Richmond upon Thames in southwest London is famous for being home to Mick Jagger, the Rolling Stone, for its deer park and for a splendid section of the Thames — “a huge sea of verdure with crossing and interesting promontories of massive and tufted groves”, as Sir Walter Scott described it in his 1818 novel The Heart of Midlothian.

If only he could see it now. Looking west towards Windsor, the view is spoilt every few minutes by planes taking off from and landing at Heathrow airport.

People who live there, however, are probably used to the noise pollution and go about their busy lives largely unbothered by their neighbour’s bigger-than-average carbon footprint. So it must have come as a shock to learn this week that their council was planning to bump up residents’ parking charges — to £750 in some cases — in order to save the planet.

A single plane trip generates more carbon dioxide than an entire year’s worth of emissions from a family car, even a “gas-guzzling” one. So why pick on car owners? Because it’s easy, that’s why. Most councils see car owners as legitimate targets for their raids and the green argument has been immensely helpful in keeping public outrage at bay.

Richmond council is legally entitled to levy whatever charges it likes for parking. So are councils throughout Britain. The Convention for Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla) believes similar fees could be imposed in every town where parking is at a premium. And why not? Which council in its right mind would not be lured by the extra million Richmond expects to make annually from its earth mother pose?

As the City of Edinburgh said this week, “with all councils, if something works then they would be foolish not to look at it”. And Edinburgh should know what works; it must rank among the UK’s leading experts in squeezing money out of motorists. It raises more than £7m a year in parking fines alone, expected to increase by £3m with the extension of parking permit zones.

The capital is notoriously anti-car and has squandered much of the money extracted from drivers on a doomed road-toll scheme and a botched rearrangement of the city centre that had to be undone within weeks.

Like Richmond councillors, Edinburgh’s transport gurus have cited the polluting effects of congestion as justification for every latest attack on drivers. So far, Glasgow council has said it has no plans to introduce a Richmond-type scheme, but confirmed it was committed to improving air quality and reducing CO2 emissions from transport. Aberdeen also said it had no plans for more drastic parking charges but refused to rule them out.

The impact of carbonm dioxide emissions on the environment is complex. Smaller engines are not necessarily more eco friendly than large engines. Many four-wheel drives use no more fuel than a family saloon. But that is a bit technical for politicians who simply crave our cash. If they genuinely cared for the environment, they would have ploughed all the money raised from us into a second-to-none public transport infrastructure that would have significantly cut dependence on the car. Instead, they use any additional funds to cover their inefficiencies in other departments and then patronise voters, telling us what’s good for us, what’s not.

We are constantly being brainwashed with the planetary disaster scenario by people who don’t understand it themselves but who know a thing or two about raising taxes. Margaret Beckett said this week that holidaymakers should be forced to pay a global warming tax or Britain will face “climate chaos”. She made her comments in Berlin. Gordon Brown increased road tax on 4x4s in the last budget.

Ross Finnie, Scotland’s environment minister, launched a campaign (in Paris) to encourage Scottish parents and children “to think about the steps we can all take to live within our environmental means”. Finnie has taken steps himself — in and out of aircraft on 13 trips in 12 months.

Serge Lourie, Richmond’s leader, said, “Climate change is the single greatest challenge facing the world today”, which will come as news to the Indian slum dwellers who queue for hours for a bucket of precious water (and no, the shortage is not caused by global warming), or to the soldiers trying to contain Iraqi insurgents.

In Edinburgh Ricky Henderson, the transport leader, has said in response to traffic concerns: “We would have to weigh up the views of local people.”

Don’t make us laugh. If councils were there to listen to the views of local people, we would not be paying 50% more council tax than we paid seven years ago. The inhabitants of some Glasgow suburbs would not have lost their weekly bin collections. And the good folk in my neighbourhood would not be bracing themselves for a “fast corridor” right outside their doors next year. Do Edinburgh council’s “greens” not realise that driving at 70mph is 25% less fuel efficient than driving at 55mph? Whether you truly believe that cars are evil and should be banned, along with dishwashers and methane-burping cows, or whether you think it is all hogwash, you cannot possibly be convinced that councils are taking more money from you for your own good.

Before they penalise us again they should explain, honestly, why. Perhaps their vast resources are disappearing on pensions and too-high staffing levels (a Fife clerical worker admitted recently that she and her colleagues “sit and do nothing” for most of the working week). Perhaps they lose a lot in traffic management wheezes. Perhaps their travel expenses are excessive.

If only councils could make a better case for spending our hard-earned incomes then we might not be tempted to caricature their officials as nose-in-the-trough junket monkeys.

Having said that, I almost hope my local authority, Edinburgh, does go down the Richmond road — not because I want to pay more or because it will make the air easier to breathe, but because it will definitely be the last straw come the elections next May. Gas-guzzler charges might not reduce CO2 emissions, but they will cull the number of tax guzzler councillors.

Times Recommends

• Swine flu vaccine for all as drug rushed through
• Artificial sperm and the race to build a baby
• BBC jets out stars to tout for prizes