This is just a natural progression from the a tax point of view.

As emissions get better, tax levels will change.

 

At the end of the day, its not really about the enviroment, its about revenue streams to pay for public spending & ministers 2nd home allowance.

"Green Tax"  is just an easier way to sell it rather than explaining an increase in income tax or bedroom tax.

 

Anyone who has visited heavily poluted cities e.g.in China will have seen the effects that industry & high population density can have.

Now I'm no doctor but I'm pretty sure living in these conditions every day for 10 years isn't going to be good for you.

So to me it seens reasonable that an incentive for manufacturers to develop & customer to buy lower emitting cars (when the affordable technology exists to do it) has got to be a good thing.

Edited 30 April, 201511 yr by Gabbo

VAG have been selling AdBlue equipped diesels in America for years. They only haven't been selling them here as noone has made them do it. They were not required to publish NOx levels here and the AdBlue only added cost and annoyance to owners, so why bother pushing it until they have to?

 

Its somewhat laughable that for years CO2 has been demonised yet its pretty harmless to people immediately around it, unlike all the stuff that comes out of diesels, which were comically marketed as less harmful.

I think the point really is that us lot driving around in our modern EU5 (now EU6) DPF equipped diesels are not so much the issue.

 

 

Actually newer vehicles ARE the issue.  The particulates are the carcinogenic parts that are causing deaths and those particulates are smaller and more harmful in more modern vehicles, largely due to the increasing pressures on manufacturers to improve efficiency.

 

It is a rather perverse irony that the increase in dangerous particulates, and most noticeably those in the news at the minute with the highest carcinogenic properties (ie those much smaller than PM10), is a direct result of the ever tightening emmissions legislation and efficiency requirements.

 

The latter have driven manufacturers to ever higher Diesel injection pressures, with more precise control systems to meet the legislation and this results in a finer mist of Diesel being injected into the cylinder with a more precise burn, which in-turn leads to finer particulates.

 

It is a viscous, no-win circle!

Is that data in the brochure ?

No from a site I found on Google, seems a reliable source though, couldn't find anything anywhere else

http://carleasingmadesimple.com/business-car-leasing/skoda/octavia/european-emission-standards/

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would it be cynnical to think the government have found out they have lost too much in tax by lowering the cost too far for low emission cars than they expected, and this is the excuse to put the tax up again?

Production and recycling of hybrid car batteries causes an abhorrent amount of environmental damage but thats obviously overlooked too.

Hardly killing people in cities it is though ? We arent talking about environmental damage (for which no car can take the moral high ground ) but the impact on the quality of the air we breath.

Just to demonstrate that the car manufacturers themselves know that diesel is vulnerable, there was a report in The Times today which said that Audi has developed a synthetic 'carbon neutral' diesel based on something called the Fischer-Tropsch process.

Google that one...

It's probably more due to that Co2 emissions are flawed and doesnt capture the harmful particles that diesels emit. I can see radical review of VED after the general election.

I think the main issue is the fact that road tax was meant to pay for maintenance and upkeep of the roads? Suddenly its now based on emissions? Total rip off in my eyes whatever way you look at it. Another way to make motorists cough up more and more cash on taxes

I think the main issue is the fact that road tax was meant to pay for maintenance and upkeep of the roads? Suddenly its now based on emissions? Total rip off in my eyes whatever way you look at it. Another way to make motorists cough up more and more cash on taxes

There hasn't been anything called road tax since 1936, which is also when it stopped being ring fenced for roads and went into general tax income. It's hardly "suddenly" based on emissions. It's been done that way for ten years.

Why do you think it's a rip off?

Forget the road tax or whatever you call it thats small beer, have you considered what it'll do to your residual values ?

Forget the road tax or whatever you call it thats small beer, have you considered what it'll do to your residual values ?

 

Tee hee you gas guzzling cynic!

 

It's all speculation at this point.  Anyway, for many people, myself included, residual values will be SUKs problem when I hand the keys back. For early buyers, they massively overestimated how good their residuals will be even without these changes.  

Edited 30 April, 201511 yr by skovirg

Forget the road tax or whatever you call it thats small beer, have you considered what it'll do to your residual values ?

 

A scrappage scheme (maybe £2000 for any sub EU4 engine diesel?) might be good news for folk running old cars.

A fall in residual values in newer cars would be bad news for those owning them today - but good news for those buying them though! Zero sum game?

Most people are concerned about a car's real MPG and what tax band it's in. I suspect the government will do two things, first they will change VED possibly linking Nox and or age to the band and increase the diesel levy at the pumps.

 

Those people that can afford to change there car will get cleaner cars and those that cannot will have to bare the cost, either way the government wins and over time pollution drops. 

There hasn't been anything called road tax since 1936, which is also when it stopped being ring fenced for roads and went into general tax income. It's hardly "suddenly" based on emissions. It's been done that way for ten years.

Why do you think it's a rip off?

Why is it a rip off? My FIL's 1986 ,2.9 Granada pollutes more but yet is cheaper on ",road fund licence" than an 06 octy VRS? My old astra pollutes more than my Octavia yet was cheaper. You can have an American 8.0 litre V8 and pay less than an 06 Vrs.

Production and recycling of hybrid car batteries causes an abhorrent amount of environmental damage but thats obviously overlooked too.

and the ever increasing big birds flying in and out of heathrow etc  

Most people are concerned about a car's real MPG and what tax band it's in. I suspect the government will do two things, first they will change VED possibly linking Nox and or age to the band and increase the diesel levy at the pumps.

 

Those people that can afford to change there car will get cleaner cars and those that cannot will have to bare the cost, either way the government wins and over time pollution drops. 

 

But in the short the pollution remains the same, it will just cost us more to produce it, thereby not reducing any health risk, but lining the government's pockets

I sit in traffic polluting the environment everyday as my 13 mile commute takes an hour because the Highways Agency fail to use the 'managed motorways' correctly by not opening up the hard shoulder as a live lane when it is perfectly safe to do so and set daft speed limits ie 70 to 20 for a 300 yard stretch with cameras before going back up to 70.

 

I also emit nasties when the left two lanes on the motorway are closed to motorists when there is a broken down vehicle safely in a refuge area and therefore no lanes need to be closed.

 

Following an accident, I'm burning fuel by being held in traffic chaos caused by police zooming through to get to the scene despite it generally happening a while ago and being fully under control.  I then wait an age for vehicles to moved and roads reopened.

 

I use gallons of fuel sitting in endless roadworks which never finish on time. The M5 and M6 motorway network is a car park because roadworks are all over the place and worked on for a few hours a day until the crew moves down the road. Why not divert all resources to 1 spot and finish it? Why not fine for late completion?

 

Despite the technology existing to calculate my average speed over several miles with varying speed limits, read my number plate and send me an automated fine if I travel 1 mph over the limit, I still wait at red lights in the middle of the night because it's not clever enough to stay green if there are no vehicles coming the opposite way.

 

Yes, I'd like to do my bit for the environment but I'd like the powers that be to do a damn sight more. A little common sense would have a much more positive impact than years of research and development into greener technologies.

Would it be cynnical to think the government have found out they have lost too much in tax by lowering the cost too far for low emission cars than they expected, and this is the excuse to put the tax up again?

You could argue that they have saved far more money than fines that would have been imposed had EU CO2 emissions targets had not been met.

Ultimately I believe that the gap between petrol and diesel running costs, plus resale values will close. Using emissions is a great excuse for higher taxation. The EU's imposition of stricter and stricter targets allows member states to legitimately tax higher, allowing for higher contributions to the EU coffers.

There will likely be two scales, CO2 and NO2, and cars will be taxed based upon which scale they score highest within. With my green hat on, there is no reason to tax diesel less than petrol, especially when diesel causes the bigger direct health hazards.

There will likely be two scales, CO2 and NO2, and cars will be taxed based upon which scale they score highest within. With my green hat on, there is no reason to tax diesel less than petrol, especially when diesel causes the bigger direct health hazards.

That's pretty much spot-on. So car tax won't be 'increased' it will simply be measured differently. But the consequence will be higher tax for diesel.

Ultimately I believe that the gap between petrol and diesel running costs, plus resale values will close. Using emissions is a great excuse for higher taxation. The EU's imposition of stricter and stricter targets allows member states to legitimately tax higher, allowing for higher contributions to the EU coffers.

 

Hang on, the story of the last decade as been a lowing of taxes! VED is much lower now than a decade ago with 70% of new cars zero rated in the first year and pretty much all cars falling in lower bands than their equivalent a decade ago. A decently powerful Octavia is paying less VED than a Fabia did a decade ago. In addition to this, that fuel efficiently has increased substantially and duty has been frozen we're paying far less tax per mile than we did a decade ago - both in absolute terms and especially in real terms.

 

It's simply not the case that the EU have imposed strict targets, allowing member states to tax more. The truth is the strict targets have driven technology R&D at a far faster rate, increasing our vehicle fleet's efficiency, benefiting (a) the European car industry as our products are move competitive on the global market, (b ) member states trade balances as we're not importing as much oil as we would otherwise had done and © us all personally as we're driving around in 50mpg+ cars where a decade ago it was closer to 30mpg (massive generalisation but the point is sound).

 

If the next decade can do for air quality what the last decade did for CO2 - brilliant.

Surely for health reasons we'd be better off regressing to tractor-engined diesels instead of these fancy modern-day people-killers?

Sniff,

To approach this hyped up non-problem from Mr. Darwins perspective.

It , the alledged pollution, will only kill off the doncier elements of humanity.

The fit will survive, subtly evolving if needs be.

Such is progress, evolutionary or technogically.

Nothing stays the same.

Anyway the various cataclysmic extinctions the Earth has suffered, before Man even existed in the form of Homo Sapiens, make Man a very very Vain animal for even thinking they are of any significence, in the greater scheme of things.

Marcus

Edited 1 May, 201511 yr by dieseldogg

That's pretty much spot-on. So car tax won't be 'increased' it will simply be measured differently. But the consequence will be higher tax for diesel.

 

like it was for "old" petrol engines when CO2 was used as the main VED calculator, a change will mean "old" diesels will pay higher VED.

A new Euro6 diesel with SCR system will have very low CO2 and NOx so will pay lower or no VED.

 

Its just a sliding scale: the older & more poluting in "current day terms" your car, is the more your VED will be.

Hang on, the story of the last decade as been a lowing of taxes! VED is much lower now than a decade ago with 70% of new cars zero rated in the first year and pretty much all cars falling in lower bands than their equivalent a decade ago. A decently powerful Octavia is paying less VED than a Fabia did a decade ago. In addition to this, that fuel efficiently has increased substantially and duty has been frozen we're paying far less tax per mile than we did a decade ago - both in absolute terms and especially in real terms.

 

It's simply not the case that the EU have imposed strict targets, allowing member states to tax more. The truth is the strict targets have driven technology R&D at a far faster rate, increasing our vehicle fleet's efficiency, benefiting (a) the European car industry as our products are move competitive on the global market, (b ) member states trade balances as we're not importing as much oil as we would otherwise had done and © us all personally as we're driving around in 50mpg+ cars where a decade ago it was closer to 30mpg (massive generalisation but the point is sound).

 

If the next decade can do for air quality what the last decade did for CO2 - brilliant.

 

Very well put.!