RYA and red diesel (On my high horse)

[Twister_Ken]

In the RYA online questionnaire, I replied that I did not object to increases in the price of red diesel.

I got an apparently individual replay by e-mail from the RYA saying that I was very much in the minority (only 5% or repsondents supported higher prices) and stating that we already pay dtuy and VAT on red. Stupid girl, I knew that already. The tone and content of her reply illustrated how blinkered the RYA is.

The text of my reply is pasted in below.

---------

My reason for believing that red diesel should be more expensive is environmental concern. Every litre of diesel consumed liberates 2.68Kg of CO2 to the atmosphere (figures, Exeter university). CO2 is the prime cause of global warming. In addition to CO2 (and CO and Nox) diesel emissions also contain carcinogenic substances such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. US studies have found over 40 by-products of diesel use that are listed by the Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous air pollutants. In the marine environment, with underwater or water cooled exhausts, these can be dissolved into the sea, increasing the toxicity of the sea to marine organisms. Particulates from diesel engines are small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs where they can cause or contribute to lung diseases.

Powerful motor yachts have appalling 'economy' figures, which can be in multiples of litres per nm. Sunseeker's information for its Predator model, for example, quotes consumption figures of 200 litres per hour, and it's in the nature of publicity material that this will be a best case, not a worst case, consumption figure. The price mechanism is one way of encouraging more economic use of diesel fuel, and that is my reason for not objecting to higher prices

I am distressed that the RYA apparently sees only the economic side of this question, and not the broader issues.

I trust the RYA will make clear in its submission that there were respondents to its consultation exercise that did not object to price increases in red diesel.

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

 

[Chris_Robb]

Ken - it is the eternal problem of enjoying what we want now - and ignoring the "pay for it later" side. I personally would not be unhappy at paying reasonable duties - ie up to French levels - however it was rumoured that the the Gov would want only a single form of taxed deisel - which would retail out of the pumps on marinas at around 90p/l.

This would have one hell of an implication for Powerboat users, but if we are talking about saving the planet - these decisions need taking.

However - we know that one of the main producers of polution - the USA - will not tax theirs - so all our efforts and sacrifices will be all in vain - whilst those selfish !"£$% on the other side of the pond go on indulging themselves at the expense of the rest of the world.





<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Capt_Marlinspike]

I am with you on this, this pollution caused by diesels is in many ways much worse than from petrol. I see no reason why recreational boat users should not be taxed on fuel at the same rate as road users. Obviously those people with motor boats will suffer much more than us yachties from the price rise but I feel that they have to accept that as part of the cost of such gas guzzling machines that they have chosen to use. The increased cost wil be pretty insignificant on the 60 litres a year that I use.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Me too.

<hr width=100% size=1>I Have The Body Of A God... Buddha

 

[extravert]

I agree exactly with what you say, but have not been brave enough to say it here. I also find the fuel consumption of large power boats barely believable.

I realize that my objection to this profligate fuel consumption is somewhat hypocritical, as every time I take a flight another astonishingly large amout of fuel is burnt for my benefit.

<hr width=100% size=1>One day, I want to be a real sailor. In the mean time I'll just keep tri-ing.

 

[StugeronSteve]

I can't really see anyone putting forward a logical counterpoint. I have some sympathy with the argument that the increases should be phased, although I'm not sure that the 200 L/Nm guys would even notice the increase. One would hope that the tax hike would bring with it an insistance that the diesel we are sold will be the higher quality "low" sulpher and particulates grade, which, I would presume, would provide an efficiency benefit.

How do you propose to bring about the 30% cut in green house gas emissions from yer horse?

<hr width=100% size=1>Bring me that horizon.

 

[ChrisE]

Well, you can guess my views

It comes across to the non-boaties I speak to as yet another self-interested group trying to get the best for themselves at the expense of others.

I'll add my comments ti the RYA on-line questionnaire.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[anchorhandler]

Oh come on guys...enviromental issues?
Its all fine and good saying that red diesel should be taxed at the same rate as 'white' diesel on the grounds that its not enviromentaly friendly to burn but ask yourself this....
Does that mean that all the extra revenue generated from the high rate of duty we pay on 'white' diesel goes to enviromental projects then?.......No i dont think so, it just gets dispersed thoughout the system.

Here's one for you....
gas turbines are horrendously fuel In-efficient machines (at the cost of a higher power to weight ratio) however the HMCE has only set the duty on 'Avgas' at 29p/ltr compared to 48p/ltr on normal diesel.
Now think of how many turbine powered planes take off each day in the UK alone....starting to get the jist of where i'm coming from here?

I appreciate that we all have to do our bit to help the enviroment, but lets start tackling some of the major polluters like the airline industry before we go after the small fish like us leisure boaters.

If the government could prove that all the extra revenue gained from an increase in duty on red diesel went purely to funding wind farms or the develepment of bio fuels or any other enviromental projects for that matter then yeah, i and a many others would agree with the rise.

Regards
Simon




<hr width=100% size=1>I'v got 2 ears.2 eyes and 1 mouth....if only i could use them in that proportion!

 

[longjohnsilver]

I hope your high horse bucks and you take a (safe) tumble!!

I also presume that your concern for the environment means that you never fly anywhere?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[racingron]

Why does it have to be fair? That isn't really the point. Whether it's a drop in the ocean, whether the US or the aviation industry are getting away with it - so what?

To my mind it seems a step in the right direction - regardless of whether it's for the right reasons or not. If this makes your 200litres per hour man half his consumption it's a good thing.

Why not take all your obvious energies and passions for this issue and lobby to increase the taxation on aviation fuel?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

<< Why not take all your obvious energies and passions for this issue and lobby to increase the taxation on aviation fuel? >>

Simply because the planes would fill up at the other end - if the increase were too much.

John


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Chris_Robb]

Aviation Fuel

Trouble is we cannot go it alone as a country - it would have huge knock on effect to our business community. Trouble is we will get nowhere at all without the USA changing its attitude. So if they are going to bugger it all up for us anyway - we might as well enjoy it while it lasts!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

I had a go at the Americans recently on an American forum about their complaints on proposed fuel increases which would bring costs up to (still) a fraction of what you are paying - for road fuel. I particularly criticized their penchant for gaz-guzzling SUVs and using up a scarce natural resource to the prejudice of future generations. (Incidentally an American friend explained to me recently that most SUV purchases now are defensive - people who don't want to come off second best in an accident.)

I was vociferously attacked in particular by one correspondant who believed he had an abolute right to choose his Jeep Laredo because he needed it to pull his trailor and his power boat. What did this captain of industry do in life?

He was a student!

John.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I would be very careful about using environmental arguments on this issue. As ljs points out, doubtless you are a user of various forms of pollution producing transport in your daily life. Perhaps you will tell the forum what kind of car(s) you drive just so that we can establish your credentials?
You also might like to think of the quantity of energy that was used and the pollution produced in order to manufacture the materials, particularly the oil based materials, that make up your boat. You also might like to think about how your boat is going to be disposed of once it has come to the end of its life.
Being an eco friendly recylcable self sustaining renewable non-GM sort of guy, I take it you've got answers to all these questions

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

I agree, and have stated elsewhere that I wouldn't object.

BUT!

1) If we do this voluntarily, it will be seen as 'those rich bastards didn't even flinch' instead of being interpreted as an environmental gesture.

2) The revenue won't go into anything useful or eco friendly. It'll pay for another of Tony's growing band of 'advisers'.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rowana]

<<Simply because the planes would fill up at the other end>>

They have to fill up at both ends anyway! Well, certainly if going across the pond. Plus the fact that a plane has only a certain payload, so more fuel = less paying punters or cargo!

Getting back to red diesel. Who else uses it? I know farmers do. If they increase the tax, that will make our farmers even less competitive than they are now. Or do you suggest we go back to the horse and plough?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against an increase. It's just that the full implecations need to be aired and debated first.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[rickp]

Tax on fuel is obviously a very contentious issues, as we all pay it to some extent.

Personally - I would of course like to keep the reduced duty on diesel for boating (and extending it to petrol too). Its not like any tax raised actually goes towards environmental projects - its purely a money raising method for the government under the auspices of 'discouraging use'. However, if it goes, it goes.

One thing we can be pretty sure of though - the very advantageous rate of fuel duty on aviation fuel will remain. I find it *really* hard to believe that the few boaters in the UK burning red diesel produce anything like the amount of pollution that the airlines produce - and jets are producing it high in the atmosphere - which is supposed to be worse right?

So yes - if the message is 'polluter pays', then so be it. Make it fair across the board. (Across the world would be nice too)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[longjohnsilver]

My second reply to the same post and I'm getting more and more angry thinking about most of the responses so far. I run a single engined semi displacement diesel engined boat which I have been very happy to be used as a committee/safety/mother boat for various sailing events. I don't sail but have served on the committee of my sailing club when they couldn't find a sailor to fill the post, I frequently tow broken down yachts when they request help.

I thought that we were all users of the sea and that we would all support each other. It seems I am wrong and my view of the sailing fraternity is now being coloured by what I read here. I am very tempted to say stuff the lot of you but I know that you are not representative of the people I meet. I am just very disappointed that so many of you effectively want to price me out of the hobby I love for no good reason.

I just hope none of you have to call for help from any diesel powered motor vessel at any time in the future. And if you do I hope they charge you for the fuel and time!!

And I thought sailing was a gentlemans passtime!!!!



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Fill]

Ref the selfish $$$$$$$s over there

: the following comes from the Observer. Not sure whether it offers a glimmer of hope that even Bush might face up to things (but the US's theory that they have the right to high fuel use would make it difficult) or whether it's depressing in that they say the traditional approach of tackling with guns won't work, especially as that's likely to be the first thing tried anyway.


A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.


Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.


Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said 'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'


<hr width=100% size=1>Fill

 

[tome]

I have every sympathy for MoBo enthusiasts, and this is perhaps another good reason why we shouldn't give in easily.

Be realistic though- we use so little fuel that a price hike doesn't really affect us. The views expressed here are bound to reflect this fact.

<hr width=100% size=1>