Porsche to Sue London Over $50 Per Day “Gas Guzzler Tax”
Tue, Feb 19, 2008
Environmental Graffiti Will be Changing Dramatically Soon. Get a Sneak Preview By Signing Up Here.
Luxury vehicle manufacturer Porsche has threatened legal action over London’s proposed £25($50) per day “gas guzzler tax”.
Image by Stefan
London Mayor Ken Livingstone recently proposed the charge on all vehicles entering central London that emit more than 225g of carbon dioxide per kilometer. Almost all vehicles currently pay £8($16) to enter the central London congestion zone. Only the most environmentally friendly vehicles, such as hybrids, are exempt from the charge. Porsche announced plans to apply for a judicial review of the proposal, calling the increase on high emission car owners disproportionate and unjust.
Andy Goss, managing director of Porsche Cars Great Britain, said: “A massive congestion charge increase is quite simply unjust. Thousands of car owners driving a huge range of cars will be hit by a disproportionate tax which is clear will have a very limited effect on CO2 emissions. Not only is this rise completely unfair to many drivers, but it will also damage London-based businesses of all sizes, and successful people from across the world will start to think twice about basing themselves here if they think they are going to be used as cash cows for City Hall.”
The company will officially contact Livingstone on the matter within a week, after which the mayor will have 2 weeks to respond. The company said: “If the mayor fails to respond to Porsche’s letter or refuses to reconsider his plans, Porsche intends formally to submit its application for judicial review at the Royal Courts of Justice.”
Environmental activists believe Porsche’s threat is proof of just how much the high performance cars actually pollute.
Blake Ludwig, a spokesman for the Alliance Against Urban 4×4s said: “We know from the enormous amount of support for our campaign, and from our own surveys, that charging the most polluting cars a higher congestion charge is already very popular with the public. This measure sends a strong and clear message to those manufacturers, like Porsche, who are putting their heads in the sand and flexing muscle rather than clean up their vehicle fleets.”
Info from Guardian Unlimited
If you want to find out all the latest interesting environmental news, why not subcribe to our RSS feed? We’ll even throw in a free album.
You Might Also Like Our Friends' Posts From the Intertubes
“The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else.”
February 19th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Using “the environment” as your excuse for fundraising is atrocious!
February 19th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Porsche is a German company. Very odd for it to stand up for Londoners, don’t you think?
February 19th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Ms X driving into London early before rush hour in her 7.0 litre Dodge Viper - which she then parks in her company garage, will cause less pollution and congestion than Mr Y who spends all day rushing around London in his 1.0 Litre mini.
So this levy shows a dangerous level of ignorance when it comes to tackling emissions.
The total environmental cost should be considered. Such as what is the cost to dispose of the batteries in hybrids + any extra energy used to create them.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Imposing a special local tax to fight local problems is a tried, proven and accepted governing method.
If the burden is too much in the City in London, the neiboring cities could try to promote a business district. I feel it is perfectly fair if all vehicles, including rollies, are subject to it.
“Alliance Against Urban 4×4s” is quoted in the article, and I am against urban SUVs as well. But the article lacks the discussion of efficiency. Porsche sells a line of SUV, but other Porsche products are quite efficient in providing a comfortable and fast transport. A truck could be quite efficient in terms of CO2 emissions, providing transport per ton of cargo door to door.
Tokyo has been unexpectedly successful in bringing the blue sky back in the last 5 years or so by mandating better exhaust particle filtering on diesel trucks entering the area. Polution and Global Warming should not be confused, and CO2 reduction may be more effectively and efficiently achieved elsewhere such as on highways.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Jon. Fully agree their are a lot of people making environmetal decisions with very little knowledge.
All nonsense getting people to get rid of old cars for new ones. Fueling consumerism, without taking into account full life cycle analysis. Old cars even if they emit more per mile, still have original manufacturing resource use and pollution etc spreadout over more years.
Perhaps everybody should get electric cars to avoid the congestion charge. They could all plug them in, then see how long the National Grid lasts.
Ken and other politicians don’t seem to realise where electrity comes from. In the UK in the main fossil fuels and nuclear.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 am
If you have the money for a Porche you have the money to pay the tax!
This is what is wrong with the world. If you have lots of money you pay less that some that has none, does that sound right ?? no! but thats the way it works.
The rich get richer the poor get poorer.
Get you silver spoon out your arses and drive a 1 liter car you rich pricks then you can evade another tax!
March 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
SUV’s are dinosaurs…
MOST of the people who drive them, just don’t care about the environment.
Do they truly believe that the environment is over rated?
Perhaps they can move to another planet.
March 21st, 2008 at 5:43 am
If this tax is indeed to help the environment, then it should be based on usage as was mentioned above. A car should not be taxed based on its potential to polute, but rather on how much it actually polutes. (This would be like saying, well you could earn 100,000 a year so we will tax you as if you did.) If you drive a Porsche or Ferrari or other similar car only a few thousand miles a year you are poluting much less than someone who drives a Prius 20,000 miles a year. So if this is tax is aimed at helping the environment then in this example the owner of the Prius should pay more than the owner of the Porsche or Ferrari.
Of course if the tax is not to help the environment, but rather just to raise money for transportation infrastructure, then cars should be taxed based on their cost, and the government should leave out the environment in its attempt to sell the tax to the people and just say they want to tax expensive cars.