Filed under: Porsche, Legislation and Policy, UK
London's Congestion Charge will increase CO2 emissions?
We don't want to take sides on London's Congestion Charge, but we are keenly interested in what the charge will mean for the environment and motorists. Ken Livingstone claims that the charge is intended to reduce congestion and CO2 emissions while Porsche claims that the charges are unnecessarily high and unfair. New evidence that Porsche has located, though, indicates that CO2 emissions will actually increase if the charges go into effect as planned. In fact, Porsche claims that the mayors office was aware of this report and chose not to release it.
The report, prepared for Transport for London by King's College London's Environmental Research Group, predicted that the charges would create a "very high disbenefit" not only for CO2 but also for NOx, NO2 and particulate matter. The reason cited for the increased emissions is that drivers will choose to drive around London instead of driving straight through, which would be a much shorter trip. London's emissions may drop, but the surrounding areas will be disproportionately hurt.
According to Andy Goss, Managing Director of Porsche Cars GB, "We always knew the environmental impact of this unfair tax would be minimal, now we know it will make matters worse. The Mayor and TfL need to explain why this report was not disclosed and why they want to increase taxes on motorists that will increase CO2. It seems absolutely clear that the report shows that not only have Mayor Livingstone and TfL not presented all of the information to the public about the impact of his £25 charge, but that they have also created a new tax on motorists that will do the exact opposite of its stated goal." Read more of Porsche's response here.
[Source: Porsche]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
why not the LS2LS7? 1:31AM (4/13/2008)
Yes Porsche, you've sussed it. It's not really to reduce CO2, it's a tax on the rich and overly consumptive in the congested part of London.
But you know what, that isn't illegal either.
Reply
Kevin Nugent 2:51AM (4/13/2008)
well it sounds alot like the nyc congestion pricing plan
Reply
David Wright 3:48AM (4/13/2008)
"..The reason cited for the increased emissions is that drivers will choose to drive around London instead of driving straight through, which would be a much shorter trip. London's emissions may drop, but the surrounding areas will be disproportionately hurt..."
What an idiotic comment. Has the author ever tried "driving straight through" London??? That already takes twice as long as going around! Nobody drives through London by choice.
I'm not surprised that the Mayor's office "failed to release" this report, and binned it instead.
Reply
Simon 4:20AM (4/13/2008)
The other problem with the new proposals is it wipes out an incentive for electric cars. Under the new plans the lowest emission cars also become exempt as well. Why would people bother going with an electric car?
Under the existing plans you have seen quite a number of sales of the Reva electric car in London due to its congestion charge exempt status. Although I hate that little car there are more choices for an electric car on the way such as the Think City.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 5:36AM (4/13/2008)
This is obviously a report which has been paid for by Porsche. You only have to look at what happened with Merkel "leaning in" on opposition in Bruxelles and the out come of this "leaning" on the latest EU CO2 proposals....
Another couple of reasons that it's idiotic is that some contaminants don't disperse as easily as others and remain more local to the problem, while the report is suggesting that the the LCC is bad for everything. Furthermore the historic evidence shows excellent results thanks to the LCC not only for contaminats but for travel times as well.
It also seems to neglect the push towards cars with lower CO2, and electric cars as well as commuters who have opted for public transport since the LCC was introduced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Environment
I'd be interested to know how much Porsche paid for the report. I'd be even more interested to know if the UK have any attention of matching the Spanish and French penalty tax for idiots who still insist on buying tractors.
Reply
Taser 11:32AM (4/13/2008)
Karl you have ZERO evidence to support your assertion that Porsche paid for the study. Stop making crap up.
This was a Transport for London study-who opposes Porsche's position.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 5:51PM (4/13/2008)
It's an undeniable fact that the EU CO2 regulations have been in recent months either delayed or seriously watered down by Germany on at least three occasions. The final outcome of this German intervention can be seen in the current EU car CO2 adopted proposal:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/co2/co2_home.htm
"...The Commission's proposal will reduce the average emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars in the EU from around 160 grams per kilometre to 130 grams per kilometre in 2012...."
The proposal was weakened back on October 2007 by German manufacturers alone:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/08/business/cars.php
There is also a misconception as to why German cars are the worst in terms of emissions. It is certainly true that they make a lot more larger cars. But you will find that most articles overlook the fact that there are a lot of small cars as well, including the smallest (Smart). If you visit the VCACARFUELDATA webpage you will find that the first German car come in in 18th position. These tables, furthermore, don't consider the price of cars. When price is factored in as well, the first German car comes in a lot lower than even 18th.
It's not just that the Germans make a lot of big cars, they also make the cars with the worst emissions independently of size. The French and Italians have been working hard on reducing their emissions since they signed the ACEA agreement in 1998:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Publications/2007/2007-11_car_company_co2_report.pdf
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 5:58PM (4/13/2008)
... and here are some more links
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2345883,00.html
http://news.smh.com.au/eu-fuels-controversy-with-fine-proposals-for-carmakers/20071220-1i4s.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2330532,00.html
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 6:02PM (4/13/2008)
... the EU worst lobbying award...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/08/bmw-daimler-and-porsche-win-worst-eu-lobbying-award/
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 6:08PM (4/13/2008)
I doubt you can talk about zero evidence:
my first posting includes a link with the DOCUMENTED effect of the LCC in terms of pollutants. The effect was extremely positive.
This new "study" talks about "predictions" and not about results. While the current facts regarding the LCC are quite clear, why would you prefer to soup up your own predictions (and based on these assumptions)?...
Reply
Sally 9:44PM (4/13/2008)
Haha like I'm going to believe what Porsche says. They have an obvious incentive for convincing consumers that the charge is pointless, AND let's not forget how much money Porsche has. THEY paid the people giving this report.
Reply
Taser 10:49PM (4/13/2008)
You wrote: "This is obviously a report which has been paid for by Porsche."
This autobloggreen article above clearly states that "[t]he report, [was]prepared for Transport for London by King's College London's Environmental Research Group .."
Stop making stuff up.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 12:01AM (4/14/2008)
pretty much all TfL do is make reports....
if a third party, such as the king's college "environmental research group" writes a report for them, and decides to speculate on what the future may hold (rather than update the analysis on what has happened to date), then I'm suggesting that this be read with a pinch of salt.
Any speculation about what the future may hold, even if based on the best mathematical models (e.g. the weather) should be taken with a pinch of salt. But in this case we're not even talking about a great mathematical model. The facts to date regarding the LCC point in the opposite direction. And the series of assumptions are so silly you have to wonder what their motivation is. If the Germans have already "swayed" opinion in Bruxelles, logic would have it that they are more than capable of doing the same thing with this "environmental research group" which is infinitely smaller and less powerful than the EU.
take a better look at the video for the best-lobbyist award.....
Reply
Scatter 4:41AM (4/14/2008)
This focus on emissions within London is misleading in my view (although necessary I guess from TfL's point of view).
Looking over the life cycle of the cars which will be bought as a result of this policy, emissions will be greatly reduced. All those people who would have bought Band G cars buying Fs and Es. All those people buying Band B cars who would have bought Cs and Ds. That's going to add up.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 11:07AM (4/14/2008)
Point taken. Consumer choices leaning towards smaller segments is happening across Europe (except Germany). This is especially so for SUVs where Spain and France have seen whopping drops of 33%-56% !
Another point is the positive effect that the LCC and CO2 based taxes in UK, Spain, France and Italy is having on emissions within the same segment. The Citroen C5 and Fiat Bravo are the latest examples of larger cars with low emissions (149 g CO2 and 119 g) at a very reasonable price. In all, the manufacturers have been able to react very quickly.
Then there is a documented shift of some commuters toward public transport....
and all this adds up to an increase in emissions levels???
Reply
Dan 11:36AM (4/14/2008)
I think they grossly underestimate the number of people this will convince to buy even smaller, cleaner, more efficient vehicles.
People are not idiots (although Americans frequently are), and the higher proportionate use of gasoline in this "around the block" maneuver might just equal out the congestion charge.
Thus being equal, people would rather buy a car that slips under that radar, rather than be inconvenienced by driving AROUND London.
Reply
Niralisherni 12:25PM (4/14/2008)
The premise sounds quite ridiculous, that emissions will increase! I totally agree with you No. 1 when you say "It's not really to reduce CO2, it's a tax on the rich and overly consumptive in the congested part of London.".
Reply
Luke 5:36AM (4/17/2008)
An increase might be the immediate impact, but sooner or later people will get sick of the 3 hour drive around the CC zone and just get on the tube.
Reply