Electric cars aren't carbon-free, what about the batteries?

Either way, this 'subsidy' is nowhere near the UK Government offer of up to £5,000 for a car.

It appears the Environment Department is trying to encourage the use of EVs (I assume due to their zero emissions), however, has the embedded carbon in the production of the batteries for these vehicles been accounted for within the strategy? (Lithium is mined in South America, Australia and China.)

At the moment, the suggested life of the lithium batteries used in these vehicles is in the order of seven to eight years and the cost of replacement (if the batteries are not leased) is in the order of £4,000. This raises two questions:

1. Who will want to buy a six-year-old electric vehicle?

2. What will happen to all the old batteries/worthless vehicles?

What plans has the States got to dispose of these batteries when they require replacing? (Does the States have a waste export agreement covering batteries at the moment? I have heard that batteries and fluorescent lamps are not currently exported?)

If they do end up being exported, what will happen to them (I understand that, at present, it is uneconomic to recycle the lithium within them and that there is currently no commercial recycling facility in the world for lithium ion batteries, which invariably means they will end up in landfill in some Third World country)?

What about people moving to Guernsey on licence? Would they need to pay the proposed taxes when they register their vehicle locally? (This would be a huge disincentive for the likes of nurses etc. employed by HSSD. Or will HSSD cover the cost?)

While writing, I would also suggest that the proposed transport strategy is majorly flawed as far as States income is concerned.

The strategy is being sold to the public with the promise of free bus services (which, by the way, would not benefit me, as I live in the Castel and work in St Martin's, so with the current bus timetable, I wouldn't be able to get into work by 8am. The first bus from Vazon gets into Town too late for the connection to St Martin's).

However, if the public deserted their vehicles in preference of the bus, then surely the States would lose revenue by:

1. Loss of proposed paid parking income;

2. Loss of fuel tax revenue;

3. Loss of current bus fare income;

4. Loss of income tax and States insurance income from unemployed caused by closure of vehicle franchises due to poor sales after introduction of new taxes.

I would be interested to see how the Environment Department proposes to offset this loss of income.

I read on a website that the department's transport strategy hierarchy is walking, cycling, bus, motorcycle and vehicle in that order. I could understand walking if we were the size of Sark, and cycling if we were as flat as the Netherlands, but we are a large, 24-square-mile hill in the middle of the Bay of St Malo.

By all means encourage motorcycling, but we have seen both here and in London the unfortunate issues of motorists and cyclists sharing a road and more cyclists means unfortunately a greater risk of incidents, especially the way a large proportion of our cyclists use the road.

By the way, I do not have any involvement in the motor trade, I'm just a concerned citizen seeing all these 'stealth taxes' piled on to the people of Guernsey, many of whom are struggling to cope with high food costs, high energy costs and increased taxation while either having below-inflation wage rises or none at all for the past few years.

I understand the States needs to improve things, but there is a time and place for improvements and with the current economic climate, I suggest this is not the time or place for major change.

BOB FARRELL,

bobfarrell50@gmail.com.