Congestion Charging

Congestion Charging
Two interesting perspectives on road pricing, from two interesting thinkers. Firstly Tim Harford asks why climate change (a potential, future problem) receives far more attention than traffic congestion (a real, current problem):
If climate change ever begins to have the same impact on our lives that congestion does today, it will be a dark day indeed. Think about the delays; the uncertainties; think about the lengths big-city dwellers have to go to in an effort to avoid traffic. Then think about how severely the climate would need to change before it had the same effect on your daily routine.
Secondly John Adams (with a letter in The Guardian), says that road pricing is not the solution:
Congestion pricing is not the answer. It will simply disperse the problem into those parts of the country currently least congested, encouraging yet more sprawl and low-density, car-dependent land-use patterns.

city-planning trial run to remove traffic lights. According to The Telegraph:
"We want small accidents, in order to prevent serious ones in which people get hurt,...It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want. But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk."
Source: http://thefilter.blogs.com/thefilter/2007/02/congestion_char.html

Third interesting perspective: John Galpin, Comment on BBC’s Nick Robinson blog

Leaving aside the civil libertarian issues the point that I and many others keep making is that there is little done about improving transport capacity and price is being used ( or stealth taxes) as virtually the sole mechanism for managing demand, which is hardly a socially inclusive strategy. Why spend billions developing a system that will contribute nothing to improving capacity? At best all it will due is limit demand to those that can afford it.
Unless you live in a major city buses are unreliable. I spent half an hour in the pouring rain yesterday, with no bus shelter, for a bus that didn't arrive. UK train travel is the most expensive per km in the world and often no better than sardine cans on wheels. The congestion zone is expanding when it is known that many have no meaningful alternative. This is in spite of comment to that effect and the fact that the current zone is now achieving little except raise revenue. Cross Rail has remained a fantasy project for much of the time but even if built will do nothing to provide a direct rail link to Heathrow for the 7 million that live to the west of the airport even though it will pass within a mile of the new runway. Try using public transport to carry a 25 kg suitcase by from "rural" Berkshire to Heathrow for a flight before mid day. I have, I barely got there and by the time I did I just wanted to go home! Just how are seven million of us supposed to avoid using cars for this? Say to hell with business, work and vacations by just staying at home perhaps?
People don’t appreciate being charged more and more but not seeing the alternatives being developed. And that just doesn't apply to transport. As many keep pointing out if you want to tax travel, fuel duty is directly proportional to vehicle fuel efficiency and miles travelled. It is simple and even more reliable to collect than annual car tax.
Government needs to show some form in using the tax they have and are collecting to develop the supply side of this system. Just using additional, ever more complex, bureaucratic and expensive price management systems to ‘restrict demand’ is not feasible without alternative mechanism and that is why I signed the petition.





Climate Change

Proposing key features include:
impose a series of global caps on annual greenhouse gas production
set aside the country-based approach, replacing it with a unified global approach
control greenhouse gases at point of production, not of emission; in the case of fossil fuel emissions, control the production of the fuel itself as close as feasible to the mine or well-head, based on the global warming potential of the fuel in question when burnt
sell greenhouse gas production "Rights" at a global auction open to all bidders
limit the fossil fuel production of any company in any year to the level for which they have obtained Rights
treat other industrial production of greenhouse gases in the same way, for example: carbon dioxide (CO2) from cement production; and surplus radiative impacts for aviation
for avoidable diffuse greenhouse gas emissions such as methane and CO2 from forest burning, issue limited Rights to governments on a per capita of population basis
credit Rights to companies who demonstrably destroy or safely bury greenhouse gases
use the funds raised at the global auction to address both the causes and consequences of climate change
Taken as a whole, these measures offer a new approach which would achieve the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas production in a way that is economically efficient, fair and equitable. And the climate funds - which could easily reach $500bn-$1 trillion (£250-£500bn) per year - could be used in many positive ways, for example:
establish a Climate Adaptation Fund to help the worst affected countries adapt to climate change
finance programmes to reduce fossil fuel demand, aimed especially at poorer countries and populations
pay "rent" to countries with natural biomes acting as carbon sinks and stores within their territories, such as forests and swamps, to maintain and expand those sinks and stores
establish a Low Carbon Development Bank to support viable low-carbon energy developments
fund low-carbon energy research, for example, into renewable generation technologies
buy out fossil fuel deposits to prevent their exploitation, which will also give an economic return to countries losing revenue from fossil fuel sales
BBC online: Oliver Tickell freelance journalist




Measures of protection for the environment:
Extracts from Pre Budget Report

• A key aim of government intervention is to encourage behavioural change, particularly with regard to the use of energy, waste and water. Investment to increase efficiency in these areas is often a cost-effective option for businesses and households, but short-term cost considerations and market failures can create barriers to the take up of more efficient alternatives. Intervention can correct these market failures, ensuring the implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle in which environmental costs are fully internalised in economic decisions.
• UK greenhouse gas emissions fell by 14.5 per cent between 1990 and 2004. The UK is the only G7 country already meeting its Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 12.5 per cent compared with 1990 levels over the years 2008 to 2012. Following the measures announced in the Climate Change Programme Review, projections suggest that by 2012 the UK could reduce its emissions by between 23 to 25 per cent from 1990 levels,
going far beyond its Kyoto commitment; and

• carbon intensity, which measures the level of carbon emissions against gross domestic product (GDP), has improved by 55 per cent since the early 1970s at a rate of 2 per cent per year.

• Good progress has been made in other areas. On air quality, between 1997 and 2003, nitrous oxide emissions were reduced by 22 per cent and sulphur dioxide emissions were reduced by 41 per cent. Between 1997-98 and 2005-06, the volume of waste going to landfill fell by 25 per cent and household recycling rates in England increased from around 8 per cent to nearly 27 per cent. Between 2001 and 2005, there was a reduction in sales of virgin aggregate in Great Britain of around 18 million tonnes and an estimated increase in recycled aggregate of around 8 million tonnes. 62 per cent of England’s rivers were of good chemical quality in 2004, compared with 43 per cent in 1990. 70 per cent were of good biological quality, up from 60 per cent in 1990.

• Three elements of policy are required for an effective global response: pricing of
carbon – through tax, trading or regulation – with economic efficiency pointing
towards a common global price; support for innovation and research, development
and deployment of low-carbon technologies; and actions to encourage behaviour
change and energy efficiency in the move to a low-carbon economy. In addition,
action to reduce deforestation and enable adaptation to climate change is also
important.

• The public sector has an important role to play in setting an example to encourage all
individuals, households and firms to improve their energy efficiency and limit their
environmental impact.
The public sector spends over £125 billion on goods and services a year and it is vital
that this investment is spent in a way that is good for the environment as well as good value
for money. It is a condition of funding for the Building Schools for the Future programme that
all schools being rebuilt or subject to major refurbishment meet the Building Research
Establishment’s environmental assessment method ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ rating for
schools. To extend ambition for low-carbon buildings, even higher standards for new
and refurbished schools is set to reduce their carbon emissions by up to 60 per cent over
existing standards, and in some cases up to carbon neutrality.

• Transport is the second largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the UK and, due
in part to sustained economic growth, emissions are set to continue growing until around 2015,
before falling thereafter. In addition, the sector is a significant contributor of air pollutants.
However, environmental goals must be pursued alongside wider priorities. A safe, clean and
efficient transport system underpins sustainable economic growth, boosts productivity,
extends mobility and helps create a more inclusive society.
Sulphur-free fuels offer local air quality benefits, while helping new engine
technologies work more efficiently. Regulations brought forward early in 2007
to ensure the widespread availability of sulphur-free diesel and sulphur-free
‘super’ grades of petrol.

• In November 2005 the Government announced it would introduce a Renewable
Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) requiring transport fuel suppliers to ensure a set percentage
of their sales are from a renewable source. Budget 2006 announced that the level of obligation
would be set at 2.5 per cent in 2008-09 and 3.75 per cent in 2009-10, before reaching 5 per cent
in 2010-11. This will deliver net savings of around 1 MtC per year by 2010. The Government
intends the level of the Obligation to rise above 5 per cent after 2010-11, provided that three
critical factors are met: development of robust sustainability and carbon standards;
development of a new fuel quality standard at EU level to ensure existing and new vehicles can
run on biofuel blends higher than 5 per cent; and the costs being acceptable to the consumer.

• On improving water quality and efficiency the Government agreed to consult on a
proposal to oblige water companies in areas of serious water stress to consider compulsory
metering alongside other measures in drawing up long-term plans for managing water
resources. The Government is currently assessing a range of possible policy options to tackle
diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA), and remains committed to ensuring that the
costs of such pollution do not fall on water customers. The Government will consult shortly
on the most cost-effective options for dealing with DWPA and continues to keep options for
using economic instruments under review. The pesticides voluntary initiative remains in
place

• Between 1997-98 and 2005-06, the total quality of waste disposal to landfill sites
registered for landfill tax fell by 25 per cent, while the amount of active waste
disposal to landfill by 14 per cent. www.uktradeinfo.com,


Extracted from:
Pre-Budget Report: The Government’s policy objectives and Budget measures




Productivity of the economy
It has since become the consensus among experts in the field that it is only natural that the development of revolutionary technologies and investments in them take decades to show up in the overall productivity of the economy.
That "diffusion lag" has been described by the economic historian Paul David, who used the electric dynamo as an example. Invented in 1866 by Werner von Siemens, the dynamo made possible the electrification of all kinds of production processes. Nevertheless, it showed up in American productivity statistics no earlier than the 1920's.
[T]he ICT [information and communication technologies] revolution has, in some ways at least, surpassed earlier technological revolutions. The British economic historian Nicholas Crafts, for instance, has calculated that the contribution of ICT to economic growth in the United States over the last 25 years "has exceeded that of steam and at least matched that of electricity over comparable periods."
"The Solow productivity paradox stems largely from unrealistic expectations," Crafts concludes. "The true paradox is why more should have been expected from ICT."
Source: www.ecolog.com