Honestly, for all the fanfare that the Stern Report received when it was launched a few weeks ago, you couldn't help feel that the politicians and corporations would all fall in line with it's recommendations - spend more money now to help prevent the effects of climate change, or face far more damaging economic consequences later.
But the message hasn't seemed to affect British businesses, or the Treasury. Somehow they all feel that Britain isn't implicated by the report.
While Richmond council released it's plans to base it's council parking rates on vehicle emissions, it was praised by David Milliband as it moved to tax the polluter. Other councils seem ready to follow suit. But what about businesses? Well, to give you an idea, to quote the Guardian, "Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, called the idea of raising taxes to protect the environment "horse shit"."
Does Gordon Brown have the nerve and will to make a difference? In next month's budget, he has the opportunity to really make Vehicle Excise Duty mean something. In the late 90's VED was changed to tax vehicles according to their CO2 emissions. It is a green tax meant to change a consumer's choice of vehicle, as well as raise revenue. At the time the government was responding to the Kyoto challenge.
In March this year, the Chancellor raised the VED by £45, and created a new VED band G, which included many of the large 4x4 models that plague the city centres. However, that increase was hugely unsubstantial, and led to us publicly criticising his credentials as a 'green' chancellor.
This December he has an opportunity to really take his own medicine, from his own treasury. Follow the Stern Report's findings, and use the VED for what it was intended for. There needs to be substantial ££ incentives for people to choose a fuel-efficient vehicle, and at the same time he needs to throw down the gauntlet and strongly penalise those who choose to drive a highly polluting vehicle.
Does the government have the will to make a difference? You can help today and tell the PM by signing our new petition on the Downing Street petition site - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/moretax4guzzlers/
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Edinburgh Ready To Launch!
Well, we are counting the days until the newest Alliance group launches in Edinburgh. Already they have received lots of press attention - watch out for Gregory on Good Morning Scotland this Friday 24th November.
We've been busy little bees creating a new ticket just for 'Auld Reekie' which looks great, and just like the original. They should have some 4x4 drivers sweating buckets when they return to their vehicles after the Saturday shopping spree.
According to Gregory Norminton, spokesperson for the group, ‘With the seemingly unstoppable growth in transport-related emissions, there has never been a greater need to promote a cultural shift away from irresponsible driving. Does anyone really need a powerful off-road vehicle to get around the streets of Edinburgh? The fact is that urban 4x4s are appallingly inefficient and dirty, burning as much fuel as three SMART cars and emitting as many ground-level pollutants as two estate cars. They are dangerous to pedestrians, other car users, and even their own drivers: insurance data shows that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than ordinary cars.’
‘With global warming threatening all of us, the time has come to dissuade people from buying gas-guzzling vehicles. The recent announcement of Richmond Borough Council’s plan to increase parking charges for the more polluting vehicles is a sign that – in some places at least – sense is beginning to prevail on this one. We will be campaigning on a local and national level to persuade councils to increase parking charges for the more polluting vehicles.’
If you want to get involved, come out on Saturday and join them 2pm near the National Gallery, or visit their blog site at http://stopedinburgh4x4s.blogspot.com
We've been busy little bees creating a new ticket just for 'Auld Reekie' which looks great, and just like the original. They should have some 4x4 drivers sweating buckets when they return to their vehicles after the Saturday shopping spree.
According to Gregory Norminton, spokesperson for the group, ‘With the seemingly unstoppable growth in transport-related emissions, there has never been a greater need to promote a cultural shift away from irresponsible driving. Does anyone really need a powerful off-road vehicle to get around the streets of Edinburgh? The fact is that urban 4x4s are appallingly inefficient and dirty, burning as much fuel as three SMART cars and emitting as many ground-level pollutants as two estate cars. They are dangerous to pedestrians, other car users, and even their own drivers: insurance data shows that urban 4x4s are involved in 25% more accidents than ordinary cars.’
‘With global warming threatening all of us, the time has come to dissuade people from buying gas-guzzling vehicles. The recent announcement of Richmond Borough Council’s plan to increase parking charges for the more polluting vehicles is a sign that – in some places at least – sense is beginning to prevail on this one. We will be campaigning on a local and national level to persuade councils to increase parking charges for the more polluting vehicles.’
If you want to get involved, come out on Saturday and join them 2pm near the National Gallery, or visit their blog site at http://stopedinburgh4x4s.blogspot.com
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Are all 4x4s the same?
We receive many emails from 4x4 owners who have been ticketed. Most are strongly defensive about their 'freedom' to buy and drive whatever they want, as if their materialist value was a democratic right. Some people argue that they have a genuine need for 4-wheel drive, and were wrongly ticketed. And some criticize us for 'tarring all 4x4 owners with the same brush'.
So, the question is, are all 4x4s the same? Should we in fact be recommending one 4x4 over the others based on it's environmental or safety credentials? This was the question posed to us last month when we were invited to visit Honda's environmental manager. John Kingston wanted to discuss the new generation (cleaner and greener) Honda CR-V. Their position was not all 4x4s are the same and the CR-V was the best one. And would we please remove any mention of the CR-V from our parking tickets (mentioned in the emissions table)?
Interestingly, we had gone wanting to find out why Honda was one of the auto manufacturers suing the State of California for introducing new legislation limiting CO2 emissions. You see, our argument is: If an auto manufacturer wants to be seen as green, then it's important that as a whole they reduce the overall CO2 emissions of their car fleet. You can't simultaneously promote more 4x4s that emits 220 gmCO2 /km and hope to reduce your overall fleet emissions to 120 gmCO2/km with a few hybrid sales (which emit around 108 gmCO2 /km).
The argument we make is this. Based on the overwhelming and urgent scientific evidence about climate change, and including the findings in the Stern Report this week, and remembering that all of the manufacturers have voluntarily agreed to reduce their CO2 emissions to 120gm/km by 2012, why are most auto makers continuing to agressively advertise 4x4s which emit from 220 up to 380(gm CO2/km)? Their fundamental integrity has to be questioned.
We need solutions to our environmental crisis if we are going to survive as a species. We have to put aside our fairytale dreams and face the facts.
Needless to say, Honda is apparently supplying new CR-V's with a windscreen sticker that says something to the tune of 'Please don't ticket my Honda - Not all 4x4s are the same'. Well, aren't they?
So, the question is, are all 4x4s the same? Should we in fact be recommending one 4x4 over the others based on it's environmental or safety credentials? This was the question posed to us last month when we were invited to visit Honda's environmental manager. John Kingston wanted to discuss the new generation (cleaner and greener) Honda CR-V. Their position was not all 4x4s are the same and the CR-V was the best one. And would we please remove any mention of the CR-V from our parking tickets (mentioned in the emissions table)?
Interestingly, we had gone wanting to find out why Honda was one of the auto manufacturers suing the State of California for introducing new legislation limiting CO2 emissions. You see, our argument is: If an auto manufacturer wants to be seen as green, then it's important that as a whole they reduce the overall CO2 emissions of their car fleet. You can't simultaneously promote more 4x4s that emits 220 gmCO2 /km and hope to reduce your overall fleet emissions to 120 gmCO2/km with a few hybrid sales (which emit around 108 gmCO2 /km).
The argument we make is this. Based on the overwhelming and urgent scientific evidence about climate change, and including the findings in the Stern Report this week, and remembering that all of the manufacturers have voluntarily agreed to reduce their CO2 emissions to 120gm/km by 2012, why are most auto makers continuing to agressively advertise 4x4s which emit from 220 up to 380(gm CO2/km)? Their fundamental integrity has to be questioned.
We need solutions to our environmental crisis if we are going to survive as a species. We have to put aside our fairytale dreams and face the facts.
Needless to say, Honda is apparently supplying new CR-V's with a windscreen sticker that says something to the tune of 'Please don't ticket my Honda - Not all 4x4s are the same'. Well, aren't they?
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Health Warnings on Car Ads
A year ago, Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation suggested that 4x4s should be made to carry health warnings similar to tobacco products. His reasoning was that "the gap between image and reality with SUVs is reminiscent of that in tobacco industry advertising. After all, the scientific consensus over the causes and consequences of climate change closely mirrors that about smoking and cancer. And in the same way as the tobacco advertisers, car advertisers have tried to associate their product with masculinity, health and the outdoor life. So shouldn't SUVs now be labelled in the same way as cigarette packets, with messages such as ...'Climate change can seriously damage your health'?"
According to Simms, "If you peer at the small print on car adverts, you can find out how many grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre a car will produce. But that's meaning- less without comparative figures. The government plans to pilot a new labelling scheme based on the green-to-red, A-to-G European labels that are found on electrical appliances." He adds, "Canadian government research, backed by World Bank findings, shows that there is a direct relationship between the size of warnings and the effect on personal behaviour. 'The larger the health warning message,' reports Health Canada, 'the more effective it is at encouraging smokers to stop smoking.'"
Finally, he suggests "Like those for cigarettes, the warnings could cover 30-50 per cent of the vehicles' surface area. People could still drive them, but when they did, they would publicly accept the consequences of their actions, and help the education drive on traffic safety and global warming."
In 2005, a study in the British Medical Journal also suggested health warnings, but based on their poor design. They called for 'warning notices on SUVs to help inform consumers of the increased risks of severe injuries and death associated with the vehicles. Because SUV bonnets are higher than those of cars, there is a more severe initial impact on the upper leg and pelvis, and a doubling of injuries to vulnerable regions such as the head, thorax, and abdomen. '
Given all the news about 4x4s lately, is the writing on the wall for health warnings? Well, maybe not as dramatic as Simms recommends, but we have been noticing how inappropriately tiny the CO2 and fuel-efficiency figures are on large billboards as well as magazine ads. You have to really search for the figures. Is that supposed to responsibly inform someone considering purchasing a new 4x4?
Well, maybe that is all set to change. Labour MP Colin Challen is set to introduce a bill that will call for one-quarter of all vehicle ads to focus on fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions information. Mr Challen said: "More and more consumers want to do their bit to combat climate change and so we need to enlarge the small print to be able to see precisely how our new car purchase impacts on the environment."
According to Simms, "If you peer at the small print on car adverts, you can find out how many grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre a car will produce. But that's meaning- less without comparative figures. The government plans to pilot a new labelling scheme based on the green-to-red, A-to-G European labels that are found on electrical appliances." He adds, "Canadian government research, backed by World Bank findings, shows that there is a direct relationship between the size of warnings and the effect on personal behaviour. 'The larger the health warning message,' reports Health Canada, 'the more effective it is at encouraging smokers to stop smoking.'"
Finally, he suggests "Like those for cigarettes, the warnings could cover 30-50 per cent of the vehicles' surface area. People could still drive them, but when they did, they would publicly accept the consequences of their actions, and help the education drive on traffic safety and global warming."
In 2005, a study in the British Medical Journal also suggested health warnings, but based on their poor design. They called for 'warning notices on SUVs to help inform consumers of the increased risks of severe injuries and death associated with the vehicles. Because SUV bonnets are higher than those of cars, there is a more severe initial impact on the upper leg and pelvis, and a doubling of injuries to vulnerable regions such as the head, thorax, and abdomen. '
Given all the news about 4x4s lately, is the writing on the wall for health warnings? Well, maybe not as dramatic as Simms recommends, but we have been noticing how inappropriately tiny the CO2 and fuel-efficiency figures are on large billboards as well as magazine ads. You have to really search for the figures. Is that supposed to responsibly inform someone considering purchasing a new 4x4?
Well, maybe that is all set to change. Labour MP Colin Challen is set to introduce a bill that will call for one-quarter of all vehicle ads to focus on fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions information. Mr Challen said: "More and more consumers want to do their bit to combat climate change and so we need to enlarge the small print to be able to see precisely how our new car purchase impacts on the environment."
Thursday, October 26, 2006
EU set to regulate the Car Industry thru Legislation
Sometimes carrots don't work, and the stick needs to come out. That's what's happening in the EU.
In 1998 the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) promised to voluntarily reduce average CO2 emissions from new cars to no more than 140 grams per kilometre by 2008. Bummer, then, when in 2006 the UK average emissions exceeds 169g/km. At that rate UK manufacturers will meet their targets by.. 2022 or so.
What went wrong? Why won't they meet their targets...Guess?...Right - most manufacturers threw climate change to the wind and sold large fuel-hungry 4x4s.
Last night, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Davies said: “In their private boardrooms they looked at the figures, recognised that they could make more profits out of gas guzzling SUVs and 4WDs, and deliberately decided not to fulfil the commitment."
According to EU Commissioner Dimas, “This year the Commission will review the possibilities for further reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from cars after 2008-2009, with a view to meeting the Community target of 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012. That will, of course, require legislation.” The dreaded legislation stick.
Which is, of course, good news. Unless you haven't met your targets. According to the new T&E report released yesterday, one manufacturer has already met their target ahead of time.
Fiat gets a gold star.
In 1998 the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) promised to voluntarily reduce average CO2 emissions from new cars to no more than 140 grams per kilometre by 2008. Bummer, then, when in 2006 the UK average emissions exceeds 169g/km. At that rate UK manufacturers will meet their targets by.. 2022 or so.
What went wrong? Why won't they meet their targets...Guess?...Right - most manufacturers threw climate change to the wind and sold large fuel-hungry 4x4s.
Last night, Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Chris Davies said: “In their private boardrooms they looked at the figures, recognised that they could make more profits out of gas guzzling SUVs and 4WDs, and deliberately decided not to fulfil the commitment."
According to EU Commissioner Dimas, “This year the Commission will review the possibilities for further reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from cars after 2008-2009, with a view to meeting the Community target of 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012. That will, of course, require legislation.” The dreaded legislation stick.
Which is, of course, good news. Unless you haven't met your targets. According to the new T&E report released yesterday, one manufacturer has already met their target ahead of time.
Fiat gets a gold star.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)