dd The Environmental Audit Select Committee's report
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
on the government's green policies published in February was scathing, particularly with regard to the government's response to last September's fuel protests in which road hauliers played a significant role.
Global warming knows no national boundaries. Politicians use vehicle excise duty to supposedly make the polluter pay, despite the fact that VED is a tax on ownership, not a tax on use. It is just one of the iniquities in a supposedly environmental tax regime. But the pollution caused by road haulage needs to be put into context.
The world currently consumes 23 billion barrels of oil each year. Of all transport, aviation consumes the most energy. In 1989 it produced some three million tonnes of NOx and 600 million tonnes of CO2. More CO2 is produced per passenger on a return flight to Florida than by a large goods vehicle being driven normally for four months.
Pollutants from road vehicles are falling because of the introduction of cleaner engines, while the growth in flying is producing the opposite effect. In 1999, aviation fuel typically cost about $200 per tonne—or around 10p per (tax free) litre. The US predicts an energy shortfall over the next two summers and aims to increase supply rather than reduce demand.
And Europe is likely to miss the 1997 Kyoto Summit targets, with CO2 emissions expected to rise by 6-8% above the 1990 figure.
Proposed (Euro-4) emissions limits will require ultra-lowsulphurfuel, but currently Continental diesel can have a sulphur content as high as 250 parts per million: high enough to seriously degrade an oxidative catalyst or regenerating particulate trap.
EU regulations for road vehicle engines continuously evolve as the EU tries to reduce pollution and global emissions. But the measures used to reduce harmful emissions often conflict with those required to combat global warming, or introduce a different health hazard. Some supposedly cleaner fuels can produce higher levels of health-threatening particulates than current diesel, and optimising design to reduce one pollutant can increase another. In the USA, a fuel additive called MTBE which was introduced to improve air quality is now being banned due to the adverse effect it has when it seeps into groundwater supplies.
For operators who cover modest mileages, retaining an old vehicle is often environmentally better than replacing it, if account is taken of the lifetime environmental cost of designing, building, selling and distributing new designs and disposing of the old. Alternative fuels are touted as the way forward, and some attract substantial subsidies, but most still emit CO2 (and are often less efficient than diesel). Transferring freight from road to rail has been hailed as environmentally friendly, yet almost all new rail franchise bidders have opted for the flexibility of diesel-powered Euro-2 locomotive engines, even on electrified lines.
Hauliers pay a price that society needlessly imposes on them. Globalisation and the free market dictate that goods are being transported vast distances unnecessarily. Nationally, we import and export near-identical goods. This might oil the wheels of commerce, but it adds immeasurably to congestion, pollution and global warming. Politicians castigate and penalise those who make their livelihoods out of road transport, while encouraging this extravagance, which threatens the health of millions and the wellbeing of our planet.
And after all this, hauliers are supposed to be grateful for having 3p knocked off the price of a litre of fuel at the last Budget...