Is this green phase just an excuse for more tax

dafloppyone · 6 Dec 2006 at 15:31

examine the evidence.

1.25p increase in petrol ....hardly going to stop anyone not using there car.especially as cars are mainly used to get to work.

result...people have less money

pay by mile- recommended £1.50 a mile charge...result only the rich will be able to drive...mps will only add this to their expenses lists and thus bypass it.

no increases in quality of public transport, no increases in rural areas public transport,.....
result poorer people yet again.

Building renewable fuel sources round the uk, particularly europes biggest windfarm on the eaglesham moors...claimed to be incredibly cheap source of energy able to power 20000 homes. result ..no reduction in energy costs. prices to remain high.

report by shell claiming that they still have not peaked in oil production from north sea oil. claims that they could produce 20million barrells a day by 2020...result higher increases tax "in dwindling supplies"

How many reports at several million each is this government going to waste tax payers money on ?

seriously none of any green proposals will make a difference as we do not produce anything that will make a difference to the world climate....
compare us to the ever increasing resource guzzlers that are china, the usa, pakistan and india and our usage is pretty negligable.

further more if the africans actually start to develop, they are hardly going to go high tech expensive production methods.... they will go cheap dirty tech that will be bettter for their economies

this whole green phase is a complete farce to be honest and unfortunatley the 2 major parties are completely for it

Tute · 6 Dec 2006 at 15:34

Of course it is, do you really think the government gives a **** about global warming?

They drive around in their gas guzzling cars, could you ever see Prescott going to work on a pedal bike?

The public have to recycle, the public have to cut back on what they use, all the while paying the government/council for the priviledge of sifting through our own rubbish.

flump · 6 Dec 2006 at 16:30

Current policy may well be revenue generating for the government, however global warming is unanimously accepted as scientific fact - here is possibly the best known of studies.

Joe42 · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:21

Technology is the solution, not tax, although tax should play a part.

Unfortunately they seem to think putting more tax on fuel and cars will discourage there use... have they not realised there is no alternative?

Although i noticed they have lowered duty on biofuel in the budget which is good and lowered tax for lower emmision vehicles.

Glaucus · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:23

flump said:
Current policy may well be revenue generating for the government, however global warming is unanimously accepted as scientific fact - here is possibly the best known of studies.

No co2 has risen, there is still much debate about natural sources and man made and there varying effects.

Human made global warming is definatley not FACT.

Joe42 said:
Although i noticed they have lowered duty on biofuel

Not really a solution though, the uk can only generate 5% of fuel used for cars and even then that's if we devout every field to bio fuels.

[ASSE]Hinchy · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:26

Completely and its sickening. The only countries in the world that can make a difference are the most unlikely to do so - USA and China. Probably Russia and India too. I seem to remember looking at the top 10 polluting hotspots in the world and they were all in China/Russia etc.

Nothing a little island in Europe does will make a big enough difference. It is scaremongering in an effort to raise revenue without complaints.. In my opinion anyway..

Have I read somewhere that things like volcanoes have actually done more harm to the environment than man? I seem to remember reading that somewhere. Can't remember where though.

Daff_Duck · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:27

Load of pants .. as has widely been reported the savings we make will take China only a couple of years to erode away, due to there economy growing at extreme levels the coal mines and plants that they are opening every few months.

whilst I appreciate that it is perhaps the "right" thing to do in reality the plant has gone through cycles of warmth and cold and until there is a unilatteral agreement that something is done I feel that politicians will jump on the bandwagon and become an excuse to stealth tax.

Joe42 · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:29

AcidHell2 said:
No co2 has risen, there is still much debate about natural sources and man made and there varying effects.

Human made global warming is definatley not FACT.

Not really a solution though, the uk can only generate 5% of fuel used for cars and even then that's if we devout every field to bio fuels.

Its a step in the right direction, albeit a very small one.

Even if we aren't the affecting global warming, we are still going to slowly run out of fossil fuels and so something still has to be done.

I can't understand why they don't legislate to make electric vehicles more popular? The performance is excellent and there have been plenty of technical demos to prove that they are feasible.
The reason they haven't become popular is because car manufacturers and fuel producers will loose out.

Pho · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:39

It's all just an excuse to make money. What they should be doing is banning 4x4s unless you need it (i.e. farmers), remove or cut considerably the tax on bio fuels, promoting working from home where possible. etc.

I can understand them wanting to promote public transport, but I don't see the Government using it. All those private planes can't be good for the environment.

Glaucus · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:43

Joe42 said:
Its a step in the right direction, albeit a very small one.

Even if we aren't the affecting global warming, we are still going to slowly run out of fossil fuels and so something still has to be done.

I can't understand why they don't legislate to make electric vehicles more popular? The performance is excellent and there have been plenty of technical demos to prove that they are feasible.
The reason they haven't become popular is because car manufacturers and fuel producers will loose out.

Not very viable though. As we still use cars to travel long distances on holidays or what ever. It means you would need a petrol car for the once a month long journeys and a electric for the everyday short journeys, till they crack fuel cells.

Joe42 · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:49

AcidHell2 said:
Not very viable though. As we still use cars to travel long distances on holidays or what ever. It means you would need a petrol car for the once a month long journeys and a electric for the everyday short journeys, till they crack fuel cells.

True, unless you had a way of swapping to a fully charged battery at service stations which would be possible and something the government could help with.

Although i'm sure plenty of people would buy a car with a 300 mile range that takes only a couple of hours to charge. These cars could easily be produced.

Glaucus · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:52

Joe42 said:
True, unless you had a way of swapping to a fully charged battery at service stations which would be possible and something the government could help with.

I didn't think of that

, that's a very very good idea..

*See I can be won over* with a decent proposal.

Joe42 · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:59

AcidHell2 said:
I didn't think of that , that's a very very good idea..

*See I can be won over* with a decent proposal.

Imagine that, a car with a 300 mile range, can have the battery swapped at any service station or can be charged anywhere with a socket.
No fuel bills, reduced road tax, no congestion charge, good 0-60 thanks to the motor, no gearbox, easy to drive, very quiet, more reliable.

I'd buy one tomorrow if i could.

All it needs is a little government intervention, but they would loose so much tax money no government will do it.

Lord-Jaffa · 6 Dec 2006 at 17:59

Higher fuel prices is just a tax on the poor

Joe42 · 6 Dec 2006 at 18:00

Lord-Jaffa said:
Higher fuel prices is just a tax on the poor

Its a tax on everyone. Even if public transport was any good it still wouldn't be feasible for the majority not to own a car.

Lord-Jaffa · 6 Dec 2006 at 18:02

Joe42 said:
Imagine that, a car with a 300 mile range, can have the battery swapped at any service station or can be charged anywhere with a socket.
No fuel bills, reduced road tax, no congestion charge, good 0-60 thanks to the motor, no gearbox, easy to drive, very quiet, more reliable.

I'd buy one tomorrow if i could.

All it needs is a little government intervention, but they would loose so much tax money no government will do it.

Yeah i would use one as well, shame no one will take the initiative while oil controls the world.

Lord-Jaffa · 6 Dec 2006 at 18:03

Joe42 said:
Its a tax on everyone. Even if public transport was any good it still wouldn't be feasible for the majority not to own a car.

Point is people who earn 100K+ a year really arent going to care about a tax like this, however people on minimum wage who require a car to survive are really going to be screwed over.