After Slashing Active Travel Funding, Government Keeps £4.8 billion Fuel Price Discount

Once again something that needs to be shouted from the rooftops – but never will be because car is king.

That £4.8 billion… that’s about £150 per income tax payer.

When I look at the state of the country, the strikes, the holes in the roads, food banks, 7,000,000 on NHS waiting lists. 27% of children living in poverty. I don’t think… “if only I spent £100 less on fuel, everything would be great”.

If I want to spend £100 less on fuel I can achieve this be planning ahead and not running out of milk and driving 5 miles to get more. Or working from home a few days a month. Or cycling to work a couple of times a month. Or riding locally rather than a trip to the lakes. Or not owning motorbikes that blast through fuel for no good reason other than pleasure.

Household budget myth perpetuates lack of money.

Means; we can’t have nice things because of policy choices rather than lack of money.

Push back – the government is not fiscally constrained. Vote for parties that acknowledge government spending is essential to a healthy economy.

Otherwise keep losing stuff…

For a bit of balance on the active travel fund and its value and worth. It is ripe for misuse and a number of examples are coming to light across the country, and I have 1 example very close to my heart.

There is a road about half a mile from my front door that I use to get to a bridleway on my bike, and to avoid a busy A road to go to a pub that sits at the end of it or to go to the tip or to reach the dog walk area. This road has been used for centuries, it has enough width for 2 cars to pass each other but is a bit awkward if you get cars and cyclists combining but nothing that common sense couldn’t work out if people had some. For the last decade, maybe more, the local residents who live on that road (about 7 houses) have been trying to make it access only for them. It has come up for a vote at least twice and each time it saw the majority wanting to keep it open. There is a local councillor or two involved in this campaign to close it and all of a sudden during the pandemic the road was closed to allow people to go for a walk. During this time, as if by magic, the road became part of HCC “Active Travel Plan” and it stayed closed for 2yrs. It has been open now for 12 months and again the residents have somehow managed to get it considered for the active travel plan and consultations are going on with residents. This time the only residents being targetted with a paper copy are those that actually live on the road, so the ones that want to keep it closed. Everyone else has to actively search for an online survey, and when they find it, they find the most badly worded and biased survey you will ever read.

An example of the questions: If the road was closed do you think it would make it safer for children? There is no other answer than yes, if you close any road it will make it safer for children. The thing with this road is that no children will use it, there is no school run, no park, absolutely no reason for a child to go on that road.
Next question: If the road was closed would it make it safer for pedestrians? FFS, yes, closing a bloody motorway would make it safer for pedestrians.

Anyway the survey continues in that way throughout. So, my point. The active travel fund is only as good as the people that have access to the money, and a lot of them are really, really not worthy of that responsibility.

Well said Hannah. I do think, however, that we should all stop referring to it as “Fuel Tax”. It is indeed a tax on fuel, but only such fuel that is used by motor vehicles. It would be better described as the motoring tax it is. Maybe this would make clear, as Hannah does, that the Treasury is specifically subsidising and sanctioning the use of polluting vehicles at the expense of the tax payer.

Phew, I can still afford to drive my SUV to Peaslake for a bit of MTB

Though fuel duty is a regressive tax, and therefore unfair, it is one of the few taxes that could influence consumption and consequently pollution.

That HMG have chosen to use this opportunity to further subsidise fossil fuels is disappointing. Not unexpected. That it comes on top of cutting what was fairly cosmetic active transport funding is very disappointing.

Though fuel duty is a regressive tax, and therefore unfair, it is one of the few taxes that could influence consumption and consequently pollution.

Surely its not regressive – it’s progressive. Common sense tells me that the wealthier you are the more likely you have a car that consumes more fuel and less likely to use public transport/alternative transport means/live closer to your workplace. Electric cars are probably causing some issues with the theory but overall I can’t see how you could think fuel duty to be a regressive tax.

Some also agree with my view it would seem – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/22/fuel-price-cuts-uk-suv-driving-elite-rishi-sunak

The budget also announced a commitment to invest £20 billion over the next two decades – let’s call it £1 billion a year, shall we – on carbon capture and storage projects. That’s projects that hope to deal with the carbon once it’s out there, rather than preventing it at source – and there are currently significant questions about the efficacy of carbon capture projects. Indeed, some carbon carbon capture technology is actually used to aid in the extraction of oil. Most climate activists are focussed on reducing carbon emissions, and increasing carbon storage through habitat preservation and restoration.

And this treads a line between missleading and untrue.

that’s projects that hope to deal with the carbon once it’s out there

No, it is, to quote the article itself “preventing it at source”. The principal is you extract an amount of natural gas (CH4), convert it into 2 H2 and 1CO2, and replace that CH4 in the ground with the CO2. Which pushes a bit more CH4 out that may otherwise have not been extracted, but it’s not ‘more’ in carbon terms because you’re burring as much as you extract.

That, even though imperfect, is a far better outcome than heating a house with the CH4 directly which is how pretty much all homes and workplaces are at the moment.

Two projects currently in planning/underway are the project to decarbonize the industrial areas around Teesside by replacing the industrial gas network with hydrogen. And a similar project on Merseyside (I was slightly confused as it’s a place called Whitby, but no the two projects aren’t both in Yorkshire).

there are currently significant questions about the efficacy of carbon capture projects

Which is why they’re spending ‘only’ a billion a year on some pilot projects and learn some lessons before deciding if it’s worth committing to doing more areas or the whole country.

Higher fuel charges mean higher prices on everything for all of us.

Is a myth pedaled by the road haulage association. The actual cost of the fuel tax, spread across an entire lorry load, is minute. And it doesn’t save you anything, because that £4.9billion has to be found somewhere. If it’s not Eddie Stobart adding <1p to your 6 pinter of milk, it’s got to be something else (income, corporation, VAT), so it doesn’t cost you anything unless whatever it was moved to was something that did have no impact on you.

Perhaps some sort of personal use/business use tax system could be implemented. Businesses could perhaps claim a certain percentage back each quarter through the tax system.

They already do, they can claim back the VAT.

I’m sorry but I’m struggling to see how tax on fuel can possibly be described as a subsidy to motorists. Sure the government might have not put that tax up again this time but it’s still taxed.

Even if it’s e-bikes replacing car journeys, it’s a lower carbon footprint than a car.

Only if you have already bought the ebike. How many journeys would you have to use it for to offset the carbon footprint of building and shipping it and its raw materials round the world.

I’m sorry but I’m struggling to see how tax on fuel can possibly be described as a subsidy to motorists.

The externalities of burning petrol and diesel are ________ huge (yet too easily ignored).

Much of that research is in second lives and reuse. No doubt there are environmental and social costs of extraction and manufacturing and disposing of batteries. But that’s whataboutism, as we’re looking at tax on fossil fuels for the cars we have in use. The discussion was whether we’re being “subsidised” when buying fuel to burn… and in deciding that you need to look at the huge costs beyond buying at the pump. The (direct) pollution from using our vehicles, and the effects on air quality as well as climate change, need to be taken into account. Polluter pays and all that. Things most people can do are drive less, share more, drive slower… nothing to do with batteries. I know I couldn’t afford an electric car no matter what the tax/subsidy situation. It’s not part of the equation for millions of others either.

But yep, whether it’s 7400 or 10000 miles, the average is not going to give £100 savings as claimed.

Hmmm, yea it comes out more like £50/year. So either someone’s doubled it “this will save £50/year, but I’ll include last year to make it a nice round number” next person to read the draft “this has already run for a year ……..”. Or they’re including indirect costs like busses, taxis, haulage, construction, couriers, etc.

Agreed just as the externalities of making lithium batteries are also ignored as it the cost and impact of disposing of them. The amount of money being spent on research to work out what do do with old lithium batteries is huge, especially those used in cars which don’t have to degrade very much before they are no longer suitable to power a car

You’re starting from the premise that the only solution is more cars.

Well said Hannah. I came to article via the podcast. I see why you checked before publishing! Like you I’m concerned about where government priorities lie.

Opposition also disappoint on occasion. They fret about upsetting potential voters, and duck out of taking strong positions.

I admit I do sometimes bite my tongue on environmental issues so as not to alienate too many acquaintances e.g. as they share stories of jetting off on holiday.