Taxing Gas Guzzlers Fails to Reduce Emissions in London

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gas
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the effectiveness of taxing gas guzzlers in London as a means to reduce emissions. Participants explore the implications of new low emission standards, the enforcement mechanisms involving cameras, and the fairness of penalizing drivers of older vehicles that meet past emission standards. The conversation touches on various perspectives regarding environmental policy, vehicle ownership, and the socio-economic impacts of such regulations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference Sir Mark Moody-Stuart's assertion that taxing gas guzzlers has not led to a significant change in consumer behavior regarding vehicle choice.
  • Concerns are raised about the fairness of penalizing drivers for owning vehicles that were compliant with emission standards at the time of purchase.
  • There are questions about how the enforcement cameras can determine if a vehicle is emitting too much pollution, with some arguing that the system is inherently flawed.
  • Some participants suggest that the regulations disproportionately affect those who require larger vehicles for work, while others argue that the regulations are necessary for environmental reasons.
  • There is a discussion about the limited geographical scope of the new regulations, with some clarifying that they apply only in certain areas of London and primarily to commercial vehicles.
  • Several participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of the measures, questioning whether they will lead to meaningful reductions in emissions.
  • Some participants highlight the potential for technological solutions, such as license plate recognition systems, to aid in enforcement and monitoring of vehicle emissions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the effectiveness or fairness of the new regulations. Disagreements persist regarding the implications for vehicle owners, the adequacy of enforcement measures, and the broader impact on emissions reduction.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on how emissions are measured for individual vehicles, the dependence on historical compliance standards, and the socio-economic implications for those reliant on larger vehicles for their livelihoods.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals concerned with environmental policy, urban planning, vehicle emissions regulations, and the socio-economic impacts of such policies on different demographics.

  • #31
Sounds like a good idea to me, except for a few problems as already mentioned. In my opinion, the US should also grow a pair and sign the friggin' Kyoto protocol, as well as up gas mileage requirements. Since I will be around to see the future, the environment is my main beef, even if global warming and climate change aren't happening, we still need to better these technologies.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Evo said:
Cameras to check emissions? You mean they are blowing smoke?

I interviewed at a company once that uses remote technology to sense the quantity and quality of the emissions emitted by a vehicle. Yes, it can and is being done. They also have a camera so they can get your license and send you a ticket for emitting too much bad stuff. They build this stuff in Tucson AZ.
 
  • #33
ShawnD said:
How do you get around then? Parking is not readily available in most cities, so you can't just drive to some arbitrary point and take the bus from there unless you expect your car to get towed while you're at work.

edit: Actually I tried that once. I parked my car near the bus station then took the bus to university. When I came back to my car, I had been issued a warning that my car will be towed if it's seen in that location again.

I've been taking the bus to my university for over a year and a half now. I park my car at the -- now pay attention -- PARK & RIDE and take the bus.

Driving an hour 1 way to my university and paying for parking? Stupidity on that level should be punished by death.
 
  • #34
Dont you have a parking pass loops?

My drive is 30 mins each way, but I know people that are easily 1 hr away that drive every day.
 
  • #35
Cyrus said:
Dont you have a parking pass loops?
Don't you still have to pay for the parking pass? At a lot of universities, this can be exhorbitantly expensive. Here they're even considering doing what a lot of other universities do and restrict parking on campus for students. Though, the biggest problem around our campus aren't the commuters (students/staff/faculty) who drive in the morning and park for the day then leave (sure, we get some rush hour traffic, but nothing horrendous), but those who live on or near campus and drive everywhere they go all day long leading to continuous congestion on the same roads that have heavy pedestrian traffic. It sort of self-perpetuates the problem...the harder it gets to cross the street to get to the restaurant nearby for a quick lunch, the more likely someone is to say, "... it!" and get in their car and drive someplace further rather than play chicken crossing the roads. I keep recommending pedestrian bridges to the university, but the problem is the roads in question are town owned. Since the town just voted down an additional fee for road improvements, I doubt things like pedestrian bridges are going to get much priority.

My drive is 30 mins each way, but I know people that are easily 1 hr away that drive every day.

If I had a commute that long, I'd take trains or buses if they were available. That much driving every day just adds to congestion on the roads and when every individual has their own car, more emissions. The other benefit is you can sit on a bus or train and relax for that half hour or hour and get other things done...whether it's reading for pleasure, or studying, doing some homework, etc., you can fit in another hour or two a day of productivity so you have that much less to do when you get home, or you can simply relax and unwind from the day (stare out the window, listen to music, take a nap) rather than spending that time having to focus on driving and getting aggravated with everyone else on the road. To me, this is a great benefit of public transportation, aside from the environmental aspects.
 
  • #36
If I took the train, it would easily take well over an hour, instead of 30 mins because the train has to go from my house, all the way down to dc, and the back into maryland. Also, I was at school many times past 2am working on projects. The train and buses stop running after that time. Using them just wouldn't work. I really enjoy driving, so for me its better than sitting on a bus. The parking permit is something like ~200 bucks for an entire year. The metro would be around $5.00 a day just for the train. I don't think public transportation is that cheap around here.
 
  • #37
gas guzzlers?

some states, I think do this, but add a portion of each year's car's tag for the license fee for how big the engine is---make it exponential (to use a word from a recently locked thread)---so add a fee of, say, $200 to a large hummer (engine size that is) each year, and $0 for a 90cc motorcycle.
 
  • #38
I wonder why people want big engined cars, in the UK the maximum speed limit (on motorways) is 70 mph, A roads 60 mph and the rest 40, 30 even 20 mph, one just can
not use the potential performance and, nowadays your average 1600cc engine will last 100,000 miles plus, owning a sports/super car can only be for the posing factor and keeping a minority part of the motor industry open.
4*4s should be left for farmers tradesmen who actually (use) 4wd.