>>NW, your logic leads to two vehicles being manufactured, transported, etc. Who is to say overall emissions will be lower? I'm not saying they will be higher, just that it could pan out either way without knowing the facts.<<
Interesting article relating to the above point.
www.channel4.com/4car/ft/feature/feature/8074/1
|
I think it is fair enough to increase tax on cars that use more fuel, which is effectively what has happened although the measuring yardstick is emissions.
I'm glad that 4x4s haven't been scapegoated as gas guzzlers and that the actual environmental credentials of vehicle types have been chosen as the basis of tax banding.
|
|
As for the budget, I'd say to Mr. Brown - "You've done OK - a bit of good and a bit of bad, but sorry, you've been unsuccessful in your attempt to become prime minister!"
|
|
|
I think the issue of 4x4's being the scapegoat is purley made up by the media.
Policy of the government has always been to tax/band cars according to emmissions levels. As we know some normal family cars fall into the high emmissions category but a head line with the 4x4 bit always grabs the attention more.
|
|
|
" I think it is fair enough to increase tax on cars that use more fuel"
But doesn't that happen anyway? The more you use, the more you pay. Same applies to 'road pricing' - they already are!
I wouldn't mind nearly as much if the money collected were spent on roads and public transport instead of a general coffer to be wasted as GB likes...
|
The BBC budget calculator tinyurl.com/2fplmf estimates that overall I will be £146 per annum better off so I'm happy.
--
L\'escargot.
|
>>The BBC budget calculator ... estimates that overall I will be £146 per annum better off ..
what you mean is "it estimates that overall I will be £146 better off next year "
because as the calculator states ".However, the chancellor?s most eye-catching change, cutting income tax by 2p while abolishing the 10% tax band, will not come into effect before 2008, and the Treasury has not provided all necessary details. Therefore our calculator can not yet reflect the proposed changes to the income tax regime. "
so you have not factored in the overall effect of the doubling of the 10% rate to 20%, and cut from 22% to 20% which comes in to effect the following year.
|
so you have not factored in the overall effect of the doubling of the 10% rate to 20%, and cut from 22% to 20% which comes in to effect the following year.
I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. For all I know I might be dead next year!
--
L\'escargot.
|
I'll cross that bridge when I get to it
you were expecting it "per annum", not just "next year".
|
Hi No Do$h -- long time no see.
::waves back::
>> My '06 Discovery 3 was registered just days before the 23rd >> March cut-off for band G yet produces the same output as >> one registered a week later. If you'd prefer there not to have been a cut-off point, I'm sure that you and other 4X4 drivers would find the door open if you asked for the rebanding to be made retrospective.
No matter how hard I look at my statement I don't see the jump in "logic" you achieved. Full marks for creativity though. ::thumbs up::
>> I've got a D3 as >> these days I need both the towing and the offroad ability for work as well as leisure and because I live in an area where flooded roads are pretty much a constant feature for 2-3 months of the year.
If you want to have off-road ability, a massively overweight monster like a D3 is not the only option. There are smaller, less thirsty 4X4s.
Overweight by whose standards? It probably wont interest you to know that my D3 (that's my one, not a generic or mythical D3) can and has got through obstacles that left a Defender high and dry. Video and photographic evidence available for a small fee. And guess what vehicle towed the Defender out? ::smug grin::
Oh, and now the ECU has adapted to my driving I get between 27 and 31 mpg, tank by tank depending on what I've been doing that tankful. Better than any Defender I've ever driven. ::two fingers casually waving::
People in rural areas survived before the current 4X4 craze started,
Craze? The original RR came out in 1973 and the countryside was already heaving with Series 1s, Series 2s, 2As and assorted BMC cast-offs at that point. The "Craze" you refer to began in 1946 when cast-off Willys Jeeps started to become available in the UK and were snapped up by farmers. ::He shoots, he scores!::
and most still survive without them: there are a lot of rural areas where the farmers drive cars and use tractors on the land
Odd. Every farmer I know (and I know loads) has tractors coming out of their ears yet still have at the least a double-cab pickup or Disco or even a Legacy Outback and not a "normal" car amongst them . There's a few older Jeep Cherokees as well, but their poor reliability has seen them pass from favour. Most of them are keen to see what my D3 can do and are watching their used values with some interest as they are revoltingly capable offroad as well as being very comfortable. Once they start coming up in numbers at the £20k mark there will be a lot of Navarras and similar being traded in at our local indy Landrover specialist. ::another smug grin::
and the 4X4s are owned by the townies inthe barn conversions. Since most 4X4s are in urban areas, you'll have a hard time persuading HM Treasury otherwise.
Most 4x4s are in urban areas? Most people are in urban areas. And the link from barn conversions to urban settings is a bit of a non-sequiter, n'est pas? ::yawn::
>> As I see it, this is yet another tax on the >> rural economy and I hope the Countryside Alliance see it that >> way and arrange another demo or two.
Oh, they probably will. While people are being driven out of rural areas because they they can't afford the house prices which urban-employed commuters are prepared to pay, the CA put its energies into fox-hunting, an issue utterly marginal to the rural economy (except, perhaps, in the Cumbria fells). I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the CA chasing another red herring, whilst marginalising the things which really matter to the people actually making a living off the land.
Perhaps you should see if you could get your hands on a couple of their newsletters to see what issues they actively campaign on. Not a single-issue interest group as you would prefer people to believe.
In a later post you state "as it will only be used on forest tracks". Nope, not what I said at all. I currently use it in that way, but I also use it in boggy grazing fields and you seem to have missed my comment about the flooded lanes where I live? The area I live in is on a river flood plain and is on the highest flood risk rating on the environment agency Floodwatch website, as evidenced by the numerous instances in the last 4 months where my Alfa would have drowned simply trying to leave the village. And my village is not alone; many villages, farms and hamlets on the Piddle and Frome valleys in Dorset live with this inconvenience and combat it by..... having 4x4s, lots of them!
I'm also amused at the concept of sharing an older Landrover with someone as I only need the 4x4 ability some of the time (according to you). Pray tell, where do I find this saintly and accomodating co-owner? I'm sure your car is sat in your driveway rather more than it is out on the roads, so perhaps you can start the ball rolling by making your car available to various neighbours, or perhaps you would like to sell yours and share the car of another? Of course you'll have to rearrange your lives around each other, but why stop there? Find the people who work nightshifts in your community and extend the offer to them as well. With careful timetabling one car could service the needs of a multitude of people. Of course I don't expect you to put your money where you mouth is, hypocrisy being such ready currency in your posts.
NW, as ever your intellectual bankruptcy in these matters has amused me. Idealism that isn't backed by the virtues of your own actions remains simply idealism and a particularly churlish and envious idealism at that.
Still, your views amuse and enlighten in equal measures and I don't doubt your heart is in the right place. I also don't doubt that you have many virtues and green credentials, that you recycle and compost as extensively as I do and purchase seasonal, local fruit and veg from trusted organic sources (low food miles). I've no idea if you are a fellow eater of fluffy animals (they do make for cracking pies), but no meat passes my lips in my house if it hasn't been reared and slaughtered locally (one of the benefits of having loads of farming friends is ready access to locally reared, well managed and cared for pig, sheep and cow chunks) and the pubs and restaurants I frequent are chosen for having a similar approach to sourcing their food.
Ooops, I've made the mistake of "justifying" my choice when, put simply, I didn't have to. Still, I hope you'll view the above and realise that your generalisations are simply that and fail to hit the mark for a significant number of 4x4 owners. Now, let's replace the term 4x4 with luxury saloon and see how people "justify" those purchases. Actually, I throw that in to demonstrate how easy it is to target particular products/users/choices and have no interest in their reasons for buying their cars. If you continue to apply your idealism and peculiar brand of logic to all pollutants it's a long but inevitable slope from having to justify your choice of car to having to justify your choice of baked beans over (imported) rice or (locally produced)peas.
Some of the above will doubtless strike you as a personal attack (hypocrisy, idealism, intellectual bankruptcy for starters. Hell, if I'm going to offend I may as well point it out for those who may have missed it on first reading. If it offers solace, your extreme interpretations and extrapolations of the known facts about my vehicle use caused me some anger until I recalled your style of debate (extrapolate known fact with a healthy influence from personal agenda and present as the nu-fact). Without wanting to turn this into the No Wheels and No Do$h show, I genuinely do welcome your continued contribution to the debate.
Now give us a hug!
;o)
ND
|
One thing that has got me, several sources are making a big thing about the Band G also covering 'normal' cars such as 2 litre Zafiras and Mondeos.
Which models are these then?
I have looked at the C02 emissions listed in Autocar and cannot find any 'normal' 2 litre models from any manufacturer that come into Band G, which is OVER 225g/km. Even my own 2litre Megane 225 Turbo is still only a Band F.
Also bear in mind this is only for cars registered since end March last year so the liklehood is anyone purchasing these vehicles would already know they were the highest C02 category and going to start being taxed higher anyway.
I am not saying I particularly agree with the increases but I also find distorted reporting of facts just as bad.
|
Very true. A Mondeo 2.0 Auto Ghia X Estate is 221 g/km, so in Band F.
In fact, you can have a Vectra 3.0 V6 Auto Diesel Estate at 204 g/km in Band F! Nice!!
For petrol heads however, the 2.8 Turbo is 259 g/km, and so will line GBs pockets.
|
One thing that has got me, several sources are making a big thing about the Band G also covering 'normal' cars such as 2 litre Zafiras and Mondeos. Which models are these then?
I understand it is the Auto version of the 2.0l Mondeo not the manuals.
Are we about to revisit the old world of producing models specificly to duck under VED bands like 2.0l Granadas loaded with extras?
We could end up with modern equivalent of 1.3 Cortina IV .
|
>> One thing that has got me, several sources are making a big thing about the Band G >> also covering 'normal' cars such as 2 litre Zafiras and Mondeos. >> Which models are these then? I understand it is the Auto version of the 2.0l Mondeo not the manuals.
Perhaps you missed my post? 2.0 Automatic Mondeo, even in estate form and fully loaded with Ghia X extras is 221 g/km, i.e. band F, not G.
Only the 2.5 and 3.0 V6 Mondeos are band G.
I hate to admit it, but the banding seems fair, with the majority of regular family cars not getting hit too hard, but bigger, thirstier cars doing much less than 30mpg getting hit much harder.
Personally, I don't see the point, as fuel duty is the best form of emissions pricing there is, but anything they can do to raise more tax, you can be sure they'll try...
|
Hi again No Do$h - LTNH !
Have you become Bogush since resigning your Mod'ship ??
lol
|
|
Hi Vman..... er, Mman. Oh lord, did it come over all bogush? ::ashamed::
|
It came over as bloomin' brilliant as far as I'm concerned.
Hey ND, good to see (sort of) you. Has the Sw gone altogether then?
You and NW both will doubtless be horrified that I recently purchased an Alfa 156 SW. It's quite possibly bigger than I will need on some journeys!
It's also got a 3.2 litre V6 engine in it, but we'd best skip over the terrible unnecessary-ness of that in case it causes palpitations.
|
It's also got a 3.2 litre V6 engine in it, but we'd best skip over the terrible unnecessary-ness of that
On the contrary, it is necessary, because the sound such an engine makes is good for the ears, thus making you happy and less susceptible to blood pressure-increasing road rage, and the higher performance enables you to go about your business more quickly, thus benefiting the economy. So there. :-D
ND - excellent rantage :-)
|
Why don't we just face it? There are people in this world who feel it is the state's duty to tell us what to do. There are others who feel it's pretty much up to the individual. NowWheels sits firmly in one camp, others of us sit in another. The ides of the other person's view being right is anathema to those of us on either side of this argument.
So, let me nail my flags firmly to the mast. ND, you can drive what you want for whatever reason you want. I really don't care if you have a D3 just because you like the look of it. That's why I drive my Jag, after all. And you have my blessing (which I'm sure is important to you!).
However, nothing you can ever say is going to convince NowWheels. Or this bunch of clowns masquerading as a government.
V
|
It came over as bloomin' brilliant as far as I'm concerned.
Ta!
Hey ND, good to see (sort of) you. Has the Sw gone altogether then?
No, I had most of the suspension replaced (again) and the beast lives on. A friend of Troll bought it and has now lowered it, put a red leather interior in it and replaced the classic 16" teledials with 18" multispoke horrors. I weep as I type this, I can tell you.
You and NW both will doubtless be horrified that I recently purchased an Alfa 156 SW. It's quite possibly bigger than I will need on some journeys! It's also got a 3.2 litre V6 engine in it, but we'd best skip over the terrible unnecessary-ness of that in case it causes palpitations.
Ahhhhhhhh, Geee.....Teeeeee..... Ahhhhhiieeeeeee! Bellisimo! You lucky, lucky, lucky git! Wish I could have one, but would murder it in days doing what I do. Granted, the forestry and other countryside work is only 2 days a week at present, but the plan is to move across from my current area of business to full time woodland/countryside/estate management over the next 2 years, hence the work I'm doing at present with chainsaws and other machines of satan for the FC. Obviously I should shun the chainsaw and instead train a small elite team of atack beavers to do the felling......
|
>> Hi No Do$h -- long time no see. ::waves back::
I haven't the energy to reply to everything here, so I'll pick a few points
Overweight by whose standards?
Overweight as in twice the weight of a family saloon car.
>> People in rural areas survived before the current 4X4 craze started, Craze? The original RR came out in 1973 and the countryside was already heaving with Series 1s, Series 2s, 2As and assorted BMC cast-offs at that point. The "Craze" you refer to began in 1946 when cast-off Willys Jeeps started to become available in the UK and were snapped up by farmers.
Some farmers used and LRs and Jeeps as utilitarian devices etc to get around the farm and tow trailers; they didn't get all-purpose drive anywhere, high capacity, luxury toys. But most farmers didn't have such things until realtively recently.
Most 4x4s are in urban areas? Most people are in urban areas.
Exactly. People by these vehicles because they want them, not because of where they live.
the Countryside AlliancePerhaps you should see if you could get your hands on a couple of their newsletters to see what issues they actively campaign on. Not a single-issue interest group as you would prefer people to believe.
I know full well that they have a range of campaigns. But their biggest one by far has been hunting,.
I'm sure your car is sat in your driveway rather more than it is out on the roads, so perhaps you can start the ball rolling by making your car available to various neighbours, or perhaps you would like to sell yours and share the car of another?
Several carless friends are on my insurance for precisely that purpose, and my car will be gone for the w/e with one of them.
I have had my own car for, in total, about half my adult life. I have commuted with a car and without, and been a self-employed nomad both with and without. It's generally easier with the car, and in many ways nicer with the car; but having tried life with and without, I know that it's not a necessity.
My car is a luxury: a machine which makes some tasks easier and more comfortable. I like it: it's a useful thing to have. But it's no more a necessity than a mobile phone.
That's the point I was making wrt to a 4X4 in a rural area: I'm sure it has many uses. I know from experience that it's easier to get up the fields late at night in a 4X4 than on foot or hanging off the side of a muddy tractor. But without the 4X4, rural life would go on, just as it did before the 4X4.
Of course I don't expect you to put your money where you mouth is, hypocrisy being such ready currency in your posts.
No Do$h, before you start writing, you really should try reading a noddy guide to manners.
NW, as ever your intellectual bankruptcy in these matters has amused me. Idealism that isn't backed by the virtues of your own actions remains simply idealism and a particularly churlish and envious idealism at that.
For your own well-being, I do hope you aren't as rude to people's faces as you are online. I also hope that on a better day you are capable of discussing ideas without resorting to abuse of people you disagree with.
You offered your choice of car to illustrate your view of the effect of the budget on what you regard as a necessity. Nobody dragged you into the discussion, and nobody required you to explain your situation: you offered up your case, and I (and others) replied.
I replied politely, without insult; from the information you offered, some conclusions could be reasonably drawn. You may agree or disagree, and you were free to correct any misunderstandings.
You could have asked about the use of my car, and whether it was shared (which would have been a perfectly fair question) ... but you didn't. You made a false assumption, and on that basis you started working your way through your dictionary of abusive adjectives.
You could have continued a reasoned discussion but instead you treated yourself to a tirade of personal abuse. I won't ask the moderators to delete it, because I think it's an interesting illustration of the way this sort of debate happens in so many contexts.
Meanwhile, I can see why Ken Livingstone got so much public support for calling 4X4 drivers idiots.
|
It all hinges around "People buy these vehicles because they want them"
And to be fair (I hope!) people like you think that just "wanting them" is in some way wrong. That's where we disagree. I like choice. You want people to live their lives to your world view. I don't care whether people live to my world view if they leave me alone.
V
|
I won't ask the moderators to delete it,
To be frank, I wouldn't even if you did ask. Not through favouritism of ND being a former moderator either, before you ask.
For the record, and IMHO, some of his posting had tongue in cheek comments which you obviously missed, along with the smiley right at the end of the posting. Maybe the branches of the tree you were hugging at the time got in the way of your vision; who knows?
As for personal abuse, where? Irony maybe, with some wit and mirth thrown in for good measure. And lets not forget to mention a valid debate giving genuine reasons for owning 4x4s.
Finally though, Vin's message really says it all.
DD.
|
>> Overweight by whose standards? Overweight as in twice the weight of a family saloon car.
Well blow me, fancy that. A car that carries seven people or a truly staggering amount of tools/goods/equipment across all kinds of terrain weighs more than a "normal" car. That's akin to pointing out that a transit van or a train weigh more than a bicycle.
Some farmers used and LRs and Jeeps as utilitarian devices etc to get around the farm and tow trailers; they didn't get all-purpose drive anywhere, high capacity, luxury toys. But most farmers didn't have such things until realtively recently.
Relatively recently? Excuse me? Are we talking relative to the dawn of the agrarian culture, the birth of the internal combustion engine or the invention of reliable 4wd systems? Sorry, you don't get away with that one either. As for "high capacity luxury toys", most pickup trucks and other utilitarian 4x4s have a diesel engine ranging from 2.5 to 3.0 litres in capacity. The Discovery 3 derivative making up over 90% of UK sales is...... a 2.7 diesel. As for luxury, since when was comfort a crime?
>> Most 4x4s are in urban areas? Most people are in >> urban areas. Exactly. People by these vehicles because they want them, not because of where they live.
Errr, having a slow moment here. Personal choice is bad because......?
the Countryside Alliance
I know full well that they have a range of campaigns. But their biggest one by far has been hunting,.
The one most publicised by a heavily biased media has been hunting, but their efforts on many other rural issues that impact on green issues, particularly with regard to the contrasting pressures of good animal husbandry and the demands of the supermarkets demonstrates they are more than a one trick pony.
Several carless friends are on my insurance for precisely that purpose, and my car will be gone for the w/e with one of them. I have had my own car for, in total, about half my adult life. I have commuted with a car and without, and been a self-employed nomad both with and without. It's generally easier with the car, and in many ways nicer with the car; but having tried life with and without, I know that it's not a necessity. My car is a luxury: a machine which makes some tasks easier and more comfortable. I like it: it's a useful thing to have. But it's no more a necessity than a mobile phone. That's the point I was making wrt to a 4X4 in a rural area: I'm sure it has many uses. I know from experience that it's easier to get up the fields late at night in a 4X4 than on foot or hanging off the side of a muddy tractor. But without the 4X4, rural life would go on, just as it did before the 4X4.
Did I make an assumption? Blow me! It's not like you did the same is it.
>> Of course I don't expect >> you to put your money where you mouth is, hypocrisy being >> such ready currency in your posts. No Do$h, before you start writing, you really should try reading a noddy guide to manners.
NowWheels, before you start writing, you should really get your facts straight instead of regurgitating the usual anti car message. Something you may wish to consider: The most brilliant propaganda technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. And the person who penned that little gem? Adolf Hitler
>> NW, as ever your intellectual bankruptcy in these matters has amused >> me. Idealism that isn't backed by the virtues of your >> own actions remains simply idealism and a particularly churlish and envious >> idealism at that. For your own well-being, I do hope you aren't as rude to people's faces as you are online. I also hope that on a better day you are capable of discussing ideas without resorting to abuse of people you disagree with.
I regret to tell you that one of my biggest selling points as a freelance consultant is my "No Bull, No Prisoners" approach to identifying problems in a business. A couple of specialitys of mine are spotting the "Ah, we do it this way because we believe it to be right" approach that drags so many businesses into mediocrity and the blind idealism and rigid adherence to outmoded business model when common sense and pragmatism would tell you to have a word with yourself and start again. In short, I'm every bit as direct, abrupt and forthright in real life as I am here and yes, I can be rude and angry when people take the proverbial.
You offered your choice of car to illustrate your view of the effect of the budget on what you regard as a necessity. Nobody dragged you into the discussion, and nobody required you to explain your situation: you offered up your case, and I (and others) replied.
Nobody forces you to come here, yet your penchant for the hair shirt just keeps on tugging doesn't it.
I replied politely, without insult; from the information you offered, some conclusions could be reasonably drawn. You may agree or disagree, and you were free to correct any misunderstandings. You could have asked about the use of my car, and whether it was shared (which would have been a perfectly fair question) ... but you didn't. You made a false assumption, and on that basis you started working your way through your dictionary of abusive adjectives.
Aha! Hoist by your own petard NW, hoist by your own petard.
You could have continued a reasoned discussion but instead you treated yourself to a tirade of personal abuse. I won't ask the moderators to delete it, because I think it's an interesting illustration of the way this sort of debate happens in so many contexts.
Oh you won't? Well it may interest you to know that the mods delete stuff as they see fit, and rarely at the request of a poster.
Meanwhile, I can see why Ken Livingstone got so much public support for calling 4X4 drivers idiots.
Ah bless, you really did read the book and buy the t-shirt didn't you. Is this the same Ken who makes a habit of swanning off around the globe at taxpayer's expense for his own self gratification? The same Ken who has been lambasted for his petty prejudices and sense of social justice?
The whole basis for taxing vehicles on CO2 output is flawed, is nothing more than a transparent attempt to retain votes from a disenfranchised left wing (politics of envy, anyone?) and is ridiculed every time a politician jumps on a plane.
Next........
|
>> Meanwhile, I can see why Ken Livingstone got so much public >> support for calling 4X4 drivers idiots. Ah bless, you really did read the book and buy the t-shirt didn't you. Is this the same Ken who makes a habit of swanning off around the globe at taxpayer's expense for his own self gratification? The same Ken who has been lambasted for his petty prejudices and sense of social justice? (snip) Next........
What have "Ken's" habits got to do with any public anti-4x4 sentiment, or is that reference just a diversion?
|
|
The public support he gained is there due to a left-wing media bias, fuelled by envy, prejudice, ignorance and did I mention envy? In the last 12 months how many headlines have you seen decrying executive saloons and sports cars? Precisely none I'd wager, yet the 4x4 gets it in the neck. On that point I refer the learned gentleman to my previous quotation from the works of a certain Mr A Hitler.
|
NowWheels, before you start writing, you should really get your facts straight instead of regurgitating the usual anti car message. Something you may wish to consider: The most brilliant propaganda technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. And the person who penned that little gem? Adolf Hitler
I invoke Godwin's law. (If you don't know it, look it up)
I regret to tell you that one of my biggest selling points as a freelance consultant is my "No Bull, No Prisoners" approach to identifying problems in a business. A couple of specialitys of mine are spotting the "Ah, we do it this way because we believe it to be right" approach that drags so many businesses into mediocrity and the blind idealism and rigid adherence to outmoded business model when common sense and pragmatism would tell you to have a word with yourself and start again. In short, I'm every bit as direct, abrupt and forthright in real life as I am here and yes, I can be rude and angry when people take the proverbial.
I think we are going to disagree about what constitutes an outmoded business model: all the major political parties in this country and in the United States now agree that a business model based on current levels of carbon emissions is no longer a viable option.
But no doubt you'll call that "taking the proverbial" , and return to your list of adjectives.
|
|
Bit boring, darlings. You are both right of course.
|
Bit boring, darlings. You are both right of course.
I beg your indulgence, m'lud. I am but the poor misguided tool of a most vociferous Rioja. ::bows::
|
No NowWheels, I won't be taking the proverbial. I accept that we will probably always disagree on this one but then life would be terribly dull if we all had the same views, wouldn't it? Not that I condone your well meaning but misinformed view on some matters, mais plus ca change.
Using the argument that political parties share a view isn't really the most compelling case I've heard; their bandwagon pogosticks need new springs almost daily. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what percentage of global carbon emissions is manmade? And then tell me what percentage is from the UK? Perhaps then you would be so kind as to break that down to the cars, then further to 4x4s in the UK?
I'm being unkind. The answers are:
1. Mankind is responsible for 4% of global CO2 (let's call it plant food) emissions,
2. UK is responsible for 2% of this 4% i.e. 0.08% of global man made plant food
3. Off this UK cars are responsible for just 2.5% of our 0.08% contribution to plant food i.e. .0002% man made plant food.
4. the 4x4?s represents just 7% of the UK car market, 7% of 0.002% = .00014% of global man made plant food.
Now if you presuppose, well of course you will, that CO2 is the baddy in the picture, then I hope you'll agree that taxing someone £400 in the context of the overall numbers is akin to looking whisfully at the fiddle while Rome burns. If on the other hand you take a view that the sun has rather more to say on the subject of global temperatures than our meagre contribution then you may be forgiven for believing this latest increase in motoring taxes to be nothing more than a cynical fundraising effort while pandering to the ill informed masses.
|
|
This is fantastic. Can someone pass the popcorn?
|
£400 divided by two passengers in a Nissan 350Z is £200 each per year. £400 divided by seven passengers in a Mercedes GL or Disco 3 is £57.14 each.
etc.
But £0 divided by five occupants in a Citroen C4 HDI DGS is £0.
In any case, I have for one have never seen a 4X4 with 7 occupants other than on a school run. Those I encounter on the roads usually have one or two occupants, just like a supermini.
(The new VED rate for the C4 HDI DGS is £35pa, so £7 a passenger. HJ)
|
>>In any case, I have for one have never seen a 4X4 with 7 occupants other than on a school run
And out come the self-appointed guardians of humanity relying on their own ability to judge the life of others.
I don't want it, in my opinion you don't need it, therefore it should be banned. [yawn]. My 4x4 and people carriers often carry up to their capacity. If you could tell me the minimum percentage of the time they need to do so in order for you to concede that I may be permitted to own one, then I would be grateful. Also if you could indicate whether that potential worth should be measured by % of driven time, mileage, or owned time that would help.
|
This is fantastic. Can someone pass the popcorn?
Gladly, if only I hadn't munched it all myself.
|
"In any case, I have for one have never seen a 4X4 with 7 occupants other than on a school run. Those I encounter on the roads usually have one or two occupants, just like a supermini."
Eh?
So, because all (or most of) the seats are only used some of the time they're not necessary?
If we take that to its logical conclusion, anyone with no kids should drive a 2 seater Smart. For example the rear seats in my 5-seat car are only used about once a month and I could manage without a boot about 3/4 of the time!
|
Sadly Peter, we've been here with Now Wheels before. It seems everyone can make do with smaller cars and when the time comes to carry a larger load, well there are trailers, roofracks, piling it on the kids laps, sending it on by mail.... All inconvenient, uncomfortable and unpleasant, but always presented as the lone voice of reason. A communal pool of utlitiy transport appears to be the approved NW solution.
What saddens me is that this always boils down to a vocal minority attempting to impose their lowest common denominator mentality on the silent majority. The environmental argument is an incredibly powerful and emotive (yet flawed) one and your average Joe either doesn't give a stuff or gets all weepy eyed at the propaganda that is splurged across the media.
What we are witnessing is the anti-capitalists gleefully looking on as cynical government create the hydra of global warming before jumping firmly on the bandwagon. They despise success and the perceived excess that accompanies it and so spread their message of hate, wrapped in "reason" and dogma, through a left-wing biased media. Every aspect of the enviro-argument is geared towards raising tax for "social good" or towards removing visible symbols of success. Unfortunately for us a car can often be perceived as a very visible indicator of capitalist success and is therefore an obvious target to the lentilista.
Cars bought mobility and prosperity to the western world and are conspicuous in their scarcity in developing countries. As such, many of those with an inbuilt guilt complex feel shamed by their freedoms and are uncomfortable when faced with the have-nots. There is a widely held view that if only we gave up our cars the poor and starving of the world would get better. I regret this is unlikely to offer the solution, as impeding our own mobility and prosperity will only weaken our economic position and so our ability to assist developing countries. If you consider the massive strides in agricultural production that the internal combustion engine has brought and then consider the various factors that drive development of the machines that help produce our food it doesn't take long to realise that consumer-led development brings much wider benefits to the global good. Without consumers demanding more efficiency (and that isn't solely the efficiency of fuel to power output but the efficiencies of mechanical process) there wouldn't be the same drive for improved production techniques in the more mundane and utlitarian elements of our society.
It's rather more complex than "I demand a better car so they build a better tractor" but that's the overall gist of it. The internal combustion engine has brought great change and benefit to the world but is not the panacea it was first thought to be; indeed few things are when viewed with the benefit of 100 years of hindsight.
::scans back up the page::
Blimey, did I type all that?
|
What we are witnessing is the anti-capitalists gleefully looking on as cynical government create the hydra of global warming before jumping firmly on the bandwagon.
So the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a tool of a conspiracy by David Cameron and Gordon Brown as they plot to destroy capitalism?
And the 400 American mayors who have demanded action to combat climate change are all lentilistas dedicated to "removing visible symbols of success"?
More popcorn please.
|
>> What we are witnessing is the anti-capitalists gleefully looking on as >> cynical government create the hydra of global warming before jumping firmly >> on the bandwagon. So the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a tool of a conspiracy by David Cameron and Gordon Brown as they plot to destroy capitalism?
Not what I intended to convey, but I can understand the confusion. The IPCC is a government tool that allows the validation and justificiation of "soft target" taxes. The public and the media have been told repeatedly there is a problem, so there is a problem in their perception. Amusingly, an IPCC paper actually refers to the need to keep repeating the message to the point where it is no longer questioned or required to be repeated as the repetition will make it "fact" in the eyes of the population. See any parallels with Herr Adolf and the relevance of my earlier quote?
So you have a political system driven by taxation and self-validation funded by those taxes. The anti capitalist movement make unhappy bedfellows with government in most circumstances, but in this instance you have a cause that they can twist and manipulate to serve their own ends, the downfall of a consumer driven society. So while they may be squabbling over who has the duvet, the message from both sides of the bed is the same; cars are bad, um-kay?
And the 400 American mayors who have demanded action to combat climate change are all lentilistas dedicated to "removing visible symbols of success"?
I've always subscribed to the view that those who offer themselves up for political posts are, by definition, those least likely to be suited to the task. Anyone care to guess what car Jose Manuel Barroso, the EU Evangalist responsible for demands that all cars produce no more than 120g/km of CO2 drives? A VW Tpuareg, that's what. And not the smaller 2.5 diesel either. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6433665.stm
Now I don't know the 400 mayors in question, but I know the animal and spots are spots no matter what colour you paint them.
More popcorn please.
As long as it's locally grown you can have some. No butter or toffee though, it's bad for you.
|
|
Hoorah, I'm glad to see someone talk a bit of 'common' sense. My gratitude to you Sir!
|
>>What we are witnessing is the anti-capitalists gleefully looking .......
.
>>............in the more mundane and utlitarian elements of our society.
Damn I've missed you. [sniff].
I love you, man.
|
Damn I've missed you. [sniff]. I love you, man.
Missed you too bro, missed you too. Now give us a hug ::barely surpressed howl of pent-up emotion::
|
"In any case, I have for one have never seen a 4X4 with 7 occupants other than on a school run. Those I encounter on the roads usually have one or two occupants, just like a supermini." Eh? So, because all (or most of) the seats are only used some of the time they're not necessary?
That's not what I'm saying, though I agree that my terse comment may have been a bit unclear.
But HJ was trying to presenting a "tax per seat" calculation as if it was tax per passenger.
Whether a vehicle has two seats or twenty, do the sums based on actual usage rather than on the number of seats available. A single-occupant vehicle is a single-occupant vehicle, regardless of whether there are six empty seats or one.
In any case, carrying 7 passengers doesn't require a 300g/km (or higher, depending on model) 2.5 tonne Discovery: a Citroen C4 Grand Picasso 1.6 HDI has 7 seats, and half the CO2 emissions. (see tinyurl.com/2hzzhs )
|
>>carrying 7 passengers doesn't require....
And that's your justification, isn't it. You don't want one, I don't "require" one, therefore I should be taxed/penalised/reviled.
|
>>carrying 7 passengers doesn't require.... And that's your justification, isn't it. You don't want one, I don't "require" one, therefore I should be taxed/penalised/reviled.
Nope. It's quite simple: every motorised vehicle causes some degree of environmental damage, and those that cause more damage are being asked to pay more.
Same goes for landfill: if you dump more rubbish, you pay more landfill tax. Same goes for housing; get a bigger house, pay more council tax. And so on, across a wide range of human endeavours.
It's the same if you want 7 seats in your car. You can choose: get a gas guzzler and pay up, or get a more economical car and pay a lot less. Or if you don't actually need seven sears, get a car which incurs zero VED.
You have a choice, so why whine about having those who choose the expensive option?
|
You have a choice, so why whine about having those who choose the expensive option?
I made a point in an earlier post that the decision to eat imported baked beans as opposed to locally grown veg has an environmental impact, yet we don't see headlines screaming "Beanz Meanz Deathz" (although I live in hope). So why the vilification of 4x4s?
|
>> >>>> Same goes for housing; get a bigger house, pay more council tax. >>
What precisely is the logic in that? You have a two bedroomed house, you have a six bedroomed house. You don't put out any more rubbish out for the dustmen, you don't go to the lavatory any more frequently - do you?
So why should you pay more money?
|
And that's your justification, isn't it. You don't want one, I don't "require" one, therefore I should be taxed/penalised/reviled.
Taxed? Nah
Penalised? Nah
Reviled? Oh yes every time.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Gladly, if only I hadn't munched it all myself.
From what I recall, pies were more your thing.
|
1. Mankind is responsible for 4% of global CO2 (let's call it plant food) emissions,
If you don't understand why that statistic is totally irrelevant, you're clearly not qualified to say anything about human-induced climate change. Or maybe you do understand, and you're just trying to mislead people.
|
Can anyone help me with this, I have a 2003 Grand Espace 2.2 dCi which seems to be band G. What tax will I pay in 2008 / 2009?
This coupled with a cam belt change could mean that its going to be dumped for a Merc Diesel on veg oil!
|
No you're not. Band G doesn't apply until vehicles registered after 23 March 2006.
So don't worry....yet... ;)
|
Can anyone help me with this, I have a 2003 Grand Espace 2.2 dCi which seems to be band G. What tax will I pay in 2008 / 2009?
Band G only includes cars registered on or after 23 March 2006, so your Espace is in Band F. In 2008/09, the tax wil be £210
See www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowTo...4
|
1. Mankind is responsible for 4% of global CO2 (let's call it plant food) emissions, If you don't understand why that statistic is totally irrelevant, you're clearly not qualified to say anything about human-induced climate change. Or maybe you do understand, and you're just trying to mislead people.
The question is much more basic than that, the question is whether human induced climate change even exists.
When you consider that thermal energy in the first 10,000 meters of the earth's crust alone is 50,000 time greater that all the oil and gas reserves combined is it not just a bit arrogant to think that our actions can make a big difference.
|
Just thinking .........
............ £400 a year to tax a car plus the Vat on it's purchase, plus the Vat on insurance, plus that Vat on service, repairs and parts, plus the extortion that is fuel duty that is already by its nature higher for the more poluting vehicles, plus the prospect of road charging, and it is not a Ferrari or even a Range Rover!
This answers my rhetorical question at the beginning of the long running Global Warming thread, is the motorist simply a soft target for the exchequer who justify an ever increasing tax hike as the environmental cost of motoring?
A resounding YES! (or oui, si , ja & auch aye as they say in Brussels!)
|
Was it arrogant to notice that we managed to punch a hole in the ozone layer?
And we've managed to increase the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. Is that not a big difference?
That fact was the thing that made me realise how serious the problem was. I'd kind of expected that we wouldn't have actually managed to upset the balance that much, but a 40% increase in 150 years (and accelerating) is vast.
The "arrogance" meme makes no sense. It may seem to you that 6,000,000,000 people couldn't possibly do any damage, but they certainly can if they're burning 4,000,000,000,000kg of oil every year, and all the CO2 produced is released into the atmosphere.
|
1. Mankind is responsible for 4% of global CO2 (let's call it plant food) emissions, If you don't understand why that statistic is totally irrelevant, you're clearly not qualified to say anything about human-induced climate change. Or maybe you do understand, and you're just trying to mislead people.
Apologies for the delay in responding; I've spent the last hour being vile to somebody in exchange for money.
Back on OT, perhaps you would care to enlighten us in the context of motoring? The overall figure of 4% is not the subject here. It is the absolutely minute amount that can be laid at the door of the 4x4.
|
Apologies for the delay in responding; I've spent the last hour being vile to somebody in exchange for money.
Nice work, if you can get it :)
As to laying it at the 4x4, I agree it's scapegoating, every car is responsible. But every car is indeed being taxed according to emissions - the "4x4" stuff is mainly a media thing. I'm paying £15 a year VED because I'm currently at the bottom of the emissions band. No doubt in time the criteria will be tightened further, and I'll be a relative gas-guzzler. The incentives need to be increased for everyone to be driving less and more efficiently.
But I have no real problem with a steep up-tick at the top end of the emissions scale - it's kind of drawing a line, saying 225 g/km is enough - if you want to emit more than that, we're going to try to make you think twice. Personally, I think the Lib Dems had it right with £2000 - that's enough to really make people think before buying. But the differences need to be maintained all the way down - at the moment there's really not that much difference between bands C to E, for example.
If band G was at £2000, I'm sure the car makers could somehow manage to produce big vehicles that came in below that...
|
Nice work, but would be nicer if I weren't restricted to mere mental cruelty.
I still remain to be convinced that manmade CO2 is the issue here. Constantly repeating that it is doesn't actually make it so. A geologist friend of mine (has a 4x4 but then you'd expect a geologist to have something that can actually get him to his work) laughs like a drain at the "evidence" and models because part of his work involves reviewing historical data and he gets to see all the bits that get ignored when input to the models. This "smoothing" of data to avoid empirically evidenced spikes over the last 1500 years or so is without doubt a fraud on a global scale.
|
The bulk of the evidence is actually physics, you know. It's not just "curve fitting" - there are properly understood physical principles going on. Things like the greenhouse effect of CO2 can be verified in laboratory experiments. Fine tuning the models is down to figuring out other trickier factors.
But on basic physical principles, at the rate CO2 is going up, an increased greenhouse effect is to be expected, because of the physics. Unless we can figure out some other factors that will mitigate it (as aerosols did for the first half of the 20th century), there's no reason to assume there won't be warming.
|
I'm aware of the physics and of the way the oceans act as carbon sinks, going through store and release cycles driven by...... solar activity.
There is a clear and well evidenced link between solar activity and global temperature. Despite countless periods in the earth's history when CO2 levels far exceeded their present levels the earth has always gone through these cycles of warm, cool, warm warm cool (sorry, too much exposure to cheesy TV dance progs). If you work on the basis that CO2 causes the warming you might expect to see a runaway temperature once CO2 reaches a certain level. Put simply, you might expect more warmth to release more CO2 from the ocean, which leads to more warmth, which leads to more CO2 released from the ocean, which leads to a point when the oceans won't give up any more and temperatures will remain high indefinitely, yet they don't and never have.
Just 30 years ago there were scare stories pointing at the next ice age. As recently as the last 5 years there have been fairly compelling stories of the atlantic conveyor failing, so compelling that I initially bought into the theory until more detailed analysis showed it to be a total load of dingos' kidneys.
Still, the politicians must raise their taxes to allow the perpetuation of their gravy train and the employment of a new class of self-interested government employees to keep voting them back in. All a bit sleazy, if you ask me.
|
I'm aware of the physics and of the way the oceans act as carbon sinks, going through store and release cycles driven by...... solar activity.
Driven by temperature, more precisely. And the largest external factors affecting temperature over history have been solar cycles and orbital cycles. Fortunately, at the moment, the ocean is busy soaking up the majority of the CO2 we're producing (and becoming more acidic as a result, creating new problems). As it gets warmer, it will start to spit it out again.
This time, we're upsetting the balance of the system by adding more CO2 into the system as a whole, kickstarting a warming cycle.
There is a clear and well evidenced link between solar activity and global temperature. Despite countless periods in the earth's history when CO2 levels far exceeded their present levels the earth has always gone through these cycles of warm, cool, warm warm cool (sorry, too much exposure to cheesy TV dance progs).
CO2 has been nowhere near current levels since mankind originally evolved 150,000 years ago, let alone within the 20,000 years of vague civilisation. Why so confident that we'll survive being taken out of our natural habitat?
If you work on the basis that CO2 causes the warming you might expect to see a runaway temperature once CO2 reaches a certain level. Put simply, you might expect more warmth to release more CO2 from the ocean, which leads to more warmth, which leads to more CO2 released from the ocean, which leads to a point when the oceans won't give up any more and temperatures will remain high indefinitely, yet they don't and never have.
Basically correct, that runaway warming is what happens, except that feedback loops can reverse themselves. The CO2 from the ocean is an amplifier - if the external forcing is removed, it can swing back again - runaway cooling, if you like.
Just 30 years ago there were scare stories pointing at the next ice age.
Yes, in Newsweek and similar. But that's on the same scale as the monthly "red wine is good for you" / "red wine is bad for you" cycle. A few papers, nothing remotely resembling our current understanding of the climate, and the absolute consensus. And even those 70s papers pointed out that they didn't have a good enough understanding of the climate to state anything with certainty. But didn't stop the media latching on to it. And now the scientists are saying they're certain, the media starts wanting to pick holes. Sigh...
As recently as the last 5 years there have been fairly compelling stories of the atlantic conveyor failing, so compelling that I initially bought into the theory until more detailed analysis showed it to be a total load of dingos' kidneys.
Again, I don't think anyone ever claimed consensus on that, it was being considered to be one of the possible effects of global change. But it made a nice film. And as far as I can see, the atlantic conveyor is still expected to slow, with a resultant cooling of Europe. But that cooling is now expected to be less than the global warming, meaning Europe will still get hotter, net.
Still, the politicians must raise their taxes to allow the perpetuation of their gravy train and the employment of a new class of self-interested government employees to keep voting them back in. All a bit sleazy, if you ask me.
If you like, but I don't think the atmosphere's got a political point of view.
Heading off cars again though, so better stop here...
|
Heading off cars again though, so better stop here...
Good plan. Interesting comment on scientific consensus though; I would have qualified that by saying "consensus amongst those scientists who agree and an equally firm consensus amongst those who don't". Which is clearly not a consensus! Still a nice contribution to the debate.
You know, I'm really rather enjoying this, much to the chagrin of a few others and the amusement of significantly more.
|
A few papers, nothing remotely resembling our current understanding of the climate, and the absolute consensus.
Again, I don't think anyone ever claimed consensus on that, it
Twice during that post you used the word consensus, but I don't see it I'm afraid. I see one scientific theory which is widely publicised and supported by the media and government, I see another scientific theory which is marginalised, and the public are basically 'protected' from.
Their seem to be scientists on both sides who are just as vociferous in their opinions, and (unfortunately) no-one in the middle trying to actually work out the facts rather than starting with a political opinion, choosing their 'facts' based on it, and then trying to prove those.
It's not what I'd call a consensus. I in fact get a little angry when these things are forced down our throats as known and indisputable facts when they are nothing of the sort. If every scientist in the world agrees on green issues then why do the taxes in this country encourage the use of diesels, while in Greece diesel engines are banned from Athens? Why are our tax brackets based on CO2, while the Americans are largely unbothered by it and are far more focussed on sulphur emissions?
|
|
I can't believe I'm making their/there mistakes. On a lesser website, my argument would be blown apart on that point alone.
|
Back on OT, perhaps you would care to enlighten us in the context of motoring? The overall figure of 4% is not the subject here. It is the absolutely minute amount that can be laid at the door of the 4x4.
Double red herring here!
First, you distorted your figures by misusing the statistics, after you had been ranting at alleged distortions by others who you compared to n***s. Your own tag of "misinformed" is appropriate here.
Secondly, there is a minute amount that that can be laid at the door of pretty much any source of CO2 emissions, if you break it down far enough. We could burn down the Forest of Dean, and probably still produce only a small fraction of a percentage of global emissions ... but that's not the point.
If emissions are going to be cut (and you seem to think they don't need to be, but that's a separate issue), then the options are to entirely eliminating emissions in some sectors, or improving efficiency overall. Of course, a combination of the two is the most likely approach, with efficiency improvements being part of the plan.
For every individual sector, it's quite true to say that efficiency improvements won't solve the problem. It's also true that adding them up is what does produce savings.
Our hideously energy-inefficient homes are of course a huge source of emissions, bigger than cars; and a requirement for new homes to be energy efficient is long overdue, as are improvements to the efficiency of old ones.
However, even if all new homes are zero-emission, they have an average life of over 100 years. But vehicles last an average of probably about ten or fifteen, so ensuring that new vehicles produce lower emissions than than older ones is a quick way of reducing the overall output from that sector, and creates a much quicker improvement than be achieved with housing.
It can also be done at no extra cost: if a vehicle is being replaced anyway, it makes sense to apply pressure for the replacement to be one which maximises the efficiency gains. A 185g/km car replaced by a 300g/km car heads in the wrong direction, and if every new car did that, we'd have a 2% increase in UK emissions.
What you stance amounts to is saying that it's all right for people to buy gas-guzzling 4X4s, because other people's actions will balance it out. I'm all right Jack?
|
First, you distorted your figures by misusing the statistics, after you had been ranting at alleged distortions by others who you compared to n***s. Your own tag of "misinformed" is appropriate here.
I made no comparison to the National Socialist Party, however I did point out that some of the misinformation tactics in use today are remarkably similar to those expounded by the NSP, albeit with altogether less appalling aims. I didn't use that quote lightly but it does serve to demonstrate how pervasive and manipulative this approach can be.
If emissions are going to be cut (and you seem to think they don't need to be, but that's a separate issue), then the options are to entirely eliminating emissions in some sectors, or improving efficiency overall. Of course, a combination of the two is the most likely approach, with efficiency improvements being part of the plan.
Actually it's not a separate issue, it is the issue.
What you stance amounts to is saying that it's all right for people to buy gas-guzzling 4X4s, because other people's actions will balance it out. I'm all right Jack?
There we go again with the emotive labels already. I note you don't like it when I use emotive language yet you continue to do just that. Gas Guzzling 4x4s? And the sports cars? And the executive cars? And the battered and poorly maintained transit vans?
You miss the point that the politicians continually espouse the vilification of whole classes of transport while conveniently making use of the same when it suits them. Who's alright Jack now?
|
This shouldn't be about "vilification". It should be about changing behaviour, not moralising.
Would you say that VAT is "punitive", so politicians shouldn't buy anything with VAT on it?
As long as the politicians are paying the same green taxes they're asking everyone else to pay, or getting the same carbon rations everyone else gets, I don't understand your objection.
Now, if your complaint is that the government are being weak by letting people, including themselves, buy 4x4s, then maybe they should ban cars with >225g/km outright. Would that make you happier?
At the moment, they're giving people a choice. And they have the same choice as everyone else.
|
Hmm, taxation at point of purchase. Another marvel of social engineering hijacked for financial expediency. Probably not the forum to debate that one though! (Thank goodness, this is fun but it's , erm, taxing too).
Now, if your complaint is that the government are being weak by letting people, including themselves, buy 4x4s, then maybe they should ban cars with >225g/km outright. Would that make you happier?
If that was my complaint it might, but it wasn't.
At the moment, they're giving people a choice. And they have the same choice as everyone else.
A choice they can make safe in the knowledge that their personal decisions are subsidised by a salary and pension fed by....... Oh blast, we're back to tax and away from motoring once more.
Can I lower the tone and just jump up and down a bit yelling "it's not fair" please? It's a little easier on the keyboard and the old grey matter.
|
It's one of those irregular verbs used by left wingers, isn't it:
I don't approve
You should not have
He should do what I say
We are right
You are wrong
They don't know as well as us
V
|
Can I lower the tone and just jump up and down a bit yelling "it's not fair" please? It's a little easier on the keyboard and the old grey matter.
:)
|
Gas Guzzling 4x4s? And the sports cars? And the executive cars? And the battered and poorly maintained transit vans?
Battered doesn't matter, does it? As for "poorly maintained", sutely there's a thing called an "MOT" to weed these out.
|
I've followed the above spat with interest?.and decided to add my tuppence worth.
I find the lack of respect for another's viewpoint quite irritating when it comes to the 'gas guzzlers', '4x4's and 'luxury cars' debate... surely there will always be differing viewpoints and individuals should respect others' views. If you wish to drive en electric car or Toyota Prius etc to do your bit for the planet, good on you......but please do not try to impose your values onto others if they do not wish to comply with your views.
My 'luxury car' was built in this country and yes it knocks out more pollutants than a small car....however.....the luxury one is:
1, more clean & healthy than the average 3rd world vehicle, by a considerable margin
2, the factory it was built in is more energy efficient, socially conscious and compliant with workers rights than
many (if not most) similar in the 3rd world
3, it was built in this country, which makes it build more efficient than something that had to be ferried by a
massive fuel munching ship from somewhere halfway around the world....whatever the engine size or green
credentials of the imported car
Life is a balance....
-do I agree with being green in general.......yes I do, very much so and have taken steps to try to help......
-do I agree with my high taxes being spent on green issues......yes I do (and those taxes are considerable)...
-do I agree with someone stating I should abandon all driving pleasure, just because that extremely small
difference between my car and an allegedly socially acceptable one makes a difference......no I damned well do
not.
If my contribution, through my taxes, is to persuade China, India, South America, the USA, to be more environmentally kind, then fine.....but that doesn't mean I have to go back to the Stone Age for my transport and I do not intend to.....and no amount of mud slinging is going to change my mind either. Because I enjoy my driving. It gives me pleasure. If that is selfish, then I?m selfish, but I suspect I have some selfish tendencies at times but am generally not, so do not need to be penalised.
Personally I consider the whole issue to be a form of bullying. Why is the ire not aimed at those that truly pollute?in the similar fashion that an organisation that champions human rights has a pop about something in Blighty (where we generally try our best to get it right) yet chooses to ignore somewhere like Zimbabwe? easy pickings, easy targets = bullying in my book....The other thing is that there is the big whiff of envy?trouble is every system that has advocated equality and tried to knock back those that seek a bit of betterment, has had an elite who funnily enough prefer some betterment...funny that.
|
>> Gas Guzzling 4x4s? >> And the sports cars? And the executive cars? And >> the battered and poorly maintained transit vans? Battered doesn't matter, does it? As for "poorly maintained", sutely there's a thing called an "MOT" to weed these out.
It's not fair! No, too soon to play that trump card, this is an easy one. One confesses to painting pictures with words there. There is an MOT, but there are many that choose to ignore this apparently optional requirement (oxymoron for the day). My intention was to highlight the wide range of vehicles that add CO2 to the atmosphere to a greater or lesser extent.
I admit I'm rather chuffed if this is the only weakness you can find in my discourse though :o)
|
The infighting here is rather like players from the same football team having a punch up on the pitch, we are all on the same side here surely, all motorists who are being unfairly burdened with so called enviromental taxation simply because we are an easy target!
Or are we happy to pay £400 a year to tax a car plus the Vat it's purchase, insurance, service, repairs and parts, fuel duty, the prospect of road charging etc etc.
All totaly out of proportion to the actual impact of motoring on the environment.
|
Not so really cheddar. I am sure NW and ND would get on fine over a few scoops, but they will never agree on these automotive matters.
Some people, NW among them, favour things like road pricing and punitive taxation of (some) motorists. Others understand that private automobile ownership goes with rabid individualism, and don't mind unduly.
Takes all sorts though. As I said in an earlier post, our two pugilists are both right (in different ways, and up to a point).
|
Takes all sorts though. As I said in an earlier post, our two pugilists are both right (in different ways, and up to a point).
i don't really wish to be a pugilist....but i'm willing to be a towel holder
|
|
Should I be worried by that?
|
>> >> Gas Guzzling 4x4s? And the sports cars? And the executive cars? And >> >> the battered and poorly maintained transit vans? >> >> Battered doesn't matter, does it? As for "poorly maintained", sutely there's >> a thing called an "MOT" to weed these out. It's not fair! No, too soon to play that trump card, this is an easy one. One confesses to painting pictures with words there. There is an MOT, but there are many that choose to ignore this apparently optional requirement (oxymoron for the day). My intention was to highlight the wide range of vehicles that add CO2 to the atmosphere to a greater or lesser extent.
The fraction of cars and vans driven without MOTs is small, though, isn't it. The thrust of the argument is directed towards the private motorist - surely the number of Transits, Ivecos Dailys etc. run by motorists for their social, domestic and commuting purposes is far smaller than the number who run "gas-guzzling", cars such as big 4x4s, sports cars, and "executive cars". Mmm?
I admit I'm rather chuffed if this is the only weakness you can find in my discourse though :o)
Well, it's the only thing I mentioned, anyway.....
;)
|
Touche......
I thought untaxed motorists were the latest scourge, the progeny of satan? Oh, there I go believing the government again.....
I agree, the argument is directed towards overtly affluent private motorists. May I be so bold as to suggest this rather supports my point on envy and distaste being big motivators here?
|
I thought untaxed motorists were the latest scourge, the progeny of satan? Oh, there I go believing the government again.....
My thoughts on gov't approach to MOT/taxation of private cars would not be printable here (I very much object to the "1984-ness" that's blatantly espoused).
I agree, the argument is directed towards overtly affluent private motorists. May I be so bold as to suggest this rather supports my point on envy and distaste being big motivators here?
"Overly affluent private motorists"??? I'm not at all sure I agree. A second-hand "gas guzzler" can be had quite cheaply!
If "they" were to be serious about carbon emissions, I would've thought an absolute ration of tons per year would be appropriate, or tax (exponentially increasing with usage?) on total calculated emissions for each individual (all fuels).
From the worldwide perspective, tackling the massive emissions from peat fires in Indonesia would at a stroke lower total world greenhouse gas emissions from *all* human activities by ten percent - that's not to say other savings, including encouraging the use of more frugal vehicles is a bad idea - from several viewpoints this would be a very good thing.
|
I agree with rationing. That way if motoring is particularly important to someone they can use their ration for that, instead of jetting off on their hols. Or they can buy someone else's ration.
This sort of tax shilly-shallying is pretty cosmetic (although I'm sure it will somewhat lower the per-vehicle emissions, just as company car tax has).
|
I agree with rationing. That way if motoring is particularly important to someone they can use their ration for that, instead of jetting off on their hols. Or they can buy someone else's ration.
CO 2 rationing would be horribly difficult to police. If two people share a car journey, whose ration card would be marked?
Would I use some of my ration by having furniture delivered from a retailer at the other end of the country, or would I be debited only if I collected it my own car?
If I hire a builder to extend my house, whose CO 2 ration covers the cost of transporting the materials?
etc
Apart from all the other problems, it would only be workable if everyone had to use an ID card for everything, and every transaction was logged on some massive database. Except, of course, that's happening anyway :(
|
CO2 rationing would be horribly difficult to police. If two people share a car journey, whose ration card would be marked?
The person who bought the fuel. You could transfer credits to help him help cover it. Or you could split the cost at the petrol station, like you can with a debit card - pay for half each.
Would I use some of my ration by having furniture delivered from a retailer at the other end of the country, or would I be debited only if I collected it my own car?
The haulier would have had to use credits to buy their fuel. They would incorporate that into their charges - possibly they might let you pay partly in carbon credits. Similarly for the builder.
In essence, the credits would only be forcibly required at the point of fuel/energy purchase. After that point, it's up to the users to cover their credits - either by buying credits on the open market, or accepting part-payment in credits.
Apart from all the other problems, it would only be workable if everyone had to use an ID card for everything, and every transaction was logged on some massive database. Except, of course, that's happening anyway :(
In essence, it's no more complex than a debit card. It doesn't necessarily have to be tied in to the sort of monstrous ID databases they want to produce. Although no doubt they would try, as you say :(
Various groups have written more detailed analyses of the practicalities of this sort of scheme. I'll have to see if I can find one of the detailed proposals.
|
Various groups have written more detailed analyses of the practicalities of this sort of scheme. I'll have to see if I can find one of the detailed proposals.
I know that it's an idea favoured by David Milliband, so I guess there mist be some research published on how consumer carbon-trading might work.
It would be very interesting to see what's been done already, and particularly if it's possible to avoid an ID-based accounting system.
|
I agree, the argument is directed towards overtly affluent private motorists. May I be so bold as to suggest this rather supports my point on envy and distaste being big motivators here?
Once again, you assume that because you aspired to a particular consumer good, anyone who points out its dangers must want one too.
There are plenty of overtly affluent private motorists who don't find it necessary to advertise their affluence by the amount of pollution they produce, which is partly why 4X4s attract so much more opprobrium than expensive saloons.
|
There are plenty of overtly affluent private motorists who don't find it necessary to advertise their affluence by the amount of pollution they produce, which is partly why 4X4s attract so much more opprobrium than expensive saloons.
So it's not how much pollution they actually produce that you care about, it's how much pollution they 'advertise' that they produce? Since you seem to be suggesting that executive saloons aren't as bad, despite us already having settled that they can be just as polluting (if not more).
And now people are allowed to be well off as long as they don't rub your nose in it?
Your arguments, as you try more and more to distance yourself from any politics of envy accusation, just sound more and more like bitterness and envy.
|
>> There are plenty of overtly affluent private motorists who don't find >> it necessary to advertise their affluence by the amount of pollution >> they produce, which is partly why 4X4s attract so much more >> opprobrium than expensive saloons. So it's not how much pollution they actually produce that you care about, it's how much pollution they 'advertise' that they produce? Since you seem to be suggesting that executive saloons aren't as bad, despite us already having settled that they can be just as polluting (if not more).
Sigh :( I was responding to No$h's petulant claim that anyone who disapproves of higher-polluting monster vehicles must want one themselves.
I'm interested in the pollution and the safety problems; but it's inevitable that someone who advertises themselves as a polluter is going to attract more opprobrium.
You are only partly right about "executive" saloons; sure, there are vastly polluting saloons. But saloons are, as a class, more energy efficient and less polluting than a 4X4.
For example, a Citroen C6 diesel automatic emits 230g/km, but the same engine in an automatic Discovery 3 omits a whopping 350g/km.
And now people are allowed to be well off as long as they don't rub your nose in it?
Nope. It's best to levy the tax on the CO2 emissions. But if people who choose to be high polluters also choose to run people's nose in that fact, why are they surprised that an opportunist politician like Ken Livingstone can make political capital out of calling them idiots?
Your arguments, as you try more and more to distance yourself from any politics of envy accusation, just sound more and more like bitterness and envy.
Rather strange logic there, bazza.
Plenty of folks disapprove strongly of people who carry guns and knives. Do you think that must mean that they really want guns themselves?
|
>>>> Your arguments, as you try more and more to distance yourself from any politics of envy accusation, just sound more and more like bitterness and envy.
>>Rather strange logic there, bazza.
Its not so much the logic as the fact that its rather difficult to explain.
It not so much the fact that you want one, its just that I suspect many of your ilk are rather scared that having one might be a fun thing to do, or worse that people close to you might perceive it so. So rather than being secure in your own decision not to have one, you need to do your best to ensure that everybody else understands that owning one is bad, otherwise they might not treat your decision with the respect and admiration that you feel it deserves.
In my opinion it is much more that than any care for the environment which drives people like yourself.
|
For example, a Citroen C6 diesel automatic emits 230g/km, but the same engine in an automatic Discovery 3 omits a whopping 350g/km.
I'm sorry but since when?! According to www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk (the offical statistics for the government) the C6 is indeed 230g/km, the LR Discovery is listed as 270g/km in Automatic form for the 2007 Model year. The 4.4v8 Petrol is listed at 354g/km. 40g/km is not a small difference I'll grant, but it's not the gap you are trying to portray.
Let's leave aside the real world vs artifical MPG argument. A Focus ST is 30.1mpg and 224g/km on the government cycle, never mind that most owners turn in about 23mpg which equates to 300g/km or so. Experience driving heavy vehicles i.e. 4x4 or large saloons suggests you are more likely to equal or better the economy in those than smaller vehicles simply because they aren't dynamically suited to being thrashed.
|
Thanks cjehuk. I was just turning a subtle shade of purple at the use of the 4.4V8 figures to compare with a C6 diesel when I saw you had picked up on it.
I'm mildy disappointed Now Wheels, I thought you would be a little more careful in the figures you quote.
|
I'm interested in the pollution and the safety problems; but it's inevitable that someone who advertises themselves as a polluter is going to attract more opprobrium.
Of course, another way to reduce danger and pollution from larger or thirstier vehicles would be to limit their
speed - for instance, subject them to exactly the same restrictions as goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes
MLW - 40MPH on single carriageways, 50 on dual carriageways, and 60 on motorways.
|
>> Your arguments, as you try more and more to distance yourself >> from any politics of envy accusation, just sound more and more >> like bitterness and envy. Rather strange logic there, bazza.
There was no logic involved or expressed, it was just a statement. You are arguing long and hard that your attitude is all about the greater good, but every time someone points out the failings in your arguments and repetitions you're responses just come across as more and more bitter.
Mark has it dead right, it's not envy in terms of wanting the vehicles that these people have, it's more of a 'I don't want it so why should others have the choice' thing. You really do come across as envying their having the choice rather than the specific choice they make.
I notice you describe it as 'opportunist political capital' to aim for 4x4's when Ken does it. What exactly was it on the many occasions when you have ridden that particular bandwagon on this forum?
|
Once again, you assume that because you aspired to a particular consumer good, anyone who points out its dangers must want one too.
There are plenty of overtly affluent private motorists who don't find it necessary to advertise their affluence by the amount of pollution they produce, which is partly why 4X4s attract so much more opprobrium than expensive saloons.
I think i'm beginning to get the angle now.....you don't want a nice car, because it's not your priority, so no one else should either....plus.....those that do want a nice car are only doing it so that they can say 'two fingers to the rest of you' i'm rich and can afford the bills and will chuck out all this mess out of my exhaust to prove it" ...
hmmm.....I think you'll find there's a bit more to it than that....
the chap up the road from me (him and wife are schoolteachers) has one of those horrible nasty Discovery's and horror of horrors, he lives in a city.... he has it to
- tow his damned great caravan (4 times a year usually, once to France)
- take the kids canoeing (it's huge and fits on the roof)
- tow a small trailer (dump type things, so you don't mank up the interior)
- do the school run (seen loads of kids in it, they all get their own seat).....
perfectly reasonable to me, why should he feel guilty about that
I have a nice car because i want:....comfort, smoothness, performance, quality stereo, many extras and wanted to own something with a heritage......i'm not rich....... and neither is my neighbour......and i have no need to try to show my (perceived?) wealth through my CO2 emissions.... what poppycock.
|
>>A Focus ST is 30.1mpg and 224g/km on the government cycle>>
Aha, just scraping in to a lower bracket, that saves £190 in 2008/09. Would make me feel a little better, denying Gordon his 190 quid due to one measly g/km.
|
We have a Land Rover Discovery 3, it has a 2.7 litre diesel engine and it is the best car we have owned, ever.
Why did we buy it?
Well, we're a family, and so we need a family car. What must it do? Well, it's got to be big, being over 6ft. with a very tall family of 4, the car must be able to accomodate for us on long journeys. Really, that rules out the typical-sized family cars, like the Mondeo etc.
Secondly, having children with friends, having family friends, and having the need to carry many business-men in the car at once means that 7 seats are essential.
Thirdly, the car is used as a means of executive transport, and instead of having a seperate exec. like a Merc. or BMW, we looked for a car that would incorporate comfortable ride quality into the family car. Regular long-distance jaunts in an uncomfortable car is not acceptable.
Fourthly, we need a car that is able to adapt to a variety of different machines. For example, we need something with a van-sized loadbay for carrying beds, dishwashers, and other large pieces of furniture and appliances. Then, through the flick of a few levers, the car needs to be able to carry my whole family, have space for the dog and all her equipment, and still have sufficient space in the boot for out entire familys luggage for a 3 week holiday down south.
It also has to be safe - given the number of idiots on the road nowadays. The safety of my family is my number one priority, and any environmental who can't see this as important - well, don't get me started.
So, that sums up why we need it as a family car. But we also need a car that is able to take us ANYWHERE irrespective of conditions. When the roads are layered in ice, there's 6 inches of snow and its thundering with rain - there are still places I HAVE to be. When we are in the countryside where conditions are regularly poor, we need a car that will shrug it off.
When, in November 2004, the Discovery 3 was put on sale by Land Rover, for the first time we were confronted with a car which did ALL of these above qualities without lifting a finger. ONE car that does everything we could possibly need in our demanding lives, ONE car that does EXACTLY what it says on the tin, and on top of that it returns more than 30mpg and, 2 and a half years on, we are still finding out more and more about the car which makes it even more fantastic. We have owned superminis, hatchbacks, family saloons, family estates, people carriers, mini-MPVs, off roaders, but NOTHING has been as BRILLIANT as the Discovery. I wouldn't have anything else.
I have paid to have all the CO2 emmited by the Discovery off-set through a variety of means, organised by climate experts Climatecare. Land Rover now does this for ALL of its cars. Considering all that it does, the car is superbly economical, and shows outstanding value for money.
Some people don't understand this, and thats their loss, not mine. Of course Gordon Brown has to be seen as being eco-friendly, and so yes we will have to pay a wee bit more to tax it. But these days, that's the price you have to pay for owning something of such outstanding brilliance.
Can't accept that? Well, there you go. Just keep your nose out of my business.
Cheers
|
|
I have to say that the Discovery I went to Ireland in whispered along at 100 and did about 28mpg under those demanding conditions... Very efficient device, and refined.
|
I have to say that the Discovery I went to Ireland in whispered along at 100
KPH. 60MPH-ish.
|
KPH. 60MPH-ish.
Driven by non-wede, non-wet Paddy and it was a solid 160kph.
|
>> KPH. 60MPH-ish. >> Driven by non-wede, non-wet Paddy and it was a solid 160kph.
Ooooh! *Naughty* Lud!
|
>> >> KPH. 60MPH-ish. >> >> >> >> Driven by non-wede, non-wet Paddy and it was a solid 160kph. Ooooh! *Naughty* Lud!
I re-open this to guess that the road you did that on must've been an exceptional one for over therr.
So, 28MPG at 100 MPH, eh??
|
Ooooh! *Naughty* Lud!
Who, me? A mere helpless passenger my dear fellow.
The owner was perfectly prepared to let me drive, although more than happy to do so himself. I wouldn't have minded having a go, but I have outgrown the stage of life where I couldn't be happy until I had laid hands on the controls. So I didn't ask and he didn't ask me to.
|
">The safety of my family is my number one priority,<"
Then why buy a 4x4?
|
Wow, what a good thread! Was there anything good on TV tonight that I missed?
Can I recommend this for further reading?
www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Meanwhile SWMBO informs me that she is so fed up with hearing about Global Warming that she fancies a 4x4 - she always was an awkward so-and-so. She quite likes the Mitsubishi Outlander - I don't reckon that it will make much difference to the phenomenal 0.6deg warming we have had since 1880 and her desire to spend the rest of her life in a warmer climate might be more easily achieved by moving to the South of France.
So which is it - Mitsubishi or South of France? Or maybe both?
--
Phil
|
>>Meanwhile SWMBO informs me that she is so fed up with hearing about Global Warming that she fancies a 4x4
I agree totally. But don't expect the interfering fools to understand that, they're too busy avoiding the realisaton that they find other people's lifes more interesting than their own - although you can see the point, sack-cloth is very itchy.
|
|
Have I missed something, or did Blagger Brown state that the petrol price rise was deferred till october. I only ask because all my local petrol stations have mysteriously put their prices up 2-3p/litre.
|
As far as I am concerned people can buy whatever cars they like. It is usually with money earned after tax and then you are taxed on everthing else afterwards.
I do not see why people should have to appologise for buying a Disco 3, they are a nice car and made in Britain. I wish I could afford one.
This post has been fun, I agree with NoDo$h, even though he once banned me for mentioning Hitler.
I think some of the comrades on this post should consider moving to North Korea or Cuba (a few gas guzzlers there though) and leave the rest of us to continue to live.
How many coal fired powerstations are the Chinese building per week?
|
As far back as I can remember VED was commonly known as road tax. ie, a tax to pay for the upkeep of the road.
Since when, and who decided that it should become an environmental tax instead?
|
As far back as I can remember VED was commonly known as road tax. ie, a tax to pay for the upkeep of the road. Since when, and who decided that it should become an environmental tax instead?
When politicians realised that they could raise taxes and claim the moral high ground by pretending it was for the good of our children and our childrens children, and silence objectors by berating them as selfish and immoral.
Which is why scientists and climatologists are split on global warming, but politicians are 100% convinced of it.
--
|
Scientists and climatologists are no more split on global warming than they are on HIV causing AIDS or cigarettes causing lung cancer. If you seriously believe otherwise, you need to question where you're getting your information from.
|
Yep!
I bet climatologists are just as confused about AIDS and fags as so called scientists are about global warming! ;-)
Seriously, lets assume global warming exist, the real question is the cause.
|
|
KMO- a perfect example of why the pro-C02/Global warming lot have no credibility. There is HUGE dispute between scientists. Just because you ignore the dissenting comments, doesn't mean they aren't there.
|
>When politicians realised that they could raise taxes and claim the moral high ground..
Which is where NW originally stepped into the thread with her naive disbelief that Gordon wasn't thinking about the environment and Mexican tortilla prices when he imposed his 'Green' taxes.
However, politicians weren't the first to use this smokescreen.
"..during the 1980s extremist groups "captured" the vocabulary of the environmental movement's language (and the media's attention) by using the aims of the original environmental movement as an umbrella for their own political agendas.
Extremist groups share a common perception about the world. They are anti-science, anti-technology, anti-trade, anti-globalization - not just free trade, but all trade. People who embrace extremist views and philosophies believe all large machines are inherently evil, and - worse - science is used to justify positions that actually have nothing to do with science."
Dr. Patrick Moore (a founder of Greenpeace.)
Kevin...
|
Which is where NW originally stepped into the thread with her naive disbelief that Gordon wasn't thinking about the environment and Mexican tortilla prices when he imposed his 'Green' taxes.
What a pity that a few posters have been unable to participate in this thread without resorting to attacking the people they disagree with. At least Kevin isn't a former moderator, but it would help to actually read what I wrote before starting sneering.
Of course Brown was thinking of raising money: that's what a Chancellor, of any hue, has to do. You might as well criticise a Defence Secretary for wanting the army to have guns.
My point was that whatever the other motives, this tax does have a useful green function, in providing some sort of discouragement to those considering buying vehicles with high C0 2 emissions. I think that the job could have been done much better (more VED bands, much higher rates, and a non-VAT "first registration" tax on those vehicles), but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Politicians juggle a lot of factors, and sometimes they do good things for murky reasons, and sometimes they do bad things for good reasons ... and they do things of mixed impact for a whole bundle of good and bad reasons.
The Chancellor has to raise money from somewhere, and if he can get some of it from people who choose to create high levels of pollution, fair enough. If he can make some political capital out of it, well that's fine too ... in a democracy, politicians need to build support for what they do.
It's a pity he didn't do a heck of a lot more for the environment, but at least he didn't screw this one up as badly as his tax changes.
|
What a pity that a few posters have been unable to participate in this thread without resorting to attacking the people they disagree with.
Whereas its been ok for you to dictate to others what they can and cant drive, and attack people that dont agree with you!
Tell me something, how often have all the seats in your Almera got bums sat on them, and how often is it just yourself occupying it? If the latter is of a higher percentage than the former, then maybe you ought to consider a smaller vehicle instead. (in other words, practice what you preach)
|
>>What a pity that a few posters have been unable to participate in this thread without resorting to attacking the people they disagree with
The following is not an attack, or a sneer...
"It not so much the fact that you want one, its just that I suspect many of your ilk are rather scared that having one might be a fun thing to do, or worse that people close to you might perceive it so. So rather than being secure in your own decision not to have one, you need to do your best to ensure that everybody else understands that owning one is bad, otherwise they might not treat your decision with the respect and admiration that you feel it deserves."
It merely addresses what I suspect to be the motivation for the opinions you voice and the manner in which you voice them. Or are we only permitted to take your opinions on face value and not consider what lies beneath them ?
You are sanctimonious and hypocritical. To make matters worse you set yourself up on a higher pedastal of honesty, objectiveness smf perecption than those around you who are clearly of a lower order given that they disagree with you. You represent your self, at least by implication, as a carer for your fellow man and environment.
I believe you to be none of those and merely driven by a need for your views to be inflicted upon others, controlling of others, and recognised publicly by others as higher than their own.
If it were not the planet, it would be social security, vivisection, speeding, homelessness, poverty, or one of many other essentially worthy topics which you would undermine with your fervent and irrational "soapboxing".
Such concern as should be felt for the environment is usually lessened due to the alienation effect of having the views of a fanatic forced down ones throat.
I trust I am being clear.
|
At least Kevin isn't a former moderator,
And what has that got to do with anything? As I said previously, if I felt ND's comments were out of order; regardless of whether or not he was a former moderator, I would have dealt with it just like anyone else's postings.
DD.
|
>What a pity that a few posters have been unable to participate in this thread without resorting to
>attacking the people they disagree with. At least Kevin isn't a former moderator, but it would help
>to actually read what I wrote before starting sneering.
NW, you really do have problems don't you?
You see every post which disagrees, or heaven forbid is critical of what you say, as a personal attack. Instead of responding with convincing arguments you then try to assume some sort of superiority by claiming that the poster has misread or misunderstood what you said.
FWIW, I did read what you said. In case you've forgotten, I'll quote it in full:
"That step is idiotic :(
Biofuels are already pushing up the price of grain North America to record levels, hitting poor Mexicans hard. Broon professes lots of commitment to helping poorer people in the third world, but this encouragement of biofuels will make a lot of people hungrier. Not very joined-up thinking ..."
How you attempt to reconcile that with what your last post claims it meant will be amusing. But, of course, you won't do that will you? You'll retreat from this thread still convinced that you are right and everyone else is too stupid to see your "truth".
Mark said that you were sanctimonious and hypocritical. He was only partially correct - I'd add pontificating.
Kevin...
|
As far back as I can remember VED was commonly known as road tax. ie, a tax to pay for the upkeep of the road. Since when, and who decided that it should become an environmental tax instead?
>>
Short answer - Winston S Churchill was the first Chancellor to raid the road tax fund.
Slightly longer response - you voted for them, if you don't like what they do vote for someone different next time.
Before you come back with a narrow riposte, that in fact you didn't vote for them - I mean that in the broader sense i.e. we, the British electorate voted for them. Whatever else you may think or say, the electoral system is, roughly speaking, democratic.
Perhaps you disagree?
|
>>> Perhaps you disagree?
Not at all drbe. Mine was simply a question of when and why, of which youve answrred.
|
>>Winston S Churchill was the first Chancellor to raid the road tax fund.
They did not have cars before WSC was Chancellor.
|
I've had a revelation!
I've realised that I pretty much dislike 4x4s. I noticed it yesterday when I was going into a kids party and a couple were unloading their child from some Volvo 4x4 monstrosity. I suddenly realised what an ugly brute it was (the car, not the child - though it was a close run thing). Apart from that instinct, I also dislike them because often in an accident between one of them and my car, I'm likely to come off worst.
However, unlike the Nanny staters on here, I don't think they should be banned or persecuted on a taxation basis. Live and let live and all that. But you lot won't understand how I can dislike something and yet not want it banned, because your religion (aka political leaning) says that you must control everyone until they all do what you want.
V
|
|
Not quite all of us Vin...
|
Lud,
Sorry, by "you", I meant the people on here who think they have a right to bring us all down to the same level so they can get a smug, self-satisfied glow out of their self-denial as long as everyone else is suffering as much as them.
I would find it hard to lump you amongst that lot.
V
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
