Porsche sulks over London congestion charge, starts a petition

The proposed changes would result an increase in congestion as people switch to low CO2 vehicles for London use, whilst retaining their larger vehicles for travelling outside of London. As many people may simply purchase an additional car it's purpose is unclear. Something similar occurred in Italy when they introduced 'odd' and 'even' usage days for entrance to Rome based on car year registration – people purchased additional cars to counteract the system. If this occurs it will have a greater negative impact on CO2 levels as more people purchase lower CO2 vehicles as an addition to their current car to avoid the charge. Also there will be another knock on effect, a dramatic increase in CO2 from the production of those additional vehicles that will inevitably be purchased. My argument is that if people can afford expensive ‘gas guzzlers’ they can also afford another £200 per month to purchase or lease one of the cars that will incur a zero charge. Which surely defeats the objective of this expensive/cumbersome charging system in the first place.

The majority of our CO2 emissions come from other sources – farming, energy production and air travel contribute far more yet we are doing little to face or attempt to tackle this. I believe the use of technology to overcome the problem of climate change is the answer, rather than punitive taxes that tend to only harm hard working individuals. There is also a real danger that desire to reduce CO2 will overtake the need for a strong economy and we risk destroying our financial stability and reputation if we ignore this fact. Raising tax revenue will not help develop the methods needed to counter the problems we face, especially as the UK global CO2 contribution as a whole only equates to 2% of total CO2 emissions. Efforts would be better spent encouraging realistic scientific solutions.

Technology not taxation will be the answer; we really need to put our attention toward nurturing our ingenuity to invent technology to counter the problems we face - raised taxes simply distract us from our goal.

RealityCheck has made a sincere attempt to discuss this issue, but his argument seems to amount to little more than special pleading.

"The proposed changes would result an increase in congestion as people switch to low CO2 vehicles for London use, whilst retaining their larger vehicles for travelling outside of London."

No - a net reduction, surely. This helps x heavy-polluting cars off the roads for five days a week, at least. The owners couldn't be driving the old gas guzzlers and their new green cars at the same time, surely?

"people purchased additional cars to counteract the system"

Maybe so, but the new ones will be lower CO2 - so net gain.

"a dramatic increase in CO2 from the production of those additional vehicles that will inevitably be purchased"

No - they would have been made anyway, and the numbers we're talking about are hardly "dramatic".

"The majority of our CO2 emissions come from other sources – farming, energy production and air travel contribute far more yet we are doing little to face or attempt to tackle this."

This is the one that really saddens me, RealityCheck. You sound like a decent bloke, but people are fighting tooth and nail with all the passion they possess, especially about emissions from energy production and air travel, and they're called everything from econazis to people who are trying to limit the operations and choices of free individuals in a free market. And at every turn people say, I'll change, if they will. If people won't even give up driving petrol-powered Porsches (how about an electric one instead?) then what chance do we have? Why should an Indian villager make changes in his life, if we bitterly resent someone who suggests that we could manage without that tumble dryer, maybe?

There never has been a "free" market, and unless we tackle climate change, the world, the market, and everyone in them will get a lot less free.

Which brings me to your real crusher:
"There is also a real danger that desire to reduce CO2 will overtake the need for a strong economy and we risk destroying our financial stability and reputation if we ignore this fact."

If we don't reduce CO2 there won't be a strong economy, and financial stability and reputation will be sick jokes. Please RealityCheck look at the facts: some of the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves are melting FIVE TIMES faster than they were just a few years ago. Add this with increase desertification, erratic rainfall possibly effecting the Asian monsoons, melting glaciers (the principal source of water in China and much of India and South America) and worlwide conflict over fresh water (for a start) and we have a planetary crisis unparalleled in human history brewing right under our noses.

If we can't look out from our 'oh so cool' technological bubbles long enough and hard enough to see that and deal with it, then we're little better than the technology that you have such faith in to save us all. Technology comes after, and it isn't the whole answer. First we need to care, and then to act.

i thought it was interesting that during an interview on the Radio 4 today programme last week the Porsche rep felt obliged to lie when asked about the CO2 emissions of the biggest Porsche 4x4 - the 'Cayenne'.

He said it was 'high two hundreds' whereas in reality the biggest Cayenne puts out a whopping 378 grams of CO2 per kilometre.

AND that is the best case scenario according to the website of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (www.smmtco2.co.uk). The reality will be that these cars put out much more than this.

Anyone who is daft enough or rich enough to drive on of these should be charged more than the proposed charge. well done Ken!!

Ok, Howaboutalittle. I’ll try and answer some of the points you’ve made.

“No - a net reduction, surely. This helps x heavy-polluting cars off the roads for five days a week, at least. The owners couldn't be driving the old gas guzzlers and their new green cars at the same time, surely?”

My point was also initially regarding congestion, pushing people from their large family cars or ‘gas guzzlers’ as the media likes to call them will have a negative effect on congestion in London. As stated before, people will buy a second lower CO2 car to enable themselves to drive in for free. These cars will be able to enter London free of charge, which is the negative. This change will actually encourage more car use in London. More cars for free = more net pollution. And congested traffic means cars sitting with their engines running, so more pollution than current levels. Plus add to this the production of every additional lower CO2 car and the CO2 this subsequently generates and we are in a losing situation - generating extra taxation and bureaucracy is the only winner here.

“And at every turn people say, I'll change, if they will. If people won't even give up driving petrol-powered Porsches (how about an electric one instead?) then what chance do we have? Why should an Indian villager make changes in his life, if we bitterly resent someone who suggests that we could manage without that tumble dryer, maybe?”

I agree with you in part, that people need to adopt some element of change. I myself have chosen to travel by train rather than plane wherever possible, as I understand that air travel is far more damaging as the pollution is spread throughout the upper atmosphere. I also don’t use a tumble dryer or other wasteful home gadgets.

The real problem is that people here in the UK will be unlikely to change their habits if they see that the Indian or Chinese villager/city dweller is not changing his ways too. We constantly keep hearing that China and India are expanding economically at huge rates. And if you watch a fair bit of the business news you’ll see that they are spending their new found wealth on cars and the same household items such as washing machines and tumble dyers that you want everyone else to stop using. Should we really embark on punitive economic measures that will damage our economy if the rest of the World is going to carry on regardless? I believe there is zero point us destroying our economy and setting off on this route if the large proportion of the developing World are not active in this too.

“There never has been a "free" market, and unless we tackle climate change, the world, the market, and everyone in them will get a lot less free….If we can't look out from our 'oh so cool' technological bubbles long enough and hard enough to see that and deal with it, then we're little better than the technology that you have such faith in to save us all. Technology comes after, and it isn't the whole answer. First we need to care, and then to act.”

I’m not so sure, one thing we can learn from history is that the human race is quite resilient, which is why we dominate this planet in such a gigantic way. We must adapt and change with the planet to a certain degree, which is what we’ve been doing for thousands of years. I do agree that people should care a lot more, and I think that there is positive progress as far as this is concerned. Although I believe the answer still lies in a scientific technological breakthrough. Use of our human ingenuity will resolve this problem ultimately.

Please have a read the following article - it is clear many scientists are already focusing their attention to this problem:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/...

MrRealityCheck...do you live in London? Have you ever lived in London? Doesn't sound like it. I had a NIGHTMARE owning one car in London, let alone two!

I don't know what universe you live in, but seriously, I can't think of anyone I know in London (I live in lovely Brighton now) trying to find the space to park two cars and paying the increasingly extortionate insurance/tax/garage costs.

London has fantastic transport. Overcrowded and expensive yes, but not as overcrowded, expensive and punitive as the roads. People WILL use public transport. I wish it was cheaper and less crowded, but when you have nearly 9 million people living in about 400 square miles, your going to have to develop midget pills to ease that one.

Just to be open & honest, I'm going to buy a Porsche this year. A little Boxter as a weekend treat. I'll probably do 5K miles a year when the sun is out. The rest of the time, I'll do my best to use public transport.

"one thing we can learn from history is that the human race is quite resilient, which is why we dominate this planet in such a gigantic way. We must adapt and change with the planet to a certain degree, which is what we’ve been doing for thousands of years"

The problem with that statement is that we are dealing with something that has far more inertia than you seem to understand. The "thousands of years" you talk about is less than the blink of an eye in the big scheme of things. We have no idea about resilience, talk to a shark about that, we are utter newcomers. We have changed the world massively and in an unbelievably short space of time and that is the problem. When you measure things in the blink of an eye, the measurement is often quite meaningless. If bird flu ever gets off the ground (no pun intended...) then lets see how resilient we are.