A Petition Worth Signing..?

But Missi - I don't agree with it - improve public transport, tax the car and put up the price of petrol, that's what I want to see. I agree that there should be dispensations for people living in rural areas and possibly for the elderly and disabled - but otherwise it's time to get on your bike or the bus or the train.

But we're 'natural' car drivers. It's in our 'instincts' to want to poison each other because we're too lazy to use our muscles. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I agree Tony. It's crazy we are extracting this valuable resource from the depths of the planet just so some twit in a 4x4 can go to Waitrose to buy his mange tout.

My favourite phrase regarding 4x4s is "negotiating the rugged terrain of Sainsbury's car park". I take every opportunity to use it in every day conversation.

With you, too, Tony. Sorry, Missi. I'd like to see 4x4 road tax, for any owners who can't prove they NEED them for their work, hiked up to at least £3,000 per annum. If you can afford to buy them and run them, you can afford to tax them!

I'm against it. Perhaps we could rename it the 'I'm alright Jack' tax, and be done. It's fine for those who live in an area with excellent trains/buses or who have a healthy income, but for those miles out in the country, its not fine at all. There no doubt will be no 'special dispensation' at all for people that need vehicles to get kids to school - the only one that mine could catch, takes almost an hour to do a ten mile journey. You can also bet that it wont be used to improve roads, just like the extra flight taxes wont be used to create a greener UK. People who can afford 4x4's will drive them whatever, as it wont hurt them. I dont want a tracking device on my care either. Ridiculous.

I heard one woman from Richmond on Radio 4 explain: "But I have two kids and a dog. I NEED my 4 x 4." Oh, please. Pass the Kleenex. Chatteris, I could understand; Richmond, ffs?

In Brighton there was some proposal about penalising 4x4 owners for something or other. Thing is, why single out 4x4s exclusively? Surely if it's purely an environmental consideration it should be judged on a mile per gallon basis. There are plenty of fast cars that perform worse by that criteria than your average 4x4. (Please note, I do not drive a 4x4. I have enough trouble parking a two door.) ~ www.fabulousmother.com

One of the big problems with taxes like this, as noted, is that the proceeds are not used for their intended purpose. The money goes into general revenues and gets siphoned off for makework projects. In addition, Britain has some of the highest public tranport costs in the world. It is probably cheaper to drive than to take a bus or train in many cases, provided public transport exists. If they were serious, they would subsidize public transport to bring the fares way down and increase the service. That will never happen. Reducing reliance on fossil fuel is a worthy goal, but do it in a way that actually accomplishes something, not this grandiose posturing. "You don't need the light of the Lord to read the handwriting on the wall." Copies of Warsaw Tales available through www.new-ink.org

Lou: You're right. I guess the reason 4x4s have become a bit of a catch-all is that outside of the work imperatives of things like agriculture, emergency services, etc., no one actually needs them - especially not in town. They've become part of a lifestyle choice. But sure - other vehicles do pollute more. I have to admit to being uneasy about vehicle tracking... that does seem a bit more sinister. The other side of that, though, is that most car owners - if they're honest - use their cars far more than they actually need to. I know I did when I had a car. A cold, rainy evening and a half-mile walk to the shops for a tin of peas? Why put all that clobber on and get soaked when you can jump in the car? If I had a car now, I'd probably still be tempted to do it. It's so easy. That's a big part of the problem. They're so much a part of our lives now, and they make things so convenient for us, and public transport is so expensive anyway, that we over-rely on them. It's a horrible problem to deal with. More incentives could be offered to encourage personal responsibility. But other, more unpopular things have to be done, too. Government can't just stand still on the matter. Taxation, as Justin says, should be hypothecated to improvements in public transport. Maybe some system could be introduced whereby motorists receive some sort of annual dividend for keeping below a certain mileage. God knows how it would be administered... but it's something that could be considered. Penalty legislation is probably not always the best way forwards. But one thing's for sure: some drastic movement will HAVE to take place before too much longer. Car numbers are reckoned to double within ten years. In the absence of alternative fuel technologies, this cannot be sustained if we're to keep pollution figures to agreed levels.

my dad has the answer to the 4x4 problem. The manufacturers should be forced to produce them only in bubblegum pink with daisies painted all over them. That way only those who absolutely need them would use them. I quite fancy one like that though.

Liana - as someone who has lived most of his life in the countryside I very much agree with you - hence my rider about dispensation for those who live in the boondocks. However I now see these bloody great gas guzzlers all over the streets of Brighton and I want to scream. They should be very heavily taxed. I also agree that the money must be earmarked to improve and cheapen public transport. No point in paying the Iraq war bill with the dough. Climate change is with us and the solutions will not be pleasant. I have no problem with people using cars - if they don't pollute. I have no problem with making life easier - so long as it doesn't increase carbon emissions. We have to face facts and some of the options will not be easy for us. Make a noise now and get these changes made sensibly and fairly. We don't have any time to waste.

I generally agree with Tony on this one... I don't like the idea of taxation and tracking, but drastic and bold steps do need to be taken if we are to significantly reduce the number of cars on the roads. And I'm still not sure even such measures as these would be anywhere near enough to make anything more than the slightest dent on the problem. Subsidising public transport would be a start. Also making it generally a more attractive option. There are a number of people I have known who won't get on a bus or a train because of having to share them with "smelly people"... or whatever! Okay, they're snobs, but it does highlight the fact that buses/trains are certainly not seen as the "classy" option - much better to rock up to one's girlfriend's house or a high-powered business meeting in a gleeming gas-guzzler, eh? Like it or not, appearances count for a lot in this world... Time for public transport to get a Colin and Justin-style makeover! pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

I think serious improvement on public transport (reliability, affordability) ought to preceed any increase in taxation. As JT says revenue is swallowed into the general pot. Since the recent increase in Air tax... it is still £60 more expensive for me to fly to Edinburgh than go by train, so the net decrease in flights taken by me every year will be about zero. If the government worked to get the train prices below or on a level with plane tickets, I most certainly would take the train. It makes me sad when a government is so dull and useless that the only solution it can come up with is 'tax'. I'd like to see tram networks connecting all towns and cities with their suburbs, high speed and efficient trains with plenty of double decker carriages to reduce overcrowding. Train operators having prices regulated with service being put above profits and stupid-huge bonuses for the CEO and if necessary, tickets being subsidised with the airport tax we already pay. Mind you, if the rail network was run properly in the first place, it would pay for itself. When there is an improvement, then and only then, tax the motorists as you wish jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Bravo, Jude! Yes, "tax" is a pretty lazy option... Oh, and how about introducing compulsory child muzzles on trains, buses and planes? . . . . . . . . . . !!!JOKE!!! . . . pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

I also agree that the money must be earmarked to improve and cheapen public transport. absolutely right Tony and it could happen... oh look, there goes a bacon sarnie past my window. I am repeating myself here, but I feel very strongly about this so shall indulge my indignation! The government (especially this one)will have to prove the intent to use money to improve Public transport before taxing the motorist or flyer even more than they are now. Otherwise it will just become yet another empty promise that will inevitably be broken. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I'd like to think that improvements in public transport would be enough of an incentive to encourage people out of their cars - but I'm sceptical about it, partly for the reasons Peps has stated. I'm not anti-car. I just think that an awful lot of car use is unnecessary. It's reckoned, as well, that the average car journey is less than 5 miles - too short for 'cats' to work effectively. In the absence of government measures, much will have to come down to individual responsibility. I just hope it doesn't come to some disaster or other before people start thinking 'Shit, I'd better change my habits.' Global warming disasters are already taking place and can, on current trends, only escalate. Of course, it's to do with much more than car usage - but that's a major contributor. Anyone interested in eco-motoring might like to check these people out: http://www.eta.co.uk/ This news item on the site is encouraging: http://www.eta.co.uk/news/newsview.asp?n=713

What happened to electric cars? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Take a butcher's, Peps: http://www.goingreen.co.uk/ http://www.evuk.co.uk/ I've seen one of the G-Wizzes - cuter than a Smart!

Reduce cars on road: limit cars to 1 per family. Kills 2 birds...one member will have to stay home and care for the children. That'll make a change :) Kids will grow up with some good family values, and we'll reduce da poison all round. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

Thanks for that, Alan! :-) Well they don't seem so bad... Why don't we see more of them on the road? pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

I drove to work behind an electric car a few weeks ago, and it was going some - I could hardly keep up with it (not that I was racing or anything...). I was very impressed.

If you look at the amount of people who have already signed, it's quite a meaty amount. Refresh the page, and people are signing up at a rate of two per second. More than 1,115,000 last time I looked, so it looks like the general consensus on here isnt the same as the one on the street. Apparently the govt have pledged to 'listen' to it. Now that really does make me laugh.

I'm sure it would suit the environment if women had to carry water on their heads in pots but hey if one works it is so difficult to find the time.Most environmental issues land on female mats.Recently a 12 year old in my town was sent a fine for leaving a piece of cardboard beside a recycling bin.The bin may have been very full but in anycase bins have mostly high openings.Short people haven't a hope. Anyone saying shoppers should take busses must livein a town.Even if there were adequate forms of public transport a weeks shop for a family is a considerable number of bags. Too many for one person to carry on a bus. The answer has to be cleaner cars.Or we all live in towns killing off all countryside and village life.

"Even if there were adequate forms of public transport a weeks shop for a family is a considerable number of bags. Too many for one person to carry on a bus." My mum always managed it, though - shopping for a family of 4 (and she still does it at 78 - though only for herself now!) Even when we lived in the country. The village we lived in had a tiny post office with basic provisions and was 3 miles from the nearest town - so a weekly shop on the bus (on payday) was a necessity. We didn't have a car then because we simply couldn't afford one. Many carless people nowadays still manage it, too. I'm sorry, but I still think many people have become too reliant on their cars. I live in a town now which has a couple of supermarkets - yet townsfolk still drive to these places to get their shopping. And nowhere in this town is anyone more than ten minutes walk from a paper shop - yet the one down the road from me has a constant stream, during Sunday mornings, of cars driven by people going to collect their papers. Absolutely bonkers. No wonder obesity is becoming such a problem. I see happening here exactly what I saw on a wide scale in the US 20 years ago: people driving everywhere, with huge backsides filling their driving seats!

And did she work also? I'm sorry, but if I had to give my car up, life would be intolerable. The village shop is a mile there and back - and I do walk, often. I can't do a big shop there though, primarily because it's so hideously expensive. I'd love to be able to give my car up, because I'd save loads on petrol. Unfortunately, if I used buses it would cost me much more. To go ten miles - one adult - costs £2.50 here. Imagine that with three kids, twice a day? Dont think so. I have to laugh and agree with camillas statement about women carrying water. It's all well and good for people who DONT live in the country, or DONT work long hours to pontificate about how life used to be or how people ought to manage... sorry alan, its unrealistic. Sorry.

Some people do, in some sense of the word, "need" cars... and some, although perhaps not technically "needing" them, would find life "intolerable" without them. I do, however, generally agree with Alan's point - too many people think they need them, and too many people have become unnecessarily reliant on them. I do believe we have to face some difficult facts - cars are huge pollutants, which are literally killing the planet, and in a more direct way the people who drive them and/or come face-to-bumper with them. They have become such a commonplace, ugly, noisy part of "modern life," that we tend to presume life would be unbearable without them. Cars cause more deaths than terrorism and most other forms of crime. They will become a major factor in destroying the planet (or at least the humans on it) if we don't start taking drastic action, making difficult decisions, to reduce their usage. So many things these days have become conveniences which we can't even concieve of living without. We need to start concieving! pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Hiya, Liana Yes, mum did work. She actually had a part-time job at that post office! But between them, mum and dad didn't make much. Dad always did manual labour, and throughout their married life they only ever owned a car once - an old Cortina Mk1 that dad got when we moved to Kent and he was getting paid better. But he only had it a couple of years, as I remember. Throughout my childhood and teens - my years at home - they didn't have a car. And mum always had to work. You're absolutely right about public transport - as others have pointed out. It's worse here. A return to Canterbury, 7 miles away, is a fiver. When I worked there, though, I used to get a 7 day ticket for £16, which was far cheaper for me than running a car. In the summer, I used to cycle there and back most days - to save money and keep fit. Well, give the man a bloody medal! Not everyone wants to do that, though, and not everyone can, obviously. I could, so I did. My circumstances fitted with it, so I was lucky. Obviously, individual circumstances are different. I accept that. I'm sure, for you in your situation, that life WOULD be difficult without a car. I wish I could make it plainer: I'm not anti-car. But I still think that many people, if they're honest, use their cars much more than they actually need to - especially if they live in towns. As I said, when I had a car, I was the same. It's so easy. I don't say that people should give up their cars at all, or that they should 'try to manage' without them. Just that, if it's possible - IF it's possible - they might try minimising unnecessary usage. If, for instance, there was an across-the-board hike of 100% in petrol and diesel prices (which I certainly wouldn't want to see because of the way it would penalise the less well-off - not to mention the associated economic chaos), you'd soon see people thinking twice about perhaps driving down the paper shop, or whatever. Things will have to change before too much longer, anyway. It's not just global warming. It's oil supplies. No one really knows how much is left, but the 'early toppers' see a crisis of supply within the next 10 years. The last year in which we discovered more oil than we consumed was way back in the early 80s. Alternatives? Well, that's a whole 'nother topic altogether.

The last year in which we discovered more oil than we consumed was way back in the early 80s are you sure about that?

I'm basing that on figures provided by BP and used in Jeremy Leggett's book 'Half Gone', Dan. The peak of oil discovery was in 1965. There were a few more big discoveries in the 70s, but there have been none since. Since the early 80s, there has been an overall decline.

That may well be so, but it doesn't mean use has overtaken discovery. I was under the impression that the known (well, estimated) amount of oil in the world had risen year on year from up to and including the present day. The curve was flattening (as it surely will) but it was still going up. A lot of that oil is difficult to get at, and sometimes uneconomical to get at (at current prices), but technology marches ahead and changes that too. People have been forecasting the demise of oil (along with the catastrophic population explosion) for decades and it still shows no sign of happening.

Also, with regard to a 100% hike in price of petrol, you must realise that it's already well over 100% of what it might be. I don't think demand is that elastic. For instance almost all my petrol usuage is commuting to work. I already work from home about as much as is practical, so if I wanted to cut down I would have to either move house or find another job, neither of which I would want to do. A massive price hike would give me a good argument to demand a pay rise to cover it (and I flater myself they would probably pay it). I'm guessing, but I bet your mum would have driven to the shops if she had the option.

best data I can find on oil reserves is the opec stats report for 2005 here In 1980 proven crude oil reserves were 600 million, in 2005 1.15 billion. It's a part picture because it's only opec countries, but it shouldn't be all that different anywhere else. (also, I seem to remember it was in an opec country's interest to underestimate reserves)

Get rid of the car and pay the supermarket to deliver. I cant afford a car anymore, and I don't really need one. I hate cars. really hate the horrible, claustophobic, yakky things. The noise they make, the smell, the ugh...the colours and the plastic bits...it's sickening - especially in the summer when the sunshine makes all their horrid colours glimmer. cars bring out the worst in people too. Ever noticed that? Ever noticed how transparent people's personalities become when they're driving a car? Ugh. There's nothing more mind-teasing than the incomprehensible eagerly avowed - Dennett

I think I can only say, Dan, what I said before. Who really knows how much there is? It's like with global warming. Who does one believe? Eventually, it's probably a combination of head and heart as to whose arguments one accepts. Consumption of oil globally has rocketed since the 50s and continues to increase. It certainly never drops. The chart in Leggett's book - again, based on BP's figures, shows consumption surpassing discovery in around 1981 - which was also the peak year for tanker capacity. Maybe technology will change to enable us to reach the more difficult-to-get-at supplies. Goldman Sachs has estimated that, on current consumption trends, we need to spend $2.4 trillion in access technology - nearly triple the level of capital investment in the 90s. They blame that decade and the one before, when this research field was chronically underinvested, for current problems in the core infrastructure. So, even if the pessimists (about current levels) are wrong, we could still run into an oil crisis based on those two decades of underinvestment. I suppose we'll find out, one way or another, sooner or later - but certainly within our lifetimes (all other things being equal).

"I'm guessing, but I bet your mum would have driven to the shops if she had the option." Possibly, Dan. I'll have to remember to ask her. My 100% thing was a crude example. If, by contrast, public transport became ridiculously cheap, it may not have a vast effect on driving habits. I don't know. I'd like to think so. Can I just say it once more, loud and clear, in case anyone hasn't heard: I'M NOT ANTI-CAR. EVERYONE'S CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT. Anyone who thinks I've wagged my finger and said 'Thou Shalt Not Drive' hasn't read what I've said. What I hope I've been trying to say - and if it hasn't come across like that, then I'll happily take the bullet - is that there are extremely important issues here, and we get no nearer to addressing them by getting all defensive and saying things like 'Everyone should dump their cars' or 'I have to have a car to survive'. Just consider the issues, that's all. Then make your own minds up about what they mean, or what you want them to mean, and what you want to do about them, and how you want to continue living your life, and so on and on and on...

This kind of defensiveness is somewhat endemic of these kinds of debates, is it not, Mr B? ;-) My girlfriend (as I've mentioned elsewhere) has just passed her driving test, and she has driven (pardon the pun) me up the wall, scouring the pages of Auto Trader for a ve-hi-cle... She has got to the point in her particular career where she is missing opportunities due to not being more mobile. We also will, no doubt, benefit on a more personal level, when we are able to see more of the world, carry more potatoes home from the supermarket, etc... Although obviously, in a literal sense, we would survive if we didn't have a car, we can certainly see how it will be of great benefit to our lives on a number of levels. However... I really, really, really hope we don't become too reliant on our car (when it eventually arrives!). It is, in a variety of contexts, a convenience. Our ancestors survived without 'em, I'm damned sure we could. I can't quote any related statistics, but like Alan said, if people just generally thought a bit more about these issues, if walking places was occasionally seeing as a pleasurable alternative, if we (those of us who don't already) investigated the possibility of shopping online rather than traipsing off to supermarkets, etc, etc, then it's gotta have some impact. We might - *shock*horror* - sometimes actually be better off (financially, health-wise...) without our "essential" vehicles! pe ps oid ... What is "The Art of Tea"? ... (www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

I was defensive, yes - "my mum managed it for a family of four" makes me feel I'm a lazy bint who needs to make a bloody effort. (That may or not be true, but on the whole, the inference is likely to get my back up.) I wish I could shop online and have them deliver - only Tesco does it here, and I'm a bit uncomfy with Tesco's morals to be honest (not to mention the prices). I've used Iceland's delivery option before, but you still have to get there in the first place. I didnt have a car til I was 30, so my footprints not too bad anyway. Sometimes I feel like buying a hummer mind you.

I can't see this measure doing any good. I can't think of any general measure that wouldn't be bitterly unfair to a lot of people. Everyone's fiercely protective of their way of life, and the line between indulgence and a genuine need is extremely difficult to discern sometimes. Not all 4x4 drivers are just showing off. And we can play 'Easy For You To Say' all day - I find it hard to sympathise with Liana's predicament for example (except for the children part) because, the way I see it, I live in the city because I can't *afford* to live in the country. I can't fathom how people manage it. In fact, I immediately reject the arguments of every one of you who've been able to afford to go on holiday the last three years.

My 4x4 suv isn't cutting it. I need a large 4x4 pickup truck. Where else can I put my empty beer cans? Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/

what on earth do you mean you cant afford to live in the country??? its vastly cheaper, thats why i do it.

Well... we moved out of the country because it was too expensive - though largely because, where we were, there wasn't much employment, and there was a great deal of competition for it. Blimey, Liana... I was responding to Camilla's 'family weekly shop bags on a bus is too much for one person' - which is stated as an absolute. I disagree that it's an absolute. It wasn't saying 'people who do the weekly shop in cars are lazy bints' - that's an implication you've dug out of it. On the subject, though, I don't see whether my mother worked or not has got much to do with anything - even how long her, or anyone else's, working hours are. She worked all of her married life, except when I and my brother were very young. When she was a meter reader for the LEB in London, she went all over the place by bus and train during her working day. She had no choice. She couldn't drive. As Dan suggested, if she'd had a car and could have driven, she probably would have done so. I say again - I wasn't saying all mothers with cars have got an easy life. I was saying Camilla's absolute isn't.

I'm guessing 'can't afford to live in the country' is based on adding the cost of renting in suburbia to commuting to London for work which is more expensive. Generally living in the countryside attracts additional transport costs but everything else is cheaper and the net overall effect is indeed vastly cheaper. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"This kind of defensiveness is somewhat endemic of these kinds of debates, is it not, Mr B?" So it seems, Peps. The thing is, this is a serious issue, and people are understandably touchy about it on both sides. Which is why something along the lines of 'maybe we could all look at bit more closely at ourselves and our behaviour' gets construed as 'I'm being personally criticised, and I'm going to stick up for my rights tooth and nail against the doomsayers and do-gooders'. It's probably human nature, really. We'll always find 1,001 ways to justify what we do, if it suits us.

"Generally living in the countryside attracts additional transport costs but everything else is cheaper and the net overall effect is indeed vastly cheaper." Depends on your circumstances, Jude - and whereabouts you are in 'the countryside'. Our experience was the opposite of what you say. But that was quite a long time ago, and the economy in the area I lived in has boomed since. So much so, in fact, that property prices there are reckoned to be the highest in the country outside London. Last time I was there, last year, the average end-of-terrace was more than what you'd pay for a 2-bedroomed semi in Kent. But then... it's a gorgeous place to live (the South Hams) and it's attracting a lot of money out of London. Many of the locals, who've been there all their lives working in agriculture and ancillary industries, are finding it very hard indeed to balance the books.

I dont feel personally criticised, but I do feel that it is very easy for people that wouldnt be affected one iota by regulations such as the proposed above, to cheerlead it as a good idea. It isn't, it is a very BAD idea, and it will penalise far too many people. The thing that worries me far more than the cost (and thats enough of a worry) is the tracking. I dont want to be tagged and monitored. (even if i should be)

i propose a Bachelor Tax ... i feel that people who live alone use a proportionally greater amount of resources than those of us who share our homes with say ... three kids and a dog ... these singletons increasingly account for a great many homes in the UK ... numbers of them rising massively and causing a huge number of tiny shoebox houses to be built everywhere ... so tax them if they live alone i say ... slap it on them ... and if they don't want to pay then make them live in dormitories ... yes dorms ...

oh, and i stopped smoking (eight days tomorrow smoke free) so my greenability is increasing all the time. as is my grumpiness, evidently.

laughing at dormitories ...ha indeed fish.

Housing is a lot cheaper in the country gee my kids can have a bedroom each, but there are no longer local shops , schools ,or any reasonable public transport so we have to drive to school, doctors, shops. In any case in the light of Amazon forests burning and the expansion of China and the carbon footprint of the USA are we just P ing in the wind??Our lead has always been in useful tech as well as pushing for responsible behaviour.I am not hearing those who actually do the shopping and cooking for 4 or 5 people begging to give up their cars . Now it would be reasonable to encourage school busses as a lot of people don't live within any kind of walk of school.It would also be reasonable to plan new build areas so there are schools doctors shops within reach.I also think we should have American style brown bags in supermarkets at least they could be recycled just like all those daily broadsheets.