Sheer hypocrisy! Figures in today's Indy...
Discussion
..."The government have pledged to double air travel by 2015"
So, while they turn out in their hundreds to vote to clobber motorists year upon year, with tax weighted in favour of the most disposable (and therefore energy-intensively created) cars, petty restrictions all over the place and an increasing social stigma for the car owner, they intend to dump hundreds of tonnes of burnt kerosene directly into our atmosphere tax free - and want it to double!
Apparently it's all in the name of increasing the nation's income through tourism, and also to increase tourism to 3rd world countries to help promote their home-grown businesses.
However, in the wake of yet another hiking of anti-motorist taxes, it just strikes me as sheer hypocrisy that this government uses 'the environment' to punish the smaller pollutors whilst they openly encourage the bigger pollutors, and still don't tax them.
Actually, it almost suggests they know something about the nature of climate change that we're not supposed to, don't you think?
So, while they turn out in their hundreds to vote to clobber motorists year upon year, with tax weighted in favour of the most disposable (and therefore energy-intensively created) cars, petty restrictions all over the place and an increasing social stigma for the car owner, they intend to dump hundreds of tonnes of burnt kerosene directly into our atmosphere tax free - and want it to double!
Apparently it's all in the name of increasing the nation's income through tourism, and also to increase tourism to 3rd world countries to help promote their home-grown businesses.
However, in the wake of yet another hiking of anti-motorist taxes, it just strikes me as sheer hypocrisy that this government uses 'the environment' to punish the smaller pollutors whilst they openly encourage the bigger pollutors, and still don't tax them.
Actually, it almost suggests they know something about the nature of climate change that we're not supposed to, don't you think?
xm5er said:
Dont worry TC they'll be taxing it soon enough.
But at what rate? And if they're absolutely serious about all this 'environmental impact' and 'carbon footprint' stuff, why do they want it to double? Surely they'd be pushing for improvements and innovations in, say, solar-powered trains if they were serious.
All I'm saying is, if we're being fed doom-mongering stuff about the end of the world in order to get us to pay more for our cars, then why are they so blase about doubling the volume of air traffic over the next ten years?
Twincam16 said:
All I'm saying is, if we're being fed doom-mongering stuff about the end of the world in order to get us to pay more for our cars, then why are they so blase about doubling the volume of air traffic over the next ten years?
Absolutely, they know its bullshit but they also know that not many people can read between the lines, lets face it not many people can even read the lines.
They'll tax individuals via the airports.
xm5er said:
All I'm saying is, if we're being fed doom-mongering stuff about the end of the world in order to get us to pay more for our cars, then why are they so blase about doubling the volume of air traffic over the next ten years?
Absolutely, they know its bullshit but they also know that not many people can read between the lines, lets face it not many people can even read the lines.
They'll tax individuals via the airports.
I believe France is introducing something like that now. I'd like to say I'm suprised, but frankly I'd be more suprised (shocked even) if they actually came up with a sensible idea.
It's probably all these London dwelling bureaucrats who can live without a car but like their overseas holidays who are just coming up with ideas to suit themselves.
Twincam16 said:
..."The government have pledged to double air travel by 2015"
So, while they turn out in their hundreds to vote to clobber motorists year upon year, with tax weighted in favour of the most disposable (and therefore energy-intensively created) cars, petty restrictions all over the place and an increasing social stigma for the car owner, they intend to dump hundreds of tonnes of burnt kerosene directly into our atmosphere tax free - and want it to double!
Apparently it's all in the name of increasing the nation's income through tourism, and also to increase tourism to 3rd world countries to help promote their home-grown businesses.
However, in the wake of yet another hiking of anti-motorist taxes, it just strikes me as sheer hypocrisy that this government uses 'the environment' to punish the smaller pollutors whilst they openly encourage the bigger pollutors, and still don't tax them.
Actually, it almost suggests they know something about the nature of climate change that we're not supposed to, don't you think?
It is sheer hypocrisy, and further illustrates that the attack on private motorists has very little to do with the environment.
'Quote of the Day' for me, that is. 
Riiighttt
So, they want it to double to promote tourism, but then aim to tax it?
Considering I pay around £2000 a year for energy, and £1500 of that is tax, and a single return flight to Australia doubles my carbon footprint, then I assume a flight to Aus will be taxed £1500?
Thought not... so yes, hypocrisy.
And how will taxing it generate tourism trade, tax will reduce demand, not double it!?
Unless they make aircraft twice as efficient, but it's still a major contributor!
Clear sign they just want MORE income from enviro taxes/guilt tripping!
Dave
So, they want it to double to promote tourism, but then aim to tax it?
Considering I pay around £2000 a year for energy, and £1500 of that is tax, and a single return flight to Australia doubles my carbon footprint, then I assume a flight to Aus will be taxed £1500?
Thought not... so yes, hypocrisy.
And how will taxing it generate tourism trade, tax will reduce demand, not double it!?
Unless they make aircraft twice as efficient, but it's still a major contributor!
Clear sign they just want MORE income from enviro taxes/guilt tripping!
Dave
Also, if they really are serious about reducing dependance on oil as its such a finite resource (something they keep blathering on about), then surely a doubling of air travel simply won't be sustainable.
Its worth mentioning that aviation fuel is further up the fractionating process too - so it takes more barrels of crude to produce than petrol or diesel. As such, going off what they say not only should Avgas be taxed, it should be taxed at an even higher rate per litre than petrol.
I had an idea for a plane design once that employed solar panels running the length of the fuselage and a couple of banks of ram-air intakes carrying little impellers attached to electric generators. The plane would essentially be the winged equivalent of a Toyota Prius, using conventional engines to get off the ground, then switching those engines off and powering them electrically for the duration of the flight. I know planes use more fuel during takeoff than in flight, but it's a start.
Surely if they're serious they should be funding developmental research like that?
Its worth mentioning that aviation fuel is further up the fractionating process too - so it takes more barrels of crude to produce than petrol or diesel. As such, going off what they say not only should Avgas be taxed, it should be taxed at an even higher rate per litre than petrol.
I had an idea for a plane design once that employed solar panels running the length of the fuselage and a couple of banks of ram-air intakes carrying little impellers attached to electric generators. The plane would essentially be the winged equivalent of a Toyota Prius, using conventional engines to get off the ground, then switching those engines off and powering them electrically for the duration of the flight. I know planes use more fuel during takeoff than in flight, but it's a start.
Surely if they're serious they should be funding developmental research like that?
Twincam16 said:
Also, if they really are serious about reducing dependance on oil as its such a finite resource (something they keep blathering on about), then surely a doubling of air travel simply won't be sustainable.
Its worth mentioning that aviation fuel is further up the fractionating process too - so it takes more barrels of crude to produce than petrol or diesel. As such, going off what they say not only should Avgas be taxed, it should be taxed at an even higher rate per litre than petrol.
I had an idea for a plane design once that employed solar panels running the length of the fuselage and a couple of banks of ram-air intakes carrying little impellers attached to electric generators. The plane would essentially be the winged equivalent of a Toyota Prius, using conventional engines to get off the ground, then switching those engines off and powering them electrically for the duration of the flight. I know planes use more fuel during takeoff than in flight, but it's a start.
Surely if they're serious they should be funding developmental research like that?
Twincam16 said:
..."The government have pledged to double air travel by 2015"
So, while they turn out in their hundreds to vote to clobber motorists year upon year, with tax weighted in favour of the most disposable (and therefore energy-intensively created) cars, petty restrictions all over the place and an increasing social stigma for the car owner, they intend to dump hundreds of tonnes of burnt kerosene directly into our atmosphere tax free - and want it to double!
Apparently it's all in the name of increasing the nation's income through tourism, and also to increase tourism to 3rd world countries to help promote their home-grown businesses.
However, in the wake of yet another hiking of anti-motorist taxes, it just strikes me as sheer hypocrisy that this government uses 'the environment' to punish the smaller pollutors whilst they openly encourage the bigger pollutors, and still don't tax them.
Actually, it almost suggests they know something about the nature of climate change that we're not supposed to, don't you think?
What you mean like climate change is not man made?
As a general rule if the prize prick Monbiot says something, it is rubbish. He called for air travel to be banned in the Sandalist the other day. If Blair read it and decided to double air travel as a result, then on this occasion he has made a good decision. I know its rare but even a slimball has to achieve something.
nonegreen said:
..."The government have pledged to double air travel by 2015"
So, while they turn out in their hundreds to vote to clobber motorists year upon year, with tax weighted in favour of the most disposable (and therefore energy-intensively created) cars, petty restrictions all over the place and an increasing social stigma for the car owner, they intend to dump hundreds of tonnes of burnt kerosene directly into our atmosphere tax free - and want it to double!
Apparently it's all in the name of increasing the nation's income through tourism, and also to increase tourism to 3rd world countries to help promote their home-grown businesses.
However, in the wake of yet another hiking of anti-motorist taxes, it just strikes me as sheer hypocrisy that this government uses 'the environment' to punish the smaller pollutors whilst they openly encourage the bigger pollutors, and still don't tax them.
Actually, it almost suggests they know something about the nature of climate change that we're not supposed to, don't you think?
What you mean like climate change is not man made?
As a general rule if the prize prick Monbiot says something, it is rubbish. He called for air travel to be banned in the Sandalist the other day. If Blair read it and decided to double air travel as a result, then on this occasion he has made a good decision. I know its rare but even a slimball has to achieve something.
Reminds me of a quick interview the Indy did with Matthew Modine (thank God he's an actor and not a politician). He said if he had any power he'd ban motorsport (how many jobs would that involve?), and also ban any car with less than two people in it (err, what if you're driving somewhere on your own to pick up that other person?).
Gazboy said:
Interesting point- what will happen to air travel when the oil starts to run out?
Coal.
The world still has sh1tloads left and we've even got quite a lot in the UK....
Coal-To-Liquid (CTL) plants already exist that take coal and transform it into diesel/aviation fuel etc.
The chinese are building a few and the South Africans have had them for years.
Its the Fischer-Tropez process by the way. Although the fuel is more expensive than oil based diesel, the higher crude prices get, the more economical options like CTL become.
So don't worry the big 'planes will keep on trucking yet.
Andy
At the last estimate we had over 200 years supply of coal in the UK
but until we get oil prices higher it will not be viable to get out and even then areas like Poland, Russia and China have shed loads more at a cheaper price. We also have the slight problem in this country of little knowledge of how to get it out and even less people who would do it.
Nearly all of South Africas fuel came from Coal when the aparthaid system led to trading restrictions.
but until we get oil prices higher it will not be viable to get out and even then areas like Poland, Russia and China have shed loads more at a cheaper price. We also have the slight problem in this country of little knowledge of how to get it out and even less people who would do it.
Nearly all of South Africas fuel came from Coal when the aparthaid system led to trading restrictions.
Twincam16 said:
Its worth mentioning that aviation fuel is further up the fractionating process too - so it takes more barrels of crude to produce than petrol or diesel. As such, going off what they say not only should Avgas be taxed, it should be taxed at an even higher rate per litre than petrol.
Do you mean Avgas or Jet fuel (Kerosene)? I thought kerosene was easier to produce than petrol (or Avgas) - but my knowledge is pretty skimpy so if I'm wrong I stand corrected.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff