red diesel goes to appeal

[ditchcrawler]

CF1 says that obviously if info is on a website or in the Telegraph we believe it The point is that there is information in the world available to read & I was only trying to make the point that it all should be considered.We are not yet in the grip of the thought police(but not long now)
Last week Margaret Becket compared climate sceptics to advocates of Islamic terror.Neither she said should have access to the media.I find this very worrying.
I do not usually partake in answers to obvious trolls but what happened to free speach & debate.
I have absolutely no technical or scientific knowledge re global warming or carbon emissions etc, but I am sceptical of the Governments agenda when politicians make statements like the one above.What is it they do not want us to find out.
Oh I know.The fact that wind power receives a subsidy of (at the last count) some £135000 per megawatt of power produced which is not included in the figures when the Govt tell us how much electricity generated by windpower costs.Guess who is paying for this via the back door.
I think we all appreciate that we need to "save the earth"
Just out of interest the Stern report came to this conclusion on nuclear power."We argue that a portfolio of technologies will be needed"Wow.How much did that cost.

 

[fireball]

Ah - so you can't actually get rid of it - only store it somewhere else .....

 

[Pye_End]

Spooks tonight was quite interesting on this matter!

By the way, it is the scientific community that is driving this - politicians are very slow to react. However, I do not trust the political leaders to react in the right way either.

I remember my father telling me all about global warming and CO2 when I was a child 25 years ago!

 

[KevB]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember my father telling me all about global warming and CO2 when I was a child 25 years ago!

[/ QUOTE ]

And still it hasn't happened.

 

[simon_sluggett]

The derrogation on red diesel is immoral and unsubstainable and willl dissapear one day soon. But we still go on buying gas guzzling mobos. Look everything we do causes CO2 omisions including leasure activities, but surely we have to have some moral standpoint to use the worlds finite resources sensibly. We can still have fun but with a little less cost to the world.
The argument for a higher tax on fuel is a good one, look at the transport industry in our country, one of the highest taxed in the world- but the most efficient in the world. Put aside the argument that politicians just want to grab and squander our money, that may be true, but the effect higher tax has on our behaviour alone has a benefit to the country. It makes us more efficient and innovative. The UK boating industry should be leading the way in green technology not burying its head in the sand ( the effect derrogation is having at the moment).
So wake up and smell the coffee guys!

 

[simon_sluggett]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with you on this.

If the planet ever does scream at man's effect on it, I think the blame will be put at the politics, and the inability of the world's leaders to get together and make sensible decisions.

Meanwhile time marches on, and none of the problems get addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why blame the politicians, you and I voted them in. Start making a difference yourself. Do little things , they add up into big things. Politicians are always re-active, they will follow the public opinion, thats you and me! If they know it will get your vote they will do it! And get their butts kicked if they dont!

 

[fireball]

I disagree with your opinion that derogration on Red is immoral - when it comes to taxes there are no morals only ways of getting more money out of the general public - usually hurting most those who are living at the top of their means.

What you could argue is morally indefensible is the apparent carefree use of fossil fuels - and one way to discourage heavy usage will be to raise the price of it....

Look at the price rise in Road Fuel - it has been increasing steadily and yet there are still more cars on the road now than there were 10 or 20 years ago - indiciative of the fact that tax alone will not curb usage.
Until there is a viable and affordable alternative to fossil fuels for the everyday user we will not see a reduction in consumption. As a saily boater the effect of doubling the price of fuel will have minimal impact on the boat use - so my consumption will not change, I would think that there are many more in the same position as me. The people who it will affect are those that are on tight budgets who will then not travel so far and have less money to spend where ever they do manage to afford to go - so less money into the local economy then ...
For some it will be the difference between boating in this country or selling up and chartering overseas - more CO2 from the increased flights and less money in the UK economy...

It has already been said that any massive tax increase in marine fuel will not have a possitive impact on the countries treasury so I fail to see what there is to be gained by increasing tax on it.
I'd happily pay 100% extra IF the money went straight into a nationally funded research program for renewable energy sources that would eventually result in the affordable & reliable technology we need to replace our dirty, smelly engines

 

[beejum06]

It's refreshing that this discussion has settled into a good debate. I guess the more vehement defenders of their perceived rights have chugged out to sea. I'm just surprised that nobody suggested that the 6 billion people on spaceship earth simply stop exhaling.

I must repeat that I believe that the recreational use of fossil fuels should be surtaxed. This doesn't mean that all use - necessary transportation, production, etc - falls into the surtax category. (I've just read that California's second-largest source of CO2 pollution after the automobile is the film industry! That would be recreation!) To achieve this all fuels should be priced at a maximum rate and those entitled to reductions and rebates may claim them.

It's very easy to blame the politicians for inaction but it's up to us to talk to them in great number and strong voice when issues arise which only they can address. And, yes, they must set examples with which we can find no fault. Certainly politicians must immediately stop pandering to Big Oil but we, the consumer, the taxpayer and the voter have more clout than we give ourselves credit for. The perpetual guideline is, Think globally, act locally. It's wrong to point the finger at the US and Asia as excuse for our own irresponsible activities.

I'm Canadian; an anglo-Quebecker (no, I don't live in an igloo; no, I don't heat for eight months of the year nor air condition for four). I'm appalled at my government's opting out of Kyoto and embarrassed that Canada is 51st in the world on environmental issues. Unlike Europe, we still allow small 2-cycle engines to operate on our waterways, in our backyards and wilderness areas. My city is twenty years behind in discouraging automobile use. All issues to take to the politicians.

But the real initiative has to start with me and the example I set.

 

[Becky]

Regardless of the erudite opinions, debates and general concerns, nobody has mentioned what, for me, would be the best effect in a HUGE reduction in the use of fossil fuels.











And that would be that the d#@ mm~ed arabs would loose all power over our lives, and could just exist in their deserts and eat sand and dates like they have done for thousands of years before they discovered oil.

 

[Robin]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just surprised that nobody suggested that the 6 billion people on spaceship earth simply stop exhaling.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? It's no dafter than believing that we can do anything other than change the timing of any change by more than a nanosecond.

How exactly DO you heat your wigwams in Quebec? Wood burning stove?

And you didn't answer my earlier question as to IF you are even a boater. If you are not why visit a Boating Forum and maybe you need to look elsewhere to find folks with other activities to find fault with.

Oh and I will boast being very green. I have both wind and solar power (sizeable units of both) on my (sailing) boat which is just 2 miles from where I live. I will cheerfully ignore that the boat (and the alternative energy providers) consumed lots of other materials and energy in their construction as did the car (4x4 but quite high up near the goodies end in the total carbon footprint table) I will drive to the marina. I do live in the warmer south of the UK and by not turning on the heating until 1/11 (that's November to us not January) will have got a partial carbon credit towards next years diesel for the boat. I have also taken heed of the advice on TV today (BBC) to save energy by cooking in smaller saucepans, in fact I went one better today and ate a raw lunch, AND, also as suggested by the BBC, I moved our refrigerator another 2" away from the wall to increase it's efficiency. Unfortunately where I live there is no ice store outside of the door even in mid winter and my dear lady wife is a Yank who could not possibly survive without copious supplies of ice.

 

[fireball]

[ QUOTE ]
I must repeat that I believe that the recreational use of fossil fuels should be surtaxed.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just encouraging Tax for Tax sake ... taxing alone will NEVER have a significant impact on usage (just look at the increase in 4x4's) as people will find ways of affording what they want (another payrise sir?) - just ask yourself - what is one of the contributory factors in inflation? Surely it is (partly) down to someone wanting more money for the same as they produced last year - massive tax hikes just accelarate this.

An alternative to fossil fuels must be found in order to significantly reduce usage.

If Red was to disappear from our shores then it would encorage more fuel searching to go on (you know - like a lot of people do in their cars - find the cheapest petrol station rather than the closest) - which is inturn just burning more fuel - this will be more significant if there is a large difference in fuel cost between the UK and it's european partners...

As for tax - it is a little like going shopping - none of us like paying for nothing ... so we won't want to pay more tax when we can see no tangible benefit coming our way (and less fossil fuel being used is not a benefit!!)

As for us all doing our part - I agree whole heartedly... I already sail rather than motor (when I can) and I am looking for an electric outboard - although this will not be the main tender engine as the electric ones are not a financially viable alternative to the 4stroke I currently have.

Recent events in the UK have seen a massive increase in the number of Solar pannels being sold both for heating and electric - but are we really saving the extra CO2? Is the CO2 emited in the making of the unit less than the amount of CO2 that would be emitted by a national enegery provider for the same amount of energy they produce during the lifespan of the unit? The same question applies to the domestic wind turbines....
All extra things that are going to go wrong and require more energy to fix ... is it better to centralise or at least regionalise and produce the same amount of energy with less component parts?

 

[duncan]

[ QUOTE ]
To achieve this all fuels should be priced at a maximum rate and those entitled to reductions and rebates may claim them.

[/ QUOTE ]

the ultimate get out clause - given the film industry is one of the highest subsidised I guess it would be at the head of the queue................

not sure I understand the concept of supertax - turning it around you would need to establish a global C tax strategy for there to be any real benefit long term. If it wasn't global the corporations would simple leverage it by moving consumption as they do with labour costs.

I am for the principle but not if it's overlayed or localised - and here any little step (1) isn't enough and (2) can be circumvented too easily.

Were we to truly be Earth Inc then, as Robin says so clearly you would simply move everyone from any area that requires 'heating' to one that doesn't and ship the produce from those arable areas to those designated for living. Simple eh?

However if you really want to piss people off you just keep making political issues out of anything environmental instead of dealing with the issue. For example over here currently it is being muted that a carbon tax be introduced through road licencing prices to penalise use of less fuel efficient vehicles. Given that this already exists through fuel "super tax" and that it is efficient in that way because it penalises people for burning fuel rather than happening to own a vehicle they use for 1000miles a year...........you have to ask why? Answer - politics not economics.

Oh and btw - do you own a boat? If so how much do you pay for your fuel per litre?

 

[Marsupial]

People this is one of the best threads ever, it has everything including well reasoned debate. One espect that I have not seen so far is the role played by one of the largest carbon sinks on planet earth - the sea. Others have mentioned the fact that deforestation could have an effect in the current cycle but one thing that strikes me when I have flown over our planet is how green it is, it may not be forest but it is foliage.

However as most of the planet is covered with water the largest carbon sink is not adulterated by human activity and the cycle will proceed as it has done in the past. Yes the planet is warming but the mechanisums that influence these osilations are all alive and well - but they work on a geological time span; Oceans, plantlife, destructor ridges, volcanos, glaciers etc. These mechanisums are precisley why there is life on this rock, coping strategies not combating strategies are what is required.

Not wasting anything is a sound idea but suggesting that thrift in energy consumption will "save the planet" is pure lunacy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. As others have said the UK uses about 2% of the worlds energy - statistically insignificant. If all wore hair vests and stopped doing everything the net effect on planet earth would be the thin end of nothing.

As an aside there was (1992) a theory that seemed then to have some credibility that the planet "makes oil" as a natural geological process so there is therefore no actual shortage of the stuff - if we look for it we will find it.

Thanks for a good thread.

 

[Guest]

Sorry .... who discovered it ?

"thousands of years before they discovered oil. " .....

Think you'll find that we and the americans discovered it - depending on which locations you talk about ...

Second that we Brits were cautious about it and tried to keep refining out of Arabian Gulf and in West hands .... but dear ol USA saw a money spinner and gave them the techno ... bringing into their hands the economic weapon you so speak about ... (of course a broad generalisation .....)

 

[ShipsWoofy]

If it is such a problem, then fuel should be rationed rather than tax tax tax, yet, this seems rather less popular with our current Government.

I am not scared to say I am not happy with the amount of fuel being burned by larger pleasure craft, in fact I have said in previous threads the amount of fuel taken to drive 2 people about is stunningly ludicrous.

I feel if fuel prices did rise, or rationing of some kind introduced, more money would be spent on designing craft that used far less fuel such as power-cats as one example, with an added benefit of much less wake as they pass at high speed.

I personally do not believe the current situation of bigger and bigger power boats can go on, oh I know aeroplanes use fuel too, before anyone chips in, or has already (I have not read the whole thread yet).

I would like to make it clear, that I am not jealous of the gin palace navy either, which is often the retort if anyone disagrees with them.

 

[ShipsWoofy]

capt_birdseye

Are you sure you shouldn't rethink your forum name, capt_birdseye has some connotations you may not be aware of.

 

[oldharry]

[ QUOTE ]

I must repeat that I believe that the recreational use of fossil fuels should be surtaxed.

But the real initiative has to start with me and the example I set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree totally - since when did taxation have ANY effect on the weather? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

To be serious. Give a politician money, he will spend it - on the wrong things. Thats fundamental. In UK Car tax was introduced before the war on the pretext 'to fund road repairs and improvement'. It never has been. Now we are faced with a new idea: road charges 'to pay for the roads'. We were told we already are!

The bland assumption you make that 'green' taxes will actually be used to fund any serious R&D initiative in to alternative fuel and transport technologies is just wishfull thinking. The Army needs new ships, the Navy needs new planes and the Air Force wants to go even faster to keep up with the other two. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

And it all needs money to pay for it - so lets tax hell out of the motorist because it will look good in the manifesto and get votes, will raise cash, and we dont have to actually do anything!

"But the real initiative has to start with me and the example I set. " you say.

Yes but not using the car or turning down the heating will make a barely measurable difference: I live under the Gatwick airport flightpath, with planes passing every 5 or 10 minutes, pushing out tons of co2. In reality the 2 tons a year my home produces equals how many minutes flying time? If I go abroad this winter it will treble my home carbon footprint!

And the car? 7 tons a year apparently. Thats around 1200litres of fuel. At risk of repeating myself the HS ferry going down the Solent a few miles away will have burnt 50,000litres by lunchtime. And another 50,000 litres by teatime. I think thats around 800 tons of CO2. EVERY DAY. (Correct me if I am wrong). The latest HS vessels burn 38,000litres an HOUR. My car would not use that much in 30 years!

And what for? To save a few hours travelling time.

Any one living on the South Coast of UK will have seen the diesel smoke haze that hangs over the English Channel shipping lanes on a windless day.

THESE are the issues that have to be tackled first. When the Politicians actually start grasping the nettle and forcing bulk transport to operate more economically in terms of excessive fuel use, then we can be expected to start fine tuning our domestic habits. Tighter inspection, certification and fuel economic operational requirements would be a starting point. Not popular because of the huge sums of money involved. But vastly more effective globally than trying to cut a few kilos emissions from my little home boiler. Cuts by the ton per bulk user per day, not the kilo per month are what is needed.

But it is naive to assume any TAX ever invented will change anything, except a politicians feel good factor. And you can be sure that any tax that is raised will be diverted by 'constructive accounting' for other purposes.

That is, unless Canadian politicians are honest? If so they are unique in this world..... /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[duncan]

Rerice of canadian marine diesel?

anyone got a current price?

 

[fireball]

Rerice of canadian marine diesel?

Not marine diesel .... but gives an indication.....
[ QUOTE ]
ENERGY PRICES
Diesel fuel prices were relatively stable throughout the 1990s, hovering around 50 cents per litre in southern Ontario and somewhat above or below this in other places depending on local taxes and other factors. This price, and the one shown in Graph 20, are retail prices for diesel at a self-serve outlet. Larger trucking companies pay less than this, perhaps in the range of five to 10 cents a litre less depending on their arrangements with particular sellers

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[fireball]

[ QUOTE ]
But vastly more effective globally than trying to cut a few kilos emissions from my little home boiler.

[/ QUOTE ]
A few kilos from yours, a few from mine and a few from the other 60 million in the UK will add up to something a little less insignificant. Not as significant as stopping all the ships in the channel or grounding all the aircraft .... but has less impact on our way of life ....
I totally agree with your views on where tax is spent....