By on May 21, 2008

2008_cay_7.jpgSeveral European countries are introducing severe taxes and penalties against vehicles with high CO2 emissions (read: SUVs). Auto Motor und Sport reports that Porsche Cayenne S buyers in the Netherlands will have to pay a luxury tax of about €38k at purchase. Finland's surcharge plans are relatively moderate at €26k, as are France's €10k– especially when you compare them to Norway's penalty of 54 friggin' thousand Euros. That means the Cayenne S is effectively twice as expensive in Norway as in Germany. The UK's €23.7k surcharge for Porsche's turbotractor is nothing to sneeze at, either. France also plans to introduce a yearly CO2 tax which, for the Cayenne, will amount to €3k; Austria is following suit with €5k per year. According to CSM Worldwide (a consultancy), the market for SUVs is collapsing in several European countries. This year, sales of large SUVs were down 46 percent in France and down 40 percent in Spain. It looks like Porsche has a bit more legal action in store; merely going to court against London's road-pricing autocrats won't cut the mustard. Perhaps Porsche was smart to buy those VW shares after all. 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

9 Comments on “CO2 Rules Kill Eurozone’s SUV Market...”


  • avatar
    N85523

    For the love of all things good, it is not a pollutant. Tax them for exhaling if they’re going to tax them for CO2. Oh wait, they already do.

    I can’t wait until people start up the water vapor tax on hydrogen cars. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, water vapor is a more potent insulatory (greenhouse) gas than carbon dioxide.

  • avatar
    virages

    For now the CO2 bonus or penalty (malus) in France is at the purchase of the car… which is to me a good thing. It encourages buying of a more fuel efficient vehicle. Where I would disagree is putting a yearly CO2 tax on a car.

    What if I have a Ferrari that I take out on weekends but bike to work? Who pollutes the most in this case? Tracking the milage and corresponding CO2 usage would be an administrative head ache.

    Anyway, I’m all for policy for encouraging energy efficient transportation… even if it hurts the SUV wanting crowd, you want it, you pay it’s true environmental cost.

    N85523 : While water vapor does play a role in global warming, our CO2 emissions have a significant impact on climate change through the fact that we pump out more than plants or oceans can absorb. Water vapor can turn into rain, CO2 not so much.

  • avatar
    Mike66Chryslers

    @ N85523:

    Shhh, don’t say that too loud or the taxman might hear. Water vapor is also an exhaust gas from burning hydrocarbons in internal combustion engines.

  • avatar
    AKM

    Oh well, the European nouveaux riches will need to cut their vacations in the Greek Islands. So hard.

  • avatar
    Brendon from Canada

    @virages; can’t say that I disagree with you more! Tracking mileage (and coresponding CO2 usage) already happens today; it’s called a gas pump, and everyone needs to use it. ;-)

    An upfront fee bares absolutely no relation to any “true” environmental cost.

    Fair disclaimer: I’m looking to buy a gas Land Rover (diesels not being available in the NA market). However, it’s a third vehicle, and I often bike to work in the summer (however, more for fitness then any environmental concern).

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    Sounds like a good idea to me. Tax SUVs more, people less.

  • avatar
    virages

    @ Brendon from Canada :

    Yep we already have a usage tax here… it is called the 80% or so on gasoline! This is basically a carbon tax that is already imposed. The current so called CO2 tax is a carrot or whip at purchase.

    What is not necessary is a tax, say on a large vehicle, lightly used, but taxed every year the same as one used more often…

  • avatar
    PanzerJaeger

    Completely ridiculous. The joys of socialism…

  • avatar
    JJ

    Taxes on cars have always been insanely high in The Netherlands…this just comes on top of that.

    Apart from the fact that I’m completely against these heavy taxes though; CO2 isn’t a pollutant, but the amount of CO2 a car emmits per mile/kilometer/whatever is directly related to the amount of fuel it burns…so as a measure of fuel efficiency it’s actually ok.

    Once again though, I don’t see how consuming more fuel is a legitimate reason to be taxed heavier twice (when buying a car AND with high taxes on fuel) in this rediculous fashion.

    Just one more way of stealing money from those who work hard to get a good income, and consequently most likely spend it on dumb uncontrolled projects.

Read all comments

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
  • theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
  • A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
  • Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
  • Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber