Carbon tax

[ozbob]

The carbon tax is getting sillier by the day IMHO.  A planned rebate for petrol means that the actual purpose of the carbon tax to lead to a more sustainable environment generally is sham.   It is just setting up a costly middle layer of collect and reimburse which will just make the whole process a lot more expensive than it needs to be.  A better approach IMO would be to reward lowered energy production uses and users than penalise and then compensate.  I see similar economics as water and electricity, council amalgamations cost failures at work, but on a much wider and deadlier scale.

Sunday Mail --> Motorists give carbon tax the swerve

[Golliwog]

I'm dissappointed petrol isn't really going to be included in the carbon tax, and it is for fairly political reasons. That said however, its probably for the best. Mr Abbott is still in denial about his Direct Action plan being worse despite yet another economists report coming to the conclusion the carbon tax is cheaper to implement and will stop more emmisions.  He has now had a go at the economists:

Speaking at the Melbourne Institute conference, Mr Abbott said economists who thought a carbon price was more efficient should ''think again''.

''It may well be ... that most Australian economists think that a carbon price or emissions trading scheme is the way to go,'' he said. ''Maybe that's a comment on the quality of our economists rather than on the merits of the argument.''

A new analysis of the Gillard government's carbon price framework and the Coalition's ''Direct Action'' policy commissioned by the Australian Industry Group from Ernst and Young has again found ''carbon pricing, including through the imposition of a carbon tax, is the most effective way of achieving least-cost abatement, particularly in the long term''.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/abbott-lashes-out-as-another-report-backs-carbon-tax-20110701-1gv3y.html#ixzz1R0MpeKln

[somebody]

In one swoop, most of the benefit of this policy is undone.

[ozbob]

I'm dissappointed petrol isn't really going to be included in the carbon tax, and it is for fairly political reasons. That said however, its probably for the best.

Got to agree with you there Golli in that it is for political reasons.   The Greens have back flipped as well.  It is an attempt to appease the growing community concerns.  

I do note that many bloggers at the news sites are questioning the notion of penalising and then reimbursing.  I also note this morning that if a federal election was held today only one seat (Rudd's) would remain in the red corner in Queensland .. lol.  Panic is now ruling, I expect the present PM to be removed in the not too distant future.

[Fares_Fair]

The carbon tax is getting sillier by the day IMHO.  A planned rebate for petrol means that the actual purpose of the carbon tax to lead to a more sustainable environment generally is sham.   It is just setting up a costly middle layer of collect and reimburse which will just make the whole process a lot more expensive than it needs to be.  A better approach IMO would be to reward lowered energy production uses and users than penalise and then compensate.  I see similar economics as water and electricity, council amalgamations cost failures at work, but on a much wider and deadlier scale.

Sunday Mail --> Motorists give carbon tax the swerve

I agree, this practise of take and then give some back is oxymoronic in it's approach to the problem.
Encourage reductions in emissions, encourage land based substitutions, and - dare I say it, seriously encourage the use of public transport.

That said, Australia's contribution to the planet amounts to a mere 1% of the problem.
It's not of any value unless the US and China participate (and AIUI, the US has already said no it cannot afford to).

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

I expect the present PM to be removed in the not too distant future.

Possibly.  Backflipping here could be her death.

That said, Australia's contribution to the planet amounts to a mere 1% of the problem.
It's not of any value unless the US and China participate (and AIUI, the US has already said no it cannot afford to).

It has value in two ways (not counting the 1% of emissions from Oz):
a) Doing our bit
b) Putting diplomatic pressure on the US and China.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Carbon tax won't apply to petrol price - PM

Carbon tax won't apply to petrol price - PM
July 3, 2011 - 1:28PM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has confirmed her carbon tax won't apply to petrol, thanks to the intervention of independent MP Tony Windsor.

"Petrol prices will not be touched by carbon pricing," she told ABC Television today.

"Families, tradies, small business people do not have to worry about a petrol price increase."
Advertisement: Story continues below

The confirmation is the latest in a series of announcements by the government as it teases out details of a mechanism to price carbon, which is still subject to talks with the Australian Greens and independent MPs.

The Prime Minister acknowledged that one of those independents, Mr Windsor, played a major role in the decision to exempt petrol.

"He has put forward a powerful case for people in country Australia who have got no choice but to jump in their cars to get places," Ms Gillard said.

She said the exemption would not be a temporary measure.

"Petrol will be out now and out for the future," she said.

A $25 a tonne carbon tax would have added about six cents a litre to the cost of petrol.

Ms Gillard said the exemption was also good news for people living in the outer-urban areas of capital cities, like her own seat of Lalor, in Melbourne's west, who relied on a car for transport.

It is unclear whether the Greens are happy with the decision, having consistently argued against petrol's exemption from a carbon tax.

Ms Gillard would not say whether the minor party had backed down over the issue.

"There's still some discussions and conversations to come," she said.

The Prime Minister also confirmed that self-funded retirees holding a commonwealth health care card would get the same assistance as pensioners, under a compensation package aimed at limiting the impact of a carbon tax on households.

The assistance will be delivered quarterly, but a start date for the first payment and tax cuts for other Australians remains unclear.

"You'll see all of these details after a carbon price is finalised," Mr Gillard said.

The multi-party climate change committee was still working to get every detail right, Ms Gillard said.

But she again refused to reveal a timetable for an announcement about a carbon-pricing mechanism, despite the government's own self-imposed deadline of early July.

"I'm not here to confirm the date, we're working hard to finalise the scheme."

The government's decision to exempt petrol removes a key plank from Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's campaign against a carbon tax.

"He's being trying to persuade Australians that petrol prices will go up, that's not true," Ms Gillard said.

Mr Abbott had also been claiming a carbon tax would be permanent and that a compensation package would not provide adequate assistance for households, Ms Gillard said.

"And he's been trying to say to Australians, somehow he's got a magic pudding and everything he does comes for free," she said.

"Well, it doesn't. It comes at a cost of $720 a year."

Ms Gillard was referring to the coalition's direct action package that it says will match Labor's carbon reduction target by 2020.

Meanwhile, Ms Gillard has played down suggestions the deal she negotiated with independent MPs has made her prime ministership more secure given Labor tumbled to record lows in the latest opinion polls.

"My leadership of the Labor Party is not ultimately about how the independents see their agreements with me or with the Labor Party," she said.

"It's about my leadership and my vision for the country."

AAP

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/carbon-tax-wont-apply-to-petrol-price--pm-20110703-1gwy6.html#ixzz1R0mnC4a4

There is only one way petrol prices are going, 6 cents/L will not be even be noticed as peak oil bites ..

[Jonno]

Agree totally.  Peak oil will make 6 cents look like small change.  Price of petrol alone will not make people change mode of transport.  We need to keep working the efficiency, inability to reduce congestion, safety, cost effective, inclusiveness and indirect cost angles

[somebody]

I think rising oil costs has already made 6c/L look like small change.

My memory is that around the time of Gulf War I (20 years ago) petrol was around 53c/L.  3% inflation would put that up to 95c/L.

[Stillwater]

The warnings are there and the government knows:

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/public_submissions/published/files/266_australianassociationforthestudyofpeakoilandgas_SUB.pdf

[nitramluap]

The carbon tax is getting sillier by the day IMHO.  A planned rebate for petrol means that the actual purpose of the carbon tax to lead to a more sustainable environment generally is sham.   It is just setting up a costly middle layer of collect and reimburse which will just make the whole process a lot more expensive than it needs to be.  A better approach IMO would be to reward lowered energy production uses and users than penalise and then compensate.  I see similar economics as water and electricity, council amalgamations cost failures at work, but on a much wider and deadlier scale.

Sunday Mail --> Motorists give carbon tax the swerve

Wholeheartedly agree, Robert. It's so very disappointing. All the extra revenue will probably go to help fund the retirement of a newly appointed CEO of whatever body they create out of this.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Big business unhappy with petrol decision

Big business unhappy with petrol decision
July 3, 2011 - 11:17AM

Motorists are already feeling the pain of rising petrol prices without the added burden of next year's carbon tax, the federal government says.

It plans to exempt fuel from any price rise under a carbon tax, worth about six cents under a $25 per tonne levy.

Environment Minister Tony Burke said the point of the carbon tax was to target Australia's 1000 biggest emitters.

"The individual motorist is not one of those," he told Sky News today.

"It makes sense for motorists to be carved out."

But big business isn't happy with the move to exempt motorists.

Australia Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Peter Anderson said the move would simply shift the price burden of a carbon tax to other areas of the economy.

"If you start exempting particular products or particular industries or particular groups, you simply transfer the cost of that tax in a way that becomes more burdensome for those who are not exempted," he told Sky News.

"That is a danger."

Mr Anderson said it was wrong for the government to think it could isolate the impact of the tax in one area.

He labelled the carbon price a "big stick" to the Australian economy, especially in light of there being no similar action overseas.

Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce said the petrol exemption merely "accentuated the insult" of the government's carbon tax, in that it was ineffective to begin with.

"It is not going to change the climate, it is not going to do anything to the temperature of the globe," Senator Joyce told Channel Ten.

He then had to admit that neither would the coalition's direct action policy.

"I agree, it's not going to change the temperature of the globe either, (but) at least you have the capacity to do other advantageous things," he said.

Senator Joyce said no matter what exemptions the government made, the carbon tax would hit Australians hard.

"(The government is saying) 'You must thank me because instead of killing all the pets, I'm only going to kill the dogs and the fish and the birds, we're going to leave the cats alone'," he said.

"Why don't you leave everything alone, Julia Gillard?"

AAP

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/big-business-unhappy-with-petrol-decision-20110703-1gwyf.html

[ozbob]

Policy planning carbon tax -->

And they call us 'wacky dudes .. '  lol

[Golliwog]

I'm going to add that while it does annoy me that petrol is being exempted, I'm fine with it. The price of petrol is rising as it is due to dwindling supplies, etc, so it achieves the purpose anyway.

There already are some incentives to go green now without the carbon tax that are carrots not sticks. If you start producing 'green' energy (eg: landfill gas capture) then you get to sell it for more (RECS I think is the name of the scheme?).

Also, isn't the whole "give incentives to lower emmissions rather than penalties for not doing so" what Abbott has proposed in his Direct Action scheme/plan/whatever? which is what all the economists have said would cost more to achieve the same as the carbon tax?

[ozbob]

Abott doesn't really want to do anything, they have said more than once if elected the carbon tax is dead.  I wouldn't get to excited about economists viewpoints, of the hundreds of thousands of so called experts it was about 10 that forsaw the GFC.   What I am suggesting is that taxing and reimbursing is just going to create a massive carbon tax army to administer.  Universal consistant levy which will then drive leaner, greener solutions.  Start small and increment. That way the economy adjusts.  

[Mr X]

I am sick of this notion that non-renewable polluting resources should be cheap. Of course they shouldn't, it would only encourage their use and pollute the earth more.

Australia is very much a contributor to the problem (one of the highest levels of emissions per capita in the world) so before we criticise China and India we should look in our own backyard. I do worry though that no one seems to be looking at how wasteful the middle east is.

Look at the top polluting countries per capita for carbon for 2007 (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita and doesn't seem to have newer figures)
1. Qatar
2. Netherlands Antilles
3. UAE
4. Kuwait
5. Bahrain

Nothing environmentally sustainable about some of the monstrosities appearing in Dubai. Oh dear.

If we look at Greenhouse gas emissions per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita) from 2005 it's:
1. Qatar
2. UAE
3. Kuwait
4. Luxembourg
5. Australia
6. Bahrain
7. USA
8. Canada
9....

I guess the Middle East can buy it's way out  :conf

[O_128]

My main reason for not supporting a carbon tax is the entire thinking behind it, IE lets compensate working families (slams head into wall everytime I hear about working families). I would support a carbon tax however if ALL the money was reinvested in sustainable energy solutions this include public transport, alternative fuels etc.

[Mr X]

I agree completely, provide compensation to people like pensioners but that's it. What is with the obsession of cheap power and fuel these days? This might sound extreme but environmentally damaging resources shouldn't be cheap.

[Stillwater]

Julia Gillard's 'weerking faamilies' are John Howard's 'battlers'.  One and the same. 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Working families? What about working families. If it wasn't for working families every working family would be a working family. Working families 

[O_128]

Working families? What about working families. If it wasn't for working families every working family would be a working family. Working families 

ARRRRRRRRRRRRR

If you cannot afford things dont buy them, Don't pump out kids continuously and dont get the biggest mortgage you can and then cry poor to the government. NOT MY PROBLEM!

[WTN]

Working families? What about working families. If it wasn't for working families every working family would be a working family. Working families 

Doesn't that just translate to "everyone"? I mean, we all belong in families, even though not every one might not be living under one roof. But I can see why boarding student Tommy or Aunty Betty living on there own could be excluded.

What is with the obsession of cheap power and fuel these days? This might sound extreme but environmentally damaging resources shouldn't be cheap.

I think it's because those sources had been cheap, so they became indispensable/addictive, and now we aren't willing to change.

I also agree the original 6c/L carbon tax is small compared to the pump prices these days. The other taxes on petrol (excise + GST) already outpace it. But if the carbon tax goes up, then the exemption of petrol should be reconsidered.

Let's not forget there's no mention of natural gas being exempt, despite being a cleaner fuel supplied to many homes around the country. But no, you can't use in a typical car.

[ozbob]

I have noted O_128 that 'working families' is increasingly becoming 'ordinary families' in the spin speak ..
I find these terms insulting to Aussies generally, much prefer if they simply said the impacts on Australians and so forth ...

[Stillwater]

 

[O_128]

I have noted O_128 that 'working families' is increasingly becoming 'ordinary families' in the spin speak ..
I find these terms insulting to Aussies generally, much prefer if they simply said the impacts on Australians and so forth ...

Exactly, you will find that as soon as both political parties stop pandering to these group we will instantly be in a better position financially, there are so many more important things to work on that who is getting a $100 tax cut.

[justanotheruser]

Working families? What about working families. If it wasn't for working families every working family would be a working family. Working families 

ARRRRRRRRRRRRR

If you cannot afford things dont buy them, Don't pump out kids continuously and dont get the biggest mortgage you can and then cry poor to the government. NOT MY PROBLEM!

another pathetic generalisation. We don't have a mortgage because my wife could have serious health problems anytime simply because she was born a child of someone that some australians helped poisen. We don't pump out kids. I have lost several jobs simply because the business got sold. No fault of my own there! Of course because of my age people are reluctant to hire me so it takes a long time to find work. My rent has gone up, transport up, electricity up, now pay for water I previously didn't but rent didn't go down to compensate & other things going up. Then I lose two months pay because of floods and I get what $1000 payment from the government which I have to pay tax on! So yeah I'm struggling but don't tell me I bought it on myself.

[ozbob]

http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/government-announce-price-pollution

Media release

Government to announce price on pollution
MON 04 JULY 2011

Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

This weekend the Gillard Government plans to announce a price on pollution as the central element of a comprehensive policy to tackle climate change, cut pollution and drive the transformation of the Australian economy to a clean energy future.

After hearing a report on the discussions of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, Cabinet agreed tonight that sufficient progress had been made to allow an announcement date to be set for Sunday 10 July 2011.

Considerable common ground has been achieved in the MPCCC talks in recent weeks.

This reflects the genuine commitment of members of the MPCCC to tackle climate change to protect Australia's environment and support the economy.

While there will be additional discussions with the MPCCC this week, followed by further Cabinet consideration, it is expected that the remaining details will be finalised in these discussions ahead of Sunday's announcement.

The Gillard Government's priorities in designing the carbon price have been cutting pollution, protecting household budgets, and supporting jobs.

A carbon price is an important reform that will create incentives to lower Australia's carbon pollution at the lowest cost to the economy.

It will do this by putting a price tag on the pollution of fewer than 1,000 businesses.

More than half the revenue raised will be used for tax cuts and increased payments to households, which will be generous, fair and permanent and will keep pace with cost impacts from the carbon price in the future.

After announcing the policy the Government intends to introduce legislation to Parliament later this year.

This will be an opportunity for all MPs to decide whether they accept the scientific advice that climate change is real and whether they accept the economic advice that a market mechanism is the cheapest and most effective way of reducing pollution.

Arrangements for media will be released this evening. Arrangements for stakeholders will be announced in the coming days.

[Zoiks]

I dont see a massive issue there.
A 6c increase in petrol is not really going to drive change in usage patterns. That is less then the weekly cycle and for a lot of negative press.
I would have preferred something like what Garnaut proposed. A one time cut to the excise and the carbon price put in its place. That way it would increase over time.

What also concerns me is some of the misconceptions of the pricing, even on this board.

[ozbob]

PTUA Media release

http://www.ptua.org.au/2011/07/05/carbon-price-equal-treatment/

Cars, public transport must have equal treatment under carbon price
July 5th, 2011 (Federal funding, Media releases)

The Public Transport Users Association has called on the Gillard Labor Government to ensure public transport users are not penalised relative to motorists under a future carbon price.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard stated on Sunday that motorists' fuel purchases would be excluded from a carbon price in perpetuity.

However, the government has not made any guarantees about the effect on public transport costs. If electricity and fuel for trains, buses and trams is subject to a carbon price, as seems likely, public transport operators and authorities may be forced to pass the cost on to passengers through increased fares.

"This could create a perverse situation where train or bus travel is subjected to a carbon price while car travel is not," said PTUA Secretary Tony Morton.

PTUA calculations indicate that with a carbon price of $25 per tonne of CO2, a Melbourne public transport user could be paying $1.28 extra per week. By comparison, if the same carbon price were applied to petrol, a motorist could drive 200km a week before paying the same amount. [1]

"We fully agree that transport must be included in a carbon pricing scheme to ensure all sectors of the economy participate in reducing our greenhouse emissions," Dr Morton said. "However, we cannot accept this being done in a way that distorts the market in favour of petrol-powered private transport against all other forms of transport. A kilogram of CO2 from a public transport user and a kilogram of CO2 from a motorist should be treated equally – either both are in, or both are out."

Dr Morton said the PTUA understood the reasons for leaving petrol out of the scheme. "People are labouring under historically high oil prices, which are only likely to increase further. So it's understandable to have a cent-for-cent reduction in fuel excise as the carbon price is applied, to ease the transition away from oil dependence. But governments are kidding themselves if they think they can overlook public transport users in their urge to placate the motoring lobby."

The PTUA has proposed that Federal funding be provided to public transport operators, equivalent to the amount they will pay under a carbon tax. "It's long been understood that the Federal government has as much reason to be involved in public transport funding as it does to be involved in road funding. A little extra – less than $100 million a year on our estimates – will get us closer to a level playing field."

Dr Morton also drew attention to Australia's ballooning "road deficit". "The cost of road transport to the Australian public is $17 billion a year more than is recovered in motoring taxes and charges," he said [2]. "The government already gives back in tax concessions nearly three-quarters of what it collects in fuel excise."

* * *

[1] PTUA estimates that Melbourne train, trams and buses emit 600,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, based on service-kilometre figures in Victorian budget papers, and Federal Government figures for electricity and diesel emissions factors. At $25 per tonne, the carbon tax bill of $15 million is 2.5 per cent of an estimated $600 million in annual Metlink revenue. A 2.5% fare rise corresponds to $1.28 extra per week for a Zone 1+2 commuter travelling on Myki Money and paying $51 per week currently. Motorists' costs are estimated assuming fuel efficiency of 10 litres per 100km and a 6c per litre carbon tax.
For more energy use figures see www.ptua.org.au/myths/energy.shtml

[2] See www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtml

[Jonno]

Great article.  Imagine what the public, long distance rail and active transport could do with $17B a year!!!!

[ozbob]

Great article.  Imagine what the public, long distance rail and active transport could do with $17B a year!!!!

Add in road trauma and congestion costs ... whoaaaaaaaaaa   70 billion dollars or so ...

[ozbob]

"We fully agree that transport must be included in a carbon pricing scheme to ensure all sectors of the economy participate in reducing our greenhouse emissions," Dr Morton said. "However, we cannot accept this being done in a way that distorts the market in favour of petrol-powered private transport against all other forms of transport. A kilogram of CO2 from a public transport user and a kilogram of CO2 from a motorist should be treated equally – either both are in, or both are out."

The move to attempt to appease motorists is just sheer political desperation ...  do it right or just don't do it ...

[somebody]

"We fully agree that transport must be included in a carbon pricing scheme to ensure all sectors of the economy participate in reducing our greenhouse emissions," Dr Morton said. "However, we cannot accept this being done in a way that distorts the market in favour of petrol-powered private transport against all other forms of transport. A kilogram of CO2 from a public transport user and a kilogram of CO2 from a motorist should be treated equally – either both are in, or both are out."

The move to attempt to appease motorists is just sheer political desperation ...  do it right or just don't do it ...

Even if they dropped the fuel excise to compensate, that would be an improvement.  When the tax goes up, the excise on petrol would go up more.

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail 6th July 2011 page 4

Drive for better public transport

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> It's make or break on carbon

[Jonno]

This carbon tax debate may just have brought public transport to the forefront of transport debate. Just maybe

[Stillwater]

So let's examine the practical ramifications of the carbon tax in two key aspects:

Some surveys suggest that up to 45 per cent of cars in the Brisbane CBD do not want to be travelling there.  They are merely passing through to somewhere else.  However the road system channels those cars through the CBD anyway.  Our esteemed leader has told us that normal fuel for passenger cars won't be included in the carbon tax net.  So, applying that to a Brisbane context, if a car driver wanted to do the right thing and avoid the city centre, travelling instead on the Gateway Motorway, Clem 7 or the Northern Link/Airport Link, that person would pay a toll.  A motorist wanting to drive around the city, in order to reduce congestion for which the various toll roads were built, pays a penalty, while the motorist who drives into the city does so penalty free.

Now, looking at passenger transport and the carbon tax.  It is not clear whether a carbon tax applies to fuel used by trains and buses.  We will know on Sunday.  However, the federal government has given no specific detail on this matter.  Ramifications?  As with the scenario above, someone who drives their private motor vehicle into or through the city, thereby contributing to the congestion and the pollution it causes, is exempt from the carbon tax.  Meanwhile the public transport punter is penalised through higher fares for doing the right thing and leaving their car at home in order to travel to the city.

Right now the carbon tax is the cocked-up tax!

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Carbon tax 'could hit public transport' says transport expert Prof John Stanley

Carbon tax 'could hit public transport' says transport expert Prof John Stanley

    From: AAP
    July 06, 2011 11:47AM

PUBLIC transport could become collateral damage from the government's carbon tax, says a leading transport expert.

Professor John Stanley from the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at Sydney University told a transport summit in Canberra that the government's carbon tax, to be announced on Sunday, could harm public transport.

Under the carbon tax agreement between Labor, the Australian Greens and independent MPs only fuel for cars and light commercial vehicles will be exempt.

"At the moment we (public transport) probably look like we're collateral damage," Prof Stanley said.

Results of a poll were released at the summit which revealed almost three quarters of Australians want revenue from the carbon tax spent on improving public transport, walking and cycling.

More than 80 per cent of those polled supported an increase in federal government funding for public transport and 87 per cent wanted government investment in public transport to address the issue of traffic congestion in major cities.

"Congestion costs the Australian economy almost $15 billion annually," Prof Stanley said, adding it was more than a dollar figure.

"It is a problem that hurts everyone who lives in our cities by lowering their quality of life and affecting them financially."

The poll of 1500 Australians covering all age and income brackets was commissioned by a coalition of transport, environment, health and local government groups.

Perverse ...

[Stillwater]

Very well, if public transport is to become 'collateral damage' under the carbon tax framework, will the government guarantee that every dollar in carbon tax raised from public transport is turned around and put into public transport projects?

[Jonno]

My point was that we are now seeing quotes like this

More than 80 per cent of those polled supported an increase in federal government funding for public transport and 87 per cent wanted government investment in public transport to address the issue of traffic congestion in major cities.

that will have the advisers scrambling to understand what they have missed!!!