Well, depends what your take on it is.
On one side you can argue that it is totally unnecessary to move from point A to B with a vehicle with double the fuel consumption/emission rate than the average. This I agree with and if you feel the need to drive a SUV or 4x4 bakkie on tarred roads, keep quiet, because the vehicle should not only be taxed on the amount of CE, but also the purpose of the vehicle and the driver's selfishness, ignorance and lack of responsibility. If these cars actually saw the ‘off-road’ it would be justifiable, but picking up the kids from school(while little-franky-son-of-a-bitch could’ve taken the bus), which is what most of them do is just sad and unnecessary.
But not everyone wants to drive a Yarris, and why should you if you can afford a X5 and who should tell you how to use your car? Hence, pay the tax.
The other side of that argument that is left out is the driver or rather driving style. And we all know that one can achieve the same mileage in a Yarris as that of an X5 by driving like a tool. Though, you’d most likely drive like a tool in an X5.
And what’s the point in CE anyway if the tax is not going to make the CO2 disappear in the atmosphere? It’s not like the government is going to use that money for planting trees next to the N1 or give it to a cancer research institution, so that we can all rest assured when we develop lung cancer from all the Hilux bakkies and X5’s on the roads that there is at least a cure for all of us now.
The government projects something like R8bn income from these taxes. Not bad, just wonder if we’ll see more wind stations, or schools and hospitals and…[oh forget it]?
There is only one good thing that could come from this and that is a change in people(consumers) perception of sustainable development.This type of taxing should’ve been implemented ages ago. Europe’s been going at it for several years now. And they’re actually good role models to the rest of the world. Since they started making cars their cars were smaller and more economical. The Americans still don’t get it and only now when emotions are high, because of BP, does Obama promise the fight environmental damage and global warming. What a ****! But they'll still consider a V6 as an economy car.
This should (hopefully) have a counter effect on car manufacturers to make cars more environmentally friendly and fuel economic and it's the consumer who should force them by buying more fuel economic cars etc.
It is actually quite shocking that after more than 100 years of internal combustion technology, all they have to show for it is a engine that can put out an odd 120kW at 7l/100km. Hell, NASA apparently landed people on the moon in the sixties with a ‘calculater’, and we still can’t get on Mars or drive around in battery powered cars. All we have is ugly hybrids(which carbon footprint is longer than the list of all the women Tiger screwed) and VW still uses the same 3 valves per cylinder engines since the mid 90's, but people still buy it nonetheless. There's for going forward and now they're all at it with their 'revolutionary' 1.4 TSi. Pffffft!
So, I guess if we're suckers for buying old technologies and supporting BP, then we can just as well give our money to government to help us waste it even further.
