The whole argument on CO2 emission bands is flawed.
Yes a brand new, which supposedly emits under 120g of co2 will do so , according to the manufacturer however as years pass by its performance will deteriorate and may emit more than 120g co2,
so in effect you will have a car which is in the exemption band, emitting the same amount of co2 as a non exempt vehicle.

the emphasis should be placed on what the individual car emits and incentives should be offered for people who already own high co2 emitting vehicles to modify these cars so that they reduce their emissions.

plus i think they should change the so called useless congestion charge into the London fixed penalty if you own a car charge

Harshavardhan, London,

If I could be sure these taxes were going 100% towards funding research to retrofit all cars to be emission free, then I would say they are justified.

However, it strikes me the government in the UK are to quick to respond to environmentalists demands for higher taxes with no accountability. Who are these environmentalists??? There are other methods here than raising taxes so what environmentalist group only supports raising taxes?

Why aren't these so-called environmentalists now chasing the government as find out how much of these airline, congestions, gas guzzling taxes are going towards cutting emissions and improving public transport???

Sally G, London, UK

I am not one who usually protests and in fact I have tolerated Ken Livingstone for a while now, but this new £25 charge is something that cannot be ignored. It is simply daylight robbery!!
When he expanded the CC into K&C, did he really believe that it would cut down congestion?? As a resident of K&C, I can safely say that he is surely deluded if he believed that this expansion would ease the congestion. In fact, the traffic appears to be worse than before. And,if Ken wants to help the environment, then why not make all of us get rid of our fridges?? A fridge produces more emissions than a 'Chelsea tractor'! Do people use their 'tractors' 24 hours a day? I don't think so.
So,now in London we have little cars called G-whizz...or something along those lines..Sure,ok I understand they do not add to pollution when on the road, however if we are going to talk about congestion, then what good are they?They still take up a car space and go so slowly that a bicycle could whizz past

Alycia , London,

I would tend to agree with with Ken, lets tax cars polluting the most.
I am a bit confused with a kind of ' consumer insight' .
If one goes shopping to sainsbury or Tesco one will see that the 'ecologial' food buyers are the ones driving the 4X4 and fast cars.
You cant have your cake and eat it; if it is to give you goog conscience dont bother then...

Mind you ,implementing a CG in London with a such dredful rail network system is strange.
We have just come back to the UK after 6 years working in duifferent ountries and I am still surprised that for the Olympic games no East to West rail network is on the card, ; a little story ? we came out of Eurostar and the first Englsih sentence we heard was' due to signal failure' ...

Oh well we have not sorted it it our yet .
And that is where you should have done some work Ken.

London has the worse underground system ( apart from NY) in developed economies, look at the Spanish one in Madrid or Barcelona, in Amsterdam or France

mark, London ,

Out of curiosity Ken Livingstone isn't a member of parliament or the government so how is he allowed to levey taxes?
Ps should i throw my car away and get a new one!

C Chinnery, hornchurch,

If we must penalise people for their Vehicular CO2 output then do it fairly and even handedly (even though its the tiniest of tiny scratches on a non-proven problem) - you must consider mileage as well as CO2 output per vehicle - fuel duty is the right way to do it - this factors mileage nicely and in general the worst CO2 emitters are ALSO the worst on MPG.

May 1st is decision day for Londooners - do you want more of this madness or some sanity returned? You know what you must do!!!

Steve N, London, UK

The EU free movement of people legislation relates to cross border movements of people, not intra-jurisdiction or intra-city movements.

Simon, London,

whatever happened to the free movement of people in the EEC? surely taxing peoplke to enter cities is against the spirit of this?

peter, st heleir,

Dr Brown. I take it that your post was meant to be read in a sarcastic tone. If not, then please seek professional help. Charging people £25 to drive in London is ludicrous - let alone charging the £40 you suggest!

The problem is that Ken doesn't know what this charge is meant to be for. It can't be for reducing congestion since he is allowing low CO2 emitting cars in for free. It also can't be for the environment since the best way to charge for this would be to put the charge on the fuel used. If a sports car is only used on the weekends whilst say a small hatchback is used every day, all day, then obviously the smaller car is the greater polluter. How this was missed is beyond me.

On top of al this, Ken says we should all be using public transport. Fair enough. This may make sense if it weren't for the fact the cost of the system rises year on year despite the fact that tube drivers seem to go on strike every other week. The bottom line, I suspect, is that Ken doesn't like cars.

Dr A. Desai, London,

Any tax or charge has to be fair, proportionate and justified. Is it fair that someone who has their >225g/km CO2 car parked outside, but does not even use during the day, still has to pay £6K a year? No. Is £25 a day a proportionate penalty, when a car owner already pays huge amounts of tax through road tax, fuel tax, parking charges, etc.? No, it is totally disproportionate. Is it justified, when these few thousand cars in a small part of London, will not make the slightest bit of difference to the climate, as there are hundred of millions of cars in the world, and CO2 emissions are global issue, not a local issue. No.

This tax or charge fails on all levels. It is unfair, disproportionate and unjust. It is however just a plain vindictive attack on people with nice cars. What is next, a tax on people wearing a Rolex, or wearing an Armani suit?

Mr S Banerjee, London, UK

The biggest problem, apart from the scheme being irrational, disproportionate and ultimately achieving little if nothing, is that it is retrospective.

It would be one thing to say that all new cars should meet extreme emissions targets, but to sting poor motorists because of cars that are years old is simply draconian.

Justin Silver, London, England

Apologies to the rest of the world if you think everyone in the UK (well London anyway) has lost their minds when you read about such schemes. I don't blame you. The fact is, such a scheme takes absolutely no account of exactly how much each vehicle pollutes per drive, it just applies a very big blunt mallet to all. If I drive sensibly and economically whilst in town in my band G car for 20 minutes only per day, I pay £25. If band B drives around for 8 hours solid effectively polluting the capital much more on a daily basis they pay £0. This is nonsense. In addition, how long before all the self-righteous drivers of band A/B cars are included in the charge when the limits are changed to catch more fish?

I am NOT saying that the environment/whales/north pole is unimportant. I DO think we should use more engineering skill and less accounting to better the problem. But that never makes any money, does it?

Hugh, London Colney,

Clive, Surrey - genius idea ... why didn't someone think of that before. I'm sure the Government has that cash lying around somewhere

TM, London,

Regardless of whether your gut reaction is for/against this scheme, surely one should be asking - will it work

1) Will it cut congestion.
No. People will get rid of their CO2-heavy cars and buy CO2-light cars. Plus, people who never drove in London before now will, as they'll be able to do so cheaply.

2) Will it cut CO2
No. Even if all those who drove CO2-heavy vehicles in London sold them, all you're achieved is to have them owned by people who don't live in London.

However, there's no reason to suppose the CO2 emissions of those vehicles will decrease when they're owned by people who don't live in London.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will still be there in/over London, even if it didn't originate in London.

---

The only way forward is for the government to compulsorily purchase CO2-heavy vehicles (say at 20% over market price, to pay people for the inconvenience) then scrap them. Plus, obviously, outlaw CO2-heavy vehicles everywhere in the UK

Clive, Surrey,

The simple answer here is to scrap all schemes like this across the country. Instead increase fuel prices, that way whoever uses their car more pays more. A vehicle in band G may only be used a few times a week for a few short journeys, whereas a family saloon in band D may do 4 times as many miles, so whose polluting more? Make it fair on everyone. If you want to cut CO2 do it at the pumps, that way we all pay for our damage to the environment.

Of course any increase in pump prices designed to reduce pollution should be then used to fund carbon offsetting schemes, simple really when you think about.

Robin Cole, Tavistock, Devon

OMG I cant believe the people who support this tax. If you think cars are that evil then just ban them, let any political party stand at elections on that basis and let the people decide. Do not however bringing it in the back door, trying to be all cunning and covering it in spin that it will help the enviroment or reduce congestion, or save the poor children from evil SUV drivers. UK politics is a shambles, and as we head into a recession London and UK cannot afford such ill considered wasteful, ineffective clap trap.

Stander, London, UK

I fully support this scheme. I am only sorry that it hasn't gone further and put the charge at something like £40 a day to really make it hurt. The more these whiners and deniers scream blue-murder the more I want to see them forced off our roads. If you own a car in London then you should expect to pay hugely for crimes against the community. If you pump out emissions then you should expect to pay even more. I'd like to see a tax on people driving children to school and extra charges for any vehicle with only one passenger. More please Ken!

Dr R Brown, London,

I support the move. Finally a politician with the backbone to stand up to the oil lobby and do what's right for the city and the country. England once an exporter of oil now imports oil which strengthens Russia and the middle east. The recent terrorism and assassinations should be enough to get people to get behind this plan.

Mike Easton, Freeport,

Livingstone is completely out of control - I do hope people see through the spin. Its all very well when you live a short cycle from your office as he does to blame the car for Londons woes, but the reality is very different.

Not every job requires a commute from home to work each day which can be met by public transport; some people are on the road every day, some keep a car for weekend use and use the tube for work, some simply cannot get where they need to be without one. Besides, why should a resident inside the zone with a top band car - no longer eligible for the discount - pay £25 a day to Ken to park on their drive? It emits no pollution and causes no congestion when parked!

An INTEGRATED solution which accepts the car DOES have its role but can be substituted with efficient, desirable alternatives in many areas is the only way to reduce traffic in the city. Trying to maskerade a stealth tax as a 'green' policy to raise enough revenue to is simply outrageous

Mike Davison, Bouremouth, UK

You should be able to buy a brand new car which has below 120g/km CO2 emissions... for £8 a day or even less. You could then drive to the central for free, and you would still have your current car. If you pay the £8 a day at the moment, he is actually offering you a free car.

That is quite funny. He really hasn't given this a good thought, has he?

Joonas Vilenius, Vantaa, Finland

You know the answer- get Red Ken out in the May elections and hope that the next mayor is a little less potty having some sort of common sense with regards to a sensible transport policy. £25 a day to drive in London- come on! I thought London was supposed to be the finest city in the world. More like a laughing stock!

Those that can afford to drive a Bentley or Lamborghini will not worry about £25 a day one bit- they will just get their PA's to pay it and carry on driving. I bet the Band G cars will not diminish much, defeating the point except that the coffers will be fuller!

Simon King, Ilminster, Somerset

So we now have a tax based on CO2, which has not been suitably linked to climate change, in a scheme which will end up with London more congested, more polluted, and everyone paying more. This scheme seems like a huge waste of everyone's time and resources, and takes away the only success the mayor has had, reduction of congestion in London. Is noone capable of running London properly?

adam, London,

The policy is out of step with other emissions based UK / London policies. The announcement is likely to have a negative impact on investment in electric cars, perpetuate the internal combustion engine and slow the move to carbon free motoring. Westminster Council are installing on-street charging stations and promoting emission free electric vehicles and TfL is promoting diesel and petrol cars, a move that sends out confusing signals to the public.

The difference between Band G and Band B is 105 g CO2 / km and the difference between Band B and an electric car charged using renewable electricity is 120g CO2 / km, and 60g when charged using ordinary electricity. The financial difference now is that with an electric car you get free parking in central London, worth around £5,000 per year and for the price of a tank of petrol you can drive electric for a year.

Keith Johnston, London, England

Since it was introduced its been a disaster. The roads are intentionally narrowed and leads to more traffic jams and even more pollution. This of course gives our autocratic mayor the excuse to up the charge and this in turn gives an excuse to increase the tube fares...and so the sorry spiral continues. The buses are jammed solid on some roads with probably 5 people/bus. The major success of the C-charge is to pay Capita for administering it (soon to be IBM). All consultations are a charade. But this mayor, despite his wasting our tax will be re-elected because people are being duped by the spin he is putting on emissions. The reality according to TfL is that it won't improve the CO2 emissions.

Naz, London,

What will Leninstone do next?

Dean, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

I have read this article twice and the whole affair makes less sense than a chocolate fire guard.
1st KW wants to reduce traffic and pollution by bringing in a higher charge, then he gives free access to all cars below 120g/km. I know what I and many others will do, buy a low emissions car and make the jams even bigger.

Alan Brereton, Chatham, Kent

I thought this charge was bought in to cut traffic in the inner city, I was a courier in London for 10 years and found that all it did was clog the outer ring road up in the end I used to go in the zone because it was quicker to get across London and pay the charge versus time.
It seems that it is now a green tax based on saving the world. maybe Ken should rename it London Environmental Tax.

Keith, THATCHAM, UK