Ding, ding... Round Three!
When the city of London decided in November 2006 to tax gas-guzzling, emission-spewing vehicles (aka sports cars), we knew someone would put up a fight. It didn't take long before Porsche, the enthusiast-oriented German automaker, stepped into the ring. Round One started last month, after London's Mayor Ken Livingstone decreed that a $50 daily tax shall be levied against all environmentally unfriendly vehicles that drive through his city beginning this October. After Porsche formally requested the mayor reconsider his plan or else it would call for a judicial review of the proposal, the Mayor kicked off Round 2 by accusing Porsche of imposing unnecessary pollution on Londoners and then compared the brand's sports cars to garbage littered on the street.
After consulting with its ringside trainer, Porsche has chosen to involve a legal referee in this match and make a formal application for judicial review to challenge the matter. Once the papers are filed, Mayor Livingstone's corner will have 21 days to acknowledge the claim. Don't expect the Mayor's office to throw in the towel -- most expect this bout to go the distance.
[Source: Porsche]
PRESS RELEASE
Porsche to make formal application for judicial review to challenge flawed emissions charge
In a letter to lawyers acting for Porsche, TfL and Mayor Ken Livingstone have rejected a request from Porsche for changes to the proposed introduction of a new £25 charge on some vehicles entering London.
Porsche will therefore file a request for judicial review. The Mayor will then have 21 days to acknowledge the Porsche claim. A background briefing on the process can be found here: http://www.porschejudicialreview.co.uk/news2.htm.
Responding to the Mayor's decision, Andy Goss, Managing Director of Porsche Cars GB, said: "The new £25 charge will have no meaningful impact on congestion and TfL's own figures show the anticipated CO2 emissions savings in a year could be equivalent to less than four hours of emissions from Heathrow. All it will do is unfairly hit large numbers of drivers in London and undermine London's attractiveness as a place to do business. We are therefore formally applying for judicial review to challenge the Mayor's proposals and we are confident we have a strong case."
Audi A3 TDI Clubsport Quattro concept
Spy Shots: Production Audi TT Clubsport Quattro
Chevy Camaro getting early unveil at Indy in September
James Garner recovering from mild stroke
VIDEO: God's ringtone is a V10-powered Audi R8
First Drive: 2009 Ford Escapes, more of almost everything
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Chris @ Mar 11th 2008 12:49PM
Political grandstanding by the mayor. People like him should be removed at first opportunity. Congestion pricing doesn't do squat except to take money from those who can least afford it and to raise taxes on everyone indirectly.
amdforever @ Mar 11th 2008 12:53PM
I do not mind donating money to a joint effort in removing the mayor.
If someone takes the lead in organizing this, I will donate a nice amount of $$.
Dazza @ Mar 11th 2008 1:43PM
London has never seen the kind of commercial growth since WW2 as it has under Ken Livingstone over the past eight years. Canary Wharf, for example has been the fastest-growing commercial district in the world. Had this have been right-wing Tory rule, we would have had massively higher fuel accelerator taxes instead with no credible attempts made on cutting the billions that traffic congestion costs the UK economy. Furthermore, we wouldn't have seen London's skyline or infrastructure brought bang up to date either.
Ken's substantial input into the successful Olympic bid also means that London can enjoy many economic knock-on effects from that one event too.
Thankfully there's a system in place which penalises those who choose to buy cars which emit the most emissions. If you can afford such cars - and I say this as a hardcore car enthusiast - then you should pay for the pollution you contribute. That way we can all enjoy our cars for a great deal longer than under an inept, short-sighted and selfish "free for all" system.
steve @ Mar 11th 2008 2:15PM
ummm...people driving porches cant afford it ?
ms.boofii @ Mar 11th 2008 5:02PM
O.k So I am soo one of those tree hugger gay lovin faerie believin weirdo new age hippie freaks that loves automobiles. I simply believe Porsche is in the right- I mean come on lets be at least a little practical in our move toward a greener healthier Earth. Yes I do believe the hp wars are kinda ridiculous but thats just where we are right now? and for some folks, some I know have a 90 grand 911 4s is a daily driver. So why does this mayor believe that overnight things are just supposed to change. How about a yearly fee of say 500 pounds? And every year make it slightly higher to give people time to adjust.
Big Rocket @ Mar 11th 2008 9:33PM
Dazza, a few items for your consideration:
1) Most Olympic host cities *lose* money by hosting the Olympic games. The only notable exception is the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.
"The real lesson to be learned from the L.A. experience was that the Games can be staged with minimal use of... tax dollars if they use existing facilities... Of course, most cities don't have the athletic facilities or the tourist infrastructure to hold an event the size of the Olympics. Moreover, most city leaders would prefer to use the Olympics as a justification to build a new stadium... But, as Atlanta and Salt Lake City have shown, building new facilities usually means investing tax dollars. And using tax money to build venues for elite athletics raises questions about whether those same tax dollars might not be better spent on crime prevention, street repairs, or other things that directly benefit city residents."
Link:
http://media.www.dailyutahchronicle.com/media/storage/paper244/news/2002/01/07/OlympicOpinions/Debunking.Olympic.Myths.About.Economic.Prosperity-161658.shtml
2) Just because Ken Livingstone was the mayor of London when the city was experiencing an economic revival, it doesn't mean the mayor did anything to achieve the economic revival. As I had written before: Correlation does not imply causation. If you wish to bolster your support of Ken Livingstone, please feel free to give examples (web links would be appreciated) in which the mayor or his cabinet introduced legislation, economic initiatives, and/or policy changes that positively impacted London's economy.
3) Just in case you get tired of listening to Americans criticizing Ken Livingstone, here is what a fellow Londoner has to say about her mayor. As you can see, not every Londoner is as enthusiastic about Livingstone as you are.
Link:
http://adloyada.typepad.com/adloyada/2006/04/the_ultimate_no.html
Luis @ Mar 11th 2008 12:59PM
Never mind the pollution factor, can you really get the total potential of a Porsche in the streets of London? Congestion is a MAJOR problem there, not to mention narrow streets,hence the major use of public transportation. High performance automoviles need to be driven, and not just in first and second gear.
Ben H. @ Mar 11th 2008 12:59PM
Ken's antics in Top Gear did not impress me at all. He's someone who makes policies at a whim without considering all the factors. I bet the City of London itself and all the shop owners there despise him and this proposed extra charge.
nissanfreak87 @ Mar 11th 2008 1:00PM
Anyone likening Porsches to trash on the side of the street deserves a swift kick to the head.
Good luck to Porsche on this one.
mike @ Mar 11th 2008 1:06PM
I don’t see a problem here. Porsche makes EXTREMLY dirty vehicles that do far more harm to environment than a family size sedan.
Most cars in UK are smaller than American cars…..so that harm is even more evident compared to other vehicles. Also many give Porsche a pass simply because they make small cars and do not have that image that Hummer has. Hummer gets about 14-15 MPGs, regular Porsche’s get about 18, and Cayenne Turbo gets 14.
The fact is Porsche is as damaging to environment as a Big Azzzz SUV.
Also, these MPG standards are achieved driving reasonably….average Porsche owner doesn’t do that, they accelerate much faster than Corolla owners, they use brakes more often and tend to drive more aggressively…..which leads to even lower MPG.
Quattroporte @ Mar 11th 2008 1:20PM
"When you drive this car through a really polluted city; Los Angeles, Calcutta, Harrogate(?), something like that; the gas coming out of the exhaust pipe is less toxic than the air going into the engine. And I am not joking, that's true. This then is like a small, efficient, easy to use vacuum cleaner. They should have called it the Porsche Dyson."
-Jeremy Clarkson
Matt @ Mar 11th 2008 11:03PM
Way to be uninformed. This reminds me of the Greenpeace protest at Porsche a couple of months ago. As they stated there, Porsches are by far the cleanest sports cars available. There is a difference between having poor fuel economy and being dirty. Just because a car gets 15-20 MPG doesn't mean that it's DIRTY, it just means it is slightly inefficient. The 911 Turbo is one of the cleanest cars out there. If you drive a Turbo through a big city, the air coming out of the exhaust is CLEANER than the air going in. It literally cleans the air. And it gets around 20 MPG. Compare that to other cars with similar performance, like the F430 and Gallardo.
"Porsche makes EXTREMLY dirty vehicles..."
So then if Porsche is so dirty and environmentally unfriendly, why are they working a hybrid system for the Cayenne and upcoming Panamera?
Even if Porsches were dirty, do you think a $50 fee is going to make people give up their $80,000 dream car? I wouldn't.
Chris @ Mar 11th 2008 1:41PM
Mike,
besides the previous reply (correct in that the exhaust can be cleaner than what came in) the fact is that most owners of Porsche and other brands will likely keep their vehicles in better shape meaning they run cleaner.
There is also no exception for newer vehicles versus older ones because this isn't about air pollution its about class warfare.
By the mayors own rules the old cars would be declared the threat, same with the old buses. Yet that isn't his goal, his goal is to get tax money and provide a convenient villan - successful people who make money
letstakeawalk @ Mar 11th 2008 1:43PM
MPG is not an adequate measure of how much a vehicle pollutes. England taxes cars based partly on emissions, which gives a better idea of what is coming out of the tail-pipe.
CAR online has an excellent database:
Land Rover Range Rover 4.4 V8 SE
18mpg / 352g/km CO2
Porsche 911 Turbo
22mpg / 307g/km CO2
Porsche Cayenne GTS
18mpg / 361 g/km CO2
I'm not surprised the hi-po SUVs are about equal, but the extremely hi-po 911 Turbo is significantly less polluting than the SUVs. More mundane Porsches are not the environmental villains you are attempting to make them seem.
Carlos @ Mar 11th 2008 1:22PM
Did anyone else happen to watch that show on National Geographic the other day called Aftermath Population Zero? This reminds me of it for some strange reason lol.
LMBVette @ Mar 11th 2008 1:29PM
Let's be totally honest here...there is no such thing as an "environmentally friendly" vehicle unless you are riding a horse or a bicycle.
I'm no ultra-left wing greenie, but let's be realistic. All vehicles pollute. If they're gas powered, then they produce byproducts of gasoline combusition, if the vehicle is electric....byproducts of coal from the powerplants, hydrogen...well the car and batteries are not biodegradable.
Politcal grandstanding.
Quattroporte @ Mar 11th 2008 1:36PM
Do horses not release methane?
Luis @ Mar 11th 2008 2:14PM
On a lighter note,I have to disagree with you on the horse part...LOL
LMBVette @ Mar 12th 2008 12:11AM
Now...if we can bottle the methane from the horses and our bike riding or walking behinds........ LOL
FThorn @ Mar 11th 2008 1:34PM
Why not just make the streets wider; get rid of some of those old buildings; freshen that dump up!