Cost of driving set to climb.
Discussion
As reported by AOL on there home page today:
Cost of air travel and driving set to climb:
The Government is considering a range of new green taxes that will hike the cost of flying and driving.
Environment Secretary David Miliband has drawn up a wide-ranging package of green taxes designed to change people's behaviour in a bid to offset global warming.
His proposals, in a leaked letter to Gordon Brown, include hikes on fuel and air passenger duty as well as increased road tax for drivers of the most polluting vehicles.
The leak comes ahead of a report, commissioned by the Chancellor, which will warn of the enormous cost of climate change unless action is taken immediately.
In his letter, seen by the Mail on Sunday, Mr Miliband also demands moves to curb greenhouse gas emissions and says that the tax system is a vital tool.
"Market-based instruments, including taxes, need to play a substantial role,'' he writes.
"As our understandings of climate change increases, it is clear more needs to be done.''
His suggestions include a mechanism to take away from motorists the money they save on fuel when oil prices go down.
This would "maintain pressure on the cost of motoring without individual announcements on fuel duty needing to be made'', he wrote.
Mr Miliband sets out the need to explore a "substantial increase'' in road tax for higher-emission vehicles to encourage people to use cars which pollute less.
He also points out that air travel is currently "lightly taxed''.
"There is also a case for making flights subject to VAT either on domestic flights, or better still, for all EU flights.''
Mr Miliband also warned that lightbulb prices did not reflect their true environmental cost, meaning that people tended not to buy the most efficient bulbs.
Mr Brown is expected to come under further pressure to introduce more eco-friendly taxation with the publication of Sir Nicholas Stern's climate change report this week.
Sir Nicholas will say that the world needs to spend one per cent of global GDP dealing with climate change now, or face a bill up to 20 times higher if it is allowed to continue. [ENDS]
There was also a vote :
Do you support the proposals?
Results: Votes Per cent
Yes, we need to something urgently 5,549 37%
No, I don't believe in global warming 9,401 63%
Total votes: 14,950
I voted no, although I do believe in global warming, but not man-made global warming. I don't buy the propaganda and research the issue myself, with the conclusion that man has a negligible affect on the climate. I thought most people bought the government propaganda and am very pleasantly suprised to see the results of this independent poll!
Watching the BBC news these days there's a constant bombardment of global warming propaganda which is all unproven yet presented as fact, and worse there's never a mention of the possibility of solar activity affecting our climate. It's all one way!
We live on a rock orbiting a star amongst millions in a galaxy amongst millions in a universe of which there could be millions, for heaven sake to expect a constant climate is simply impossible and totally irrational! We're bloody lucky it's as stable as it is.
Bstard tax justifying propaganda nonsense winds me up, and those that buy it even more so!
Cost of air travel and driving set to climb:
The Government is considering a range of new green taxes that will hike the cost of flying and driving.
Environment Secretary David Miliband has drawn up a wide-ranging package of green taxes designed to change people's behaviour in a bid to offset global warming.
His proposals, in a leaked letter to Gordon Brown, include hikes on fuel and air passenger duty as well as increased road tax for drivers of the most polluting vehicles.
The leak comes ahead of a report, commissioned by the Chancellor, which will warn of the enormous cost of climate change unless action is taken immediately.
In his letter, seen by the Mail on Sunday, Mr Miliband also demands moves to curb greenhouse gas emissions and says that the tax system is a vital tool.
"Market-based instruments, including taxes, need to play a substantial role,'' he writes.
"As our understandings of climate change increases, it is clear more needs to be done.''
His suggestions include a mechanism to take away from motorists the money they save on fuel when oil prices go down.
This would "maintain pressure on the cost of motoring without individual announcements on fuel duty needing to be made'', he wrote.
Mr Miliband sets out the need to explore a "substantial increase'' in road tax for higher-emission vehicles to encourage people to use cars which pollute less.
He also points out that air travel is currently "lightly taxed''.
"There is also a case for making flights subject to VAT either on domestic flights, or better still, for all EU flights.''
Mr Miliband also warned that lightbulb prices did not reflect their true environmental cost, meaning that people tended not to buy the most efficient bulbs.
Mr Brown is expected to come under further pressure to introduce more eco-friendly taxation with the publication of Sir Nicholas Stern's climate change report this week.
Sir Nicholas will say that the world needs to spend one per cent of global GDP dealing with climate change now, or face a bill up to 20 times higher if it is allowed to continue. [ENDS]
There was also a vote :
Do you support the proposals?
Results: Votes Per cent
Yes, we need to something urgently 5,549 37%
No, I don't believe in global warming 9,401 63%
Total votes: 14,950
I voted no, although I do believe in global warming, but not man-made global warming. I don't buy the propaganda and research the issue myself, with the conclusion that man has a negligible affect on the climate. I thought most people bought the government propaganda and am very pleasantly suprised to see the results of this independent poll!
Watching the BBC news these days there's a constant bombardment of global warming propaganda which is all unproven yet presented as fact, and worse there's never a mention of the possibility of solar activity affecting our climate. It's all one way!
We live on a rock orbiting a star amongst millions in a galaxy amongst millions in a universe of which there could be millions, for heaven sake to expect a constant climate is simply impossible and totally irrational! We're bloody lucky it's as stable as it is.
Bstard tax justifying propaganda nonsense winds me up, and those that buy it even more so!
Already here - www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=1&f=23&t=321269&h=0
Edited by pjskel on Monday 30th October 01:21
deeps, was that poll you mentioned also from the Mail on Sunday?
If so do you know if the result is online anywhere?
deeps said:
There was also a vote :
Do you support the proposals?
Results: Votes Per cent
Yes, we need to something urgently 5,549 37%
No, I don't believe in global warming 9,401 63%
Do you support the proposals?
Results: Votes Per cent
Yes, we need to something urgently 5,549 37%
No, I don't believe in global warming 9,401 63%
If so do you know if the result is online anywhere?
AOL are reporting Brown signing up Gore (God help us) and the attached poll (small number so far) seems to suggest that most people are "very" to "extremely" worried about Global Warming.
So the propaganda machine works.
Amazing really.
Brown kicks off another round of all that he knows - taxing people - and bases it all on just as many lies as B'liar and his crowd have ever told and the sheeple believe it all. Despite the apparent fall in overall support for NuLabia in the opinion polls.
This country is now officially stuffed and it is time to leave.
In the current spirit of being an apologist for everything may I apologise to the older and younger members of PH and admit hand on heart that the generation of which I am part has turned out to be a tragic symbol of stupidity and duplicity with a self destructive bent. We will have done incalculable harm to the expectations of pensioners and and the dreams of of the younger generations.
It is time those of us who disagree with B'liar, The Chancer and all their sycophants banded together to try to put things right before the self destruction is too complete to recover. If it is already too complete then we need an escape committee so that at least the younger generations can have an opportunity to develop their lives without this perpetual and idiotic interference from people whose only interest is self aggrandizement on the world stage.
So the propaganda machine works.
Amazing really.
Brown kicks off another round of all that he knows - taxing people - and bases it all on just as many lies as B'liar and his crowd have ever told and the sheeple believe it all. Despite the apparent fall in overall support for NuLabia in the opinion polls.
This country is now officially stuffed and it is time to leave.
In the current spirit of being an apologist for everything may I apologise to the older and younger members of PH and admit hand on heart that the generation of which I am part has turned out to be a tragic symbol of stupidity and duplicity with a self destructive bent. We will have done incalculable harm to the expectations of pensioners and and the dreams of of the younger generations.
It is time those of us who disagree with B'liar, The Chancer and all their sycophants banded together to try to put things right before the self destruction is too complete to recover. If it is already too complete then we need an escape committee so that at least the younger generations can have an opportunity to develop their lives without this perpetual and idiotic interference from people whose only interest is self aggrandizement on the world stage.
LongQ said:
So the propaganda machine works.
LongQ said:
This country is now officially stuffed and it is time to leave.
LongQ said:
It is time those of us who disagree with B'liar, The Chancer and all their sycophants banded together to try to put things right..
In the small ways that those opposing this totalitarian government can do, some folk are doing something, probably futile but you do what you can...
ABD Press Release on Richmond Lib Dims said:
Parking Permits based on Plant Food Gas in LibDemLand
In a proposal that reveals a shocking lack of environmental awareness,
the Liberal Democrat council in Richmond, south-west London, intends
to make owners of so-called gas guzzling vehicles pay more to park
outside their homes because of emissions of plant food gas, carbon
dioxide.
The owner of two popular 4x4 cars could pay £750 a year for parking,
compared with the £200 they pay now, though it would be free to park
so-called environmentally friendly cars.
"Imagine the scene" says ABD Environment Spokesman, Ben Adams.
"Two nurses share a house in Richmond. Both drive a 4x4 as they offer
good safety credentials including a clear view of the road. They park
their cars outside their home, and take the bus to work in the NHS each
day. For this, Richmond wants to sting them for £750, nearly four
times the current cost. It's claimed that taking these nurses' money will
save the planet. Who are they kidding apart from themselves?"
"This vision from LibDemLand is dreamworld. Any car with a higher than
average fuel consumption already costs its owner proportionately more
in the tax and duty on petrol. If every 4x4 in the country was taken off the
roads overnight it would not be possible to detect any difference in global
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Our climate would be unaffected.
This excuse for extortionate taxation is transparent, it's a blatant lifestyle tax."
The Liberal Democrats are also wrong to be so sure that a hybrid is more
environmentally friendly than a 4x4. A recent study by CNW Marketing
Research has shown that the total energy cost and therefore carbon dioxide
emissions over the full lifecycle of a Hummer 4x4 are 40% less than a typical
hybrid car. This is known as the dust-to-dust energy cost and is a true
reflection of total emissions.
The energy use and emissions resulting from design, manufacture, shipping,
servicing and recycling of cars are being overlooked. When these energy costs
and associated emissions are taken into account, many 4x4s on the road are
far more environmentally friendly than the current generation of hybrids.
The Liberal Democrats' plan turns eco-reality on its head, it should be
rejected out of hand.
And this is a version of a PR on the Stern Report that went to some regionals
Another ABD Press Release said:
Stern Review is ‘Trick or Treat’ Says the ABD
The 700 page Stern Review on the economics of climate change is appropriately published on 30th October, the day before Halloween. Ghoulish claims are made about the impacts of the harmless plant food gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) on the climate and the economy. As usual, such claims are tempered with weasel words such as if, could, maybe and possibly. Science tells us that carbon dioxide can theoretically raise global average temperatures by less than 1 degree Celsius. Higher temperatures would require a boost from increased atmospheric water vapour (the main greenhouse gas). This additional water vapour and the resulting additional rise in temperature only exist in flawed computer generated climate models.
ABD Environment spokesman Ben Adams comments, “The ABD believes that tax policies based on disreputable computer modelled climate scenarios are the real threat to mobility, livelihoods, health and the economy. Each winter in the UK, there are between 20,000 and 50,000 premature cold related deaths. Why would politicians want to increase this total, even if they could, by engineering more severe winters? Contrast this with claims of 2000 excess deaths during the 'heat wave' of 2003."
ABD spokesman Paul Biggs continues, “Despite efforts by the global warming mafia to suppress them, many studies show that the planet has been warmer than today during the Holocene Maximum around 7000 years ago, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period, without any intervention from mankind. Today's modest warming is totally ordinary in both extent and rate. Without fail, cooling has followed each period of warming. Indeed, the modern climate optimum represents a recovery from the Little Ice Age, corresponding to the Maunder Minimum of solar eruptivity between 1645 and 1715. A growing number of solar scientists are predicting similar very low levels of solar activity in the very near future, linked to a cooling of the climate starting around 2012. Furthermore, the recent experiment by Henrik Svensmark et al provides further support for the solar influenced cosmic ray connection being the cause of today's portion of the 4.7 billion year old phenomenon known as natural climate change. Climatologists to date have been focusing mostly on solar brightness changes due to sunspots, not the impact of solar eruptivity on the solar wind and cosmic rays, which affect cloud formation and climate.”
Economic damage and impact on individual prosperity are likely consequences of regressive and futile carbon taxation which affects the poorer sectors of society, and of King Canute style energy taxes that will restrict enterprise and growth for no valid reason. The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs 2nd report 'The Economics of Climate Change' has already warned governments of the folly of accepting at face value the information pollution that emanates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by reminding us of some home truths: that there is political interference in IPCC workings and publications; that IPCC projections lack objectivity and that high temperature scenarios are the most suspect; that a warmer climate has significant benefits that are frequently ignored; and that "UK energy and climate policy appear to be based on dubious assumptions about the roles of renewable energy and energy efficiency and that the costs to the UK of achieving its objectives have been poorly documented".
Ben Adams concludes: "Fortunately, when any politician promises to control the climate in return for higher car tax or fuel duty or energy levies, all they can engineer is laughter at such a ridiculous notion.”
Notes for Editors:
House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs 2nd report 'The Economics of Climate Change'
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
BBC - 'Winter death toll' drops by 19%’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6090492
NASA - Long range forecast for solar cycle 25
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y20
Some links with question marks in the URL have been removed as they won't work on PH. See ABD website www.abd.org.uk though the non-regional Stern PR which may go up there soon is shorter.
hollywood have their part to play too on public perceptions.
I watched the global warming film - day after tomorrow I think it was - where the sea temperature suddenly dropped by about 15 degrees.
How does that happen then?
Just how much thermal inertia does the entire atlantic ocean have, and what would be the energy transfer rate for it to fall 15 degrees?
anybody got the maths?
I watched the global warming film - day after tomorrow I think it was - where the sea temperature suddenly dropped by about 15 degrees.
How does that happen then?
Just how much thermal inertia does the entire atlantic ocean have, and what would be the energy transfer rate for it to fall 15 degrees?
anybody got the maths?
so,
atlantic ocean is 355,000,000 cubic kilometers - jesus!, which is
355 x 10^6 X 10^9 cubic meters = 355x10^15
joules however are based on millilitres so thats another 10^6 = 355x10^21 ml.
specific heat capacity of water is about 4.2, so that's about 1.5 x 10^24 joules per degree,
So if we drop 15 degrees, we need to lose 2.24 x 10^25 joules of energy somewhere.
1 megaton explosion releases 4.1TJ of energy, which is 4.1 x 10^12
SO, mr hollywood, the energy that would be released in a temperature drop like that would be equivalent to 55 billion 100 megaton nuclear bombs.
- a bit noisy I would think!
atlantic ocean is 355,000,000 cubic kilometers - jesus!, which is
355 x 10^6 X 10^9 cubic meters = 355x10^15
joules however are based on millilitres so thats another 10^6 = 355x10^21 ml.
specific heat capacity of water is about 4.2, so that's about 1.5 x 10^24 joules per degree,
So if we drop 15 degrees, we need to lose 2.24 x 10^25 joules of energy somewhere.
1 megaton explosion releases 4.1TJ of energy, which is 4.1 x 10^12
SO, mr hollywood, the energy that would be released in a temperature drop like that would be equivalent to 55 billion 100 megaton nuclear bombs.
- a bit noisy I would think!
bryan35 said:
hollywood have their part to play too on public perceptions.
I watched the global warming film - day after tomorrow I think it was - where the sea temperature suddenly dropped by about 15 degrees.
How does that happen then?
Just how much thermal inertia does the entire atlantic ocean have, and what would be the energy transfer rate for it to fall 15 degrees?
anybody got the maths?
I watched the global warming film - day after tomorrow I think it was - where the sea temperature suddenly dropped by about 15 degrees.
How does that happen then?
Just how much thermal inertia does the entire atlantic ocean have, and what would be the energy transfer rate for it to fall 15 degrees?
anybody got the maths?
Do you mean that film was real, like Terminator?
Edited by herewego on Monday 30th October 11:26
Maybe I'm being a bit thick but how does us paying more tax to Nulabia save the world? I mean what exactly are they going to do with the money that will have any effect on the climate?
And what about all the bombs etc used in Iraq, how much did that contribute to 'global warming'? a damn sight more than a few hundred miles in a 3 litre car I'll wager, or are bombs environmentally friendly (safety bombs?) nowadays?
What a crock of sh1t........
And what about all the bombs etc used in Iraq, how much did that contribute to 'global warming'? a damn sight more than a few hundred miles in a 3 litre car I'll wager, or are bombs environmentally friendly (safety bombs?) nowadays?
What a crock of sh1t........
turbobloke said:
deeps, was that poll you mentioned also from the Mail on Sunday?
If so do you know if the result is online anywhere?
deeps said:
There was also a vote :
Do you support the proposals?
Results: Votes Per cent
Yes, we need to something urgently 5,549 37%
No, I don't believe in global warming 9,401 63%
Do you support the proposals?
Results: Votes Per cent
Yes, we need to something urgently 5,549 37%
No, I don't believe in global warming 9,401 63%
If so do you know if the result is online anywhere?
TB, as far as I know it was just an AOL poll.
LongQ said:
AOL are reporting Brown signing up Gore (God help us) and the attached poll (small number so far) seems to suggest that most people are "very" to "extremely" worried about Global Warming.
So the propaganda machine works.
So the propaganda machine works.
More from AOL today:
Speaking at the report's launch in London, Mr Blair said: "This is the most important report on the future published by this Government in its time in office."
The prospect of global warming is "frightening", but the scientific case that it is taking place is now "overwhelming", said the Prime Minister.
"What is not in doubt is that the scientific evidence of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is now overwhelming.
"It is not in doubt that if the science is right, the consequences for our planet are literally disastrous."
Mr Blair added: "This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime.
"Unless we act now... these consequences, disastrous as they are, will be irreversible.
"There is nothing more serious, more urgent, more demanding of leadership - here, of course, but most importantly in the global community."
Earlier, it was announced that Chancellor Gordon Brown has recruited former US Vice President Al Gore as an international environment adviser.
How worried about climate change are you?
Results: Votes Per cent
Not worried 2,125 27%
A little worried 1,491 19%
Quite worried 1,733 22%
Extremely worried 2,541 32%
Total votes: 7,890
herewego said:
bryan35 said:
hollywood have their part to play too on public perceptions.
I watched the global warming film - day after tomorrow I think it was - where the sea temperature suddenly dropped by about 15 degrees.
How does that happen then?
Just how much thermal inertia does the entire atlantic ocean have, and what would be the energy transfer rate for it to fall 15 degrees?
anybody got the maths?
I watched the global warming film - day after tomorrow I think it was - where the sea temperature suddenly dropped by about 15 degrees.
How does that happen then?
Just how much thermal inertia does the entire atlantic ocean have, and what would be the energy transfer rate for it to fall 15 degrees?
anybody got the maths?
Do you mean that film was real, like Terminator?
You'd be suprised what gullible people will believe! When Vine radio 2 did a global warming slot, many callers refered to the film as reality, and are now very concerned for our future because of it!
deeps said:
How worried about climate change are you?
Results: Votes Per cent
Not worried 2,125 27%
A little worried 1,491 19%
Quite worried 1,733 22%
Extremely worried 2,541 32%
Total votes: 7,890
Results: Votes Per cent
Not worried 2,125 27%
A little worried 1,491 19%
Quite worried 1,733 22%
Extremely worried 2,541 32%
Total votes: 7,890
That result's a bit different. Earlier we had 63% don't believe, now we have 27% not worried.
Edited by herewego on Monday 30th October 16:00
catso said:
Maybe I'm being a bit thick but how does us paying more tax to Nulabia save the world? I mean what exactly are they going to do with the money that will have any effect on the climate?
Bjorn Lomborg from university Aarhus, Denmark, writes:
"Economic analyses clearly show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon-dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adaptation to the increased temperatures. The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on the climate would be minuscule, even if it were implemented in full. A model by Tom Wigley, one of the main authors of the reports of the UN Climate Change Panel, shows how an expected temperature increase of 2.1°C in 2100 would be diminished by the treaty to an increase of 1.9°C instead. Or, to put it another way, the temperature increase that the planet would have experienced in 2094 would be postponed to 2100.
So the Kyoto agreement does not prevent global warming, but merely buys the world six years. Yet, the cost of Kyoto, for the United States alone, will be higher than the cost of solving the world's single most pressing health problem: providing universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation. Such measures would avoid 2m deaths every year, and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill.
And that is the best case. If the treaty were implemented inefficiently, the cost of Kyoto could approach $1 trillion, or more than five times the cost of worldwide water and sanitation coverage."
herewego said:
deeps said:
How worried about climate change are you?
Results: Votes Per cent
Not worried 2,125 27%
A little worried 1,491 19%
Quite worried 1,733 22%
Extremely worried 2,541 32%
Total votes: 7,890
Results: Votes Per cent
Not worried 2,125 27%
A little worried 1,491 19%
Quite worried 1,733 22%
Extremely worried 2,541 32%
Total votes: 7,890
That result's a bit different. Earlier we had 63% don't believe, now we have 27% not worried.
Yes, that's the latest from the AOL poll today. I suspect because it's school holiday week many children are voting, hence the extremely worried 32%. As I understand, kids are bombarded with global warming propaganda in science lessons at school these days.
D'you know what? I say we vote for David Icke.
Him being the son of god in a shellsuit was more believable than anything this government has said and will ever say.
What's sadder still, is that like the boy who cried wolf, this government will be treated the same way when the wolf actually comes.
With this government, we've actually reached a place previously unthinkable.
The last time that was reached, was probably when/if Robin Hood existed.
What's that then? 400? 500 years ago?
Him being the son of god in a shellsuit was more believable than anything this government has said and will ever say.
What's sadder still, is that like the boy who cried wolf, this government will be treated the same way when the wolf actually comes.
With this government, we've actually reached a place previously unthinkable.
The last time that was reached, was probably when/if Robin Hood existed.
What's that then? 400? 500 years ago?
Edited by pjskel on Monday 30th October 22:35
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff