4x4's to pay £1800pa road tax...

[bogflogger]

Surely, it would be more relavent for YOU to look at these issues Yourself, rather than "THEM" having to kick up a fuss?

And as for the "Caring, Enviromentally Friendly, Eco- Aware, Outdoor Industry" :- you only have to unpack one Delivery of 250 of the Same Model of Rucksack, Packed 25 to a Heavy Cardboard Box, each wrapped in it's own Heavy Guage Polythene Bag, with 3-4 Glossy Plastic Paper "Swing Labels" attached, to See Exactly how "Committed" the Gear Manufacturers are to Enviromental Issues.

 

[MartiniDave]

Bogflogger, I quite agree with what you just said. There is much more than just one issue driving climate change. Similarly there is more than one reason I drive a Landrover. For me it fills the roles of about 4 other classes of vehicle - and I really don't want to buy one of each

As for the unnecessary packaging and waste in the retail industry my wife works for "a large supermarket" who have just started to encourage re-use of carrier bags, but they themselves recycle NOTHING internally, the amount of goods, including foodstufs, they put in the compactor is really criminal!

I don't know how to make it all change, or even how to make any real difference. Ideas anyone? (Realistic ones that is)

Dave

 

[mojofilter]

I agree with MagiKelly 100% and have been saying this for years along with the motoring organisations.

Remove the road fund license completely thereby removing those who dodge it and increase the tax on fuel to cover it. In one move you have not only removed a problem but you are helping the environment too. The vehicles that burn the fuel pay more and those that don't, well don't This would be a huge incentive for people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

I take your point Gregorach about those who are less well off but would it really make a difference if they don't have to pay road fund license? They are not being penalised and have the same choice as everyone else.

Before anyone has a go at me you should probably know that I own a Landrover which I have as a hobby and limit to 2000 miles per year. And even worse, I drive over 20k miles a year for my job so what I am suggesting would adversely affect me. I see it as an incentive to find a job nearer to home.

taking an average of 30-mpg for 12000 miles pa, to cover the 180 odd RFL, it would add about 10p to a litre of petrol. This will come soon anyway, so why would they want to lose out on the RFL. I am guessing here, but I'd imagine that there are probably more low mileage vehicles than high ones, and the government dont really care about whats fair or the environment, only what they can rake in.

 

[Grooveski]

....and they wouldn't want to lose out on the multiple vehicle owner bonus.

You can only use one vehicle at a time, so if I'm out on the bike the car and dirt bike are lying at home not using any fuel. The way things are just now the gov are still getting their pound of flesh for them. Can't see them wanting to change that cosy little setup.

Fair few folk sticking up for bikes as environmentaly sound. Personaly I reckon they're as bad if not worse. Going thrash happy I can bring consumption down to 25mpg no bother and chewing up a pair of tyres every 3000-odd miles is bad news.

 

[pumbaa]

I am starting to think this is a tad discriminating against 4x4 drivers .
If you look at all the things that cause CO2 emissions in this country alone , you have all transport and a lot of industry , even your pint is fizzed up with CO2 ! I would hazard a guess that what 4x4s put out in the way of polution is quite a small percentage of what our country pours out in total . Then if you step it up to a global level , you have the americans with their huge gas guzzlers , Chinas new export boom . As a British person who is trying to protect the enviroment , you dont stand a chance against the whole world (not that the fight isnt worthy) realisticly you will never change the minds and habits of all those people . So why pick on 4x4 drivers ? Blatent discrimination
Pumbaa

 

[BorderReiver]

I am starting to think this is a tad discriminating against 4x4 drivers .
If you look at all the things that cause CO2 emissions in this country alone , you have all transport and a lot of industry , even your pint is fizzed up with CO2 ! I would hazard a guess that what 4x4s put out in the way of polution is quite a small percentage of what our country pours out in total . Then if you step it up to a global level , you have the americans with their huge gas guzzlers , Chinas new export boom . As a British person who is trying to protect the enviroment , you dont stand a chance against the whole world (not that the fight isnt worthy) realisticly you will never change the minds and habits of all those people . So why pick on 4x4 drivers ? Blatent discrimination
Pumbaa

Because they are a minority old boy.

HMG "seen to be doing something" without the majority of voters getting upset.

 

[Ogri the trog]

Have to agree,
I can't say that I'd be glad to see it but putting RFL onto the fuel itself is the only fair way to go. I have a 4x4 and to get out to do shopping etc in the winter I damned well need it. Even with it we get snowed in an average of four days each winter - no great shakes in some books but I could no longer afford the taxation, and had to rely on 2 wheel drive vehicles, I'd have to save all my work holiday for the days when I couldn't get off the hill. I use a very economical (up to 70 to the gallon) car to commute to work normally but when the going gets icy, theres only one alternative.

Ranting now, better stop.

Ogri the trog

 

[Klenchblaize]

Good to know this proposal floats the boat of at least one member.

Hey chaps, I’m all for going back to horse & cart provided it’s a totally level playing field, as in there being no chance of an outraged and confused Series 3 BMW driver undertaking me in the “Slow Horse Lane”!

Cheers

 

[pumbaa]

How did they come out with the figure of £1800 ? Thats an extra £1600 on currant road tax , i would like to see a break down of how they came up with that figure . Handing it to the government or them to spend as they please is just not acceptable . Justify your costings , without discriminating . What about White van man and all the HGVs on our roads , they produce more emissions .
Pumbaa

 

[MagiKelly]

Another thing to remember is no matter how much road use is taxed, every last drop of oil is going to be burned. Probably in aircraft as there are less alternatives to fuel these. So environmentally we are going to be in the same place. the only difference will be how much the government raked in during the process.

 

[Andy]

someone mentioned the bike industry not being very good for the environment, there have been people who complained about the amount of damage they do when used on little tracks at high speed. Also us cyclists seems to want the most hi tech matrials going which normaly means it's not good for nature to abtain them.

I'd much rather see a policy of no road tax and all the funds coming from teh price of fuel, it would mean people might use public transport more, people who bring their cars over from france etc would pay to sort out british roads while we do the same from them if we take our cars over there and of course it may mean that people who need big cars some of the time wouldn't have to pay extra tax to use a smaller car the times when they don't need the large car/4x4

of course that wont happen

 

[Spacemonkey]

So why not tax bovine products instead? They as worldwide whole produce more greenhouse gasses than the evil motorist. And if evil 4x4s are so bad why not ban them altogether along with tobacco and alocohol? Or could it simply be the usual government ploy of 'You can do what you want as long as you pay extra to us to do it' ? Me cynical? Nah.... never....

 

[jdlenton]

So why not tax bovine products instead? They as worldwide whole produce more greenhouse gasses than the evil motorist. And if evil 4x4s are so bad why not ban them altogether along with tobacco and alocohol? Or could it simply be the usual government ploy of 'You can do what you want as long as you pay extra to us to do it' ? Me cynical? Nah.... never....

 

[falling rain]

In fairness, if the argument is carbon pollution, then the real figures are mpg and annual mileage. If you are gonna levvy a tax againt high polluting vehicles, then that tax should be levvied against all vehicles which do less than the set mpg (I think the figure bandied about is 25mpg).

Why single out one particular style of vehicle? There are lots of old jags and porches out there that suck fuel and are far worse for the environment than many 4x4's.

Equally, it isnt just mpg's, it's the amount of miles you actually do.

If I do 5,000 miles a year and you do 20,000 miles a year, and both vehicles do 25mpg, you are shoving 4x the carbon into the environment than I am. If I own a 4x4 and you own a jag, then I'm gonna be paying a carbon tax for your pollution. Surely it's the amount of miles that should be taxed (as well as the vehicles efficiency), rather than just the "style" of vehicle?

What about a fairer solution...

How about each and every vehicle on the road being put into an emmisions banding, based on the g of CO2 it puts out per mile, then when the vehicle is MOT'd, the mileage is recoded and DVLC send you a 'carbon bill', based on the recorded mileage of the vehicle x the CO2 banding it falls into.

That way high mileage, high polluting vehicles would be hit hardest (regardless of style/make/model) and low mileage drivers running efficient vehicles would pay the least ...even nothing in some cases.

They can take our land and our women, BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM - or something along those lines (braveheart)

You should run for PM Martyn - that sounds like a very good plan you've suggested there :You_Rock_

 

[Bigman]

I don't think there will ever be a fair way to this solution, there will always be the one's that can afford and masses who can't, but do.

Our Government is just trying to find other ways of squeezing more money out of us.

 

[falling rain]

[The problem with the Chelsea tractor lot is that taxing them won't work....they already can afford to buy a nice big shiney expencive 4x4 (and other high polution cars) and run them and pay more fuel duty as they use more and pay the higher road tax band and live in Central london.......these people have money and if they want a 4x4 then they'll have one...meanwhile those in the country where it might be useful to have one will no longer be able to afford one. Yet another case of taxing the poor while the rich can afford it.

Just my thoughts anyway....

Bam. [/QUOTE]

Agreed. Money is absolutely no object to these people and they'll pay whatever it costs - Money no object

 

[zambezi]

Because they are a minority old boy.

HMG "seen to be doing something" without the majority of voters getting upset.

That sums up the government's rather cynical thinking in a nutshell. The more logical carbon weening incentives/strategies mooted by several members in this thread are potentially vote losing wisdom.

Morally, the more pertinent question we should all be asking ourselves is: "what I am I doing to reduce my ecological footprint?". Hats off to Bam for a very comprehensive range of re-cycling and conservation initiatives in his household.

Returning to the specific question of vehicle cost-to-the-environment: My wife and I moved closer to our places of work 12 years ago. We both walk or cycle to work. When we moved the number of miles we completed in our car annually dropped from circa 25k to <5k.

Now, when we do use our vehicle in the city, it is usually to carry passengers or objects that could not be carried any other way. Where we use our vehicle most is on camping holidays. Latterly our holidays of choice have been the Pyrenees and Alps for hiking in out of the way places. The old vauxhall estate struggled with the long haul there and the off-road trail-head approach routes were completely off-limits...so I traded it in on something more appropriate...

 

[Rob]

I like the idea that Richmond council had recently, that didnt go down very well in the media. When applying for parking permits in the city you have to pay a lot of money for a "gas guzzler" compared to a smart car.

Superb, I thought. I live in the sticks. No chance that there will ever be any kind of parking scheme applied to me here. What I hope that this would mean is that those people living in the city who want to use a large engined vehicle would have to think about it more before they purchased it. Yes, there are some people who would not worry about spending an extra £1000 per year to park, that is just the way the world is.

I do think that the whole situation is being blown out of proportion. Whilst I say this, I do agree that we do need to do something to reduce our carbon footprint. Take this for an example:

CO2 from vehicle use accounts for about 22% of the UK emissions annually. So, what does this cost to put right? BP are running an initiative called Target Neutral. I chucked my details into the calculator at

Target Neutral

For each vehicle that we use, the annual payment is less than £20. That was based on me doing over 25K per year in an L200 and the Defender doing approx 10K.

If it only costs £20 per year to do (only slightly more than the basic Full Member rate on here) then lets do it. If my £20 goes to planting trees and setting up sustainable projects, then lets do it. Next time the government start talking about charging £1800 for car tax then I want to know if all the extra cash will go into reducing the impact of the vehicle being taxed - not into keeping Tony Blair in sound bites, or flying him around the world to smile nicely for piccies after some other pointless talks about securing more carbon based fuel supplies.

If all car use accounts for 22% of CO2 given off in the UK, think how £100 per year could offset our contribution for all of it.

If companies want to use outsourced manufacturers in china, india or anywhere else that may not have much of an environmental record, or is a long way away, then they can easily fund the counteraction of the carbon footprint. In the same way, if I want to buy a shirt that started life in New Zealand (lets just forget about the harm that New Zealand Lamb does) then I should be able to buy with the knowledge that I can offset the harm that I have done buy paying someone to plant some trees.

The politicians are either ignorant or devious. I just cant make up my mind which.

 

[Goose]

I have recently bought a L/R disco, several reasons for it really, I sometimes need more than 5 seats( done several longish journeys and had to take two cars), I wanted something that could tow properly, I want to do some more green laning/off roading(yes I know it is not essential, but it makes me smile ), I wanted a car that is nice to drive, I want to be able to carry a lot of gear sometimes and I have always wanted a Landrover .
My first choice would ahve been a 110 Landrover but one of the deciding factors was that it might be too big for most of the time, the disco is a compromise, it get s all the people and gear in when I need to and I can get it to where I want to go!
It does cost a little more to tax and insure than my wifes small car,and we were expecting more fuel costs per mile too, but as we have found out her smallish(petrol) mazda has almost the same fuel consumption! We don't often need a second car but at weekends and the occasions when my wife has to attend conferences etc it became a a pain trying to borrow a car or work with just the one. I NEED a car for work 3 or 4 days a week, the other days it makes life a lot easier, my wife NEEDS a car a couple of days a month other days she walks or gets a lift. When I looked for a new (second hand) car and I decided a Landrover would be my ideal car we discussed all the options and taking into account fuel costs decided that a second small economical car would be the best choice. Most days I could use that to get to work and the Landrover was available when I needed the extra space(or wanted to play off road), or we needed to use the two cars. There is no point(economically or ecologically) me using the small car (I prefer to drive the Landrover ) if there is no difference in fuel use.

I am toying with the idea about using some form of Biodiesel, for ecological and hopefully economic reasons, but am still researching what to use and how, it is not an easy thing to get a definite answer on. Biodiesel as far as I can see is by far the best way to go ecologically but where are the campaigns to make it more available? There was a huge push to get rid of leaded fuel, from the oil companies adn the government with tax incentives, where is the campaign for changing to Biodiesel?
Perhaps there isn't as much money in it, it wouldn't pay the oil companies and the government would find it hard to keep track of Tax, checking if someone is using cherry diesel (the oil companies put die in it)is fairly easy, if the use of biodisel become more widespread they would not be able to tell if it is diesel bought from a pump(taxed) or filtered from the chip pan(untaxed) I dont think putting red dye into chip fat would go down too well!

 

[gregorach]

The big problem with biodiesel is that it's difficult to scale. We use a heck of a lot of fuel - to replace a significant proportion of Britain's diesel fuel with biodiesel would require turning all of our agriculutre over to fuel. The current EU initiative to introduce 5% biodiesel can only be met by importing palm oil from Indonesia - where it's grown on land that used to be rainforest, until it was all burned. By the time you compare the carbon savings from the biodiesel to the emissions caused by growing it, it's a net loser.

One thing that's just occured to me that seems to get completely overlooked in many of these debates is the role of road haulage. Compared to a 48 ton truck, a 4x4 isn't really a big deal. Interestingly, heavy goods vehicles are also responsible for the vast majority of road wear. Moving that freight to rail or canal would reduce both emissions and road works!