nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

New NOx VRT levy

Idbatterim

Wothball of the imports from the uk, should the vrt on petrol diesel not climb and reduce it further for elecyric ? They are complaining about all the dirty diesels coming in !

Find more posts tagged with

revenue

rip off

vrt

jaguar

sneaky

Quick Links

Comments

L-M

lomb wrote: »

I'm buying a 500se 92 from the UK and bring in before end of year. Unfortunately there are no available dates in the country for an appointment before year end. Do I appeal the new nox tax levy then in Jan?

Unless you get an appointment you’re at nothing. There’s been plenty of notice. Luckily the max Nox in petrol is €600

lomb

I could just park it in NI for the next 2 years and then pay nothing but then again buying a 500 Merc is all about getting the cheque book rolling... Feck electric, no idea whos idea that was

Magown3

I was thinking of importing a cheap 2009 diesel but the NOx along will be more than the car is worth. Just not worth it.What a stupid system.

COLONELsANDERS

Magown3 wrote: »

I was thinking of importing a cheap 2009 diesel but the NOx along will be more than the car is worth. Just not worth it.What a stupid system.

What's stupid about the system ? If you want to bring a filthy polluting diesel into the country causing negative impact on the rest of us you have to pay for it.

You can bring a car with no NOx for nothing.

McGiver

COLONELsANDERS wrote:

What's stupid about the system ? If you want to bring a filthy polluting diesel into the country causing negative impact on the rest of us you have to pay for it.

Exactly. And I would say if the negative effects could be accurately calculated they would be order of magnitude higher than the tax collected for importing dirty diesels. Huge health care costs and lost opportunity costs. And then of course human suffering, impossible to translate into a monetary value.
Given all that I'd say the levy is peanuts, should be higher. And not only for imports but also for usage. We need to get those diesels out of human settlements. OK i get heavy haulage, they can stay on motorways out of population centres.

Get an old petrol, if you can't do hybrid or an EV. Much better than diesel.

COLONELsANDERS wrote:

You can bring a car with no NOx for nothing.

Importing an EV = zero VRT.

Dravokivich

COLONELsANDERS wrote: »

What's stupid about the system ? If you want to bring a filthy polluting diesel into the country causing negative impact on the rest of us you have to pay for it.

You can bring a car with no NOx for nothing.

Im sure some of us would much rather have a negative impact on you that we can afford, than a no NOx car that we'd hang ourselves in debt to get.

KCross

Dravokivich wrote: »

Im sure some of us would much rather have a negative impact on you that we can afford, than a no NOx car that we'd hang ourselves in debt to get.

I think you miss the point of that tax. Its not trying to screw you. Its trying to make you think about your decison. Its to inhibit people importing cars that are bad for our health just because they are cheap. You can still buy the same car here if you want.

Or you can change the car you are buying and buy one that doesnt attract that tax but still pay the same amount of money without hanging yourself... its bascially trying to change consumer behavior and clearly its doing its job.

Its a bit like the plastic bag levy.

kirving

COLONELsANDERS wrote: »

What's stupid about the system ? If you want to bring a filthy polluting diesel into the country causing negative impact on the rest of us you have to pay for it.

You can bring a car with no NOx for nothing.

It's pure and simple protectionism under the guise of being an eco measure.

You've forgotten that the manufacture of all cars, petrol, diesel or electric, do extreme damage to the environment, and also to the population of some other country since we've got no automotive industry to speak of.

Buying an electric and pretending you're saving the planet, while a 7 year old in Africa is mining cobalt used in it's batteries, is disingenuous to say the least.

Also, stated NOx (and CO2) figures for the vast majority of vehicles have absolutely no relation to how they perform in the real world.

In 2008 we were all given incentives to buy E85 vehicles. €5k VRT rebate IIRC, in addition to reduced fuel duty. Tailpipe emissions of CO2 are higher for E85, but this is very heavily offset by the growing of the crop.

This was eliminated overnight, due to the government losing money, rather than any environmental concerns.

I'm no climate change denier, but government policy is based on public perception rather than actual facts. If it wasn't for the VW scandal, the government would have no mandate to tax diesels so heavily, and your wouldn't be calling them filthy polluting diesels.

Magown3

Kevin Irving wrote: »

It's pure and simple protectionism under the guise of being an eco measure.

You've forgotten that the manufacture of all cars, petrol, diesel or electric, do extreme damage to the environment, and also to the population of some other country since we've got no automotive industry to speak of.

Buying an electric and pretending you're saving the planet, while a 7 year old in Africa is mining cobalt used in it's batteries, is disingenuous to say the least.

Also, stated NOx (and CO2) figures for the vast majority of vehicles have absolutely no relation to how they perform in the real world.

This was the point I was getting at. It's much better for the environment to reuse or buy second hand cars that have already been manufactured than to purchase a new one.

It's the same theory as purchasing coffee in your Keep Cup or similar.

McGiver

Kevin Irving wrote:

You've forgotten that the manufacture of all cars, petrol, diesel or electric, do extreme damage to the environment, and also to the population of some other country since we've got no automotive industry to speak of.

Namely?

Kevin Irving wrote:

Buying an electric and pretending you're saving the planet, while a 7 year old in Africa is mining cobalt used in it's batteries, is disingenuous to say the least.

Firstly, Labour conditions in Congo have nothing to do with the fact that EVs are much greener overall than combustion engine, however lamentable and condemnable the Congo situation is.

Secondly, at least 50% cobalt is used in industrial applications which are used regardless. The rest in used in NMC batteries which are ubiquitous. If you own any device with lithium batteries, you are equally exposed anyway.

Finally, VW and BMW are already working on cleaning their battery supply chains to avoid cobalt from Africa. BMW has recently opened a battery research centre in Munich and also stricken contracts for buying cobalt from Australia and Morocco to avoid unstable and unsavoury supply from Congo. There are also programmes run by leading battery manufacturers underway to run a sustainable, child free, cobalt mining in Congo itself as well

Now, are you aware of all the steps involved in extraction, storage, transport, refining and distribution of oil?

kirving

McGiver wrote: »

Namely?

Compared to public transport. The overwhelming majority of manufacturing processes, for any car, are not carbon neutral.

McGiver wrote: »

Now, are you aware of all the steps involved in extraction, storage, transport, refining and distribution of oil?

COLONELsANDERS singled out filthy polluting diesels, but I didn't defend their eco credentials either.

I was just reminding people that every car is bad for the environment, but at the end of the day, our transport policy is based on perception and cash rather than fact.

I'd the government *actually* cared about the environment, Dublin would have a subway, Galway would have a bypass, and high speed train travel would be the default option.

Arriving to the party after the lights have been switched on (VW scandal) and taxing the crap out of diesel after promoting it over petrol for 10 years, screams reactionary, populist policy as opposed to long term planning.

KCross

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Compared to public transport. The overwhelming majority of manufacturing processes, for any car, are not carbon neutral.

True.

If the government *actually* cared about the environment, Dublin would have a subway. Galway would have a bypass, and high speed train travel would be the default option.

Probably true too. Massive impending EU fines is what’s driving govt policy, not climate change.

Arriving to the party after the lights have been switched on (VW scandal) and taxing the crap out of diesel after promoting it over petrol for 10 years, screams reactionary, populist policy as opposed to long term planning.

They are only taxing imports not taxing diesel in general.

They have to do something and what they’ve done is to inhibit the importing of those VW scandal cars. Doing nothing helps the UK reduce their fines/emissions but makes things worse for us both in terms of fines and air quality. Seems like a reasonable reaction to me unless you want even higher EU fines to be imposed. 100s of millions per year!

The effect of the NOx import tax is to make you buy the same car here and thus not make things worse by increasing the number of those bad cars OR import something cleaner. Again it seems reasonable to me rather than do nothing and let fines and emissions rise.

Atlantic Dawn

Why do we have no checks for DPF removal at NCT if we are trying to clear out dirty diesels?

KCross

Magown3 wrote: »

This was the point I was getting at. It's much better for the environment to reuse or buy second hand cars that have already been manufactured than to purchase a new one.

So buy it here, don’t bring another one in.

But let’s be honest, you weren’t really thinking of the environment when looking at importing, it was the price!

It's the same theory as purchasing coffee in your Keep Cup or similar.

It’s not really.
Increasing the number of diesels from that era is not good for the public finances/health due to fines and air quality.

Reuse one that’s already in the country or switch/import something cleaner is better for everyone.

McGiver

Kevin Irving wrote:

Compared to public transport. The overwhelming majority of manufacturing processes, for any car, are not carbon neutral.

Carbon is one thing, air pollution (particulate matter) is another. I was talking about the latter.

PT yes but fleets of diesel buses ain't great either. Electrified PT - I'm all for it.

Kevin Irving wrote:

I was just reminding people that every car is bad for the environment, but at the end of the day, our transport policy is based on perception and cash rather than fact.

Yes, the best is everyone on a bicycle (apart increased methane emissions

), but that's unrealistic so let's be pragmatic - cars will be needed so it makes sense to switch to the least worse option - EVs are much better than anything else at the moment.

Kevin Irving wrote:

I'd the government *actually* cared about the environment, Dublin would have a subway, Galway would have a bypass, and high speed train travel would be the default option.

Yes, Ireland's infrastructure is very deficient. But to things:
1. Would you pay more taxes to improve it? Most people I talk to "believe" that Irish taxes are high (fact - they are the 3rd lowest in the EU after Cyprus and Malta).

2. Countries/cities with metro systems, dense train networks etc. still have huge number of cars.

Also, better PT provision would not address the huge number of old cars already in the country and potentially entering it.

Kevin Irving wrote:

Arriving to the party after the lights have been switched on (VW scandal) and taxing the crap out of diesel after promoting it over petrol for 10 years, screams reactionary, populist policy as opposed to long term planning.

True but doesn't make any difference. This diesel thing is a totally Irish issue. No other European green party I'm aware of would ever promote diesel cars. Now, no one in 2009 could have predicted advent of EVs, so it's not fair to say that it was lack of long term planning.

Also the VW scandal isn't the primary driver, other countries started taxing diesels long before it. Despite all what you said, it's better to do what they are doing than doing nothing. The diesels must be removed, they are a known health and environmental hazard. So implementing a policy which prevents further imports is good.

It's nice to be an idealist philosopher and pin point all the issues and say what should ideally happen but it has to be realistic. If it means implementing nothing in reality on the ground then it's pointless. I actually welcome the government is doing something real than sticking to policies with unrealistic, unfeasible goals.

McGiver

Atlantic Dawn wrote:

Why do we have no checks for DPF removal at NCT if we are trying to clear out dirty diesels?

Can you elaborate please?

lawred2

Magown3 wrote: »

I was thinking of importing a cheap 2009 diesel but the NOx along will be more than the car is worth. Just not worth it.What a stupid system.

Actually it's functioning just as intended... Discouraging people from importing aging polluting cars. A system that works as intended is by definition not stupid

punisher5112

McGiver wrote: »

Can you elaborate please?

People remove or blank off the dpf....

This means more harmful toxins are spewed out.

The test doesn't check for this.

Seweryn

punisher5112 wrote: »

People remove or blank off the dpf....

This means more harmful toxins are spewed out.

The test doesn't check for this.

It is currently impossible to check for this at the NCT test (unless it is very visible).

punisher5112

Seweryn wrote: »

It is currently impossible to check for this at the NCT test (unless it is very visible).

I do know this....

It's something that is needed though.

There really needs to be a cull of old crappy diesels and get them off the roads.

We need to be aiming that only euro6 are allowed and the government needs to help especially those that can't afford to change.

Casati

punisher5112 wrote: »

I do know this....

It's something that is needed though.

There really needs to be a cull of old crappy diesels and get them off the roads.

We need to be aiming that only euro6 are allowed and the government needs to help especially those that can't afford to change.

Agreed, similar to EV’s we should see some incentives for Euro 6 diesels

Isambard

re-manufacturing existing cars to a higher standard would be better all round for the environment.

Seweryn

Isambard wrote: »

re-manufacturing existing cars to a higher standard would be better all round for the environment.

Exactly. There is nothing worse for the environment than scrapping a well functioning car and manufacturing a new one to replace it.

If there is an issue with emissions, it just needs to be addressed.

punisher5112 wrote: »

There really needs to be a cull of old crappy diesels and get them off the roads.

We need to be aiming that only euro6 are allowed and the government needs to help especially those that can't afford to change.

So, are you saying that we need to park all cars that are below Euro 6 in a scrap yard and then go and buy new ones with government "help" to help the environment?

Dravokivich

KCross wrote: »

I think you miss the point of that tax. Its not trying to screw you. Its trying to make you think about your decison. Its to inhibit people importing cars that are bad for our health just because they are cheap. You can still buy the same car here if you want.

Or you can change the car you are buying and buy one that doesnt attract that tax but still pay the same amount of money without hanging yourself... its bascially trying to change consumer behavior and clearly its doing its job.

Its a bit like the plastic bag levy.

I'm not missing the point. People go across becuase they've money they can spend on it. They are looking for people to go across and get something that either doesnt fit them, or they potentially cant afford and would need a loan. It's not about the tax at all with that other guy.

Mike9832

punisher5112 wrote: »

I do know this....

It's something that is needed though.

There really needs to be a cull of old crappy diesels and get them off the roads.

We need to be aiming that only euro6 are allowed and the government needs to help especially those that can't afford to change.

Insurance companies have done this already

Casati

Why do petrol cars have a limit as to the max Nox charge payable? Surely v high polluting petrol cars like S350 petrol should have the same max limit as diesel cars?

Looking at some nox results it looks like VW’s score very well in official tests where as Renaults without adblue score v poorly so we won’t see as many Nissan’s/ Renaults and certain Merc’s imported but we will see plenty of VW engined as the official nox is v low (even if actual Nox is many times higher!)

In reality increasing import tax for the average euro 5 diesel that is often imported (for 10k or less) will not see these buyers rush to import an EV’s as they can’t afford one with a decent range and will likely just see more and more people keep their much older diesels in the road longer which will see increasing pollution as these cars get older and are used for mileage

As folks have issues with dpf’s in older diesels expect to see more dpf’s cut out too - Ie whatever is the cheapest option to keep these cars in the road. I’m sure it will result in more and more nct failures being driven as the owner can’t afford to replace them.

Really doesn’t seem like a well thought out tax imo

McGiver

Casati wrote:

Agreed, similar to EVâ€™s we should see some incentives for Euro 6 diesels

Not going to happen. All diesels are going to be phased out. Just that the new ones will be hit less hard than the old ones.

McGiver

punisher5112 wrote:

There really needs to be a cull of old crappy diesels and get them off the roads.

Yes, but the problem with this is that, in general, the poorer person is the dirtier car they drive. There's a strong correlation. So if the gov were going to penalise usage and not just imports then it would have rather large financial & social implications and disproportionately more so on the lower income part of the spectrum. That's why they haven't done anything yet and targeted only imports, because that doesn't penalise anyone just discourages potential usage.

"The stick" part of the carrot and stick policy will have to happen soon and whichever gov implements it won't be popular. The same applies for carbon tax which is going to increase rapidly in coming years and it will be have the same disproportionate effect on people as well as on the unpopularity of the gov in power.

Mike9832

McGiver wrote: »

Not going to happen. All diesels are going to be phased out. Just that the new ones will be hit less hard than the old ones.

That's a stupid way of thinking too

What if the older diesel is barely used and the new one is doing 400km a day every day

Who pollutes more?

Commute culture is what's wrong in this country, people drive way too much and battery cars are making it even worse with cheap running cost

Idiot's buying brand new enviroment cars living in bloody Carlow and clogging up the M50 everyday into North Dublin for €5 a week on electricy on the night rate and after 5-7 years and 400k km on the clock that car is knackered and needs replacing with 150kg of rare earth materials

That needs to stop

We should be planting more trees, making forests, putting tolls up every 20km, getting people out of bloody cars, all cars.

Getting rid of old cars is just stupid and lazy

Casati

McGiver wrote: »

Yes, but the problem with this is that, in general, the poorer person is the dirtier car they drive. There's a strong correlation. So if the gov were going to penalise usage and not just imports then it would have rather large financial & social implications and disproportionately more so on the lower income part of the spectrum. That's why they haven't done anything yet and targeted only imports, because that doesn't penalise anyone just discourages potential usage

Really?? If it discourages newer imports to replace older cars, it simply means people drive older more polluting cars for much longer and in turn affects all of us.

Car usage is based on people’s transport requirements, they will have the same usage regardless of the age of their car. Just because they can’t afford a newer car doesn’t mean they can stop driving to work or to the supermarket etc

Let’s be honest here, the only reason they have targeted imports is because of lobbying by SIMI who have seen their members cars sales and their inventory value reduced because of the great value importing from the U.K..