Charge should inspire innovation
Share
It might be reasonable to assume that if you’ve got 60 grand to spend on a shiny new Porsche, then an extra £25 a day for the pleasure of negotiating 5mph traffic in a vehicle with a top speed of 180mph won’t make that much of a dent in your finances.
But that’s not the way the car’s manufacturer sees it, and the German automaker sparked heated debate this week when it demanded a judicial review of Ken Livingstone’s plans to increase London’s congestion charge from £8 to £25 per day for the most polluting vehicles. The new £25 charge will apply to vehicles that produce more than 225 grams of CO2/km, a category that includes the 911 model and the 4.8 litre Porsche Cayenne.
Based on its experience of running the congestion charge over the last five years, Transport for London (TFL) estimates that once the new fee is introduced about 22,000 high-polluting vehicles a day will be put off entering the charging zone. But Porsche argues that the new charges will have no effect on emissions. This sounds suspiciously like a variation on that tired old refrain which seems to dog any effort to cut emissions: 'it won’t make much of a difference so why bother?’ This is wrong. Taking vehicles off the road will make a difference, maybe only a small one, but a difference nevertheless. And crucially, with numerous other cities across the UK and Europe thinking seriously about replicating London’s congestion charge, this small effect could soon be amplified. Further into the future, given the global shift of populations towards cities, a worldwide deployment of congestion charging schemes is not beyond the realms of possibility. Then try arguing that congestion charging has no effect on emissions.
In this light, Porsche’s objections are not just environmentally irresponsible, but commercially short-sighted. It’s high time the luxury car market acknowledged which way the wind is blowing and viewed such proposals as a spur for innovation rather than inconvenient threat to the traditional way of doing things. As regular readers of The Engineer will be well aware, a low emissions vehicle doesn’t have to be a cramped shoe-box on wheels with all the performance of a milk float. The technology is there for the likes of Porsche to meet the challenge of the congestion charge head on, not with legal threats, but with inspiring engineering solutions.
Jon ExcellView results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (11)
John Fenton - Charge should inspire innovation | 21 Feb 2008 7:35 am
Are you not misinterpreting Porsche's remarks? The point is that large-engined vehicles only produce high levels of CO2 when being driven at high power outputs. At 5mph, high power output is simply not happening. Under those conditions, a Porsche Cayenne will produce little more CO2 than a Fiat Panda, hence Porsche's objection.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Roger Newnham - Charge should inspire innovation | 21 Feb 2008 8:32 am
Sir,
There is a low level logic to TfL's charging, but is it the solution in global terms? TfL’s love of the hybrid and electric cars is more damaging to the environment where they are produced, but I suppose if the rubbish is in the neighbours garden, why worry.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Wilson - Charge should inspire innovation | 21 Feb 2008 8:37 am
I think everyone has got caught up in the whole emissions / global warming thing. Look at the figures in depth. How much CO2 is actually contributed from the automotive sector as a whole? The answer is very small percentages and trying to reduce this by a small percent is also a waste of time. Had it not been for the EU and the green lobby we would probably have cars doing 80-100 mpg as standard now. All this emissions reduction just increases fuel consumption. Anyway, let's be real about the whole thing, the global warming debate has created a whole new industry. One last thing: global warming is due to the sun and not CO2. Global increases in CO2 lags temperature rises in the earth's atmosphere, not the other way round. Get the fact right, Ken and don't just go for what is politically correct.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
steve ritchie - Charge should inspire innovation | 21 Feb 2008 8:53 am
All carbon emitting vehicles should be banned eventually - I hate to say it but is is obvious.
But ,as politicians only politic for the sake of power, rather than work as our servants to facilitate us with better lives, if banning high level carbon emitting vehicles loses votes - it's a dead duck.
All Red Ken is doing is hitting the very well off, as he is a socilaist, with power. For Red Ken, anyone well off is anyone who does not exisit hand-to-mouth.
So ,the current attack is only his first, and he'll work his way down the chain.
He is also currently suppressing a report that shows ~40% reductions in accident rates amongst London motorcyclists/traffic and motorcyclists/pedstrians. The cycling lobby has him worried about losing votes; they wants motorcyclists out of bus lanes, even though it is safer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike Shakespeare - Charge should inspire innovatio | 21 Feb 2008 9:11 am
Whilst I agree with your thoughts about Porsche, I applaud anyone willing to make a stand against TfL. It appears that the only way they (Ken?) see fit to tackle the emissions issue is by charging the motorist trying to get to work. I would of thought an alternative scheme whereby traffic is allowed to flow, rather than stop/start, would be equally beneficial; perhaps a civil engineering challenge? The same could be said of councils who have insisted on building speed humps in built up areas - stop/start motoring produces the worst scenario for emissions. And please don't get me started on the apparent suppression by TfL of a report highlighting the life saving benefits of allowing motorcycles in the bus lane.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Cutter - Charge should inspire innovation | 21 Feb 2008 9:29 am
On a world scale, charging heavily polluting vehicles such as large trucks could bring considerable benefits to poorer nations. I have often thought that obviously heavy polluting vehicles should be charged at the border and again at city limits and again inside the city. We would see a sudden influx of exhaust repair shops at these points bringing employment and income to the area. I'm thinking of places in Africa for instance, where vehicle pollution is ignored.
David Cutter
Knaresborough
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dave Wilson - Charge should inspire innovation | 21 Feb 2008 12:04 pm
Dear Mr. Excell:
I wouldn't worry too much about Porsche owners coming into London to pollute your lovely city.
On February 18 this year, Porsche announced that it is to haul all models of the Cayenne produced between November 30, 2006 and January 18, 2008 back into the workshop to rearrange the fuel line in the engine compartment.
According to Porsche, there is the possibility that the slight movements of the engine when travelling could cause a fuel line to come in contact with the engine compartment cladding.
This could cause a knocking sound and abrasion markings could occur on the fuel line itself.
The overhaul itself should keep these lovely cars off the roads of London - if only for the 40 minutes that it takes to change the layout of the fuel line in the vehicles concerned.
Best:
Dave Wilson
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jon Hicken - Charge should inspire innovation | 21 Feb 2008 12:06 pm
I really wonder if the people who come up with these congestion charging schemes really believe that there will be a substantial drop in emissions and car use. If you're earning sufficient to purchase a high emissions vehicle then there is a high probability that you have the services of an accountant, who will claim back the charges along with the other items on your tax return! So who gains? The accountant! Will usage drop significantly of these vehicles? Not really. How much will exhaust emissions be reduced when these charges are introduced? Who's measuring it? Where are the results published?
How much business moved out of London when 'CC' was first introduced? How many more will move out because of these draconian charges? Being realistic all that's happening is the emissions are not being reduced, just moved to another part of the country!
We do need to reduce emissions and oil consumption. Taxing will not do it; charges will be passed on the consumer, which will have dire consequences to what remains of British industry.
It might work if there were a viable alternative transport system, but as yet there isn't. This needs to be worked, avoiding scenarios where mail trains replaced with a fleet of lorries.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Neil Sherry - Charge should inspire innovation | 21 Feb 2008 1:20 pm
I agree with the article - whatever the motivation for the congestion charge, the move to 'pursuade' smaller more efficient cars makes absolute sense - however inconvenient that might be for the owners and makers of overweight vehicles.
There might be some who doubt the connection between CO2 and global warming, but hopefully none who doubt the fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource that will, sooner or later, run out. So even if only for this latter reason, we need to act.
As for one contributors suggestion that a Panda and Cayenne would emit similar amounts of CO2, this is plainly absurd - if it weighs twice as much, it will use double the energy to accelerate it. And if the engine is four times as big it will need somewhere near four times the energy at idle.
That's why the fuel consumption of the Cayenne is around 19mpg - 2.5 times that of the Panda at around 50mpg. And guess what - the CO2 emissions follow almost the same ratio too.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve Briggs - Charge should inspire innovation | 22 Feb 2008 1:57 pm
I cannot believe that such a respected publication as The Engineer can write such an editorial. I'd expect this from The Mirror, but dumbing down, envy and political spin has even infected you. PS: I'm not a Porsche owner.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment