The red hot diesel campaign – you vote

Re: Cluck, cluck

The proper solution is to tax all oil use at the same rate - be it manufacturing of plastics or use in cars, boats or planes, 'cos after all its unrealistically cheap aviation fuel that allows people to keep yots in far off lands.....

Rick
 
Re: Cluck, cluck

Sorry, that argument doesn't wash. Farmers get their equivalent of low price fuel quite easily. Already, there are bowers for commercial fishermen that happen to sell to the leisure market. It is not beyond the wit of man to provide commercial diesel to pros and at non-discounted rates to leisure users.
 
wash ... its just a wave init ?

lets cub together and import Polish diesel

I dont get the pay as you pollute argument ... if you can afford it then its ok to pollute ... and the tax man takes the money and uses it to do what ..... to filter dirty air: manufacture ozone .. plants trees; sends it to the Big Guy in heaven by way of atonement. ?

I've been stuck at home for two weeks and very much enjoyed this forum and the fantastic knowledge of its participants. Sad to see the sail/mobo friction evident in this thread.
 
[ QUOTE ]
How many Turkeys will vote for Christmas then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Me cos I don't give a rats.............my wee iron topsail is only 8hp, and it seems to run on fumes. Some of these mobos cost up to and more than a million sovs! and there poor hard done to owners can't afford to pay a bit of tax??? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yep, I'm a troll, a jolly jolly troll, troll la lol troll la lee! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: Cluck, cluck

I see no particular reason why farmers should get subsidised fuel either. As rickp says, it would be considerably simpler and avoid giving distorted signals if everyone payed the same.
 
stick around, and you'll see the friction is from a very few. Over the years, many of us have listened and learnt from the other side as to what makes life difficult, and many have feet firmly in both camps anyway.
 
Aviation fuel, there's the answer. I see a big market coming up for sea planes with plush interiors and sun decks.

I think the average Guernsey resident would need to use their boat 24/7 to cover the extra tax they would be paying on their income on the mainland.

I've never really understoood the different tax regimes in different parts of the British isles. Does the money from Guernsey end up in Gordon's coffers? Does Guernsey's money only pay for the upkeep of Guernsey? Do they get a subsidy from central government (or give one)? Or being a protectorate, do they just pay Gordon protection money? How does it work?
 
Re: Cluck, cluck

I can see where you are coming from however.....

I believe that the things that we value should have an unfair advantage over market forces.

I happen to think that fishing and farming deserve all of the support we as a society can give. Probably far too much of a philosophical argument for this particular board but the question was asked here so.....
 
Re: Cluck, cluck

I entirely agree that there is a need to give economic encouragement to useful activities, but there are more subtle and better targeted methods than fuel subsidies. I often see small fishing boats making a terrible racket as they run at full throttle, stern almost below water, burning diesel in a vain attempt to climb out of the hole they've made in the sea. I suspect they would be less inclined to waste fuel like this if they had to pay a realistic price for it.

Of course what hasn't been said so far is that oil is a finite resource. Once it's gone it's gone.
 
Re: Cluck, cluck

You may be right, however, the commercial fishermen that I know are as concerned about costs and the environment (funnily enough) as we are. You'll always get the fool in all walks of life.... and in reality the fuel costs are just a part of their overall costs.
 
what a 'light the blue touch paper ' post - congratulations ............

why not repoert something constructive instead of sensational?

[ QUOTE ]
In light of an alarming environmental report in October, which revealed climate change could shrink the global economy by 20%, is it fair that we should continue to be subsidised for our pollution while other EU countries (with the exception of five) have to pay a higher tax?

[/ QUOTE ]

So from an envirnmental position you are suggesting that the unit cost of carbon based fuel is a significant factor affecting consumption and therefore global warming - why don't you quote a selection of worldwide leisure marine diesel and gas prices so that we can see just how our current 47ppl 'tax free subsidised whatever ...' price compares?
 
It's always struck me as anomalous that I can buy diesel for my boat at approximately 40p per litre, but for my car I have to pay about 95p a litre. Derogation apparently dates back to the 1930s (hearsay, I haven't checked this) and was supposed to benefit fishermen and other commercial users of the sea and waterways. At that time, private pleasure yachts using diesel were very uncommon, so no separate provision was made to supply taxed diesel to private users.

The situation has now changed beyond all recognition, with large flotillas of powerful diesel engined yachts wherever there is recreational boating on the UK coast. That, in itself, is a good reason to re-examine the derogation in relation to leisure users.

However, the availability of cheap diesel has also created a situation where powerboat designers, builders and users pay scant attention to economy, preferring to concentrate on power and speed. Consequently, fuel efficiency of powerboats is appalling. A 40' foot offshore cabin cruiser could quite easily burn a gallon (4.5 litres) of fuel a mile. Some are much worse. By my calculations that means approximately 12kg of CO2 per mile.

Interestingly (and for those who say the sky will fall in) there's no derogation on petrol, but that hardly seems to have discouraged the growth in, and use of, powerful petrol-engined RIBs.

My view, the polluter should pay. That principle is becoming more widely accepted. The motorboating industry should accept that, sooner or later, derogation will end, and should now start designing and building boats and engines that put a premium on fuel economy, rather than performance. After all, does it really matter if it takes an hour for a motorboating family to get from Hamble to Cowes, rather than 15 minutes?
 
[ QUOTE ]
My view, the polluter should pay.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the majority of your post - except the quoted sentence ...
Let's just assume that ending the derogation has no impact on the marine industry - everything carries on just the way it is now - but with all boaters having to pay ~£1/L for the diesel ... (the increase in road fuel hasn't curbed car use - so why would it impact boat use - although I have to admit that cars are now more fuel efficient than they used to be - kinda reflected in your last paragraph!)
Now let's just assume that this increases funding to the government (yes I know opinions are that it'll do the opposite but bear with me!) ...
Oh - and forget other users of Red Diesel and all the aircraft etc etc ... we're just talking Red Diesel for the leisure boats around our coast here ...

Where is this pollution money going?
If charging more for fuel that pollutes the environment doesn't reduce the use of that fuel then it has failed to achieve the goal.
So - what should this money be spent on?
NHS?
Schools?
Roads?
Tax reductions elsewhere?
Increased allowances for Politicians?

We need a suitable alternative to fossil fuels - and sooner rather than later ... perhaps we should be funding more research and development into that within the UK and encourage the UK's manufacturers that there is a future in British Engineering ...
I rather suspect that we'll end up buying in a solution from the far east though ... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
Derogation dates back to 2003 or thereabouts. We weren't in the EU in the 1930's so no need for any derogation back then.

I suspect you mean the road fuel duties, which were payable by road using vehicles. Boats were exempt as they didn't use roads (and historically, few if any petrol boat engines back then, hence the historical difference now between petrol and diesel)
 
[ QUOTE ]
I rather suspect that we'll end up buying in a solution from the far east though ... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope solution we buy from the far east is of better quality than the junk they export to us at the moment
 
How much is for "fun" is irrelevant ...

All that happens is as the price of our major commodities goes up, we ask for pay rises to cover the new increased "cost of living" .... sometimes we actually get the pay rises!!
 
Ah - well, actually some of the Junk that we import is actually quite good quality - they can produce good quality, but in the true british fashion we want to pay less and less for more and more ... hence the slow demise of British manufacturing in favour of the goods from cheap labour markets in the far east...
If the labour costs here in the UK was cheaper we may actually be able to compete with them, but the only way you could achieve that is to reduce the cost of living so they didn't need paying so much ... which then has knock on effects elsewhere ...

All of a sudden communism looks to be a good model!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

W
Diesel heater burner mat
Replies
6
Views
294
trialframe
T
W
Budget diesel polishing
2
Replies
26
Views
827
Iliade
Iliade
A
Can you really see out of the Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 43 DS windows when seated?
2
Replies
22
Views
586
Lucky Duck
Lucky Duck

Share this page

Top