jonc

Well because its Government funded who stand to make a lot money and tax revenue.

TelBoy

Jon, why are you bothering to check this thread? You've made your mind up that you're the hapless victim and that anything to do with global warming is just a total scam designed to extract more money out of you, so why keep checking back? We know your position, it couldn't be any clearer. Keep burning those tyres mate.

PeteBrant

And the private research is corporation funded who stand to make a lot of revenue.

THings is, you are assuming that the Government wants a lot of extra tax revenue. What for?

I mean a company wanting to increase profits is obvious, but why should a country?

It just puts it under more pressure to increase public spending without putting up income tax.

And ofc ourse, by their very nature, green taxes are not obligatory; you don't *have* to pay them. So there is potential for the government to actually lose money, if every one does as they want.

Paul3446

I actually think our government started out with the best of intentions, but have noticed along the way that green taxes are a huge cash cow and are now cashing in.

Holy Ghost

**

the cupboard being bare for instance? or just for the sheer hell of pillaging (as socialists are wont to do). as ed 'i'm a vile, swivel-eyed swine' ***** was so utterly and damningly caught during the conservative budget response in the house back in april when he clearly shouted 'so what?' to cameron's allegation that the UK suffered the highest personal tax regime in europe.

just a thought.

PeteBrant

Cameron is utterly commited to Green taxes. He a socialist too? (Not that we have anything even approaching a socialist government)


We don't have the highest personal tax in Europe. We aren't even close. the UK is a low tax economy compared to Europe, and that a direct quote from those less than staunch Labour supporters at the Adam Smith Institute.


But this is getting away from the point I was making. Forget party politics, forget Labour and the Tories (given that they are both commited to a greener agenda) - Why do people think that the IPCC reports are false? Why do people think that the Government are going to use green taxes, which by thier very nature actively encourage people not to pay the taxes, as a revenue raising exercise?

Geezer

People have threatened to sue the IPCC to have their names taken off the list of people who have contributed as having their findings mis-represented.

I am not aware of that happening (though I admit absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!) the other way round.

You are going senile

But, you still only have your perception, and with the best will in the world, it's meaningless. I'm sure 80 year old people have a perception that summers used to warmer, but then again old people feel the cold more. You could have had a very localised effect, but overall, the temps worldwide have not changed.

I rememeber truly awful summers, hot summers, cold summers all sorts of bleedin summers! I don't think things have really changed that much.

I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't sit up and take notice, but the evidence is flimsy now.

Geezer

jonc

Name me a government that doesn't want more in its coffers! Its likely that small percentage of the revenue raised through green taxes will actually go to green causes, the majority will probably go to add to the pot to help funding many of the governments own projects and policies, eg, funding for the military for the continuing "war against terror", bailing out banks, help balance the books for the national debt, funding for the olympics, new affordable homes,baseless facts and relief aid for other countries, governmental think tanks, foreign affairs and help fund policies that the governemt promised in its manifesto, etc. and its not limited to just this government but also those in other countries. Its a case of you rub my back and I'll rub yours.

If the situation were so desparate and urgent action not taken, why is it that the powers that be have done little in the way of curbing CO2 emmissions? Why haven't those in power put their money where their mouth is, why are they still jetting around the world in their privately charted jets? Why aren't businesses and large corporates penalised for producing un-eco friendly products, like cars, houses/buildings, encouraged to switch off lights/computers/appliances in none business hours, why aren't they doinig anything to encourage people from using cars by improving public transport? the list goes on.. Is it because they don't want to at the expense of the economy or impact thoses who help funded them to get into power? Why is it always that joe public bears the brunt of lax policies, they aren't taxes that encourage people not to pay the taxes because many people need vehicles for their business to work, or to get about because of poor or lack of public transport, or how are we to get a weeks worth of family shopping home without a car when we all have to shop at out of town hypermarkets who've put local shops out of busness.

I have looked into both sides of the argument and the evidence presented and like in most cases what tends to be true is what's in the middle, and that is, yes the climate is changing, whether its man made is questionable and not irrefutable fact, and yet the government are set on making policies as if it were. But then again, its not the first time government have done something on questionable evidence.....

TelBoy

But Geezer, is it meaningless to attempt to do something just in case? Look me in the eye and tell me it isn't. The only reason people don't, is because it's costing them money, usually against their will. And personal finances are more important than saving the planet for many people, that's the bottom line.

Devildog

Its pretty meaningless if the attempts have zero effect, because the planet goes through cyles in any event.

SJ_Skyline

Tel,

Food on the table for the family or save the planet. All else being equal, only one of those will ever win until you take away the choice.

TelBoy

Couldn't agree more, DD, but can you categorically assure me that the global attempt to reduce emissions has been, and will be, totally and utterly futile? Can you?

PeteBrant

How so?
So you mean green taxes will go towards all the things that taxes are used for - Public services, defence and health.

Things is, of course, that the revenue raised does not necessarily increase the overall take.

If you have more people living a greener life style, then the green taxes do not come in, and whats more, your petrol/VED take and take on VAT on heating bills etc reduces


All those things you list are happening. But the change will be slow - You can't just tell companies that they have to change they way they work next week - The change will be gradual so companies can adjust and absorb the cost of change. But it is happening, the RoHS example I gave earlier in thread took years to implement.

I went to a meeting this monring, where my company is going into bid for supply a component part for Wind turbines for use in wind farms. This contract inparticualr is for China, where they are going to build an absolutely enourmous wind farm

There are thing shappenign to reduce CO2 emissions, but you can't expect it to happen overnight.

Look at how long it took to get Lead out of products, which is a horrible substance . Change is slow.


And the reaosn the man in the street is hit (companies, are of course hit at a corporate level too) is because it is the most effective way to bring about change - Change the way people live, and companies will be forced to adapt.

Devildog

Anyway, what ***** me off is the whole "green tax" policy.

Taxing better off people who can afford higher emission vehicles is not, under any circumstances, going to save the planet. Its not even going to have an effect.

If we want to cut CO2 we have to cut emissions generally. That means we have to use less fuel. And cars are just the tip of that iceberg.

Oh, and if we really want to make a difference, we have to ask India, China and the USA to stop doing what they are doing.

TelBoy

True and that's what it boils down to, Rich. The thing i think a lot of people have a hard time accepting is that there ARE greener alternatives that avoid tax, they're just not quite so comfy, so it's perceived as a non-alternative. It's a case of re-education in my opinion.

Devildog

No, I can't assure you. Not can I assure you that it will make the slightest difference that attemts are not futile.

What I can assure of, and the stats all back this up, is that the UK is such a small "producer" of co2 that if you nuked the whole of the UK, the differences would hardly register on a global scale.

PeteBrant

Thats doesn't mean we shouldn't take a lead though does it.

I mean if you nuked the UK, then the amount of illegal dogfights in the world would hardly be affected, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the issue.

Devildog

What should be happening, Tel, is that our government needs to stop taking the **** with things like road and showroom taxes when its not the vehicle you drive that's the problem, but how far and how economically you travel in it.

If Brown and Darling scrapped road tax and doubled fuel duty (with rebates for hauliers) I'd be worse off if I maintained the stautus quo, but it would make me drive less and walk/cycle more to save some money.

TelBoy

Yeah the UK is insignificant, but we're far from being the only country to have a heightened environmental conscience. As you say, it's the USAs, Chinas and Indias of this world we need to browbeat into submission. But as i've said previously, i don't believe they give us the moral right to sit back and do nothing.

TelBoy

And yes i concur re vehicle tax, they've just done it the way they have to make it easy to administer. Ham fisted policies like they're introducing only add fuel to the fire of the doubters, i can see that.

Devildog

In what way are we taking the lead Pete?

We are currently paying lipservice to something over which we may, or may not have any control. And the way we are doing it is not even logical.

Lets assume global warming can be controlled by reduced emissions. Who's going to ask China for example to stop killing the planet?

Devildog

Agreed.

But doing something isn't ******* over your own people with daft taxation policies. Its taking appropriate measures to sort your own house out whilst at the same time somehow convincing those major contributors to stop.

And lets be honest, that's never going to happen.

PeteBrant

The West as a whole is taking a lead (the States maybe dragging thier feet but they are coming). And it does have an effect, as I detailed earlier in this thread with the Chinese RohS compliance, and the fact they are about to install mindbogglingly huge wind farms.

Why would they do this if not to comply with the direction the world is taking.

Devildog

The "west", yes. But not the UK on its own.

If you think that Brown is the driving force behind "taking the lead" then you are somewhat mistaken.

Geezer

Because AGW was (supposedly) backed up by increasing world temperatures, and now that has been proven a fallacy. Temperatures have not risen and have been predicted to fall in the next 10 years and so the IPCC, caught with their pants down have changed it to climate change. Well that's pretty easy, the climate does change! But there is no evidence that we are causing it.

Geezer

jonc

I wouldn't have as big an issue with green taxes, if green taxes were used solely for green causes, and more to the point, how is the policy of increasing VED, deem green, on a car that I'ved owned for several years going to change the way I drive or encourage me to be greener? For a new purchase yes, but for a car I currently run and intend to run for several years more, nil affect. Where's the logic other than increase revenue for the Gov'? I'm not going to sell my car because of the higher VED, it doesn't make economic sence. Even if it were to encourage me to sell my car, surely more CO2 would be created in the manufacture and shipment for the new car that if I just ran my existing car.

Geezer

Of course that raises a dilemma. But, it depends on whether you believe something is going to happen. You could argue all sorts of things may happen for all sorts of reasons, but at the end of the day, you have to weigh up the likelyhood of it happening, or whether what you think will cause it will cause it. The only way to do that is by looking at the numbers and the historical data to see trends.

I personally wouldn't have a problem paying more for stuff if I thought it would make a difference, but the evidence would suggest not (IMO of course )

Geezer

Devildog

Absolutely mate.

There is no logic whatsoever to the taxation policy. Its clearly a revenue generator with the green issue as a convenient excuse.

PeteBrant

Hang about, I could post up graph after graph from the IPCC site that shows :

(i) a steady increase in temperature - Rising more rapidly in the 20th century
(ii) A steady increase in CO concentrations - Rising more rapidly in the 20th century.


I don't know if we caused it, or whether therei sa link, but I'm not going to dissmiss it out of hand, I don't know enough about climate (and I suspect no one else here does) to make an informed decision.

Martin2005

Blimey a long Global Warming thread and I haven't contributed...yet!

As most of you know my view on this remains healthy skepicism (and increasingly so). I do get rather frustrated by the certainty people on both sides of this debate on this forum show - How can you be certain?
There is surely a good arguement for doing something, because to deny and do nothing could have far greater ramifications than acting and being wrong.
My over-riding feelings on this are relate to cause and effect, is it possible for us humans to have pumped billions of tonnes of Co2, which has previously been stored under ground for 100's of millions of years, into the atmosphere without having some sort of effect, I just can't make myself believe that there can be no consequence to these actions.