Advertisement

Transport for London research shows c-charge actually increases CO2 emissions


Transport for London research shows c-charge actually increases CO2 emissions

Transport for London research shows c-charge actually increases CO2 emissions

Enlarge Photo
Porsche has consistently claimed London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s argument that his new congestion charge will help reduce CO2 levels in the UK capital is based on false information and now the carmaker has some substantial evidence. A report from King’s College never publicly released by Transport for London (TfL), and only discovered after Porsche filed its judicial review, reveals Livingstone’s new emissions-related congestion charge is estimated by TfL’s own consultants to increase CO2 in Greater London by 182,000 tons.

This not only contradicts the Mayor’s claims that his charge will reduce CO2, but also directly contradicts claims made previously by Transport for London.

In a report prepared for TfL by King’s College, the original research group used to assess the effects of the c-charge, researchers discovered the charge would likely create a “very high disbenefit” not only for CO2 but also for NOx, NO2 and PM10, all crucial air quality components.

The report indicates the increase is largely caused by increased car mileage outside of the congestion charging zone as a result of the new charge. These findings directly contradict both Mayor Livingstone’s and TfL’s claims.

This is the second discovery of false information used by Livingstone to back his new c-charge. Previously Livingstone referenced an independent poll back in December when he claimed the public were in support of the new charges. However, according to the results of the study most Londoners were against the introduction.
Posted in:
Advertisement
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (13)
  1. Wow.
    I just gets better and better...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. ok, thats interesting. i wonder how the hell you get 182,000 tonnes of CO2 coming from a small number of cars POSSIBLY going a couple km out of their way so that the rich snobs inside can avoid a hefty fee.

    the problem that I have with this is that its all just sensationalism. anyone can justify any variation in what ever variables that you need to come up with an estimate like this. we just dont know the math. maybe these people are assuming that everyone who owns a taxable car will drive around the congestion zone every day, when this isn't necessarily the case. some people may not drive every day, some may not drive a taxable car every day, and certainly some will not even bother circling the congestion zone.

    once you start making a certain amount of money, you can justify spending 50$ in taxes to cross through a certain area instead of spending more than 50$ worth of your time to circle around.

    like i've been saying. if your time is worth 50$ an hour to your employer, then are you going to waste an hour going out of your way to not spend that 50$? no. it doesnt make any sense. and surely the people who own these taxable vehicles in london are making MUCH more than 50$ an hour.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. Chris,

    your arguments are sheer speculation unless you know what studies they performed and on what basis their finds are on. Anyone can argue 100 ways but until you know what data they're using to make these claims on then its not valid.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. craig; theres no speculation there. the article says that this group says that people will drive out of their way to avoid paying a tax. i argue that it would be stupid to do so, because the people who would be paying this tax are the people who can afford the best in luxury, and thus their time is worth a lot of money, thus making it very inefficient for them to spend a lot of their time to go out of their way to spend a little less money compared to what they normally make.

    the point here is, that they're saying the number of people who would go out of their way to avoid this taxation area is so vast that 182,000 tonnes of CO2 will be produced every year. that is a lot of people who are going very far out of their way, very often, to avoid a relatively small fine on some of the richest people in all of England.

    this group is basically saying there are people out there who would drive 10 miles out of their way to save 5c/gallon on their gasoline. not only are you wasting your time but you're burning more gas than you're buying with the money that you ended up saving. and then you're losing your time that is worth maybe 100$/h to some one.

    we laugh at 50$ a day taxation to drive into a certain part of london, but realize, thats peanuts to the people who this applies to. these people are driving in cars that cost upwards of 80k euros, and easily make 6 figures every year.

    i guarantee that 95% of the people that this charge will effect will either chose to "drive the A6 instead of the Lambo" to work, or will just pay the damned fine. then the 5% that are stupid and stubborn, will really "stick it to Big Ken" and drive around,.... ONLY WHEN THEY'RE DRIVING THE BIG CARS THOUGH.

    like i said, its all BS. this will go into effect, and london will make a small amount of cash off a very small population who drive through a small portion of london. and those people wont give a flying fornication.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. Go Porsche!!!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. Let's funnel that 182,000 tonnes of CO2 straight down Red Ken's scrawny little neck....
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. Go Porsche, is right!!! Why would'nt you protect your business and standup against a somewhat anti capitalist agenda.

    Ironic how seventy years ago the English were fighting against the Germans for similar reasons.

    Although Chirs with his "rich snobs" comment is apparently all for making life fair and spread the wealth philosophy.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  8. Bottom line is, it's wrong. It's excessive and it draws so much attention because it's nuts. It's like the guy suing the cleaners for $12 million because they lost his pants a few months ago. The numbers serve to draw attention, and that's what Ken wants. I only hope he is thwarted so that this movement doesn't take hold elsewhere...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. Chris my friend... I want to see you a happy man. So how about every time you drive into the city center of whatever town you live in you send a check for $50 to Red Ken and see if it's peanuts to you. You seem to be so eager to part with your money that you must have a lot of it. I salute you.

    Me? I like to keep my money and not be a victim of the modern day equivalent of highway robbery. It doesn't matter if I choose to drive a Mack truck with several trailers or a detuned Prius. It's MY money, they are MY roads and I don't want to be forced to give either up to a delusional asswipe like Red Ken.

    But, again, that's me.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. I agree. Paying high prices for gasoline is market driven, and that's the way the world works, but this sort of thing is highway robbery, plain and simple...

    Whenever government steps in THIS much, it leads to disaster...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  11. Go Porsche..... give the Greenies hell on behalf of a sports car fans !!!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  12. yer we pay high prices for gas but the fact is the government tax is far higher than the actual cost in fuel...the government should do the right thing for the economy andcut the futy so we can pay 50p a litre
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  13. I agree with Craig, again, the article says that this level of Co2 is LARGELY due to but not solely due to drivers opting to drive around the delimited zone. You can't assume anything without reading the detailed study. The article above is simply references the study.

    As for the anti-snob rich people attitude, what's up with that? are all wealthy people snobs? are they snobs because they drive a Cayenne (or any luxury vehicle)? or just because they can afford these cars (and perhaps you can't)?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion? Join the conversation!

Advertisement

Take Us With You!

 
Advertisement
Advertisement

Research New Cars

Go!


 
© 2014 MotorAuthority. All Rights Reserved. MotorAuthority is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.