Why cars are taxed on CO2 emission?

Joe_Horner

Dave_C wrote: »

You are right, the aforementioned simple minded people won't believe that man-made climate change is real.

As witnessed by some comments on this thread

Dave

And how exactly does taxing my Jaguar at £475 per year when my neighbour's Kia is taxed at £30 (less than a tenth) make any difference even if AGW is true?*

You see, I only do about 1000 miles a year in it, burning 50 gals of petrol and producing 525kg of CO2 in the process, whereas he does 10000, burning 222 gallons and emitting 2.3 TONNES of the stuff. We both get taxed the same on the fuel used, I get taxed at 1500% more for the car itself, even though I'm producing far less CO2.

Any genuine environmental tax should be levied on what does the alleged environmental harm (ie: the fuel used), not on how you choose to use it (assuming you're not planning on pouring it neat into rivers, of course)

But I doubt many of the simple minds out there who blindly swallow the "we're all gonna fry" propaganda will be able to grasp that concept






* This is an illustration only. I don't have a Jag, my neighbour doesn't have a Kia and I'm solidly socialist in my politics (slightly Left of Lenin for the record).

So please don't start all the "right wing, capitalist blah-de-blah-de-blah" because you'll be just plain wrong

peter_the_piper

I've heard they are thinking about taxing farm animals on their emissions. Cows in Band A, Goats in Band B and sheep in Band C. Just where they put Alpacas and Llamas I don't know.

Mankysteve

Joe_Horner

Not quite sure you understand the concept of Trolling there?

It doesn't mean "someone posted something I don't like / don't see the point of" or "someone posted and hasn't got the grammatical skills I think they should".

In fact, jumping randomly on a thread and posting smart-arrse "someone's trolling" pictures fits the definition far closer than either of those

Mankysteve

Original poster has posted a topic, with a silly remark/controversial in full knowledge that it will start a argument(flame war), that's had been done million times before. Hence the op is trolling.

Strider590

Mankysteve wrote: »

Original poster has posted a topic, with a silly remark/controversial in full knowledge that it will start a argument(flame war), that's had been done million times before. Hence the op is trolling.

But we could say that of anyone who mentions cyclists..... WHO are all perfect and NEVER run red lights!!!!!


(note 5 exclamation marks)

cardinalbiggles

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Still, if they actually believe their own hype, as the world starts to cool they should be paying US to drive bigger cars in order to hold off the ice age

And here is an example of exactly why people who know nothing about climate change should actually read up on it. You are mistaking global warming for climate change, people have not used, and expected to be taken seriously the term global warming for well over 10 years now.

There is no dispute between scientists, its happening and increased CO2 is one of the reasons, absolutely no credible peer reviewed scientific dispute I am afraid.

Tell you what, you get back to your David Icke books yeah?

Strider590

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

And here is an example of exactly why people who know nothing about climate change should actually read up on it. You are mistaking global warming for climate change, people have not used, and expected to be taken seriously the term global warming for well over 10 years now.

There is no dispute between scientists, its happening and increased CO2 is one of the reasons, absolutely no credible peer reviewed scientific dispute I am afraid.

Tell you what, you get back to your David Icke books yeah?

It was called "global warming" up until very recently, when the govt got wind of people saying "hang on a second, we're not idiots, it's bloody freezing outside".

"Climate change" was born...... What is "climate change"?
Yet more b*llsh*t, another buzz word.
The climate is always changing!!!! That's why we have Winter/Spring/Summer/Autumn!!!! On a longer term scale, over millions or years, the earth doing EXACTLY what it's always done!

From http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html



Let's make products that last longer, let's stop raping the planets resources.... THAT would satisfy ALL requirements, but the very people who bang on about "climate change" would find themselves out of business when people stop buying all their latest products.
We need to stop listening to those who make money out of the whole scam.

Joe_Horner

cardinalbiggles wrote: »

[...]

There is no dispute between scientists, its happening and increased CO2 is one of the reasons, absolutely no credible peer reviewed scientific dispute I am afraid.

Tell you what, you get back to your David Icke books yeah?

And here is an outstanding example of why it's so hard to take the alarmists seriously. This short post includes three of the most common tactics used to "prove" your case all in 2 sentences!

(1) Avoid the issue: The (obviously) main point of my posts was that regardless of whether or not AGW is true, taxing cars on their (meaningless) "g/km rating" is only supportable on money-raising grounds NOT on environmental ones. That was also the topic of the thread (why tax on emissions)

(2) Claim "consensus" as if it has any real scientific value whatsoever. Just because "all the experts say..." doesn't make it true, especially when you get to pick who qualifies as an "expert". If it did then the sun would still be orbiting the Earth, just like we KNEW it was a few centuries ago.

(3) Write off any evidence that doesn't suit. In this case, you've actually gone further than most and invented a new category of scientific research - "credible peer reviewed" Science doesn't have to be peer reviewed to be right but The Hockey Team have always held peer review up as essential - unless it involves the IPCC in which case "written by Greenpeace" is an acceptable alternative. Now that more and more peer reviewed papers are casting doubts on their case the obviously need a new category of "credible" peer review - I can only assume that means "peer reviewed by people like us"?

(4) Always remember your parting dig - I've never read a book by David Icke in my life and don't plan to start just because you'd like to label anyone who questions "The Word" as a crank.

(5) IF we can't say it's making the world warm any more, we'll say it's making the climate "change". Sadly that doesn't wash because the only theoretical effect of CO2 is to make the Earth warmer overall. This may, or may not, create regional changes including cooling but if there's no overall warming then it's not CO2 causing it.

Joe_Horner

Strider590 wrote: »

Let's make products that last longer, let's stop raping the planets resources.... THAT would satisfy ALL requirements,

Amen to that*. Also, let's design them to be repairable rather than disposable - good for local economies cos of all those repair men you'll need




* No, using that phrase doesn't mean I'm a God-bothering Creationist before the True Believers try to spin it that way!