Red Diesel

[poggy]

Hi,

I think you'll find that aircraft carriers are nuclear rather than fossil fuel.

Also the use of tanks isn't for leisure use, so a little insulting to blame them for the pollution caused. Also what a complete load of rubbish, the number of tanks being used doesn't come close to the number of motor boats used. I am pretty sure most people in Iraq would prefer to be at home. Out of all the comparisons, this seems to be the most stupid. You talk about making a valid argument, all you have done is point out the fact that fossil fuels are used elsewhere. Just because others are worse is no justification.

The argument isn't just about pollution it is about the fact red diesel has lower fuel duty than standard diesel for no apparent reason, other than being a loophole. There is no need to justify an increase in tax, the argument as far as the public is concerned is why shouldn't there be an increase to match the normal fuel duty.

If all you want to do is get to places quickly, I am sure you can do it faster than by motor boat. Do you not enjoy the process of getting there at all ??.

Andy



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Stand up and be counted or be quiet

Quite right!

I am standing up to be counted. I believe there should be an energy tax on all forms of fuel that cause environmental degradation. I believe that tax should be directly related to that fuel's environmental impact. I believe there should be no exceptions, not hospitals, not jet aircraft, not central heating, not fishermen or farmers, not tanks or warships, not trains, not boaters. And I believe the tax should be at a level that makes us think twice about whether we really need to use that fuel. Yes, I regret the fact that the government will spend that tax in ways I don't approve of, but that's just the way the seagull shits.

That's all for now - I have to cycle sanctimoniously down to the post office.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[markles]

I couldn't agree more. OK, people who depend on their boat for a living may be justified, but for your average weekend boater there is no justification whatsoever for cheap diesel. They should pay the full wack like everyone else.

Mark

 

[[2068]]

Okay then, how about the smaller and slower mobos. Say 24ft, that currently use maybe 15 gallons to travel 50miles. They can just about afford to run their boat, paying thousands each year on marina fees, and a few hundred on diesel. Do they "deserve" to be driven off the water by tripling their fuel bill ?

The point most seem to be missing is that the truly rich simply won't care about the increase. They don't in the rest of Europe, so why should they here ? The UK is the oddity, having a mixed fleet of smaller craft that some seem to think shouldn't exist.

In the middle, I would expect quite a few of the mid-sized cruisers to emigrate, and those that remain probably won't move much, apart from short positioning trips.

dv.

 

[Guest]

Oil and Water .........

Trouble is the argument to stop the bickering between Raggies and Mobos .... is mostly from Raggies .... I'm a Raggie m'self and I am annoyed at how many times it comes up.

Red Diesel is soon to come to an end through its own demise anyway - no-one seems to look at that aspect.

ULSD - Road stuff is an entirely different grade to Red / Agricultural Diesel ..... there is world-wide pressure to end the 0.2% Sulphur diesel use which is base for red. Pressure is on to replace it with 50ppm Sulphur similar to road grade ...

So how do you solve that one ? OK - I don't want ULSD in my trusty old Perkins .... but I'm lucky that I work withe the stuff and can get my hands on the additive to stop the injection pump etc. wearing itself out on the ULSD stuff.

The fact of the matter is its a battle that has a finite end anyway in the base product ............. I haven't any info on what will happen to farmers and other legit users of Red / subsidised diesel ....

OK - before anyone shouts me down - Red Diesel is red because of Dye added to the diesel - it makes no difference if high or low sulphur content - but traditional Red Diesel has been 0.2% Gasoil ..... a product that is getting less and less available as refinerys change to low sulphur production diesels.

I use about 100ltrs a year diesel ........ so the price hike will not hit me so badly as the poor guy down the berth with his MOBO - I really feel sorry for him - he likes MOBO's - he has no wish to put up cloth to push him along through the water .... so please don't knock him for his choice. Ok there are some real pr--t MOBO owners - but there are some real pr--t sail-boat owners as well ....

Unite and fight - quit the sideline rubbish .....

 

[Guest]

<<After several diesel bug incidents I now use yellow diesel exclusively as it's cleaner. >>

Who told you that ???? Sorry to burst your bubble on that - but thats hogwash .....

The only reason you would find the red being inferior to road is due to tankage or containers used to store / transport etc.

As a lab who tests diesels - I can honestly say that quality control is similar whichever grade ..... otherwise I'd be out of work !!

 

[Bergman]

Dead right Moose.

Why people want to pay more tax amazes me - as if we did'nt pay enough.

I think its the smug self satisfaction that niggles, together with the lack of imagination to ask for ANY tax to be justified by the need to increase revenue rather than to carry out some ill defined social engineering.

Madness

 

[Bergman]

Re: An afterthought

There is no need to justify NOT imposing a tax, its the imposition that needs to be justified - and in this case it isn't.

Can anyone justify the level of duty + addition of payment of VAT on duty that we pay now

Why not get rid of duty or at least significantly reduce it, and then Diesel can be any colour you like.

 

[Gunfleet]

Absolutely right. Let's have a boat fund licence too while we're at it, plus a Statutory Off The Water notice when it's, er, off the water.

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Oil and Water .........

It doesn't come up as often as you think, at least not for a while. It's just that a year old thread has been resurrected

 

[Stevie_T]

Re: Oil and Water .........

[ QUOTE ]
In the middle, I would expect quite a few of the mid-sized cruisers to emigrate, and those that remain probably won't move much, apart from short positioning trips.


[/ QUOTE ]
Something good to come out of it then! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[oldgit]

Think those small displacement boats must be thirsty buggers and reckon they will do a bit better than 15 galls over 50 miles,my twin diesel 10 metre 6 ton boat would use about that going at around 6/7/9 knots.Average fuel burn around 2 gph.
Obviously whizzing around will incease the consumption considerably but guess that a little boat with a 4108 or similar should use about 3/4 gallon per hour.

 

[milltech]

Did I miss the joke? I think I must have, such a post from such an erudite, sensible and amusing contributor must hide a joke I've missed, but I will rise to the bait.

Surely you can't be serious, how would you commence taxing a Government Departments use of fuel?

In what way would making fuel for trains more expensive assist in the overall reduction of fossil fuels? On the contrary, imagine all rail travel was free at the point of delivery and even I might give up the car. Directing fuel policy towards better or worse use must be a Government obligation, Granny should not pay the same for her heating oil as a private driver going to the golf club. You're being silly.

In what way does buggering our own economy faster than anyone else buggers theirs help the world? We have oil, Norwegians have oil, who pays most for road fuel, why Britain and Norway of course! So let some of the others catch up before we take the next step.

Additional taxation on fuel for boats would have a large impact on the British Marine Industry because of it's non essential use. The reason the Government taxes road fuel so highly is not to save the world, it's because they make more money that way, (they always have), and they KNOW that even if we all have to live on baked beans for the rest of our lives we would do it to keep the cars. That's why the tax is high, the same rules do not apply to boats where neither the tax earned nor the volume of use justifies the tax, and because jobs and economic factors exist largely as a result of tradition and practice, (in other words sensible fuel costs over many decades).

If Gordon was serious he would make hybrid cars under a certain size tax free, would do the same + tax advantages for hydrogen power, and would be investing in nuclear energy. I read somewhere that 30% of our fossil burn is from power stations and yet all those silly people in Yarmouth, (where we like to take our boats) are objecting to the local wind farm, and Government support nationally is at best half hearted. None of us like nuclear but it's time to get serious about that.

I could go on but I'm feeling tired and it's only 08:17.

 

[milltech]

[ QUOTE ]
fact red diesel has lower fuel duty than standard diesel for no apparent reason, other than being a loophole. There is no need to justify an increase in tax, the argument as far as the public is concerned is why shouldn't there be an increase to match the normal fuel duty

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but you're standing the argument on its head. Road fuel duty+tax is high because we are prepared to pay that to have personal transport, not because it saves the world. Marine fuel has always enjoyed a low tax status, as does aviation spirit, tweaking the latter might be a good idea, doubling the cost of marine diesel merely ruins a perfectly good industry. You would give up the boat, you would not give up the car, it's as simple as that.

 

[milltech]

Cynical but true!

 

[Guest]

Re: Oil and Water .........

Bit of a mix there - wasn't my quote !!