Totally agree. The equation should be simple -- you use more fuel, for whatever reason, you pay more. QED. But, as I say, each car should have a Europe-wide tariff imposed based on the environmental impact of producing and destroying it.
If it turns out that 4x4 drivers pay more anyway, then that's fairness at work, and incidental. If not, then that's also fair.
|
|
How is more tax going to help? How will the money collected stop the emissions, unless it stops people buying these cars, which it won't unless the increased tax is extremeley punitive.
|
|
If (note: I say 'if') more tax has to be levied on private motorists, it should be through increased fuel duty. Singling out 4x4s, not all of which are 'gas guzzlers, is unfair. Manufacturers wouldn't find it too difficult to come up with 4x2 versions of SUVs so that the Chelsea tractor brigade could circumvent extra charges!
|
|
|
How is more tax going to help? How will the money collected stop the emissions, unless it stops people buying these cars, which it won't unless the increased tax is extremeley punitive.
It only works if you plough all the money raised into related ventures: carbon burial, alternative fuels, public transport, whatever. Where this country in particular, and most others in general, fall down is that they don't do the second bit; they simply spend the money on the NHS, schools etc, then give a 1p tax cut out and everyone falls, once again, for what has in effect become a stealth tax.
But the fact that they do this does not mean that the basic idea is not sound.
|
I don't think drivers of any category of vehicle should be persecuted. Large expensive vehicles are the prerogative of the rich. That's what our capitalist democracy is like, and most of us are comfortable with it.
I am struck however by the general feel of this thread, in a way absolutely typical of our society: stone rich, earnest for the most part, and pretty confused.
I jest only a bit, and mean no disrespect.
|
|
i havent added to this fred fred because the only people i meet who own these 4x4;s are either horsie people who need them or arrogant people.
|
|
The only two I know aren't in either of those categories om... dunno though...
|
OK, everyone, let's vote.
In the year 2100, which of the following will be true?
a) The earth will have run out of oil
b) The earth will no longer support human life
c) Backroom threads on the subject of 4x4s will still come up with amazing regularity and manage to achieve 100 posts without difficulty
|
|
dunno tyro i put my first post on 4x4 's tonight as im usually really quiet on my opinions----------
|
dunno tyro i put my first post on 4x4 's tonight as im usually really quiet on my opinions----------
I hear you om. Quiet but evil.
|
|
>>OK, everyone, let's vote.>>
None in the case of any of them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Stuartli, you have cut to the quick of the thing. The answer is no in all three cases.
But what all else go be hapnin?
|
>4x2 versions of SUVs so that the Chelsea tractor brigade could circumvent extra charges! <
As Nissan does with the X trail.
|
|
Most of the SUVs I've driven as hire cars in the USA have actually been 2 wheel drive. I guess it makes sense as most owners are more interested in the high driving position, the towing ability (due to the separate chassis) and the feeling of safety rather than the offroad ability.
|
"Climate change is the single greatest challenge facing the world today," said (Richmond) council leader Serge Lourie. "For too long, it has been seen as a problem that only central governments or international organisations could address.
The truth is that we must all start acting now at local level."
So Richmond wants to charge people more for parking their "gas -guzzlers" on the grounds that they produce a lot of CO2 and this will help prevent "climate change".
Some figures
"water vapor accounts for about 70% and clouds (mostly water droplets) accounts for another 20%, (of the greenhouse effect) thus water in it's various forms is 90% of the greenhouse effect, leaving 10% for non-water greenhouse effect. Of this remaining 10%, mainly atmospheric carbon, humans might be responsible for 25% of the total accumulated atmospheric carbon, i.e. 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect."
Of this 2.5%, motor vehicles may be responsible for about 10% - for the sake of argument lets say 0.3%, so if every motor vehicle in the world were destroyed it would reduce the greenhouse effect by 0.3%. I will leave you to decide by how much the greenhouse effect would be reduced if all "gas-guzzlers" in Richmond were exchanged for Priuses(Priii?? - or perhaps even Piouses)
The IPCC estimates that "Global Warming" since 1880 has been by 0.6 degrees C (+/- 0.2), and since 1940 0.15 °C ± 0.2 °C. Put this into the context that the IPCC estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth's temperature, generally given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004.
In other words, "gas-guzzler" drivers are an easy target from whom to raise extra money, and as long as you dress it up under the "we're helping to prevent global warming" banner you will get away with it.
I have no connection with any "gas-guzzler" - we have 2 cars, both of which do about 50 mpg.
I don't want a gas-guzzler, or a 4x4, I have no need for one. (but I do secretly covet a Maserati!)
Can I recommend the following site for your reference re Climate change?
www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.htm
--
Phil
|
Looks like the governement has been listening to us all and it will indeed be a matter of paying additional green tax as you drive. (up to £1000 a year additional for families with big cars).
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095680.stm
|
Quango: what about a BR speed camera partnership led by westpig and yr good self, HJ? I could do with a nice plasma screen TV.
|
|
can i have..............er something motoring?..............er ............a years supply of ..........................mm can't be petrol.................screenwash?
|
Of course the taxes raised will be spent on frivolous projects:-(
More importantly, the Government should be cutting its OWN usage.
Since the MOD accounts for over 60% of Government usage, how many planes , tanks and helicopters is it going to scrap?
Oh it's building 2 new super big aircraft carriers. that's all right then..
www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/re...m
Utter hypocrisy. We're fighting 2 wars - using millions of gallons of aviation fuel and the MOD is the biggest user of fuel... and is burning more and more everyday...
madf
|
|
Interesting letter in Saturday's DT. Apparently if UK stopped burning oil based fuels, it would take China a mere 86 days to compensate for us...
|
China is always flagged as being the new dirty man of the World, but at least they have a Renewable Energy Law requiring developers to install energy saving devices such as solar panels to new developments.
I'm still waiting for UK HM Govt to consider the same - it can't be so difficult to make it a requirement that all new housing developments have solar panels fitted, but of course that means we get something for nothing so VAT can't be charged on it, this is not good for No 11 Downing Street who will have to think up another sneeky way of recouping this lost income.
|
|
Simply replacing every incandescent light bulb with energy efficient ones would probably solve the problem at a stroke.
|
Tongue in cheek
I would like to see the whole life energy comparison between a standard bulb and a low life bulb! Must take much more energy to make heating up all that thick glass!
And how many people would fall down stairs because the low life bulb had not warmed up sufficiently to light them!
|
China is always flagged as being the new dirty man of the World, but at least they have a Renewable Energy Law requiring developers to install energy saving devices such as solar panels to new developments.
Interesting...any more non publicised facts like that?
|
we can buy solar panels at our local B&Q for £1700
thay save us 30% of our electricity bill a yr which is £500
so they save us £150 a yr
which means it takes nearly 12 years to repay the initial outlay
so will they still be working in 12 yrs???
and what about the pullution in making them in the 1st place
and them destroying them when they need replacing
--
www.storme.co.uk
|
i also drive a 4*4
a honda HRV
it does a really bad 35 mph in pure stop/start town driving, no motorway driving for me
it is such a bad 4*4 that pollutes much less than a "green " 2CV and it spews out so much soot that i fear that one day i will be shot for my crimes against humanity
however as a car driver that adds a total of 3% of the polution i really feel that we should be concentrating our efforts somewhere else first..
how about america china india brazil argentina etc etc
--
www.storme.co.uk
|
"as a car driver that adds a total of 3% of the polution "
Actually, less than 0.3% Storme and that includes every motor vehicle in the world - CO2 IN TOTAL is only 3% of the greenhouse gasses
Your problem is that you are easy to identify and tax though!
--
Phil
|
>>China is always flagged as being the new dirty man of the World,<<
Yes we must stop India and China from enjoying the wealth and associated energy use that goes with it - it's not as if the US and European countries have been doing it for long enough is it ?
I agree that everyone needs to do something but the hypocrisy of blaming the developing world is beyond me.
The thing that really worries me is the people in charge of managing it now - Bush and Blair - oh yes and Prescott - wasn't he supposed to be in the middle of co-ordinating all the environmental stuff.
Stop it now type S - no politics or naming and shaming - where's me blood pressure tablets.
|
If the result of climate change is a 20% cut in the global economy over the next 50 years (Stern) then perhaps things aren't as bad as previously indicated?
We must look to the political leader of the free world to guide us. Unfortunately, that's George Bush.
|
"If the result of climate change is a 20% cut in the global economy over the next 50 years (Stern) "
Pure, unadulterated, complete and utter speculation. They couldn't even get the 5 day forecast right last week. We had a 2 day break in N France and after looking at the forecast of cold winds, frost and a complete change in the weather spent monday afternoon sitting near a beach in warm sun watching people swimming! Instead of the poredicted temp of 6 to 8 it was 19.
Computer models predict a range of climate change of anything from +5 degrees to -3.5 degrees for the next 50 years. The total "global warming" since 1880 is precisely (or not, since we can't even measure the average global temp to within 2 degrees) is 0.6degreesC +/- 0.2.
Truth is, no-one has a clue what will happen.
--
Phil
|
Why is the world full of ostriches?
At last the politicians (in the UK at least) seem to have accepted that motoring cutbacks alone won't save the planet.
My concern is that the drive / incentive to buy "more efficient" products will actually cause MORE pollution because manufacturing is often done in environmentally-dirty placves, like China!
Don't buy a more efficient car, keep your present one.
|
Why is the world full of ostriches? At last the politicians (in the UK at least) seem to have accepted ..
>>
ostriches behave in the way do because it is the best defence mechanism they have to act against looming disaster, which they know - even in their tiny brains - that they cannot escape from.
anyway, the important point is that it does not matter whether or not any particular backroom member believes in the global warming predictions.
and whether these theories turn out to be true or pure utter overblown hype (since the cry "the sky is falling down") may not matter as yet.
however, what does matters right now is the fact is that politicians of the all 3 major parties in the uk have bought in to the truth of these dire predictions and are all committed to making the motorist pay for it.
|
"politicians of the all 3 major parties in the uk have bought in to the truth of these dire predictions"
I propose a bandwagon tax on politicians - the very people who ask us to set an example to the rest of the world by paying "green taxes" but set the worst possible example themselves - just have a look at the annual travel expenses they claim.
--
Phil
|
I would argue no politicians have really accepted it's true.
Cos if they did, they'd increase RFL on 4x4s to £1,000:-)
Instead they drive them...
It's not what you say, it's what you do...
madf
|
at my local B&Q there is also a ..... dont laugh...... a wind turbine
something to put on top of our roofs !!!!!!!!
it also costs over £1495
so my saving of 30% of my yearly electricity bill£(600)
so it will save me £180 a yr
so in 8 yrs time it will pay for itself unless it has broken by then !!
maybe the government should persecute these dim witted multinationals who continously keep jumping on the bandwagon
what we need is a complete change of direction
i have an idea....
whay not tax the car makers like this
if they sell 100000 cars that do 25mpg (in real terms) then they pay 30% tax on their profits
if they sell 100000 cars that do 50mpg (in real terms) then they should pay nothing in tax
then the onus would be on the makers to do something real about it
many years ago i remember my mum saying " my viva does 30 mpg"
nowadays car still only do 30 mpg.... ok they go much faster and are much much heavier than 30 yrs ago
which leads to another point
why do cars keep getting bigger ... each time a new model is released it is sold as being so many mm's longer/wider/taller than the out going models
no wonder we have congestion..the cars are bigger
no wonder we use so much fuel the cars are bigger
put the onus onto the big manufacturers
--
www.storme.co.uk
|
I would argue no politicians have really accepted it's true. Cos if they did, they'd increase RFL on 4x4s to £1,000:-) Instead they drive them...
Could look at it another way.
The current theory is that we are going to need to cut CO2 emissions by over 70% to sort out the mess we're in. That just ain't gonna happen, so it's just as likely that these guys know we're all screwed so are raking in as much taxes as they can in the time we have left, while on a personal level just saying "to hell with it" and driving around in Hummers.
One more reason for not having kids -- you don't have to care what's going to happen to the next generation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
