Letter to Richmond Council

[malc_di]

Apologies if this is not the right forum:

Dear Serge Lourie,

I read with interest of your proposals to charge people for parking on a sliding scale depending on the CO2 emission levels of their vehicles. I understand that this is an attempt to contribute to efforts to counteract the effect of global warming. I presume, in this instance, that 'global warming' means the idea that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide are responsible for a dangerous increase in the global mean temperature which will, inevitably lead to catastrophic consequences for the world.
Although I am not a resident of Richmond borough I follow the debate on 'global warming' keenly. I am also a keen motorist so I hope you will not mind replying to me as I feel the initiative you are taking has implications for all motorists in the UK. Accordingly I would be most interested to see your evidence that manmade carbon dioxide emissions are contributing significantly to an inexorable rise in global temperature. Presumably you have strong evidence that this is so to be able to start charging people based on it.
I find your statement in response to the borough-wide consultation about the new proposals - "They indicate a clear majority in favour of the proposals" interesting when 49% agreed and 39% disagreed with them. If those figures (interpolated up so the total equalled 100%)refered to the front/rear weight distribution on a car it would be described as having near perfect balance.

link here

[methodwares]

I like how they say 64% would consider moving to a less polluting vehicle. CO2 is not a pollutant, like say unburnt hydrocarbons or that black sludge from s diesel bus. One can argue, in fact, that oxygen is a pollutant caused by plants and other C02 consuming organisms many millions of years ago.

[supermono]

How can you possibly question that Big Cars = Global Warming?

You'll never get a reply because you're clearly from the stone age and the argument is already won.

Waste of a letter I think -- but absolutely well done for having a go. I'm going to do the same.

SM

[james_j]

Yes, I can feel an e_mail coming on in a certain misguided fool's direction... (At least it'll make me feel better...)

[herewego]

Don’t forget to mention that you know better than The Royal Society, Sir Nicholas Stern, Sir David King, and Stephen Hawking.

Edited by herewego on Thursday 18th January 09:52

[BiggusLaddus]

herewego said:

Don’t forget to mention that you know better than The Royal Society, Sir Nicholas Stern, Sir David King, and Stephen Hawking.

Edited by herewego on Thursday 18th January 09:52

And not one sinlge accurate climate model (that considers clouds!!) between them....

[eccles]

like all the proposals that seem to be coming out of the woodwork at the moment that want to charge motorists more to offset carbon emmisions, or disuade them from driving, i'd like to know exactly where the money they raise from these measures will be spent.
are they just taking extra money off drivers in an effort to get them to drive less pollouting vehicles, or are they taking money off drivers and using it for some sort of research or greener soloutions.

[Peter Ward]

herewego said:

Don’t forget to mention that you know better than The Royal Society, Sir Nicholas Stern, Sir David King, and Stephen Hawking.

Edited by herewego on Thursday 18th January 09:52

That's referred to as ad hominem. Argue based on the facts, not who holds the views. Don't forget that 500 years ago it was an undisputed fact that the sun went round the earth, because every high-up official said so. Facts are not facts because of the importance of those who hold them.

What we have with global warming is government funding for those who hold the view that climate change is anthropogenic, and no funding for those who disagree (plus ad hominem opprobrium against them -- "big oil", "multinational corporation", etc). It is little wonder that left-leaning media support the government line, while giving little air-time to the opponents.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in about 2012. At this point the various sun cycles that may be driving the warming at present will start to reduce the temperature of the sun again. If at this point we see global warming start to decline then it will indicate that it's not man-made. If there is no change then we might have something to worry about. Until then, we don't know anything. All we have are theories and computer models -- models which BTW do not predict the climate now based on previous years' data, and are still missing important factors that are not yet fully understood.

Don't forget that all through history CO2 levels have followed temperature changes rather than led them. At present we don't know if this is still the case or we have a new phenomenon.

[supermono]

herewego said:

Don’t forget to mention that you know better than The Royal Society, Sir Nicholas Stern, Sir David King, and Stephen Hawking.

Edited by herewego on Thursday 18th January 09:52

Damned right! I remember reading a scientific paper just the other day from Hawking himself, saying that by increasing the parking tax on cars with an engine size greater than some random amount, global warming will be solved and Man will continue to prosper on earth for millennia to come.

And not only that, but by victimising these motorists who contribute roughly zero percent of Britain's contribution to "greenhouse gasses" (which itself is responsible for roughly zero percent of the World's output), it is possible to turn around China, India and any other developing countries who are increasing their already *huge* outputs exponentially.

In fact these guys must have intellects immesurably superior to ours for coming up with such a plan.

SM

[supermono]

Peter Ward said:

Some good stuff including:
At this point the various sun cycles that may be driving the warming at present will start to reduce the temperature of the sun again.

Ah, now there's a breath of fresh air. Of course scientists have discovered evidence of Global Warming on other planets in our solar system too (fact) which would tend to support the view.

But, hey, let's get them nasty 4x4 drivers off the road though anyway...

SM

[rich-uk]

supermono said:

...
But, hey, let's get them nasty 4x4 drivers off the road though anyway...

SM

It's not about getting 4x4's off the road, it about making money.

[herewego]

rich-uk said:

supermono said:

...
But, hey, let's get them nasty 4x4 drivers off the road though anyway...

SM

It's not about getting 4x4's off the road, it about making money.

It’s not about 4x4s and it’s not about money. It’s about giving people an incentive to reduce their transport emissions.

[BliarOut]

herewego said:

rich-uk said:

supermono said:

...
But, hey, let's get them nasty 4x4 drivers off the road though anyway...

SM

It's not about getting 4x4's off the road, it about making money.

It’s not about 4x4s and it’s not about money. It’s about giving people an incentive to reduce their transport emissions.

off, it's about wallet raping pure and simple. Train costs, up! Bus costs, up! It's all about the money and nothing to do with emissions.

(The top five polluting companies in the UK produce more "greenhouse gasses" than ALL the cars in the UK COMBINED!)

[Einion Yrth]

They don't generate any CO2 while they're parked, so it's kind of counter productive.

[justinp1]

herewego said:

rich-uk said:

supermono said:

...
But, hey, let's get them nasty 4x4 drivers off the road though anyway...

SM

It's not about getting 4x4's off the road, it about making money.

It’s not about 4x4s and it’s not about money. It’s about giving people an incentive to reduce their transport emissions.

No its not.... Its giving them the disincentive to *not* reduce their carbon emmissions. It is also based on the fallacy that 4X4s must emit more 'bad stuff'.

An interesting side-effect of the policy has been for people who own ultra-modern cars with lean burn, efficiant diesel engines built to very strict emmission standards are now increasing the use of 20-30 year old smoky diesel bussed who actually output the same amount of CO2 but also particularly nasty diesel particulates into the lungs of passers by as the bus was full and each passenger drove their own car...

[tigger1]

herewego said:

It’s not about 4x4s and it’s not about money. It’s about giving people an incentive to reduce their transport emissions.

Bollards - its a punitive tax against the motorist, a model that has been shown for years not to work (fuel duty).

A better way would be to take back control of buses and trains, make then a reliable, proper, affordable alternative to driving, and then people would make the switch...but no, they're all privately owned, so as motoring costs increase, so do train fares. We now have a situation where if you're making essential journeys you have no choice but to bend over and "pay the taxman".

Reduce transport emmissions??? When parked??? So if I buy 7 electric vehicles, there's no emmissions, yes? And no CO2 charge...but what is the cost to the environment? It's huge. This is an ill-thought out scheme that will cause problems - as people switch to buying newer (more efficient) cars but with the "cost" to the environment of the materials needed to build these cars.

Whether global warming exists or not, this "taxation by buggery" will not solve anything - and will likely make things worse.

[supermono]

herewego said:

It’s about giving people an incentive to reduce their transport emissions.

I suppose it's somewhere in the list of reasons... So let's round it up, for simplicity. Let's say it does just that and it persuades everybody in Richmond to stop driving 4x4s. Ok, to stop driving anything. Right, let's go the whole way now and pursuade everyone in England to stop driving full stop. That's a perfect result, right?

Now assess the improvement to the "greenhouse gas" effect: Today? Maybe a little. Tomorrow? Ohhh, China is catching up fast! March? Whoops -- china has now overtaken our savings. Bugger.

An effect a millionfold "better" than this daft 4x4 tax is utterly and completely pointless. Mankind will continue worldwide to burn ALL the coal, ALL the gas and ALL the oil. Even with Richmond council's Green policies.

Now tell me it's not about tax, social engineering and jealousy...

SM

[supermono]

Oh and I nearly forgot to mention -- if these imbeciles had a clue they'd realise that their lovely electric cars WOULD HAVE NOWHERE TO PLUG IN BECAUSE THEY'RE BY DEFINITION PARKED ON THE STREET.

Sheesh...

SM

[Parrot of Doom]

herewego said:

It’s not about 4x4s and it’s not about money. It’s about giving people an incentive to reduce their transport emissions.

What is the incentive then?

Is it the same incentive as the crook who blackmails a shop owner under the pretenses of a protection racket, perhaps?

[BigBob]

Watching a 'Nature' programme on TV recently and sea levels have been rising from the melting ice cap for at least 9000 years - averaging between 25cms and 45 cms per century.

The one question none of the so called 'experts' can answer; If CO2 emissions from cars is such a contributory factor to global warming why have we had at least 3 previous ice age/thaw cycles?

All part of natures natural cycle IMHO


BB