Government requests input on new CO2 emissions taxes.

MontgomeryClift

I hear they're asking for submissions from interested parties at VRT <at_symbol> finance.gov.ie (poor craters, they don't need spam any more than we do) on how to structure vehicle emissions taxes.

As you know they're totally hung up on Vehicle Registration Tax as a way to extract mon... er... I mean to limit CO2 emissions. So in future you can register a 1.4 litre Bio-Ethanol-ready car, save on VRT, then run it on petrol for 50,000 kilometres a year with no extra financial penalty.

As we all know, the sensible thing would be to tax the fuel, and not the car, based on its CO2 level. So if you like you can send them an e-mail and try to talk some sense into civil servants. They're the ones that will get paid if they use your suggestions though. And they'll get paid if they don't. C'est la vie.

Mayshine

I just sent this to them



To whom it may concern,

I am writing to submit my thoughts on the proposed changes to the VRT system in relation to reducing CO2 outputs from the private motoring sector.

Firstly I wish to register my views that as it currently stands VRT is an illegal (based on the grounds of free movement of goods within EU states, inappropriate and unfair tax). It does nothing but increase the base cost of a car forcing the Irish motorist to drive cars that lack many of the safety features our European colleagues get as standard. It is NOT and environmental tax in its present form. In fact it is not even close

My key point is quite obvious. It is to say that when a car is not moving, it is not polluting. Any CO2 tax must reward the driver who takes a less polluting form of transport when it is available

If we take this point as the key point it is clear to say that regardless of the engine size, etc of a vehicle, the government should be looking to reduce the number of kilometers traveled by each vehicle. As it stands VRT is a tax at the point of purchase, once this purchase has been made the driver will not change his behaviour because there are no consumption based initiatives to encourage this behaviour change. Even worse VRT in its present form can encourage driver to purchase older less efficient vehicles as they become cheaper due to depreciation.

The key point is to replace VRT with an equivalent consumption charge. This will reward drivers who drive less and try and use public transport while penalising drivers who drive more. There is a reasonable although not necessarily perfect correlation between the CO2 emissions per kilometer traveled of a given vehicle and the number of kilometers achieved per liter of fuel. This means that this charge would be most appropriately levied on the price of fuel.

As a separate matter road tax should be changed and levied against the CO2/km emissions of a vehicle rather than the engine size - The engine size is too imprecise and doesn't take into account the difference between diesel and petrol and hybrid engines, nor does it take into account turbo charging or supercharging of engines which can make smaller engine pollute more than larger engines. It should also be reduced from its very high level - Again this tax in its present form bears no relation to the use on the vehicle and as such cannot be considered as a useful environmental tax

In summary - Abolish VRT, tax on consumption, not purchase. This is how the greener European countries behave. As an extreme example a weekend driven sports car doing 4000km per year pollutes far less than a 1.6 liter small car that drives 20000km. However the owner of the sports car attracts far more tax. If this is how the government desires to tax the motorist then so be it - however it can clearly be seen that this is more revenue generation than an effort to reduce transport pollution.

As an aside, in an effort to reduce carbon emissions from the transport sector, the number one priority should be to provide the best public transport infrastructure possible. No matter what the outcome of the VRT changes are, they will not help much if there is no viable alternative to the car.

Mailman

Mayshine wrote:

I just sent this to them


Even worse VRT in its present form can encourage driver to purchase older less efficient vehicles as they become cheaper due to depreciation.

the largest part of the carbon footprint made by a car was there when the car was manufactured. Running an older car until it has reached the end of it's economic life rather than scrapping it early and ordering a new car fresh out of the box is actually more environmentally friendly. Older cars typically cover fewer miles than new ones too. when the old car eventually wears out the VRT system should ensure that the user is motivated to purchase the most efficient car available.

All those Prius drivers would have done more good for the environment by not ordering their new Prius and instead running their Avensis or whatever until is was fit for scrapyard.

Seth Brundle

Mayshine wrote:

As a separate matter road tax should be changed and levied against the CO2/km emissions of a vehicle rather than the engine size - The engine size is too imprecise and doesn't take into account the difference between diesel and petrol and hybrid engines, nor does it take into account turbo charging or supercharging of engines which can make smaller engine pollute more than larger engines. It should also be reduced from its very high level - Again this tax in its present form bears no relation to the use on the vehicle and as such cannot be considered as a useful environmental tax

In summary - Abolish VRT, tax on consumption, not purchase. This is how the greener European countries behave. As an extreme example a weekend driven sports car doing 4000km per year pollutes far less than a 1.6 liter small car that drives 20000km. However the owner of the sports car attracts far more tax. If this is how the government desires to tax the motorist then so be it - however it can clearly be seen that this is more revenue generation than an effort to reduce transport pollution.

Fair play to you for contacting them.
However, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You seem to think flat rate taxes are unfiar (as in VRT & motor tax) yet are happy enough to have an annual tax based on CO2 output - which would be a static amount regardless of mileage.
The only equitable means to tax motorists is via fuel taxes. The polluter would then pay their fair share.

Mayshine

Mailman - agreed - however since we do not manufacture cars in ireland these are not our carbon pollution. Some other country is responsible for it. So from a purely kyoto protocal (and its associated fines coming soon) perspective, the manufacturing CO2 output will never count towards ireland emmissions. In a macro perspective I agree with you but this is a micro issue.

kbannon - Agreed - however to get the government to change both of these was stretching what I though would be possible. Since I don't reckon road tax will be abolished, better to have it based on something more sensible than the engine cc's

To be honest - ideally I would just abolish VRT - it is illegial after all and however the government wishes to dress it up, is not and enviromental tax - and replace road tax with a consumption based tax on fuel. Simple as that

mike65

Just did my civil duty. A two line submission - tax use, not ownership basicly

Mike.