Used diesel car values down 6%

Bidley

ICBM said:

But taxing them at the same rate per litre is *not* taxing them at the same level, because diesel contains 16% more carbon per litre! It's nothing to do with whether a diesel engine then uses that more efficiently or not.

How many times do I have to say that?

Quite the display of mental gymnastics

If you want diesel users punished just say so mate!

impmann

I can't help thinking that those who bang on about diesels all the time and about how they should be taxed more etc etc are just jealous of the fuel economy and the savings over long distances... and that these taxes that they are so keen to foist onto diesel owners is just to somehow make it financially "fairer" in their minds, using green arguments as a thinly veiled disguise.

Whilst I accept that diesels can generate bad polution in our big cities, I refuse to take any responsibility for it as I don't drive my diesel car in any big city. So why the fucking hell should I pay for it?
And what are you going to do with the extra money? Spend it on green causes? Improve infrastructure so that I don't need to drive a car any more? I guarantee that isn't what will happen...

Taxing something doesn't make it go away.

ICBM

Sporky said:

But earlier you were saying it was about environmental impact.

Correct.

ICBM said:

If we're trying to price fuels correctly relative to their environmental impact then the starting point is to base that on their carbon content and not on their volume. The volume is simply the wrong measure - doing it by mass would be better.

In fact, if diesel was priced like that, it would *still* be cheaper to drive a diesel, especially if you're doing long journeys where the better efficiency comes into play - I think I've said that already as well - just less so than it currently is.

But it would definitely make it less attractive to drivers who don't use their cars like that, which would be a good thing.

Sporky said:

Essentially all your arguments boil down to wanting to punish diesel drivers, you're just trying to achieve that without openly admitting it.

No. What I want is for diesel drivers to pay fairly for their energy use.

Essentially all your arguments boil down to not wanting to pay more for something that you've taken for granted as being falsely cheaper, so we can both play that game .

crunchman

Diesel is more dense than petrol, so @ICBM does have a valid point.  Maybe it should be sold by the Kg instead.

Whatever your views on that, it's now clear that a diesel car causes more air pollution in cities than the petrol equivalent.  Official figures are that 9,000 people are dying prematurely in London every year because of air pollution, with many more dying in other cities.  Putting up the tax that diesel drivers pay to discourage its use pales into insignificance compared with people dying in their thousands.

ICBM

Bidley said:

Quite the display of mental gymnastics

If you want diesel users punished just say so mate!

It is absolutely NOTHING to do with "punishment". How many times do I have to tell you? It is simply that diesel has been unfairly subsidised in two different ways, and that needs to be stopped if we're going to make any progress.

But it seems that you just can't explain it to anyone who thinks that paying a penny more to drive a car is "punishment".

impmann

ICBM said:

Bidley said:

Quite the display of mental gymnastics

If you want diesel users punished just say so mate!

It is absolutely NOTHING to do with "punishment". How many times do I have to tell you? It is simply that diesel has been unfairly subsidised in two different ways, and that needs to be stopped if we're going to make any progress.

But it seems that you just can't explain it to anyone who thinks that paying a penny more to drive a car is "punishment".

"SUBSIDISED"

HOW?

When most of the cost of a fuel is tax, how on earth could it be "subsidised"?




"No. What I want is for diesel drivers to pay fairly for their energy use."

I drive about 24,000miles a year - I pay plenty thankyou very much for my energy use. And you think 1p a litre makes it fairer... for whom, exactly?

crunchman

impmann said:

ICBM said:

Bidley said:

Quite the display of mental gymnastics

If you want diesel users punished just say so mate!

It is absolutely NOTHING to do with "punishment". How many times do I have to tell you? It is simply that diesel has been unfairly subsidised in two different ways, and that needs to be stopped if we're going to make any progress.

But it seems that you just can't explain it to anyone who thinks that paying a penny more to drive a car is "punishment".

"SUBSIDISED"

HOW?

When most of the cost of a fuel is tax, how on earth could it be "subsidised"?




"No. What I want is for diesel drivers to pay fairly for their energy use."

I drive about 24,000miles a year - I pay plenty thankyou very much for my energy use. And you think 1p a litre makes it fairer... for whom, exactly?

I think it was me who suggested 1p a litre not @ICBM.

ThorpyFX

ICBM said:

Bidley said:

Quite the display of mental gymnastics

If you want diesel users punished just say so mate!

It is absolutely NOTHING to do with "punishment". How many times do I have to tell you? It is simply that diesel has been unfairly subsidised in two different ways, and that needs to be stopped if we're going to make any progress.

But it seems that you just can't explain it to anyone who thinks that paying a penny more to drive a car is "punishment".

it comes across very much like punishment if the tax is the same. There just isn't any subsidy unless you become a single issue maniac and focus on carbon emissions solely which is a case of making the numbers fit your argument.

I have put the figures up above that show diesel is 20% more efficient than petrol. I have also stated that it produces 300g more carbon per kilo than petrol. However if it is 20% more efficient than petrol you need to use 20% more petrol to at least match its efficiency and when you do that....... bingo the petrol burns at least as much bloody carbon as diesel to price the same energy output. and energy is key as it is what projects us down the road anyway not bloody carbon.


and thats before you take into account the fact that it uses more carbon to create the petrol in the first place as it needs to be more refined than diesel to stop it gunking up engines.!!!

Carbon emissions are the least worry with regards to diesel engines. NoX are far worse as are the particulates. DPF's have largely reduced a lot of the particulate matter emitted. Adblue is doing wonders for reducing NoX,  as is exhaust gas recirculation systems.


Diesel is the scapegoat for the larger issue that actually all fossil fuels are bad and need removing asap. That being said if the VW scandal hadn't been uncovered we probably wouldn't even be discussing this yet...

and fwiw i have both petrol and diesel cars in this household, the diesel does the big miles and the petrol does the short journeys so i have a foot in both camps.

west

Does anyone think it would be foolish to change from one diesel to another at this point in time ?

ICBM

ThorpyFX said:

I have put the figures up above that show diesel is 20% more efficient than petrol. I have also stated that it produces 300g more carbon per kilo than petrol. However if it is 20% more efficient than petrol you need to use 20% more petrol to at least match its efficiency and when you do that....... bingo the petrol burns at least as much bloody carbon as diesel to price the same energy output. and energy is key as it is what projects us down the road anyway not bloody carbon.

Energy is what projects you down the road, yes - but carbon content is what causes the pollution. Those figures are based on mass - but fuel is priced and taxed by volume, which is exactly the problem. If diesel was priced to reflect its greater density (mass, carbon or energy, whichever way you look at it they are closely related) then the comparison would be more accurate. As it is with them priced about the same per litre, people just look at the mpg figure and think diesel is a lot cheaper.

ThorpyFX said:

and fwiw i have both petrol and diesel cars in this household, the diesel does the big miles and the petrol does the short journeys so i have a foot in both camps.

That's the whole point - if more people did that then there wouldn't be so much pollution in cities! I am not denying that diesel is more economical for long journeys, and it still would be even if it was priced higher. The urgent problem is how to discourage it for town driving.

ThorpyFX said:

Diesel is the scapegoat for the larger issue that actually all fossil fuels are bad and need removing asap.

I agree, but since diesel is causing the worst pollution issues then we need to start with that first.

ThorpyFX said:

it comes across very much like punishment if the tax is the same.

What I have learned is that it's impossible to have a discussion about anything which impacts some people financially without being accused of "wanting to punish" them, especially if it concerns tax or driving, or both. It's absolutely false and has nothing to do with "punishing" anyone - it's to do with redressing a problem which has been caused by wrong governent policy. Usually the only way to change undesirable behaviour without actually legislating against it is financially.

ThorpyFX

ICBM said:

ThorpyFX said:

it comes across very much like punishment if the tax is the same.

What I have learned is that it's impossible to have a discussion about anything which impacts some people financially without being accused of "wanting to punish" them, especially if it concerns tax or driving, or both. It's absolutely false and has nothing to do with "punishing" anyone - it's to do with redressing a problem which has been caused by wrong governent policy. Usually the only way to change undesirable behaviour without actually legislating against it is financially.

hmmmm, well yes it makes it awkward, however I'm not debating this with you because i am personally affected although i will be 50% of the time. I bought a 318bhp diesel which is ridiculous and not at all ideal environmentally, however i get 44mpg and can travel fast so win! 

My debate with you is because I think your argument is flawed, your conclusion is wrong and all because you have focussed on a single issue which doesn't look at the whole production of diesel fuel from cradle to grave....vs petrol.
however, i have failed to convince you, despite my degree in Applied Science and my 2x Masters in Engineering both of which were heavy on organic chemistry... but hey ho.

For what its worth calorific value is everything, if a material has a higher energy density per Kg compared to another and yet produces only a smaller percentage point increase of carbon (as CO2) then it is better when you look at it from the viewpoint of doing work. the same can be said of explosives, higher yield from smaller mass is awesome.

anyway stop banging on about diesel...... Cows are the worlds biggest issue, methane is 86 times more warming than CO2 and then to make matters worse decays into CO2 after 10-20 years in the atmosphere!

ICBM

I understand that you are actually the expert here . But the very figures you quoted prove the point, because they're based on mass (as is of course correct scientifically) rather than volume, which is the way fuel is priced and taxed. If it was sold by weight then the problem wouldn't really exist.

I also agree with you about cows!

For what it's worth, would you prefer a fairly drastic increase in diesel car tax rather than in fuel price? That would actually have the advantage of affecting low-mileage users proportionately more than high-mileage ones, ie where the real problem is.

ThorpyFX

ICBM said:

I understand that you are actually the expert here . But the very figures you quoted prove the point, because they're based on mass (as is of course correct scientifically) rather than volume, which is the way fuel is priced and taxed. If it was sold by weight then the problem wouldn't really exist.

I also agree with you about cows!

For what it's worth, would you prefer a fairly drastic increase in diesel car tax rather than in fuel price? That would actually have the advantage of affecting low-mileage users proportionately more than high-mileage ones, ie where the real problem is.

At this stage neither tbh, An increase in VED has already happened across the board making cars even less affordable. A further tax just adds insult to injury for those that have been convinced to buy a car based on government advice. At this stage the government should just leave cars that are in circulation alone for now, they have a natural shelf life of 10-12 years due to built in obsolescence.

If you want to tax a vehicle to extinction, do it at the point of sale. Make them unattractive to buy and they will disappear from the forecourts and we won't be wasting carbon emissions building the bloody things in the first place.

for now though, don't punish/tax/steal cash/ people punitively because of a government mistake. open the whole this becomes a tax on the poor and middle classes at time when that demographic is squeezed enough.

on the other hand, the government could issue a big badge saying "I'm a smug barstool" to petrol car owners. just to make them happy

RandallFlagg

west said:

Does anyone think it would be foolish to change from one diesel to another at this point in time ?

No. I've just done it today on a 4 year PCP, I will re-evaluate in 4 years

ICBM

ThorpyFX said:

on the other hand, the government could issue a big badge saying "I'm a smug barstool" to petrol car owners. just to make them happy

Ha . Although given what I will have to pay to replace my car with a petrol model if I have to - secondhand petrol MPVs are fairly rare, and expensive - I'm not that smug really.

I actually agree with you about taxing new diesels heavily at the point of sale too, but I'm unconvinced it will work fast enough. 10-12 years is a long time in urban pollution terms given the evidence that's starting to emerge.

crunchman

ICBM said:

I actually agree with you about taxing new diesels heavily at the point of sale too, but I'm unconvinced it will work fast enough. 10-12 years is a long time in urban pollution terms given the evidence that's starting to emerge.

Here's the latest evidence:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/13/new-real-world-diesel-tests-fail-to-prevent-rush-hour-pollution-peak

The problem is that diesels still make up 43.5% of new car sales.
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/94714/uk-new-car-sales-fall-for-fifth-consecutive-month

Whatever you do about all the older diesels on the roads, there needs to be heavier taxation on newly registered diesels to stop people buying them.

west

RandallFlagg said:

west said:

Does anyone think it would be foolish to change from one diesel to another at this point in time ?

No. I've just done it today on a 4 year PCP, I will re-evaluate in 4 years

maybe it will all take time to impliment ....

Foster

I'll still be driving my old diesel van. It's not like I can change it to a petrol one!

EricTheWeary

Foster said:

I'll still be driving my old diesel van. It's not like I can change it to a petrol one!

Me neither, the Ford hybrid Transit due to hit the market in 2019. As my trannie is already eleven years old I should be replacing it with a hybrid in about 2032. 

There is a lot of our economy dependant upon diesel vehicles, getting people to change their cars is the least of it.  In 2019 if your job is delivering parcels for 60p each you aren't going to be buying a new van, it will take years before they start filtering down through the used market ( even assuming they are a comparable price new to diesel vans). Hiking the cost of diesel will do some funny things to the economy ( hitting the worse off in many ways as they get stuck with unsellable diesel cars, can't afford the rise in the cost of public transport and food prices shoot up). Maybe that's a price you'd have to pay ( along with the environmental costs of building so many new vehicles to replace the diesel ones going off the road) but there would certainly be a price. A workable transition is probably quite a slow transition, even adding cost to the price of new vehicles won't deter everyone ( if you can afford a £70k motorhome you can probably afford a £75k motorhome).

chillidoggy

My diesel Mondeo is leased, so I couldn't give a shit, really.