Porsche gets detailed in attack on London's congestion charge
Once the new London congestion charges were officially announced earlier this month, Porsche started a legal process against the Transport for London group (TfL is behind the c-charge). London officials responded to the threat and in response Porsche has put out a slew of numbers to defend their stance that the congestion charge won't reduce CO2 emissions in the slightest. You can read their argument for yourself after the jump or check out the company's new website dedicated to the fight.
Porsche's basic argument goes like this: the emissions the fees on gas guzzlers in London will prevent in a year will be equal to the emissions generated at Heathrow airport in anywhere between four minutes and four hours. What Porsche isn't tackling in this debate is that the name of the fee is a "congestion charge." While taking a car off the streets is a car off the streets no matter what comes out of the tailpipe, the Transport for London organizers have decided that swapping out dirty cars for cleaner ones is the right move. There's no question that a lot of CO2 enters the sky at Heathrow, but that's no excuse for spewing it in downtown London. Instead, it should be a call to clean up the vehicles at Heathrow.
Press release:
C-charge tax won't reduce CO2 emissions
Following its launch of a judicial challenge against Mayor Ken Livingstone's emissions related congestion charge, Porsche today releases an examination of the expected CO2 savings. Using Transport for London's own figures, the savings expected in an entire year from the emissions charge will be equal to the emissions from Heathrow between 4 minutes and at most 4 hours.
Commenting on the figures, Andy Goss, Managing Director of Porsche Cars GB, said, "Under closer examination these figures show the negligible environmental benefits of this tax. The emissions saved are a fraction of the amount of the CO2 pumped out every day at Heathrow. Calling this tax an emissions charge is a misnomer. Not only is this new charge an unfair tax on motorists and families, it is a tax that will do nothing to reduce emissions or congestion in London."
The release of this examination comes two days after Porsche announced that it is seeking to make an application for judicial review of the proposed extension in the congestion charge, which will see the cost of driving some cars in the capital rise from £8.00 a day, or just 80p if they are residents in the congestion zone, to £25.00 a day - an increase of over 3000 per cent. Porsche is seeking a reverse of this action based on the disproportionate nature of the charge.
Porsche also announces today that it has opened a website for the legal case where families and motorists across London who will be impacted by the new tax can get more information and add their name to a petition against the charge. The website is available at www.porschejudicialreview.co.uk.
C-charge tax won't reduce CO2 emissions
Factsheet
The Mayor Ken Livingstone's new £25 charge on larger cars will have practically no effect on the environment and looks more like an attempt to get additional revenue out of Londoners. The CO2 saved in the first year of this scheme could be as little as 4 minutes of emissions from Heathrow Airport.
About the Mayor's proposals
* Mayor Ken Livingstone is planning to increase the congestion charge for larger "Band G" cars – cars that emit more than 225 grams of CO2 per kilometre.
* The cost of driving a Band G car into the congestion zone will increase from £8 to £25, a 213 per cent increase.
* Congestion zone residents who drive Band G cars will lose their exemption. Their charge will now rise from just 80p to £25, a 3025 per cent increase.
* Cars in the lowest A/B bands will be exempt from all charges.
What this means for the environment
* Speaking at the press conference announcing the new charge, the Mayor admitted that his new charge would have a "small" impact on emissions.
* According to TFL's report on the proposed emissions related congestion charging, the savings expected in 2009 in CO2 emissions is expected to be anywhere from 100 to 5,000 tonnes per year. [Transport for London, Report to the Mayor Following Consultation with Stakeholders, Businesses, other Organisations and the Public, January 2008, p 50]
* Even Friends of the Earth stated "that CO2 emissions could increase as a result of the proposals." [Transport for London, Report to the Mayor Following Consultation with Stakeholders, Businesses, other Organisations and the Public, January 2008, p.145]
* According to the Aviation Environment Federation, Heathrow emits 13.9 million tonnes of CO2 a year. [Aviation Environment Federation]
* The savings expected from the emissions related congestion charge will be equal to anywhere from 4 minutes to 4 hours.
* According to the AEA Energy and Environment report, the new charge will not affect general air quality through reducing either NOx or PM10. "Emissions related congestion charging would have a negligible impact on pollutant emissions in 2009. Given that this is the case, it is anticipated that there would similarly be a negligible impact on air quality, and hence the pollutant concentrations would remain the same as for the baseline scenario." [AEA Energy and Environment, "Combined Impact Assessment of Proposed Emissions Related Congestion Charging," 17 August 2007]
What this means for congestion
* As a number of observers have pointed out, exempting A and B band cars from the charge could actually increase congestion as people trade their larger cars for more than one smaller car or who now decide it was now cost effective to drive into central London.
* According to the AEA Energy and Environment report to Transport for London on the proposed emissions-based congestion charge, "In the longer term, it is possible that the emissions related congestion charging proposals could lead to increases in overall traffic levels within the Congestion Charging zone, with consequential small negative impacts on air pollution." [AEA Energy and Environment, "Combined Impact Assessment of Proposed Emissions Related Congestion Charging," 17 August 2007]
* London First, the business organisation that seeks to attract inward investment into London, has called the Mayor's new plan "daft".
[Source: Porsche]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
why not the LS2/LS7? 12:22PM (2/23/2008)
Two wrongs don't make a right, Porsche.
Gotta start somewhere. Boeing and Airbus are working to make more efficient (lower CO2 emitting) planes every day. So the emissions at Heathrow will be going down.
Reply
PJD 1:46PM (2/23/2008)
If they don't watch their argument, they may get Porsche banned from Heathrow as well. All those big engined cars idling waiting to pick people up would be a quick target to cut down on CO2. Maybe they could charge varying parking rates.
Before I get all those poor victimized "Porsche families" attacking me, I will admit I think the widespread adoption of such tiered pricing is problematic. I'd much rather see a simple feebate system and higher fuel taxes.
Reply
Scatter 1:53PM (2/23/2008)
Wow, what an impressive selection of non-arguments Porsche has at their disposal. This is going to be entertaining!
Reply
Wildgoosechase73 2:04PM (2/23/2008)
Porsche's point is valid. Essentially London is attempting ot fix a leaking levee by patching all the cracks and ingonring the gaping holes. The congestion fee is simply a tax, it's not going to be efficient at reducing CO2 emmisions, it is simply a revenue source.
Reply
Scatter 3:14PM (2/23/2008)
I disagree Wildgoosechase. This will be a strong driver when it comes to vehicle purchasing decisions. It's going to punch a big hole in band G sales in the south east of England, pushing people down to lower bands and it'll also push people who would have bought band C or D cars towards band B.
Over the 14-odd year lifetimes of those vehicles there are going to be some impressive savings.
And it's not like this is the only measure aimed at reducing emissions. There's a whole raft of measures being undertaken in London to reduce emissions from all sources.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 5:40PM (2/23/2008)
It would take Porsche to say something like this. Of course two wrongs don't make a right, and one has to start somewhere...their energy and imagination should be spent on making greener and more efficient vehicles, just like the majority of manufacturers, whose emissions averages have dropped sharply in recent years
The situation with air travel is a different matter, and a very poor choice for their argument. In air transport the EU have launched a 2.3billion euro Clean Sky initiative for cleaner air transport
http://www.cleansky.eu
The name "congestion charge" may not be ideal. Perhaps it should be "congestion and emissions charge" or simply "Green Tax" or "Eco Tax". I guess until we have really clean cars congestion and emissions are going to go hand in hand anyway..
The system used in London is already used in other cities. The cities in question all have problems not only with congestion but also with air quality. All the cities who have done this have measured dramatic improvements in air quality as well as travel times within the city. Milan is the latest example of this and both the air quality improvements and number of fewer vehicles entering the green zone was staggering for the first month of operation! so much so that other cities are starting such a system as well....
Even if air quality had nothing to do with the issue, there remains that of CO2. The UK has a legal obligation to reduce CO2. Should we have fewer flights to reduce CO2, or perhaps reduce the number of vehicles around with TRIPLE the emissions of CO2 and NOx? I think the latter. If a vehicle such as an ambulance or fire truck has triple the emissions, that's one thing. For a Porsche to have triple the emissions because Porsche and drivers of their vehicles simply couldn't be feathered one way or the other is a different story.....
CO2 reduction has to start somewhere. Research into cleaner transport (for all transport modes) promises to reduce emissions in future. The EU are also studying more energy efficient housing, etc. For now the best place to start is harmful emissions which are for completely futile reasons....
Reply
eddy 7:16PM (2/23/2008)
Efficient air travel is something that is far away from now. Efficient housing, heating and efficient production are things which could be done easily with nowadays existing technology, but the EU does nothing(!) to improve such things. I worked for a small company near Aachen, which was one of the first companies to produce windows for zero-energy-buildings and that company didn't get a single cent from the EU for their research. There is not enough done against really bad things like building isolation, heating and power generation, but politicians find it more important to start their fights against CO2 with low-capacity sports car producers like Porsche. For me that doesn't make any sense.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 8:59PM (2/23/2008)
Banning vehicles with pathetic performances is far easier. Porsche doesn't have 100.0001% the CO2 or NOx of other cars..... it is well over 300% of both......
The EU does nothing? Incentives to install renewable energy devices on homes are not an EU responsibility but are up to national authorities. And pretty much everyone in the EU is doing this. Recently Madrid have set up a 101.2 million euro fund only this month for energy-efficient buildings and projects like this are springing up everywhere... The EU can only setup guidelines for energy-efficiency. Then its up to national authorities to see these through or not (in the form of NEEAP, national energy efficiency action plans)
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/32&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=e
Even then, all areas need to be tackled. And in the car sector the obvious place to start is cars with outrageously low performances. One can easily imagine even the efficient vehicles (those set in 120g or 140g CO2/km) being targeted in future, as this level should gradually be lowered.
But even in the worst type of building I doubt very much that you have buildings that consume 300% what another does because of the building itself.....
After suing the EU and the City of London I would suggest Porsche sue every major city in the EU. What the heck, why not sue every EU citizen as well while they're at it?.....
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 9:12PM (2/23/2008)
Sebastian, what happened to the original Porsche thread which so many comments on it?
Why has it been removed? It there a "legal process" here as well?
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 9:21PM (2/23/2008)
Sebastian please disregard my previous message. I've found the thread.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 4:44AM (2/24/2008)
"...Total GHG Emissions in Europe Drop 7.9% Between 1990 and 2005; Transport Sector Sees 26% Increase"..
within the Transport Sector,
"...Greenhouse gas emissions (domestic transport) increased by 26%, mainly due to CO2 emissions from road transport (which represent more than 90 % of domestic transport emissions)...."
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20040909113419/IAssessment1195226181050/view_content
Reply
eddy 8:32AM (2/24/2008)
The best solution for congestion and emissions in cities is the Switzerland model: It is quite dump to ban one kind of car from a city and still have tons of emissions. Why not just install electrical trains, trams and buses and ban ALL cars from the city centers. That would be possible. Cities with good efficient public transportation don't need cars at all. Cities like Zermat have no air pollution because of such a system.
"But even in the worst type of building I doubt very much that you have buildings that consume 300% what another does because of the building itself....."
Well than doubt it or not, but heating is still the main reason for most of the CO2 emissions and can be much more efficient. There is a giant difference between a"Passivhaus" and normal pre-1970 buildings or the amercian type of unisolated wood house. In emissions this is an extremly high difference. A good modern passivhaus normally consumes just 4% or 5% of what an average modern building does.
Reply
Sebastian 1:56PM (2/24/2008)
@Karl-Uwe Strunzen -
whew, you had me worried for a second there.
For everyone else, the previous threads are here:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/19/porsche-officially-starts-legal-process-against-londons-congest/
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/20/london-officials-respond-to-porsches-lawsuit-threat/
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 6:09PM (2/24/2008)
Systems like the London Congestion Charge have in fact, over the years, altered the transportation system as a whole on the city. There are fewer cars in the inner zone and more people use public transport.
There isn't any snapping of fingers and a new urban transport system is devised, where city dwellers change from one mode of transport to another from one day to the next. These changes are gradual and spurred on by the systems in cities like London, Stockholm and Milan.
When CO2 are emissions are tripled for futile reasons, then such sources are a very obvious place to start with cuts.
According to the European Environment Agency:
"..CO2 emissions from households decreased by 1.7 %, while the number of dwellings increased by 18 %...."
in the period 1990-2005. For the same period, the transport sector saw a 26% increase....
http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/ISpecs/ISpecification20040909113419/IAssessment1195226181050/view_content
Reply
Dean B 3:38AM (2/28/2008)
I think most people understand (even sports car enthusiasts such as myself) that over time it will be important to encourage the use of less-polluting, more efficient vehicles. Apart from anything else, the oil price is only going to go up in the future, so emissions (linked to fuel consumption) will be forced down anyway by market forces.
The question is how this is achieved. My own suggestion to TfL's public consultation was that the differential charging should be brought in progressively over a period of years. That way, when people started to look for new cars, they would *naturally* look to trade down to a lower-emissions vehicle.
Otherwise, under this proposed scheme, either people will buy a second car (with the attend CO2 in its manufacture), or will be forced to sell their existing vehicle and incur an large and unneccessary amount of depreciation in one hit. Livingstone's action is also likely to distort the market for secondhand vehicles, which will have attendant economic knock-on effects that could harm London.
The £25 fee is arbitrary and punitive. If it was raised to (say) £12 for >225g/KM cars in 2008, then £16, then £20 then £24 in subsequent years, the scheme would have got more (albeit grudging) support. The net effect on emissions would be broadly similar, but the transition much smoother & less controversial.
It's a bit of a shame that this is Porsche going it alone on this. Hopefully many of the other more mainstream car manufacturers will also lend their weight to the argument, as well as the UK's thriving cottage industry of smaller specialist manufacturers.
Reply
Karl-Uwe Strunzen 8:40PM (2/25/2008)
I'm not sure if people grasp just how pathetic and extreme the Porsche figures really are.
Of course Porsche are going alone on this. Most other manufacturers (even those with only a tiny profit margin compared to Porsche) have brought down their emissions drastically overt the years.
http://www.transportenvironment.org/docs/Publications/2007/2007-11_car_company_co2_report.pdf
It's not that easy to find cars nowadays that pollute this much.
There are plenty large family sedans nowadays that have emissions below 160 g CO2/km. Smaller cars are all trying to come under the 120g limit.
It really shouldn't be tolerated then that for totally futile reasons, Porsches emit 300% the CO2 and dangerous NOx of a normal, inexpensive car. The rate, if anything, should be increased. Only time will tell if I'm right, but I'm certain these will not be attracting a surcharge in future, but will be simply be banned across Europe (except Germany of course).
Reply
Dazza98 7:11AM (4/01/2008)
This is not a congestion charge or even a charge on emissions it is a charge or tax non londoners driving into london. Will it reduce congestion will it heck. Congestion has increased with the widening of the congestion charge as people who lived in Chelsea and Kensington who did not drive cars into westminster and the city now can so instead of 5 pounds per day they can now pay .80 p which is cheaper than the tube. Congestion got worse not better and I would argue revenue most likely fell. That was the most likely reason for the increase from 8 from 5. By providing discounts for lower emitting cars and even free for lowest is likely to offset carbon gains and still further increase congestion. A more effective measure to reduce both congestion and carbon would be to synchronise traffic lights better to avoid cars hitting one light after another. I doubt emissions as stated for all these cars do not take into the amount of idling and the average speed in London. A lot of which is made by counter flow sequencing. I also strongly object to the way this was portrayed as a tax on the chelsea tractor. A reasonable sized family car will fall into the higher band not the chelsea tractor. Livingstone is dishonest in the congestion charge as he is in his other dealings.
Reply
Porsche dealer 10:55AM (5/27/2008)
I am a porsche dealer http://www.porschedealership.co.uk/ an l am proud of what porche are doing, it is unbeleivable what this goverment think they can get away with
Reply