Sir, – Regarding your editorial ("Diesel in reverse", August 5th) on the probability of an increased tax on diesel cars in the next budget, there is no doubt this will be the Government's knee-jerk reaction to the problem.
Successive governments have used this method to appear to address a particular problem with no thought for the consequences. In a snap survey of my local supermarket today I noted well in excess of half of the cars parked were older than 10 years and a few of them, like my own, were even older.
These are the cars of ordinary people who use them to go about their daily business and who can’t afford to drive new or nearly new cars. Already they are penalised by having to pay up to three times more for their road tax since their cars predate the magic 2008 cut-off date plucked out of the air by earlier governments to deal with the same problem.
Now we are told electric cars will solve our problem, but is this true? And if so, who will be able to afford new electric cars? How long will it be before electric cars are 10 years old and affordable by the less-well-off? Nobody has mentioned the enormous cost of replacement batteries for electric cars. When the goal is reached and two million cars or more are plugged into the national grid every night, where will the electricity come from?
The government motivated us into driving diesel cars by hiking the tax on petrol; perhaps the way to make diesel cars less attractive would be to lower the price of petrol below that of diesel rather than hiking the price of diesel, so that people who drive cheaper, older cars could afford to change? But then, whoever heard of lowering taxes?
It appears the burden of complying with climate change legislation must always be borne by the lower paid, or by pensioners, and the less-well off in general. – Yours, etc,
RICHARD BYRNE,
Craughwell, Co Galway.