/ 28 May 2007

DA suspicious about proposed fuel levies

Proposals for energy levies on fuel-guzzling cars signify a welcome greater responsiveness to the climate-change debate, but need reworking, the Democratic Alliance (DA) said on Sunday.

”Firstly, given that almost all cars will be taxed, and not even the most efficient cars will benefit from the proposals, it is hard not to be suspicious that this is simply another money-making plan,” said DA spokesperson Hendrik Schmidt.

The Department of Minerals and Energy’s fuel-efficiency proposals would tax cars on the basis of kilowatt output.

”Kilowatt output is not necessarily the best measure of damage to the environment because there are a number of cars on our roads with a high kilowatt output, but [which] have highly efficient engines and use little fuel,” said Schmidt.

He said a blanket tax would be imposed on sports utility vehicles (SUV) without recognising enormous variations in fuel efficiency between different models.

”Diesel engines are also lighter on fuel, but there are no indications of how these will be treated. It may be more appropriate to use engine capacity or fuel consumption as a more direct measure of damage done to the environment.”

Schmidt said the proposals appear not to take account of the different purposes for which vehicles are used. ”For example, commercial vehicles, which need higher engine capacity to carry heavy loads, will be punished on the same basis as luxury SUVs whose engine capacity is used for more frivolous purposes.”

The department needs to look rather at a subsidy system whereby ”clean” cars are subsidised through levies on more energy-hungry cars, with the ultimate financial gain to the department being neutral, he said.

The proposals should take a more sophisticated approach by recognising different categories of efficiency within different classes of car, and subsidise or tax them appropriately.

”Until a comprehensive and efficient public transport system is in place, most people have no alternative to cars. The government cannot use the threat of climate change for its own fund-raising purposes when it makes no alternatives available to vehicle users,” said Schmidt. — Sapa