In reply to Eric the Red:
> If I moved closer to work, and bought myself a nice £251'000 house, I would pay in stamp duty £7'500, solicitors fees £500, estate agent fees of £2'500 and removal fees, maybe £500. So that's £11'000. How much would you have to add to the price of fuel to make that worthwhile?
>
> Do you honestly think people would travel to work 2 hours each way unless they really, really had to?
I'm not suggesting that everyone should move house! There are other slightly less radical ways of burning less fuel. Also, is this a uniquely London based problem? I may be wrong, but driving 2 hours to find an affordable home near your work sounds like the sort of situation that only occurs in a certain part of the SE of England?
> Your idea is poorly thought through in so many ways.
Well, I am asking for criticism.
> The distribution of mileage driven by people is not linear. That is to say, if you take the person who drives the mean number of miles and make their increase nothing, then most people will drive less miles than them and a smaller number will drive significantly more. So, the people driving less will be slightly better off, whereas the people at the far end of the tail will be paying extortionately higher amounts. To set the scheme to be cost neutral you'd need to consider the median number of miles, which I will guarantee you would be very much lower than you'd expect. You'd have civil unrest before you could say "affordable homes for key workers near their place of work", or "you try taking a spare boiler on the tube."
I would like to see what you think the distribution looks like, or if you have any figures for the mean and median. If you're right then most people would win out under this scheme, even before anyone modifies their behaviour (not exactly riot-provoking). The outliers you're worried about are surely those who drive large distances commercially, rather than people commuting to work, and I covered this point already.
By the way, I think that the mean value is the correct thing to consider if you want to end up cost-neutral, not the median.
> Businesses passing on the costs to customers isn't really in the spirit of the penalise those who drive the most policy is it?
Not quite; the policy is to penalise those who drive
avoidable miles. So if there's a more fuel efficient way to do something, you're penalised for not doing it. If no-one can find a more fuel-efficient way to do something then everyone hands their costs on to the customer. After all it is the customer who wants the fuel-heavy job done.
But if business A finds that it's more fuel-efficient to import its coal on the canals, say, and business B tries to hand the cost of driving coal on the roads on to the customer then they won't stay in business very long.
> Eg, Tesco home delivery. They would have to put the cost of delivering up, people would stop and would drive to Tesco instead, thus making a mockery of it.
No, because the fuel that Tesco use to deliver it is the same fuel that customers use to drive to Tescos. If it was cheaper for Tesco to deliver it to you before, then it's even cheaper for Tesco to deliver afterwards!
> If you want to save the environment, lobby parliament to make some real life, actual changes to worldwide issues that might make a difference, rather than taxing people who can ill afford it in a relatively minor source of CO2. You can start with protecting the rain forest, moving freight off of our roads and replacing fossil fuel power stations with nuclear.
I agree with most of that.