It's the mayor of London in one corner and Porsche, the maker of thoroughbred sports cars, in the other.
In the green trunks, Mayor Ken Livingstone has decreed that a $50 daily tax shall be levied against all gas-guzzling, emission-spewing vehicles that drive through his city beginning in October. His logic says that it will fight global warming, and the money raised will help implement a Paris-style bicycle plan for the city. Re-election is around the corner, so this initiative is imperative to his tenure.
In the black trunks, Andy Goss, the Managing Director of Porsche Cars GB, rejects the tax as unjust. The automaker claims it is a disproportionate fee that will have a very limited effect on CO2 emissions. Its plan is to write Livingstone a letter requesting that he reconsider the proposal, and if nothing happens after 14 days, take the matter to the courts, which could throw out Livingstone's tax altogether.
And the winner is... neither side. Both are unable to deliver a knock out punch, so the winner will likely be chosen by decision.
[Source: Automotive News Europe]
GM shrinks Volt's gas tank, range drops from 600 to 360 miles
MINI dealers to sell Alfa Romeos in the U.S.
Honda to reveal OSM open-top concept in London
With crisis looming, GM may unveil Volt for 100th anniversary
Next BMW M5 will nix V10 in favor of twin-turbo V8
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Lincoln MKS
Track Test: 2008 Roush 427R Trak Pak Mustang
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Porsche Cayman S
First Drive: 2009 Chevrolet Traverse
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Mazda MX-5 Miata Retractable Hard Top
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
MachinaDC5 @ Feb 19th 2008 2:07PM
Is this the legal equivalent of Porsche declaring it has way too much time on its hands and more money than it knows how to use?
Andrew Tanasescu @ Feb 19th 2008 2:12PM
I semi-agree with Porsche. This charge is out of control. The fee's are so ridiculously high. Now all the rich Brit's will go out and buy LS hybrids which don't even get good mileage to avoid this tax. I dont they are doing much to help the environment. Sure they money will be used to implement bicycles in the city and what not, but I think this fee needs some serious rethinking.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 19th 2008 2:17PM
Impossible. CO2 is almost directly proportional to amount of fuel burned. If cars do well on the CO2 test, they get good mileage.
Andrew Tanasescu @ Feb 19th 2008 2:26PM
Exactly. thats why this fee is ridiculous.
An LS hybrid gets 20/22 mpg
A Porshe Boxster gets 23/32
The more polluting one in this scenario doesn't pay the tax...
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 19th 2008 4:45PM
Why do you think the LS doesn't pay tax? The tax is based upon CO2 emissions (or cars registered before 2001 with >3L engines).
I tried to look up to see if the LS600h is subject to tax, and I found it isn't offered in the UK. So where exactly did you get info it is exempt?
Mobius_1 @ Feb 20th 2008 4:31AM
And/or register their Bentleys and Lambos as minicabs
Mr. Oak @ Feb 19th 2008 2:17PM
All Jetliners that land and take off from Heathtrow should also be proportionately taxed.
Mr. Livingstone you are a dishonest quack. Why not just ban all such cars? But no, you wouldn't make any money that way.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 19th 2008 2:21PM
Airplanes produce FAR less CO2 per passenger mile than a Porsche. And there are already significant landing fees on the books for Heathrow.
£12 per passenger in 2008, £20 per passenger in 2012. A Porsche Cayenne with 5 people in it would be paying a mere £5 per passenger to enter London.
Mr. Oak @ Feb 19th 2008 3:52PM
You guys need to quit this "effiency rating" nonsence. You think the hole in the ozone cares how many miles the 747 that dumped 80 tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere travelled? No, 80 tons is 80 tons.
To all of the quacks that wants to pile on the Hummer drivers, but jumps on a flight from Boston to NY or NY to Washington DC, you're idiots.
Folks in this country are not to be taken seriously about anything. This is why the country is in the sorry state it is in today. It's a shame that our rail system is in such a tattered mess. There is no reason to fly between Boston and NY, or even Boston and Washington DC. An efficient ZERO emissions Highspeed Rail should link these cities.
...and don't try selling the Acela to me. Top speed attained 160 - 180 mph and only in Connecticut. None of the other lines can support that speed.
BTW: One 747 releases more carbon emissions annually than every Hummer ever built.
I am not against air travel. It's just stupid that we keep flying to destinations that should be reachable by less polluting ground transportation. But gripe about a ZR1 that will probably be driven 1,500 miles per year.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 19th 2008 4:47PM
If every person on a plane from NYC to LAX got off the plane and filled up Z06s and drove them instead, it would INCREASE CO2 emissions versus them flying.
So yeah, there's room to pick on Z06s.
I think it would be more efficient to bus all those people, but I'm not really sure.
elprogramer @ Feb 19th 2008 9:53PM
^The argument was that shorter flights (he specifically mentions Boston to New York) are frivolous and as much, if not more of a waste than the cars. Your statement is inane as he never stated that NYC to LAX is such a waste.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 19th 2008 2:17PM
Porsche is fighting this because it's a high tax and won't help CO2 much?
And that makes it not legal how?
StinkyPete @ Feb 19th 2008 2:22PM
What about taxing people who do not properly maintain their cars, thereby allowing the car to become inefficient? How about putting computer sensors to track when someone drives their car in an inefficient manner? I feel sorry for London. Although, bicycles aren’t much better in the snow than a Porsche.
goat @ Feb 19th 2008 2:28PM
About time someone stood up to these fascists.
YourNameHere @ Feb 19th 2008 2:42PM
what if they put a tax on breathing in the city? all of those ppl exhale a WHOLE lot of CO2...im sure if everyone took less breaths we could cut back on tons of "pollution". and for that matter ban all household pets seeing as how collectively they probably contribute a pretty significant about of CO2 also....ready everyone...ont he count of three hold your breath...we dont want to contribute to global warming do we!
along those same lines - wouldnt bicycles make ppl work hard - ie breath harder - and exhale MORE CO2?
Tormented @ Feb 19th 2008 4:00PM
I'm sorry, but this has to be the dumbest comment in the history of Autoblog....scratch that, the dumbest comment in the history of blogging. Period.
jgp @ Feb 19th 2008 2:47PM
Red Ken needs forced out of office yesterday.
Kudos to Porsche for doing the right thing.
Dazza @ Feb 20th 2008 2:22PM
Red Ken's mayorship has brought more commerce into London than any council since WW2. The rate of development - all endorsed by Livingstone - is phenomenal. The cost to the UK economy from traffic congestion runs into many billions every year and something had to be done about it. So far, the scheme has been highly successful. You don't need something the size of a Porsche SUV to drive in central London. If you want to hideously pollute the climate, then you should be personally prepared to pay for it.
YourNameHere @ Feb 19th 2008 2:53PM
this sounds like a plan for a short term crash grab. once this start to impact tourism and ppl start moving out of london they will change the tax.
PJ @ Feb 19th 2008 3:08PM
"In the green trunks, Mayor Ken "Livingstone has decreed that a $50 daily tax shall be levied against all gas-guzzling, emission-spewing vehicles that drive through his city beginning in October."
Way to sensationalize a story beyond recognition, Autoblog! Or at least skimp on the research.
Again, this tax *does not apply to the entire city of London*. It applies to the highly congested and touristy city center, where almost no private owner drives anyway.
Map:
http://www.eightpounds.com/about_congestion_charge.asp
Whining about a few rich twats who are denied the privelege of waiting two hours to travel six blocks in their Cayenne Turbo completely misses the point of this issue. The real injustice is to commercial drivers (deliveries, etc) who must pay or find alternative means to do business inside the ring road.