Introduce A Rising Carbon Emissions Tax For Vehicles

There are only two ways to get people out of fossil fuel cars and into EV's..

1) Offer big incentives that they can't resist

2) Hurt them in the pocket until it hurts so bad they concede

A rising Carbon Emissions Tax would mean that EV owners pay nothing, and fossil fuel owners pay a price based on the cars CO2 emissions. the higher the emissions the more they pay.

What this means is that people pay to pollute, they pay for how much damage they are causing to the Climate. They can't have any arguement against that principle.

All revenues from this would be allocated to funding EV charging points, because the more of these we have, the more people will gain confidence to switch to an EV. This would require a change to Tax laws, but has to be done to be able to ringfence the funds for the right purpose.

Why the contribution is important

Vehicles are the biggest cause of Jersey Climate Chage emissions, we need strong measures to tackle this, because a lot of people won't change voluntarily no matter how convincing the arguements are. Some people will drive fossil fuel cars for the rest of their lives, until the cars fall apart if they can't buy new fossil fuel cars, ignoring Climate Change, ignoring the health issues caused by the pollution they leave behind for others to breathe in. Some people say they will never buy an EV, despite never even trying one and finding out just how much better they are to drive than fossil fuel cars. Pay to pollute is a fair scheme for all levels of earners, because it's based on how much each person damages the Climate.

by TheResearcher on February 07, 2021 at 10:34PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 3.0
Based on: 2 votes


  • Posted by philipjohnson February 08, 2021 at 12:54

    This sort of tax will tax the poorest in the Island the most, and should be resisted. Electric vehicles are much more expensive to purchase, and in a couple of years, when second hand ones are available, they are likely to need expensive new batteries fitted. Tax is not the answer. The rich and well off can afford to change to electric, and when new petrol vehicles are no longer available they will do so. As new sales of petrol cars will be banned after 2030, the solution is already in place. In the mean time, removal of commuters parking and making a free bus service will help far more. School children should use the bus, walk or bikes, perhaps a fine system for car users. Also school and college students should not be provided with parking spaces, except for pedal bikes or electric scooters.
  • Posted by philipjohnson February 08, 2021 at 12:57

    Electric vehicles will need to be TAXED. At present road tax is included in petrol and diesel charges, as more electric vehicles take to the roads, they will need to be taxed, as they are not contributing to the maintaining of roads and highways.
  • Posted by TKHathaway February 08, 2021 at 14:40

    I personally like the notion of there being some form of tapered incentive towards speeding up the phasing out of the combustion engine in private automobiles, in favor of more environmentally friendly options, be that electric, hydrogen, ammonia or similar.

    Basing such an incentive on the vehicle emissions, (both CO2 and other pollutants) does also allow it to be a fairer system, and doesn't prescribe a specific form of technology, such as EVs if other technologies are available.

    However I also believe that for commercial heavy vehicles, and construction, agricultural machinery it might take a little longer for alternatives to become available to market, and therefore there may need to be a distinction between these types of vehicles/power plants.

    However how that tapered incentive works, be it a tax on emissions, grant, or government loan towards purchase or replacement, that is technical detail.

    If it is a tax, then you want it to be an increasing tax, i.e. Today it might start at £10 per year, raising to £1,000 per year in a decade (pick whatever numbers you feel reasonable). While if it is a grant, you want it to be a decreasing grant i.e. Today you might get £1,000 towards the cost of a replacement, but by the end of the decade only £10.

    Whichever manner, the key element is that it allows the 'point of replacement' to be spread out over time, giving everyone a clear idea of the future to come, so that people are neither forced to replace a vehicle creating hardship and its own environmental scrappage issues, or suddenly put into financial strain because of new legislation. If the person opted not to act over the reasonable transition period they were given, then they live with the consequences of that, and if they want to live with those consequences. In such a situation, then that is their choice...this is part of what liberty means.

    This also allows vintage cars to remain, just at a cost premium – if you want to own a 'gas gusling 20thC Hummer/SUV', then you can do, and pay for that privilege based on its emissions and mileage per year (thus if just for display you pay very little, whereas if you want to do your school run in one and didn't wish to take the replacement incentive, it's going to cost a lot).

    I do not believe it is particularly helpful to moralize about people 'ignoring this' or saying 'they will never change on their own'. This just fuels a false 'us and them' type mentality, which really undermines efforts to diplomatically bring the majority of society onboard for solutions that will find general acceptance, and so can realistically be implemented.

    I believe if most people were presented with two opportunities that are basically the same, but one is more environmentally friendly, they will take that the environmentally friendly option if they are aware of it, because most people like to feel like 'they are doing the right thing'.

    To date the lack of action to date is likely more to do with the cost barriers of a world that was built by, and for, the combustion engine. Thus there is an infrastructure and social inertia that has needed to be overcome first, to create some alternatives at the same level as convenience as traditional technologies and processes. To pardon the pun, I believe today the wheel is now turning, and the questions are now about how much money and liberty we want to burn to accelerate that wheel, to avoid long term damage to the planets ecosystem and life on earth...

    * * *

    Yes, fuel duty revenues will dry up, as people switch to non-oil based fuels, and new streams of revenue shall be needed to pay for the roads – perhaps the future is by mileage and vehicle weight – both together being how you might calculate the 'energy used' by the vehicle owner, and so allowing revenue streams to collected once again in a manner that prioritizes those who have the greater impact on the road infrastructure, as well as the general energy grid. Whatever the solution, roads, even back to Roman times when there were no automobiles, have never been free, and somebody must pay for them eventually.

  • Posted by as530 February 09, 2021 at 07:35

    Vehicle duty applies irrespective of how much you drive/pollute. Fuel duty only applies when you drive. So the latter, to me, appears fairer... Agree it will reduce over time though.
  • Posted by philipjohnson February 09, 2021 at 14:59

    I agree, if there is to be any form of taxation, its not the ownership bug the use that makes a difference. How about each year for the next 10 years make 10% of all day parking electric only, so in 5 years time, half of the commuter parking is for electric only vehicles.
  • Posted by philipjohnson February 09, 2021 at 15:02

    As well as restricting non electric car purchasing, there should be a ban on registering non vintage petrol and diesel vehicles coming into the Island at the same time.
  • Posted by philipjohnson February 09, 2021 at 15:11

    The fairest tax, if any, would take the form on fuel duty. This will then apply to tractors and vans, both if which are available in electric. But this would have to be offset by am electric vehicle tax, as these users won't be paying for the upkeep if the roads, as this, at present, is included in the fuel.
  • Posted by TheResearcher February 09, 2021 at 18:07

    Locally, PM2.5 comes from combustion engined vehicles.

    News today “We estimate a global mortality burden of 8.7 million premature deaths in 2018 from fossil fuel PM2.5 pollution,” Mr Vohra said.[…]-fuels-deaths-b1799380.html

    The majority of people will read that news item and write it off as just being India and China deaths, but it's not, it's global.

    It may not be millions here, but it's more than likely not zero either, because all the combustion vehicles on the island are emitting PM2.5 which pedestrians are breathing in, people with no car air filters (old cars and any commercial vehicles except really new) are breathing in, motorcyclists and cyclists are breathing in, children waiting for the bus or school pickup are breathing in, etc.
  • Posted by BigAirport February 10, 2021 at 16:18

    We have a tax on fuel as do most countries so the more you use you polluting vehicle the more you pay. If you don't use it much you pay far less. This is a complex issue as electric cars are great for Jersey and local travel but have major problems completing long journeys due to long recharge times and lack of or inoperable facilities to do this. For instance all electric vehicles should have a common recharge plug and universal payment method. Tesla is massively ahead on this. I have an electric motorbike which for Jersey is simply brilliant. Hopeless for taking off the island though. Plus electric batteries don't like cold weather, up to 25% less range, or hot weather about 15% less range. Very hot temperatures 35C plus actually damages them as their core temperature can exceed 60C. Let's not consider the emissions involved in producing an electric vehicle which mean that on average a petrol car is no worse for the planet until it exceeds 55k miles of use. The only real problem is everyone aspires to have a car so if there are simply fewer people we automatically reduce the problem. 7.5 Billion and rising is the most unsustainable issue we face. Every other issue is a byproduct of this.
  • Posted by philipjohnson February 10, 2021 at 17:53

    You should be discouraging the use of petrol or diesel engines, which us better done by providing cheaper and possibly
    easier alternatives, Bus services, schools only by bus and commuter traffic by bus, bike or foot, if at all possible. This will make a quick difference. Hire cars by 2025 should all be electric, as should buses.
  • Posted by NickPalmer February 11, 2021 at 12:46

    philipjohnson wrote: "This sort of tax will tax the poorest in the Island the most, and should be resisted"

    Not if, instead of a tax, a carbon fee and dividend system is brought in. All revenues collected are given back to the whole population equally divided. Heavy carbon user lifestyles pay through the nose, light users actually receive a net income. Top economists of all political stripes rate this system highly as it also creates a strong economic stimulus too
  • Posted by TheResearcher March 03, 2021 at 18:22

    This is worth watching, and passing around.

    The Dirty Truth about Combustion Engine Vehicles | An 'Open Source' Animation

    Fully Charged Show
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas