All cars are equal but some are more equal than others

Although not MBA related, something in the news caught my eye.

For those of you who are not aware, the current Mayor of London, KenLivingstone, has announced that from October 27 of this year, cars with thehighest greenhouse gas emissions, such as some so-called 'Chelseatractors', high powered sports cars and luxury vehicles (B and G vehicles),will pay a daily charge of £25 to drive in the central London CongestionCharge Zone.

Whilst I am very much in favour of the world wide effort to tackle globalwarming I really do believe that this is the wrong way to go about it andthat Ken has got it wrong. I also feel that his proposals somewhatcontradict the existing congestion charge.

Firstly, the policy fails to take into account the number of peopletravelling in a vehicle. If, for example, four people drive to work ina 4x4 surely that is better than four separate people driving their band Aor B (or even C) car? Further, in seeking to tackle the issue of congestion(the sole purpose of the congestion charge) surely one car on the road isbetter than four? My solution: Allow people to drive in bus lanes if thereare three or more people in the car (regardless of the amount of pollution)Encourage car pooling by giving people an incentive to do so! The biggest issue is the number of cars on the road rather than the type of car on theroad. (Also (and rather paradoxically) taxis are major pollutants and areexcluded from the new charge)!

Second, the new scheme fails to realise that pollution is a global problem.It makes no difference whether a Chelsea mother drives her Chelsea tractoron Chelsea High Street or in Chelsea Massachusetts, by driving the heavilypolluting car we are already polluting the atmosphere, which is a globalproblem. It makes no difference where exactly the car is positioned. Kenseems to have misunderstood the "polluter pays principle" or at the veryleast believes that it only applies in Central London between 9-5, Mondayto Friday. My solution: If you wish to stop polluting cars then put alarge specific tax on buying the car in the first place (we already do). Second, the polluter pays principle is the reason why we pay very hightaxes on petrol. If one wishes to drive for an hour and emit an hoursworth of pollution then one needs an hours worth of petrol, with moreheavily polluting vehicles requiring more petrol and thus paying more intax to compensate (again we already do this). If we already tax people onthis principle for the pollution they emit then why does Ken want to taxthem again?

Third and finally, the £25 that Ken has proposed is arbitrary at best andif anything too low. Those who can afford to run cars with big engines orheavily polluting vehicles require large sums of money to pay for and runthe vehicle. £25 although significant is probably not going to preventsomeone from entering the city. When you consider that a family of fourwould probably have to pay something similar to that in daily train travelbut have to rely on the often unreliable London tube. If the tax were £100or £1000 Ken would more than likely reduce emissions (although may notmaximize his revenue).I guess that at the end of the day, it depends on whether you see this as abold step in the effort to fight global warming or a money grabbing scheme.