PLANS to hit motorists with green taxes are purely revenue-generators, it has been claimed.
Guernsey Motor Trades Association chairman Michael Wager (pictured) said recommendations put forward by the Energy Policy Group to clamp down on CO2 emissions and address local energy usage were targeting the motorist unfairly.
‘It says we have the same level of CO2 emissions that we had in 1990 and that the main contributors are energy production and motor vehicles. But how do the States of Guernsey know this? There is no emissions testing carried out in any form so how have they come up with that conclusion.’
The group is recommending investigating a carbon or energy tax that could add 5p per litre to all fuel oils and a vehicle emissions tax that might put £3,125 on the price of a gas-guzzler. This money could be used to fund schemes such as a Guernsey renewable energy commission and energy advice centre.
But Mr Wager is not impressed by how the States is going about it.
‘Do they just assume that because we have more cars on the road, they must be polluting more?
‘A car built now, compared to one in 1990, would have minimal carbon emissions.
‘The GMTA has been pressurising the Environment Department and the Traffic Committee before that to introduce emissions testing.’
He said that too often the motor industry was seen as a soft target.
Another local businessman, who did not wish to be named, said the States had gone about the matter in the wrong way.
‘People should be educated with the help of government before they go ahead and charge in this way.
‘Just look at the way the island has responded to recycling.
‘If the States did the same with trying to reduce carbon emissions, I reckon we could see a 20% reduction in 12 months.
‘You have to remember that in 1990 we didn’t have the number of offices that we do now. When you drive past Les Banques at night, it’s lit up like a Christmas tree.’
He said simple methods such as educating islanders about the benefits of using low-energy lightbulbs, turning off lights as they left a room and turning the tap off while they brushed their teeth would improve energy efficiency and were easy ways in which to encourage people to do so.
Mr Wager said the States had jumped on the ‘green bandwagon’ by saying that everything to do with 4×4s and other large vehicles was bad. ‘Are they actually saying what they want to do is minimise pollution or to generate more revenue?
‘I don’t think putting £3,000 more on each new car is necessarily for the good of the environment.
‘The person who is in a position to buy those vehicles is probably not going to be put off by that amount.
‘The best thing to do is to introduce emissions testing so the States can use facts and not guesswork.
‘It will also mean that we can ensure vehicles will produce the lowest emissions possible.
‘Once we that, we know where we have to go and what we have to do.’
Mr Wager said he would also be keen to see how commercial vehicles fared in any emissions testing.
The States will debate the report on Wednesday 25 June.
If accepted, various departments would be sent away to investigate the recommendations before taking reports back to the House with firm proposals.
Loading ...
6 Article Comments
The smaller the car the better. Easier to drive and park. Can’t figure out why anyone in Guernsey would want the hassle of having a larger vehicle than was absolutely necessary. OK I can understand if you have a large family or need the space for tools but the abundance of large vehicles doesn’t encourage the healthy life style of the pedestrian or cyclist. An old chap know told me that when he first went to work he walked from St. Saviours church to town, worked all day as a builder and then walked home again. He doesn’t enjoy walking the roads anymore poor chap has been banished to the cliff paths.
Get all the 4×4’s off the roads, they are dangerous, and not necessary on the island.
The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.
All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?
Yes Mike - Ban them all!! Won’t somebody please think of the children.
When you have removed the 4×4s, the drivers will have to buy replacement vehicles. Will they be ‘magicked’ out of thin air at no environmental cost? I think not. Better to leave existing vehicles to run out their natural lives, not force the creation of new ones.
The EcoFool bandwagon will be needing more seats soon, but I see you have reserved yours already.
I would be very cautious about taxing cars by co2 alone. In England we are about to do this and most 4×4 will not pay more tax, why you ask, because most of them are diesel and have low co2 emissions, only the reaaly big engined diesel 4×4 will be caught if you adopt the UK version.
Also going through the figures it would seam to me that some car companies are not exactly telling the truth, compare:
2008 BMW 630 189g co2
2001 Volvo S40 2 litre 227g co2
This does not make sense to me, a 6 cylinder 3 litre car has lower emissions than a 4 cylinder 2 litre.
There are also other anomalies like this.
By the way I also hate 4×4s totally unnecessary vehicles for most people.
Carrot and stick - The States seem to have mastered the stick part, but are forgetting the carrot part ever so slightly.
They should be providing significant tax breaks for diesels and small engined petrols (<1400cc). As mentioned abrove, hybrid technology remains a gimmick for the now; the environmental benefits are debatable at best. In London (where I live for half the year), they remain a natty way of avoiding the congestion charge and little else.