9, 2008 9:25 PM

There are two things I really hate about this scheme. First of all this bit about old cars having to pay£25 or something, why? What if you drive a Citroen 2CV or a Fiat 500. Hardly any CO2 and a tiny footprint. After all this is the Congestion Charge rather than the eco charge. Secondly, Ken might charge £4 for cars under 120 g/km. Why? Oh, one of his money making schemes, that wuld make sense. So after you've brought a car to avoid the Conbgestion Charge, you then have to pay for it. I just hope that Red Ken actually finds out that saving the plannet does not mean saving money.

Jonah March 9, 2008 9:25 PM

I mean the orginal 500 of course

Luxor Shark March 10, 2008 1:50 PM

This article has reminded me how rabid and anti-car certain sections of the public have become - i.e those that are gullible enough to lap up the tired old tripe that politicians wheel out.

I was recently driving along a country road near Bath with no gateways or houses and good visibility but had a 40 mph limit posted. Despite being within this limit a family of five standing on the verge started shouting and wildly gesticulating at me whilst pointing at the speed limit sign. There were no horses or other hazards in view - just the aforementioned rabid morons.  I guess that because I drive a Z3 M coupe which is a bit louder than most cars and dares to be different they immediately assumed that I had been doing petrol burning, child eating deals with the devil.

I have noticed a similar thing with rural driving full stop (I do live in the sticks by the way). I find that on leaving villages (after the national limit sign) and the road is clear of hazards people get really upset if I overtake giving them plenty of room - flashing their lights and hooting. these are often the same people who will fail to slow down and tailgate me through the next village because I have slowed down to a respectable speed. I'm really sorry that my car looks a bit different and makes more noise than a bl**dy Toyota Yaris. It is also fitted with rear view mirrors! Why can't they just bimble around in their own world (with no mirrors 'cause nothing happens behind them) and I will get on enjoying making progress safely without all this unneccesary arm waving and rabid hatred?

Oh and don't get me started on some of the tools that drive Toyota Pious's. I have seen a couple driven well but they were the exception. Why don't they take a retest, buy a Diesel Focus and have one of those 'Eco holidays' with the money they save.

carnut March 18, 2008 1:14 AM

What is going on with this green movement, are the decision makers that ignorant to realised that the vast majority of the human contribution to the green house gases is caused by power generation and heavy industry, and that the global transport system including shipping, aviation and road contribute to less than 3.5% according to some reports and no more that 5% according to other.

So what happened to the other 95% i dont see government taxing poluting businesses, espicially the steel and the Oil industry, the only thing they good at is taxing motorists who pay income tax and VAT and road tax and fuel duty and congestion charge on top of that. Ohh and soon they gonna introduce toll roads, so we will be paying road tax twice!!!!!.

I think congestion charge should stay congestion charge not enviromental charge, soon they might find another excuse to increase it.

Ok they want to tax people who can afford to have a sports car, what about the poor man who have an old car and need it to go to work and his family what good is that gonna do except increasing the money going to the treasury.

I can understand if they are using this money to develop an alternative power sources to completely replace fossil fuels, but sadly they are not they just after our hard earned money.

JJBoxster March 18, 2008 6:40 PM

Gentlemen,

If you'd like to add to your climate knowledge I'd ask you to read the 50 Page report from the Heartland Institutes Climate meeting in New York, March 2-4 2008. It's the most clued up single document available today and while a little technical in places it's a more important, and faster, read than the latest Andy McNab SAS book for the beach!

heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/.../22835.pdf

I've just read 'The Independant' newspapers online review of the NY meeting which is little more than a character assasination from Jerk Connor and its 'Enviroment' sub-editor (they couldn't be bothered to report the facts - how British journalism standards have reached the gutter eh?).

Jackass Connor states the Heartland Inst. is funded by big tobacco and big oil. It's true. Unfortunately the UN's IPCC that spins the climate crud is wholly funded and manned by Big Govt.

My decision on this matter I suggest like yours is balanced on the integrity of the words spoken by one side versus the speculative crud spoken by the 'other side'. I've added The Independant to my list of 'must have' publications to use for chip paper and clearing smog on my car windscreen and any article by J. Connor to be used for wiping oil off my dip-stick.

6th.replicant March 21, 2008 6:21 PM

Is it not curious that while many people rant & rage re Livingstone, he's won the London mayor election twice? Perhaps this time round some folks might actually get off their derrières & vote against the oily little cretin...

Also, kindly acknowledge the real problem re climate change: the continued decimation of rainforests in Brazil, Sumatra etc. Back in the early 1980s, various do-gooder types warned us all re climate-impact if we stood-by while vast tracts of rain forests were levelled – and guess what, it turns out they were correct.

If the so-called ‘civilised world’ has the muscle & inclination to conquer/occupy Iraq, surely it can also bring a few peasants into line & stop them cutting down trees?

JJBoxster March 22, 2008 7:21 PM

6th Replicant - Deforestation is a seperate issue to CO2. Deforestation is linked to poverty and using the surrounding natural resources for firewood and agriculture. Britain, Europe and America can hardly preech to the worlds poor when they've already deforested their lands in the same way. We either have to help industrialise the poor or as we've seen in Africa 'encourage' protection of forests by eco-tourism (not very realistic) or subsidies or even providing cheap food!

Atmospheric CO2 levels are 96% dictated by natural sources. The other 4% down to man is linked to our population growth which cill rise from 6.2Billion to over 9Billion by 2050 (ie. 50% growth). We cannot change this rise in population and rise in CO2.

But in all studies higher CO2 levels is not a problem. In fact all plants grow faster with higher CO2 levels, even 4x the current .0038% of Earths atmosphere to .016% poses no threat to anything on the planet and will not drive climate. In short, CO2 is not a problem.

ordinary bloke May 3, 2008 8:59 PM

Luxor Shark "Oh and don't get me started on some of the tools that drive Toyota Pious's. I have seen a couple driven well but they were the exception. Why don't they take a retest, buy a Diesel Focus and have one of those 'Eco holidays' with the money they save."

This is a bit unneccesary - I drive a Prius and count myself as an enthusiastic motorist !!  Its a good car and when I bought mine nearly four years ago there were not the alternatives around, as there are today, that were environmentally friendly and as good to drive. You shoul;d try one before you voice such criticism; no, its not as sporty as your Z4 but it is quick enough in traffic (the CVT box gives quick reaction pull away) and can be punted along country lanes and A/B roads as quick as is safe with all the other idiots that are out there.

The good news today of course is that London is rid of Red Ken - it will be interesting to see what Boris is going to do about TfL and all Ken's apparatchiks.

JJBoxster May 12, 2008 3:41 PM

Boris has stated he is clearly against extending the Con-Zone to West London - residents don't want it - Red Ken did and after taking the survey he didn't listen and tried to weasel around public opinion  and slide it in - Good Bye you deceptive, destructive, deaf pratt.

Labour got hammered in the Council Elections. One Labour croney after another came on saying "we've got to listen". David Dimbleby got so fed up after the 20th croney spewed out the 'on message' we'll listen more line he told them to shut up.

So now Labour are all ears will they continue to bribe Councils will central public money to roll out this miserable scam across the country? You're joking! And therein's the problem between deceipt and democracy.

So I hope Labour gets hammered come Election time because after 15yrs of deceipt about "Things Can Only Get Better" I hope the public kick these spivs really hard in the nuts.

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue - Autocar 15.10.08

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>