Last year, we discussed potential trouble ahead for diesel drivers. It was a highly emotive subject – something proven by the 26 pages of comments we received about the article.
Now, 2017 seems set to be the year that diesel drivers are hit with a perfect storm of issues and difficulties, with chatter already building about the potential for tax hikes and even diesel vehicle bans in cities.
Many diesel drivers have a solid reason to feel aggrieved by the government’s rapidly evolving stance on diesel vehicles and the emissions they produce. Under the last Labour government, people were positively encouraged to switch to diesel and Gordon Brown even gave tax breaks to individuals purchasing them.
Of course, that’s all changed since evidence emerged that diesel vehicles are far more damaging to the environment. Now the present government finds itself in the awkward position of having to disincentivise the use of vehicles that people were once proactively encouraged to buy – in a country with over 10 Million diesel cars on the road.
Pollution
Last year, the High Court ruled that the government must urgently act to address air pollution. As we moved into 2017 this was brought into sharp focus with the news that it only took five days for London to breach its air pollution targets. Almost 10,000 annual deaths in London are being blamed on air pollution, with many experts considering diesels to be the main issue.
Last year, a campaigning group called Doctors Against Diesel called on the mayor to put in place a ban on diesel vehicles in London. While this may sound extreme, such bans are actually planned in Athens, Madrid and Paris within the next decade.
However, there are some major practicalities to consider – not least the fact that a government cannot simply ban vehicles that people have previously been encouraged to buy! This is why there are calls for scrappage schemes and incentives to persuade people to move to “cleaner” cars. However, these ideas would be costly and need to be incredibly broad in scope to placate everyone. As yet, the government hasn’t indicated any such schemes are under serious consideration.
Taxation
One thing we may realistically see later this year is tax increases for diesel vehicles. The government has frozen fuel duty for six years in a row, and one has to ponder whether this may come to an end in 2017.
Last year, Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport secretary at the time, indicated that taxes may have to rise to address diesel emissions. A fuel duty increase for diesel seems most likely here, which will be especially galling for long-term diesel drivers who will have seen Gordon Brown do exactly the opposite to incentivise diesel use back in 2001.
Diesel Recalls
In addition to all the uncertainty above, if you own a diesel car you may well find yourself needing to visit your dealership for a recall or a software tweak at some point in 2017.
Obviously, the Volkswagen group scandal springs immediately to mind, and owners of diesel VWs, Audis, Skodas, Seats and Porsches should already have been notified if they need to take their car in for recall work. Meanwhile, a class-action lawsuit involving 10,000 owners is in the works. If the action is successful and sets a legal precedent, this could see over a million owners of such cars being awarded £3000 in compensation – something that would cost the VW group £3.6 Billion.
Aside from this however, it’s important to note that the diesel emissions scandal that broke in 2015 has now engulfed numerous other car manufacturers too.
While no other manufacturer has been implicated in the same way, “irregularities” have been found in diesel vehicles from Renault, Fiat and Jaguar, amongst many others, with plenty of companies including Mercedes-Benz and Opel set to conduct voluntary recalls on their vehicles too. It’s an almighty muddle – and that’s without beginning to consider that such recall work could have an impact on performance and fuel economy.
Is buying diesel now a bad idea?
Choosing a new diesel vehicle is certainly a bolder move than it once was. While it seems incredibly unlikely that the government could introduce any measures that would suddenly drastically disadvantage diesel drivers, the negative press alone could serve to make diesel cars less desirable and hit their resale values. Furthermore, a duty increase on diesel could eat into potential fuel economy savings.
If you travel long distances and select a vehicle with low enough emissions to qualify for low road tax (excise duty), a diesel car could still save you money in the short / medium term – but it’s fair to say it’s now a decision that warrants far more consideration than it once did. On the other hand, your options could be a potentially more polluting petrol car or an electric vehicle – and many consider these to still be in their relative infancy – so not an easy decision to make!
What do you think’s in store for diesel drivers in 2017? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Banning diesels from cities is just plain daft!
how are you going to get deliveries into the center?
nearly all trucks, lorries and small commercial vehicles are diesel?
and what about public transport? nearly all buses are diesel? only handfuls are hybrids and even they are diesel?
Exactly Joel, the silly buggers have not thought about these things have they,
Cannot see forty toner’s running on petrol THEN nobody would be able to breath, plus they would be forever stopping to fill up.
Hi
What proportion of diesel fumes is contributed by lorries, trucks, busses, cranes, generators and trains in comparison to cars?
Is the government going to ban these also? If so, what is the engine that will replace them going to use as a fuel?
What contribution to air pollution do the airplanes from the various airports in and around London make to this pollution figure?
An article on these influences would make for interesting reading I would suggest.
Regards
Pater
I have a diesel car purchased 2nd hand in 2011. I’m retired and I had hoped that this car would last me at least another 15 years or at least until I can no longer drive. I won’t have the funds to replace my car if the government decides that I can no longer drive it. My previous diesel car lasted 19 years. What do the government think I can do if they ban the diesel. It is such an economic car to run. I’m very upset about this
They will do anything to get your money out of your pockets so they can waste it on other countries,
I own a 2008 Vauxhall Zafira “B” 1.9 cdti and when it is tested on the omissions tester she is miles below the set level given by this government and the EU levels so why should I be penalized for running a clean diesel car.
Due to a recent change in job I recently needed to buy a car. I was faced with the petrol or diesel dilemma, I chose a hybrid petrol over diesel as I genuinely believe over the next 5 years diesel’s are going to be heavily taxed at the pump, on road tax and perhaps even at purchase (new). It’s just unfortunately no longer the cleaner alternative, as technology advances at a relatively rapid rate I believe diesel will and is becoming the poor relation.
So the government will seek to ban delivery vehicles, buses and other commercial diesel-run vehicles? Unworkable!
I purposely went for a diesel vehicle last year when changing my car, and the £0 roadtax on my i30 Blue Drive was one of the selling points.
If the government introduce a scrappage scheme, will they also settle my finance to allow me to switch away from a diesel? I don’t think so, and I doubt my finance company would be too pleased either at the prospect.
On the point of recalls and class action for VW, I have a question or two.
What about owners of other brands that are using the VW technology? Is the defeat box part of the computer that comes with that engine or something discrete? I drive a short-lived Dodge that used a 2.0l VW Diesel and no-one can tell me if it’s likely to be a “problem” engine – especially since Dodge has since been wrapped up in the UK.
And as for Class Action – I assume that’s USA only?
Banning all Diesel vehicles from main areas is like stating “we are going to cure Cancer overnight”, it just isn’t possible for at least another 20 years i reckon.
I always understood that Diesel emissions were not as bad as Petrol emissions so what are they trying to say.
Any Diesel users know that Diesel vehicles are maybe more reliable and more cost effective so obviously someone has started this campaign because they are going to be out of pocket (paranoia maybe ?).
By all means do what needs to be done to keep emissions to safe levels but leave the Diesels alone !
Never mind delivery vehicles.
What about Ambulances and Fire Engines.
How are they going to put charges up for diesel cars etc. when most if not all lorries and vans are diesel and they are the ones delivering goods into towns and doing the greatest mileages…. If the price of diesel goes up, the price of all goods go up as most are carried around in trucks. And what about Diesel trains ?? I bet they are not up to the stage six emissions regulations.
I recall gordon browns actions “based on scientific evidence ” deisel was better. At a time when your nose told us different! Now, in france deisel is alot cheaper than petrol so most cars are deisel so there will have to be a very good financial incentive for a change, Trade your car in for a electric one and get a massive price for your old diesel car or massive discount on a new electric one seems the the best option to get the government off the hook. But then in the uk we have problems in generating enough electrictity, windpower wont solve it thats for sure.
Yet again the blinkered idiots in power only see tax hikes as a means to remedy problems. Govt raises £bns in road tax every year but only spends 7p in every £ on road and transport, why not use more money from the taxes already paid by motorists to tackle the problem and in addition, compel all manufacturers to convert all diesel engines to accept adblue (the additive which is supposed counteract the harmful emissions). What about disabled people who are on benefits and have a diesel Motobility car, is the Govt going to increase their benefits to compensate the extra cost, give then tax breaks like those enjoued by road hauliers and bus companies or just deny them the ability to lead a normal life?. Cameron announced an ‘end to the war on motorists’ and this, like most of Govt promises, turned out to be yet another LIE.
Your article doesn’t mention Ford cars. Since 2003 I have had 2 diesel Fiestas from new. My current car is 6 years old and only has 19,000 on the clock and is on new condition. I know none of this matters if legislation comes in but at the great age of 72 at the moment selling this current car and buying a petrol model at a bigger
loss would be a big outlay. Would it be better to change now or wait and see what develops?
Jenny – if you buy a diesel car to do only 3,000 miles a year then I’m afraid you’ve bought the wrong car! Diesels cost more to buy than petrols, and so you need to be doing a reasonable mileage – around 10,000 miles a year on average – for them to start to become cost-effective. With such a low mileage, you’re not going to make any significant savings on fuel economy or CO2 emissions.
But … it may be worse than that. Diesels are at their best on longer journeys, when they are at their most efficient. If you’re only doing 3,000 miles a year then I would guess you are mostly doing short local journeys, probably largely within urban areas. That’s the absolute worst kind of driving for diesels, when they never get a chance to warm up properly and the engines and exhaust get gunked up, and they start to chuck out even more NOx particulates than normal.
Diesels are great if you do lots of long journeys on open roads, where they work at their best and where any emissions can escape harmlessly into the atmosphere. For low mileages, especially in urban areas where the emissions will stay in the air and increase local pollution, they are not the right choice. Sorry.
I completely agree Stephen so we should ban Diesel Taxis and delivery vans from cities. I live in London but outside the current congestion zone. When I have to travel to Central London I am somewhat horrified to see the proliferation of taxis usually about 50% of them with only a single passenger or even with none. Then there are the buses but I (hopefully) believe that is getting a little better by both retro fit and new design.
Global warming is scientifically linked to CO emission. This is a global planetary scale problem. Diesel engines produce less CO per mile than petrol engines. On the other hand OLDER Diesel engines, non-EU6 compliant, produce more contaminants like NOx and particulates than petrol engines, thus increasing contamination in large cities like London, Birmingham, Manchester, etc. This type of contamination does not affect the rest of the country. Why the problems of the big cities should affect the livelihood of the rest of the country?.
There seems to be confusion over Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon Dioxide is the gas that creates global warming, not Carbon Monoxide. Diesel engines produce far less Carbon Monoxide than petrol engines due to the way the diesel is burnt in an excess of air. However, this has nothing to do with global warming or the concern the government now has over diesel engines.
Diesel engines produce less Carbon Dioxide than petrol per kilometre but only becuase they burn less fuel per kilometre; diesel per se has the potential to produce more CO2 than petrol because it contains more carbon per litre. The current concern over diesel engines is the Nitrous Oxides output and the effect that has on our health. Seems to me we need to find a way of dealing with that, as we did with catalytic converters and CO emmissions for petrol engines, rather than banning diesels altogether.
You are correct Adrian is that the sub index 2 in CO disappear from my posting. It is still true that being diesels more efficient than petrol due to the higher compression ratio they do produce less CO2 per kilometer than petrol engines. The thermal efficiency of an internal combustion engine increases as a power of the compression ratio.
Once again Joe Public is shafted by GOVERNMENT! Liebour are mainly responsible but the Conservatives are just compounding the felony! If they get too draconian in their actions, they should bear in mind that there are millions of voters who would probably vote UKIP in revenge!
Where I live, in the Scottish Highlands with many hilly single track roads, my 2005 Picasso gives me about 30% more mpg than my 2003 Renault Scenic. Except in the tourist season, I can drive several miles without seeing another vehicle. Thus emissions are not really a problem, especially are there is usually plenty of wind. I visit towns and cities very rarely (less than 10 times a year).
I can understand the banning of diesels in our overcrowded conurbations and cities but that would be extremely inconvenient for those of us who have to drive through urban areas to get to our destinations or those who have to drive 100+ miles to be able to do some shopping for bulk goods. Why should those of us who have to drive such distances to shop when the problem is actually created by those who drive into work every day when there is public transport available. Having just bought my car, I cannot afford to get rid of it and buy yet another one.
The comments on diesel cars are interesting. Has anyone thought out that diesels on the whole travel at least 25% furthur per litre of fuel. Has anyone also thought that many buses and taxis are major diesel polluters and that all the green ideas are causing congestion with empty bus lanes and cycle lanes taking up valuable road space and thus causing congestion on what were typically free flowing roads. My new diesel car has many new ideas to make it more efficient and quieter. It has DPF filters and an additive called Adblue to reduce the emissions to practically that of most petrol cars. The maker has already been looking at emissions again with this newly developed engine and it appears to have doubled the Adblue dosage to bring one of the engines into free road tax brackets. That engine is 2000 cc and 163 Bhp. The whole problem with diesels is the biggest cheats on emissions and reliabilty, the VW group which contribute to over 50% of cars on the road. I bought a VW passat in 2009 and was caught in the emissions scandal in 2015 when the value of my car dropped like a stone. Take a look at the older diesels ie over 3 years old and it’s obvious that these are the biggest culprits for diesel fumes. The new modern diesels are equally as clean as any petrol engine in the same cc range.
Is there no way to reduce diesel emissions, by using something akin to a catalytic converter?
Yes there probably is (see Mike Bainbridge comment earlier who’s view I wholeheartedly support). I just hope what has been suggested is not TOO expensive (I made an earlier comment about the difficulties of small fixed income earners; e.g. retirees). However a one time expense even if difficult will be better than perpetual payment of higher road tax and higher fuel tax for diesel users.
Further to my last comment , I see that many of the “Top-end” manufacturers are not worried about any future diesel restrictions. Rolls Royce, Bentley, Maserati etc. are all producing new models with diesel engines. Do they know something we don’t?
Clever solution: tax all diesel cars in UK because of pollution in London.
Both I and my son bought diesel cars specifically because at the time, we were encouraged to do so by the government. Now, the residual values are being driven down by negative press and threatened tax and toll increases. The government must act honorably and introduce a significant scrappage scheme. I appreciate that a car hating Labour government does not understand the concept of acting honorably but one expects better from the Tories.
It’s a shame no Government representatives read these comments (as I am sure they don’t) but they contain a fair summary of opinion. In my view Joel has it in a nutshell. What about the trucks, buses, trains, diggers, ambulances, fire trucks, generators, compressors – even ships in some cities. ALL are necessary and cannot be banned. NO – the answer is to retro fit clean up systems. Adblue is used on many modern coaches and has significantly reduced the NOX output of these vehicles. Many diesels have exhaust gas recirculation which reduces particulate output. Another solution to particulate output is to retro fit a filter or trap to the exhaust. Much can yet be done to significantly reduce the emissions of EXISTING diesel vehicles.
Another factor which has not yet been mentioned is the production of diesel fuel (heavy oil). It is a product of the Fractional Distillation process of every refinery. If diesel is not being used by vehicles etc it will have to be used in some other way. Aviation fuel (Avtur) and home heating oil (35 second oil) are similar so it’s a fair bet that this is where it would be consumed. Will this be any less damaging?
In my view the answer is in further measures to reduce emissions. We already know how to do it.
I bought a second hand Citroen DS3 last year with £0 road tax because of it’s emission status. Apart from the fact that it’s a great car to drive, I thought I was doing the right thing for the environment— I’m a retired nurse & certainly can’t afford another car–I was hoping this would last me until I have to stop driving. How can the government penalise people like me for doing what was reccommendedat the time?
It is all well & good hiking diesel fuel prices to discourage drivers/owners from using their vehicles – driving into cities and major towns but all that is going to achieve is punishment taxes for following the advice that has already been dished out that now is being totally shunned.
What about all of those people that are on small/moderate fixed incomes that had already changed the various vehicles for ones with a higher specification Euro rating and probably the last that they will buy – they are now being told that it was all absolute tosh because the EXPERTS have CHANGED THEIR MINDS – AGAIN.
Unless high mileage is being driven it is truly debatable which is the most economical – Diesel or Petrol and that is before the costs of service and maintenance is taken into account.
If the preservation of the planet and the protection of the Ozone layer is really that important then why are the likes of Rolls Royce,Bentley and many other premium manufactures of luxury cars and large engined Super-fast sports cars still turning out fuel gobbling monsters just because there are people with money to burn and visually boast about their wealth ?
The notion of leave the car at home and use public transport is a total joke and people like me are not laughing.
I live in open rural countryside with bus options now removed and a train service that only stops every two hours and for a limited period each day – also it does not stop at all on Sundays.
The nearest bus stop is a one mile walk and one bus only servicing a very limited choice of destination.
The local shops are five miles in one of three different directions with little or no choice but to use the car.
A simple answer to a very pointed question – the misery of of being priced into oblivion and fuel poverty of a different kind.
Your mention of small fixed income brings me to another point. I am retired and fall into that bracket. I will never buy a NEW car. I have never considered it to be economically sensible since I am a qualified mechanical engineer and a DIY mechanic I have never been troubled by high garage costs. Most of the previous letters from disgruntled owners are from those owning new cars. I think those in my category are likely to suffer even worse but are seldom if ever mentioned or considered. My present diesel car is running very reliably but is now 15 years old and has completed 134,000 miles. I doesn’t even have a particulate filter (it was not required in 2001). Because of it’s age and mileage it is probably worth little more than scrap value on the open market so if some scrappage scheme is introduced for new car buyers, they will still be out of my range. If higher diesel fuel tax and higher road tax on diesel cars is introduced at the same time since the tunnel visioned politician sees one as offsetting the other, we suffer even more and remain those least able to pay.
Your article only mentions diesel cars, however most commercial vehicles are diesel powered, so would these be treated separately ? , as any increase on diesel excise duty would affect everything we buy by increasing transportation costs nationwide.
they seem to forget about the ships they also run on diesel ,all the luxury liners that dock at Southampton and dover .The last petrol lorry was I think in the sixties they kept breaking down and caught fire .diesel is used in every other country in the world ,because it’s cheaper to produce ,and diesel cars /vans /lorries/trains/ ships last a lot longer , a diesel engine in a car can do 4to 500 thousand miles whereas a petrol engine run out of puff at 120;000 ,I worked at a haulage firm in London I was doing 2000 miles a week for 20 years the hgv I drove had covered about 900,000 miles before the brought a new one ,providing it’s serviced regally it could do over a million miles an still run perfectly ,I own a Skoda Octavia 2004 I get 600 miles to a tank of diesel much better than a petrol car
Some thoughts from the past….
So much is wrong with Motor Taxation to include its impact on Fuel prices, it is difficult to know where to begin!
The balanced comments that have been respectfully made in this article are, I believe correct.
I have yet to meet a motorist (and I have held a licence since 1961) who hasn’t accepted the need for some Taxation. We had leaded and unleaded fuel in the 60’s. Leaded was quite rightly removed and a gallon of fuel was some three and sixpence- 17.5p a GALLON!
Even then the Government was accused of over Taxation…
The average 1.5 litre car four seater car with a top speed of 75 mph returned about 30/32miles/ gallon.
Diesels were predominantly for Commercial vehicles.
The introduction of Diesel cars was treated by the ‘buying public’ with caution. The four cylinder vehicles were really noisy and before converters were fitted pretty smelly!
The world moved on and we were offered ‘roomy’, powerful, sporty,, quiet, high geared fuel efficient 6 + cylinder vehicles.
Not surprisingly, such vehicles were attractive and we saw the Government incentives cited in the article that led to supporting the sale of diesel powered vehicles.
If Government now penalises those have supported sales it will be appalling unless the blow is ‘cushioned’ and I am not holding my breath on that!
Simple lesson in life is “” be cautious in accepting too readily anything this, or successive Governments say, let alone promise!”.
Yes, our current ‘Fossil fuel’ powered vehicle emissions (and Commercial Aircraft) in ourha environment are ‘harmful’, but until we can replace them with non – harmful electrically powered machines we are simply in the hands of OPEC and our ‘Governments’.
It is the withholding of 1.25 mio barrels of oil, by OPEC coupled. with the weaker purchasing power of Sterling that is reflecting in the current hike.
Roll on the Electric age and we can then watch the oil rich Arabs who doing nothing themselves to ‘extract and refine’ being progressively stripped of their affluence, but perhaps that’s some way off!
The reality is that the Revenue derived is critical to the Exchequer and if we believe that levies will not be applied in some form,, or other to make up for the ‘shortfall’ electric conversion will create, we are deluded!
.
I like the style of the earlier part of your letter and I’ve held a licence even a few years longer than you state that you have, however when you get to the penultimate paragraph I think you are a little simplistic. By all means research towards practical electric vehicles should be encouraged but their true value can only take over when the bulk of our electricity is no longer produced by fossil fuel fired power stations. We are getting there but slowly, slowly.
What about emissions from Ships – MASSIVE!
You know, you can always depend on a politician to misunderstand any situation and act to make it worse. The pollution that people are getting so worried about is nitrogen oxide pollution, and surprise surprise, the solution already exists.
The way you deal with nitrogen oxides is to use AdBlue and a catalyst to react them in the exhaust back to harmless chemicals like water and nitrogen.
The reason this isn’t working quite as well as it should is because the diesel engine testing regime was fiddled to be much less like the real world than it should have been. This testing regime was carefully devised and approved by our great benevolent lords and masters over in the EU, no doubt with the assistance of hefty bribes from motor manufacturers.
Put simply, the test regime is the problem. Sort that out so it closely resembles reality, and the problem is solved. Granted we diesel drivers now have to remember to keep the AdBlue tank filled up, but this is no real problem. The only reason the motor manufacturers did not do this in the first place was because people persistently put the wrong stuff into the AdBlue tank on lorries etc.
This is a problem that can be sorted out by design engineers. All you do is make the filler port for the AdBlue system impossible to fill with anything save an approved AdBlue container or pump. Job done, basically.
Anyone who has bought a diesel car since 2010 is either completely out of touch or has deliberately chosen a vehicle that is a known killer. Before 2009 (ie Euro 5) and 2014 (Euro 6) and even back in the last century, there were reports on the dangers of diesel particulates and their effect on health. The problem being that diesel oil is very sooty when it burns, compared with the clean burning spirit called petrol.
As for diesel trucks and buses, recent research has shown they actually emit less pollution and particulates than cars which can be up to 40x higher. This is because commercial vehicles are tested at random from the fleet on the road whereas cars are tested in a lab using specially prepared prototypes supplied by the manufacturer.
In addition, diesel engines are allowed to ‘cheat’ under current legislation when the temperature drops below 18°C (just about every day in the UK). They can ‘protect’ the engine but as a result emit many times more particulates and gases.
In the near future when testing regimes become more representative of real life, car manufacturers are likely to start making cars with larger, less polluting engines as they lazily run at lower revs than the small turbocharged engines of today. While at the same time manufacturers will invest in new technologies as well as trying to tackle the problem of pollution from small engines.
Finally, European oil refineries are mostly geared to petrol production which means the majority of diesel is bought from the likes of Russia and other less salubrious regimes.
In EVERY European country I have driven in during the past several years the price of diesel fuel was always CHEAPER than the unleaded petrol and the price of petrol was ALWAYS the equivalent of several pence cheaper than in the UK.
One of my sons lives permanently in Denmark and confirms that the pice of road vehice fuel there continues to be cheaper than in the UK
In my opinion we are being taken for a very expensive ride by ill informed governments who pay too much attention to
the tree hugging green brigade.
So annoying. I pay £30/year road tax. Wonder what it’ll be hiked up to? Like others, I’m really disappointed.
I saw this coming some while ago and changed to a Petrol XJ last year. I record all my fill ups and mileages and have found the 3 litre supercharged petrol model is only returning 21 mpg to the 3 litre twin turbo diesels 29 mpg. When you take into account the price hike on diesel there’ s not a lot of difference and over 40 BHP to put an even bigger smile on my face.
I suspect a lot of this is to do with taxation. Governments use smoke and mirrors to disguise their true concerns and, in this case, have woken up to the fact that by promoting diesel cars over the past decade, they have reduced their tax intake from private motorists. It is significant that all this talk about diesel pollution concentrates on cars and not on commercial vehicles.
It is a simple fact that the Government takes approximately half as much again in tax from a petrol-engined car that does 40 mpg where its otherwise-identical diesel equivalent does 60mpg. They are trying to smuggle in higher charges for diesels under the pretence of the politically-correct notion that diesel is more unhealthy.
Conspiracy theories aren’t all complete nonsense. Governments want to control people and seldom actually tell the truth. Since the demise of the Soviet “enemy” and the Cold War, they have continually been looking for ways to exert power, using excuses such as terrorism, Muslims, immigration, climate change etc to do so. Nothing is as good as a nice foreign enemy though, so now they are starting to boost Putin as a threat – and diesel.
Sort out manufacturers. If the Government doesn’t want diesels, then don’t build or import them .
End of.
You cannot simply introduce a punitive tax on existing diesels that were bought in good faith.
And remember, cars don’t last forever, so the number of the worst polluting old diesels will fall quickly if you do nothing.
My sentiments entirely. If diesel car production was ended NOW the last of the diesel engine vehicles would be dead in 10-12 years, end of story.
Unfortunately, current diesel car owners would have to accept total devaluation of their vehicles, therefore forcing them to keep driving these vehicles until they “die”, which means more pollution (if, indeed, what we are told is true).
No doubt in 10 years time we will be told by those in power that the current government were too hasty.
I am a disabled driver that needs a car that can carry my scooter and my family, these vehicles only come in a diesel option, so with these new ideas for banning diesels does that mean myself and others like me have to stay at home 24/7 and watch the world go by from my front window.
just about all commercial vehicles are diesel. The biggest polluters are buses many of which are aging and badly serviced. I see many that belch out clouds of smoke which is terrible for the poor drivers behind them.
I invested in a Blue Tec diesel car last year accepting the idea that I lost luggage space to accept the additive storage tank. I benefited from lower car tax & parking permit as a result of lower co2 emissions but got hit with a surcharge from my London Council on the parking permit because it was a diesel car – no allowance for the blue tec technology which significantly reduces the harmful emissions(Nox &Sox ) of older diesel cars which do not comply with Euro 6.
Will any new taxes or restrictions be similarly indiscriminate?
If the government are determined to get diesels off the road,dispite them being LESS polluting than the alternatives,I think they should pay for engine replacement with a petrol version,where possible.
What will happen to diesel trucks,buses and trains?They surely are the main contributers to pollution,especially in cities and towns!
Taylor ace
It’s just another excuse to increase tax on the motorist, we were told buy a diesel vehicle it’s cleaner now we have they are saying no diesels are dirty polluters, we are going to increase the duty on diesel fuel always punishing the motorist.
But what about all other diesel vehicles buses, taxi’s, trains, boats are they all going to be banned? I think not the cost to the economy would be huge.
It’s so disappointing to hear all that is being said about polluting Diesel engines. I have personally been driving Diesel engined cars long before the Government started encouraging drivers to switch. Which I can honestly say made me think that I had been making the correct choice all along. I have put up with the lower fuel economy from all my Diesel cars, compared with the Motor Manufacturers exaggerated figures notably, from Citroen. My present vehicle averages about 47-50mpg compared with the 74mpg quoted by Citroen. That is another point that Manufacturers should be taken to task with. And now I find that I have been needlessly shortening people’s lives, a very comforting thought, I don’t think, and that it looks likely that Diesel engined cars are going to be driven ( excuse the pun ) off the road. My car is fitted with particulate filters, and is Euro what ever compliant. Does this mean that my Car is the same as, or less of a polluter? I also echo what other people are saying, that this was going to be my last Car. The Road Tax on my vehicle is £20 a year which to me is saying that I’m driving a pretty clean car,or not, as the case may be. I also agree, that incentives, and I mean sensible amounts should be offered to help with switching to a “Cleaner” fuel. Let’s have it right, this is none of our making.
I purchased my diesel four years ago.
The choice for me at the time was a diesel or hybrid petrol car. There was no inkling of adverse press at the time against diesel in fact more encouragement.
I am now the villain for having made that choice. It is the government and the car manufacturers who should be villified for continuing to sell diesel cars.
The simple way to cut diesel emmisions is to say no new diesel cars ( not lorries) are to be sold.
The way to do that would be to make a huge (and I do mean huge) Sales Tax on all new diesel cars, the government would of course not have the incentive to do this because of pressure from the car manufaturers.
The simplest way for the goverment to tackle the issue is to soak the diesel car owner with higher diesel fuel taxes.
We, the diesel car owners are captive and any increase does not result in reduced fuel use, simply increased revenue for the government.
If I was an MP, which I am not, having just read through all the comments, I would be in no doubt that the subject of diesel engine propulsion of all types, is, and will be a political hot potato for a long time ahead. Collectively the comments so, far cover all aspects of diesel use, and every one makes a valid point. It seems to me that a long term all party plan needs to be put in place. Covering every aspect, including pollution, manufacturing advances, how surplus diesel will be used following the reduction in vehicle consumption, and the generation of sufficient electricity as the demand increases. Unfortunately because the idealogical preferences of all the parties concerned will clash, a proper grown up debate is highly unlikely. I think the fears of all of you, that we will stagger on in the usual piecemeal way is what will happen. There will be winners and losers in the process, but for existing diesel car owners, I think we are on the losing team.
It exists alternative to making diesel vehicle less polluting such as catalytic converters exhaust pipe, good maintenance of the vehicle, change of filters, less additive in the fuel itself by some unscrupulous company who try to make it cheaper. Have tests ever been made about comparing two identical model with two different fuel to know which one pollute the most? Have tests been made on two identical aged model vehicle with their thorough service history to find out which one pollute the most? Is the price hike not a financial stunt following VW scandal with their software tweaks? Pollution is not only fuel related but also maintenance related. Someone who does not look after their engine can’t expect to have a reliable car with low emission. Besides, now with the spread of some unscrupulous mechanic who can give an all clear for MOTs for traders from ‘off the road’ who try to sell their cars, I am not surprised that at some point we continue to leave dodgy cars on the road. It’s not about customer service nowadays, it’s about the sale and making money. And generally, the most gullible buyer is the one who suffers and lost.
I can understand the current issues. However present owners of diesel cars should not be penalised for choosing a car that was recommended to buy by the very institution that’s now considering measures to restrict ownership in the future. With evidence and information which now shows that diesel vehicles are more polluting and that armed with this information people still buy these vehicles, then it is these people that should be penalised.
Britain diesel is already pays higher taxes than other countries and now we could be paying for higher taxes and I live on a low income. It will interesting to see what the government does to help those like me. There again, people like me are the ones that are forgotten and have to struggle with living in this two tier society. Thank you Gordon Brown for all of this. That another fine mess you got me in to.
This will hit caravanners who go for diesel cars for their better torque and greater weight. As many of them are pensioners I don’t see them changing their cars any time soon.
we were all encouraged to buy diesel vehicles,and now find that we are going to be penalised,is it possiblev to mix diesel with another fuel to reduce the toxic emissions for example a mix with petrol,I once put petrol in my diesel car and were told that it was Ok as long as the mixture was weak,your thoughts.
Can anyone remember the London smogs many years age, this was caused by petrol cars and not so many then, no diesels, and coal fires helped.
I have recently bought a Peugeot 508 sw diesel as this is only 1500 cc TD it does 55 miles to the gallon and tax is only £20, if I wanted to change it now I would Loose £9000 so it appears the worry has started to bite, with all this worry diesel card will soon be worthless , who is going to buy new ones?
All lorries are diesels, so food and all items carried will go up as the hauliers will pass the costs on, a very worrying time for diesel owners
Is this a UK class-action lawsuit & will UK Skoda owners be included?
I’m reluctant to have my engine fiddled with as I don’t want my 65 mpg to be upset.