red diesel reply from meps

I'm not leaving anyone to fight this - I don't agree with this potential increase in tax on fuel for leisure craft - as you helpfully point out - it would make insignificant impact on the treasury.
What I'm trying to say is that the government want us to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel - you cannot seriously suggest this is a bad thing in the long term ..? - and what I want to know is - if the high cost of fuel doesn't deter you from burning it, what would make you use less?

For me - I would consider an electric engine - if the power/storage/charging problems could be resolved. I'm already considering an electric outboard for the tender - but need the petrol one for the main tender due to my mooring location.

No one else seems to come up with a suggestion so I take it that means they don't care - but moan like billyo when the price rises ...

If we just sat back and said - "ok - we want to reduce our use of fossil fuels ... but well - we can't do anything to deter ppl from using it so let's leave the price where it is and hope that someone will come up with a solution" - who in their right mind is going to develop an alternative.

Scientists discover new ways of harnessing/producing energy
Developers take that method and produce a commercially viable product that ppl will want to buy - there is one main reason why ppl will buy it - that is because it is cheaper. Obviously there is some environmental consideration, but not significant against the initial outlay of the device.
eg - If I offered a technically reliable engine complete with availability of renewable energy source - most ppl would be interested ... then if I said, yer - but it is going to cost double your equivalent diesel engine and the fuel will also be more expensive (and these are costs not profits) then who will buy it? A few crackpots maybe - but your average joe will stick with his smog producing diesel until the cost of my device is more comparable or perhaps cheaper....

By increasing the tax on fuel the G is essentially forcing the issue - by making manufacturers and consumers look for more efficient engines or even alternatives - why do you think the hybrid car is now starting to make an appearance - I'll bet that once the cost of these drops to just above your average family car then you'll see a lot more of these on the road...

In order to convert though - the price must be comparable and availability of fuel must come close to matching the convenience of current fuel stations.
 
yup! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

See - it wasn't that difficult was it ...


Now - would you consider putting a sail on that boat to save even more fuel? /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
Well - I think I could add

"Give up Smoking" to my list ....


Ah ha - successful .... well actually I don't smoke in the first place ... but I've just given up a 20 a day habbit ... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
No - i have to be honest, i would claim that the footrprint from the production of a sail and the system to support it would have a carbon footprint that would never be rerpaid by the extra proplusion offered by a sail.

On the other had I could have a huge T shirt like sign on the sail could I not? So maybe - yes, I would consider a sail.
 
[ QUOTE ]
"Give up Smoking" to my list ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I gave up over 4 years ago, work from home, the heating is off all day and the office is lit by the computer screen.

That will give me some carbon credit towards my nice new 4 x 4 then won't it! /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Giving up smoking increases the carbon footprint of manking because it helps people live longer and hence can at some point be balmed for all the CO2 footprint from a huge number of people who otherwise would not be alive.

You see no one is really thinking these things through. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
I thought that formed part of the Crumple zone ! /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif



Before anyone takes any offence/libel or whatever at my comment - it is made purely in jest
 
Ah yes - but if no one smoked then
there wouldn't be a smoking industry - nor the jobs that ppl depend on
there would be less "help you to stop smoking" clinics - and less lung cancer operations on the NHS

the net result is a huge reduction in ppl required to run the industry from birth to death ....

so there'd be less money, more poverty, famine and there would be an equivalent number of "early deaths" - equalling out the negative CFP impact initially created by not smoking.
 
Not really Fireball (by the way I am beginning to understand why they call you Fireball) ..... you are totally up the creek in the position you have taken.

The facts are that famine and lower populations with less money mean less of basically ... mankind. If taken to an extreme to make my point with a world mankind population of zero there would be no CO2 footprint from mankind and so as you add bits of mankind you add CO2 footprint. Mind you this doing away with mankind has to allow for the negative impact caused by the flatulence of other animals that replace mankind in that environmental niche. It is probable that such animals could indeed have a higher flatulence footprint than the mankind it replaced…. But that is at least debatable,

I am sorry I have to go now a van has just drawn up outside – a very smokey one at that and two men have just go out in white coats ……….
 
Must be synchronised pickup then ... there's one outside here too! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

See you inside!! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Re:from lib dems

Dear Mr Palmer

Many thanks for your e-mail.

Liberal Democrats raised this a year ago with the Government in the UK
because the UK has a derogation regarding red diesel and had the option to
apply itself for it to be continued. It wasn't clear why it didn't do this.

Nonetheless eventually the UK Government applied for the derogation to the
Commission, which is now reviewing the application and I will welcome its
extension.

Best regards,

Chris Davies MEP

Liberal Democrat MEP
For the North West of England

-----Original Message-----
From: David Palmer [mailto:davepalme@msn.com]
Sent: 28 November 2006 22:34
To: Chris Davies MEP
Subject: Letter from your constituent David Palmer
 
OK, I shouldn't reply to this, because it will only show my ignorance of chemistry, I'm sure.

But here goes...

Doesn't the carbon come from the fuel and the oxygen come from the air? So the product of the combustion could be heavier than the fuel itself?

<hides because instead of demonstrating the case for red diesel, he has probably demonstrated the general deficiencies of GCSE chemistry>
 
[ QUOTE ]
If we just sat back and said - "ok - we want to reduce our use of fossil fuels ... but well - we can't do anything to deter ppl from using it so let's leave the price where it is and hope that someone will come up with a solution" - who in their right mind is going to develop an alternative.


[/ QUOTE ]

Er, just like technology replaced the horse and cart with the internal combustion engine, technology will replace the internal combustion with something else. Necessity is the mother of invention. We humans are quite ingenious when we have to be
 
Reminded me of one of those joke emails I recieved a while ago, finaly found it after much searcching and reproduced below:



The Government is concerned that, in their drive to cut CO2 emissions, they will alienate motorist voters. They have therefore commissioned a study and come up with what has been dubbed 'The Clarkson Solution'; summarised in the following leaked memo.

Tony
1. Great emphasis is placed on the damage to the environment caused by
CO2 emissions. Much of which is blamed on the motor vehicle.

2. In UK there are approximately 20,000,000 motor vehicles. Each one,
if correctly tuned, produces on average 0.48 cu meters of C02 an hour.
Using AA figures of an average annual mileage of 6500 miles @ an average
speed of 36 mph; each motor vehicle produces 87 cu meters of CO2 a year.
All the cars therefore produce about 1,733,333,333 cu meters a year.

3. There are 64,000,000 people in the UK who, at average breathing
rate, each produces 0.024 cu meters of CO2 an hour. In a year this amounts
to 210 cu meters of CO2 a year. All of us then produce about 13,455,360,000
cu meters of CO2 a year.

4. There are also approximately 280,000,000, domestic and farm mammals
in this country producing in the region of 58,867,200,000 cu meters of CO2 a
year.

5. Therefore, ignoring all the little wild creatures and birds that are
difficult to catch: if each motorist could endeavour to run over and kill
something every 41.7 years they would negate the CO2 cost of running their
car.

6. Unfortunately this is liable to upset animal rights movements. To
take them into consideration animal lovers would need to run
over a person every 7.8 years to negate their CO2 motoring costs.
And if this happened be a traffic warden or similar minor
government official it would avoid adverse publicity, with the
bonus of reducing the Civil Service pension's bill.
Love
Alistair
 
Re:from lib dems

I consider my self to be a quite successful businessman but i have to ask the question?
1/ would you consider entering a business partnership where your partner did not like you?
2/ would you pay more capital in to the business than your partner.
3/ would you take less wages out of the business than your partner?
4/ would you like your partner to introduce more red tape into the business and fine you if you did not follow his rules, but he would be allowed to break the rules when he liked with out penaltys
5/ would you allow your partner to dictate to you on how much
taxes you had to pay.
i am not a educated man but i know i would not want to be in a partnership like this so can someone please educate me as to why this goverment want to form closer ties with the EEC. what advantages do we get from it. i do wish that this goverment had the backbone to stand up for the british and let this great country govern itself like it has done for centuries before joining the EEC. At least then we would not be having this debate about red diesel in pleasure boats
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top