Fair way to reduce emissions
Discussion
Maybe a carbon allowance would be a fair way to reduce emissions:
A radical plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions by rationing the carbon use of individuals is being drawn up by government officials. The scheme could force consumers to carry a swipe card that records their personal carbon allocation, with points knocked off each time they buy petrol or tickets for a flight.
Under the scheme, all UK citizens from the Queen down would be allocated an identical annual carbon allowance, stored as points on an electronic card similar to Air Miles or supermarket loyalty cards. Points would be deducted at point of sale for every purchase of non-renewable energy. People who did not use their full allocation, such as families who do not own a car, would be able to sell their surplus carbon points into a central bank.
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1823609,00.html
A radical plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions by rationing the carbon use of individuals is being drawn up by government officials. The scheme could force consumers to carry a swipe card that records their personal carbon allocation, with points knocked off each time they buy petrol or tickets for a flight.
Under the scheme, all UK citizens from the Queen down would be allocated an identical annual carbon allowance, stored as points on an electronic card similar to Air Miles or supermarket loyalty cards. Points would be deducted at point of sale for every purchase of non-renewable energy. People who did not use their full allocation, such as families who do not own a car, would be able to sell their surplus carbon points into a central bank.
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1823609,00.html
Zad said:
Can I get a refund for the trees that are growing in my garden?
Barmy idea, it's not as if smart cards aren't capable of being faked.
Barmy idea, it's not as if smart cards aren't capable of being faked.
I imagine fraud would be very high on the list of potential problems, but I think it's worth looking at because it has the potential to be much fairer than higher prices.
cpas said:
Yes, but it won't reduce the fuel prices. It will, however, increase the rate of drive-offs from petrol forecourts!
We don't know what fuel prices would be proposed but they could be lower. We could get an allowance at a low price but have to pay market rates for any extra we want to burn.
Garage drive offs are stealing of course, I thought that was dealt with through cctv these days.
Hmm good idea
IF they actually do it RIGHT
So me who drives an old diesel landrover that was built 10 years ago and has at least another 20 years to go will only have to pay my carbon credits on the fuel i put in the car
Where as a numpty that buys a new shopping car every year has to pay for all the carbon credits for each car that is built for them.
me who goes on a holiday in the Uk with my 7 i only pay fpr the carbon credits on my fuel
The tree huggers that go off holiday flying across the planet to watch the lesser spotted butt weevil do its mating dance have to pay for all the emissions a plane pumps out.
So if they actually proportion it as to the actual amount of damage a car does to the environment then us car driver might actually benefit.
However we can take it as read that they will do things as we expect time for another botty raping
IF they actually do it RIGHT
So me who drives an old diesel landrover that was built 10 years ago and has at least another 20 years to go will only have to pay my carbon credits on the fuel i put in the car
Where as a numpty that buys a new shopping car every year has to pay for all the carbon credits for each car that is built for them.
me who goes on a holiday in the Uk with my 7 i only pay fpr the carbon credits on my fuel
The tree huggers that go off holiday flying across the planet to watch the lesser spotted butt weevil do its mating dance have to pay for all the emissions a plane pumps out.
So if they actually proportion it as to the actual amount of damage a car does to the environment then us car driver might actually benefit.
However we can take it as read that they will do things as we expect time for another botty raping
thinfourth said:
Hmm good idea
IF they actually do it RIGHT
So me who drives an old diesel landrover that was built 10 years ago and has at least another 20 years to go will only have to pay my carbon credits on the fuel i put in the car
Where as a numpty that buys a new shopping car every year has to pay for all the carbon credits for each car that is built for them.
me who goes on a holiday in the Uk with my 7 i only pay fpr the carbon credits on my fuel
The tree huggers that go off holiday flying across the planet to watch the lesser spotted butt weevil do its mating dance have to pay for all the emissions a plane pumps out.
So if they actually proportion it as to the actual amount of damage a car does to the environment then us car driver might actually benefit.
However we can take it as read that they will do things as we expect time for another botty raping
IF they actually do it RIGHT
So me who drives an old diesel landrover that was built 10 years ago and has at least another 20 years to go will only have to pay my carbon credits on the fuel i put in the car
Where as a numpty that buys a new shopping car every year has to pay for all the carbon credits for each car that is built for them.
me who goes on a holiday in the Uk with my 7 i only pay fpr the carbon credits on my fuel
The tree huggers that go off holiday flying across the planet to watch the lesser spotted butt weevil do its mating dance have to pay for all the emissions a plane pumps out.
So if they actually proportion it as to the actual amount of damage a car does to the environment then us car driver might actually benefit.
However we can take it as read that they will do things as we expect time for another botty raping
Numpty? Are you trying to be offensive about people who shop or people who buy a new car every year? There seems to be some unecessary predudice there. I expect the fuel used to produce the car would be part of the manufacturers allocation rather than the buyer's, so no, your numpty would get the same allocation as you. Does that make you hate them even more?
I'd expect that if you think you have some way below average fuel use overall than you'd probably benefit, but I suppose there will be lots of factors that would determine at what level the allocation starts.
I'm afraid I can't understand your last sentence.
Edited by herewego on Saturday 22 July 11:32
thinfourth said:
So if they actually proportion it as to the actual amount of damage a car does to the environment then us car driver might actually benefit.
Yes that's sensible. So how about starting by looking at the amount of damage that cars do to the environment, and then see which things we need to change. The 'damage' caused by CO2 emissions from cars is negligeable, because the amount of CO2 that cars produce is negligeable compared to the amounts that are produced by other sources. There is no environmental justification for fuel duty, as far as I can see. There is a strong financial incentive for it, of course, as well as a political one (the government have made no secret of their aim of reducing and restricting private transport).
herewego said:
I expect the fuel used to produce the car would be part of the manufacturers allocation rather than the buyer's, so no, your numpty would get the same allocation as you. Does that make you hate them even more?
Then it would not be a fair system would it as i would say that a company should not get carbon credits allocated to them. They should only get them from selling cars. So folk that buy a new car every year would be creating more pollution then me with my nasty landrover that allegedly leaves a trail of dead puppys in its wake.
Though i think while it sounds an interesting idea it would never work as i would be brought in by politicians So the car driver and tax payers would get completely shafted as normal. hence the last system. I also think alot of this climate change being caused directly by my car is slightly iffy.
GreenV8S said:
thinfourth said:
So if they actually proportion it as to the actual amount of damage a car does to the environment then us car driver might actually benefit.
Yes that's sensible. So how about starting by looking at the amount of damage that cars do to the environment, and then see which things we need to change. The 'damage' caused by CO2 emissions from cars is negligeable, because the amount of CO2 that cars produce is negligeable compared to the amounts that are produced by other sources. There is no environmental justification for fuel duty, as far as I can see. There is a strong financial incentive for it, of course, as well as a political one (the government have made no secret of their aim of reducing and restricting private transport).
Apparently emissions from private cars are around 10% of the UK's total so it's neither negligible nor overwhelming, but this idea is not about cars specifically, it's about each person's total fuel use. I don't think the government have a financial incentive because it wouldn't be a tax, high consumers would buy extra allocation from low consumers.
This is plain ecofascism - at the minute we can drive a car and fly on holiday - we will be forced to make a choice. Also there are a number of economic problems with such a system - your'e adding another currency in the form of carbon alongside pounds as a currency. Flying on holiday within europe would become a once in a lifetikme experience and flying outside of europe would become the preserve of the super rich. The scum who support this are a waste of DNA, food and water
johnph said:
This is plain ecofascism - at the minute we can drive a car and fly on holiday - we will be forced to make a choice. Also there are a number of economic problems with such a system - your'e adding another currency in the form of carbon alongside pounds as a currency. Flying on holiday within europe would become a once in a lifetikme experience and flying outside of europe would become the preserve of the super rich. The scum who support this are a waste of DNA, food and water
Whether or not we will be able to drive and fly will not be known untill the scheme has been evaluated. I can't see any reason not to also have a carbon currency. We have to tackle greenhouse gas emissions whether you're up for it or not.
Why do you want to reduce them? Cars are squeeky clean these days!
Cars use less energy during their lives than they do to actually make them in the first place so the best way to cut the energy used by a car is to keep it on the road, not replace it with a theoretically cleaner model!
Reducing emmisions via catylitic converters actually made fuel consumption worse but it did solve the problem of unburned hydrocarbons, the "green house effect" has been debunked, the cars themselves are increasingly more recyclable.
Where is the problem? Or is it just "Green" angst?
Cars use less energy during their lives than they do to actually make them in the first place so the best way to cut the energy used by a car is to keep it on the road, not replace it with a theoretically cleaner model!
Reducing emmisions via catylitic converters actually made fuel consumption worse but it did solve the problem of unburned hydrocarbons, the "green house effect" has been debunked, the cars themselves are increasingly more recyclable.
Where is the problem? Or is it just "Green" angst?
cymtriks said:
Why do you want to reduce them? Cars are squeeky clean these days!
Cars use less energy during their lives than they do to actually make them in the first place so the best way to cut the energy used by a car is to keep it on the road, not replace it with a theoretically cleaner model!
Reducing emmisions via catylitic converters actually made fuel consumption worse but it did solve the problem of unburned hydrocarbons, the "green house effect" has been debunked, the cars themselves are increasingly more recyclable.
Where is the problem? Or is it just "Green" angst?
Cars use less energy during their lives than they do to actually make them in the first place so the best way to cut the energy used by a car is to keep it on the road, not replace it with a theoretically cleaner model!
Reducing emmisions via catylitic converters actually made fuel consumption worse but it did solve the problem of unburned hydrocarbons, the "green house effect" has been debunked, the cars themselves are increasingly more recyclable.
Where is the problem? Or is it just "Green" angst?
I'd be interested to see a reference for the manufacturing energy. What I've seen is that the manufacturing energy is around equal to 20,000 kms of the vehicles own use. It can vary a lot obviously according to vehicle and use.
Sadly the greenhouse effect is alive and well according to the governments chief scientific advisor and even the PM.
herewego said:
We have to tackle greenhouse gas emissions whether you're up for it or not.
Global warming and cooling is natural and inevitable, and has been going on for millions of years, and will keep going for the forseeable future. It isn't caused by mankind, and for mankind to try to prevent it would be extremely arrogant and foolish.
There is absolutely no reliable scientific evidence that man kind has made any difference to global temperatures. Sweeping all that aside and supposing that there's some terrible problem caused by excessive greenhouse gases, the CO2 produced by cars in the UK accounts for a fraction of 1% of the total CO2 emissions in this country. Just how much of a dent in 'the problem' do you think it will make if we can reduce that tiny amount by an even tinier amount. It makes no sense whatsoever. The principle of 'carbon tax' on transport is fundamentally flawed. If we institute it, we will do great damage to the economy for no tangible environmental benefit.
GreenV8S said:
herewego said:
We have to tackle greenhouse gas emissions whether you're up for it or not.
Global warming and cooling is natural and inevitable, and has been going on for millions of years, and will keep going for the forseeable future. It isn't caused by mankind, and for mankind to try to prevent it would be extremely arrogant and foolish.
There is absolutely no reliable scientific evidence that man kind has made any difference to global temperatures. Sweeping all that aside and supposing that there's some terrible problem caused by excessive greenhouse gases, the CO2 produced by cars in the UK accounts for a fraction of 1% of the total CO2 emissions in this country. Just how much of a dent in 'the problem' do you think it will make if we can reduce that tiny amount by an even tinier amount. It makes no sense whatsoever. The principle of 'carbon tax' on transport is fundamentally flawed. If we institute it, we will do great damage to the economy for no tangible environmental benefit.
Apparently it's about 10% for private cars, not 1%. I prefer to believe Sir David King and the rest of the scientific community. A carbon allocation system is not a carbon tax, which is an advantage since it doesn't add to the costs of those who don't use a lot.
herewego said:
Sadly the greenhouse effect is alive and well according to the governments chief scientific advisor and even the PM.
You've not been on this forum for long. If you had then you'd have seen the long and detailed debunks of the greenhouse effect.
The key points are-
The suns output, the Earths orbit and the Earths inclination to the sun all change over time causing entirely natural variations in climate.
The Earth has NORMALLY been MUCH HOTTER for most of its existence, by around 12 degrees C.
Earth WITHOUT icecaps is normal, we just haven't been around for long enough to see the BILLIONS of years when this was so.
Ice cores from both poles reveal that CO2 ALWAYS rises AFTER temperatures increase, NOT BEFORE, by about 300 to 800 years.
All scientists ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT on this issue, this is how it's reported in the media and taught to us but it isn't true. The Canada Letter lists dozens of environmental scientists who think it's rubbish and the Oregon Petition lists thousands. A senior member of the IPCC recently resigned over this issue.
The Green story is based largely on early IPCC data. Check their website and follow the tree down, buried in a sub-heading is text roughly as follows "evidence is increasing that there is no human generated signal in climate data.... ..variations are increasingly thought to be natural..." I've posted the exact address and text of this before on this site.
While the Greens accusation that oil companies fund some research you could equally well say that Green organisations fund just as much, if not more, research.
Previous CO2 levels have been much higher than todays.
Computer models are wildly inaccurate and do not take iinto account factors that discredit the warming theory such as the PROVEN FACT that CO2 always comes after, not before, warming.
Glaciers ARE NOT ALL MELTING, in fact many are advancing and most go through cycles of advance and retreat over decades.
Temperature data indicating warming is biased due to the heat island effect, in which weather stations previously in rural positions are now surrounded by built up areas. There was a post on here showing a weather data station with a burger van parked right next to it!
Weather patterns are not changing nor is weather becomming worse due to warming, Hurricanes, for example, go in cycles over decades.
Recent, natural, warming is a proven fact. The Romans grew grapes as far North as York, the Vikings colonised a green Greenland as opposed to a white, snow covered, Greenland and there was the Medieval warm period. Recent, natural, cooling is also a proven fact with the time from roughly 1350 to 1900 being markedly colder with annual fairs being held on frozen rivers. Just look at Victorian images of Christmas!
For more information look at junkscience or the anti-warming sections of wikipedia. Best of all look for Turbobloke's excellent debunks on this site "Global Warming, should I be worried?" is the classic one but there have been more recent threads which may have the images for graphs and charts still working.
Trust us, you are being lied to on an epic scale on this one!
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff