Will the end of Red Diesel Make for Better yachting?

In response to the posts that Supply and Demand would reduce the price, the laws of economics would seem argue that this would make sense, however in this case I am not sure (which was the point of my original post).

In order to replace all those empty pontoons with Sailing boats there needs to be at least one of these things:

a) There are a large number of existing sailing boats sitting in back gardens which never go near the water due to overcrowding. I spend a lot of time going up and down the country and I can't see them parked up in gardens, lorry parks etc.

b) That there is a significant group of people who would like to own a sailing boat but don't because of the overcrowed marinas. If these guys exist, I have never met one. If you think its true please PM me as we should pitch for a distributorship for 25 - 40ft yachts as sails (sic) will be about to go up significantly!

c) Mobo owners switch to sailing. IMHO many wont as they don't know how to sail and their capital is tied up in a Mobo they can't sell.

Personally I could switch back to yachts (sailed most of my life and owned a range of sailing boats from an RS400 to a Westerley), I have a MoBo at the moment because time pressure means that sailing; I might get to Dartmouth from the Solent in my holiday instead of Roscoff as we managed this year. However many of my MoBo friends have said that they will give up. While the Marina's fixed cost are well covered now, I don't see without price increases how they can be if their customer base falls.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Okay, that makes sense, but maybe it could be looked at from another angle.

At the moment the marina I use is expanding, and this seems to be widely the case. And where marinas aren’t being expanded new ones are being built. This is a response to market forces – the increase in personal wealth that’s been seen through the 90s has meant that more people can buy bigger and more expensive boats. There are more boats owned by more people who have more money. But things are changing. Possible house price falls, pensions no longer relatively cheap and expensive diesel, all of which will impact on the sailing industry in some way and to some extent, particularly, perhaps, on owners who burn 100s of gallons of fuel each trip. So, for a variety of reason, some people whose ownership of a boat is financially marginal or no more than a luxury toy, will give them up. They’ll be empty spaces in marinas, as you say. But what will happen as a result?

One outcome could be increased costs of marina berths, but even berth prices aren’t infinitely elastic. They’ll be some limit, and if the relatively currently well off mobo owners give up, then the resultant market price (the one sustainable by the proportionately increased group of owners with smaller, cheaper boats, the ones with less money) may well have to be lower. Lower, that is, to attract them in off their swinging moorings. If not, then because of loss of income to support expensive infrastructure, marinas may have to reduce in size (and that may be necessary regardless), and in some cases close. But would that be a bad thing?

If that happened then perhaps there’d be less new building on sensitive marine environments. Less high speed and noise pollution. Less fuel burned. Less CO2 emission. Would that be a bad thing?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
We all assume GB will diss red diesel and impose a flat "road duty" level of tax. If harmonisation is the issue should the campaign not be aimed at ensure levying the minimum amount of tax needed to satisfy EU law.
By my reckoning this would mean red diesel would cost about 55p per litre (taken as an average of the duty in Germany, France and Spain... don't know about the others so I may be out).
There would be no added administrative cost as we already have a two-band tax system.
On another tack, while the leisure boating industry might not be the cause of sweaty palms in the treasury, agriculture certainly is.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Will the end of Red Diesel Make for Better yac

The concession doesn't have to be extended to pleasure boats. France has a lower rate of duty on lorry fuel, but you pay the full whack for pleasure boating. There are special pumps for barges only outside Amsterdam, but you can't fill up a yacht there. I think that may be what we'll end up falling in line with.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You're right. There should be no discount for any fuel used that results in CO2 emissions. Lets campaign for 'full tax' on jet fuel and fuels used to generate electricity. Perhaps the fairest system would give us all carbon credits and then we could spend them where we like (fuel for your car, boat, trips to the Costa del Sol, heating for your house, plastics/grp disposal...).

It strikes me that when the west consumes so much of the worlds resources talking about 'social equality' is just a tad hypocritical.

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
There is certainly an argument that all fossil fuels are too cheap at present, and it is very likely that CO2 emissions would be reduced if oil-based fuels were more expensive. Greater control of their use will be needed at some point, it's inevitable (e.g. the environmental consequences globally of further industrialisation in China and India will be significant).

Control through pricing is one way, and, as you rightly point out, rationing is another. Of course technological optimism would argue that we'll develop new ways of fuelling our needs when it becomes really necessary - but there's no clear view on when political, personal and commercial interests will stimulate innovation at a level and form that will replace quickly enough what we have now.

None of us can see the future, and there's no absolute certainty that current global warming is the result of our contribution to CO2 levels, but there are strong arguments that suggest that there is a causal connection.

If so, then change will become necessary. Maybe not for us, but for future generations, who will look back in wonder (or will it be incredulity) at leisure engines consuming 100s of gallons of fuel for a day out. And heating on in shops in winter with the doors left wide open. And driving the kids some few hundreds of meters to school. And ... endless waste.

One way to slow down increases in use is through price (if the US paid more for their fuel, SUVs would be a thing of the past and CO2 emission reduction targets would be met easily), but a fairer system socially (so as not to penalise the less well off) would be rationing. Current Western capitalism could not promote this, and, more importantly, almost none of you would vote for those who tried.

And it's not "The West" that argued this point (I think that's what you call reification) but me.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
All of which neatly avoids any discussion about how adding duty to the piffling amount of diesel used for leisure boating in the UK won't help in any meaningful way to CO2 emissions. It definitely smacks of 'Fiddling whilst Rome burns'. If you really cared about CO2 emissions, you'd be aiming for the largest polluters first.

But thats not what this is all about really, is it?

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You're very argumentative. Why? It's just a discussion. What do you really think it's all about?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Since the rate of tax on USA fuel is so low, the recent hike in oil prices has meant that their pump prices have gone up hugely in percentage terms. That their price is still less than half what we pay is totally irrelevant to the apparent pain felt when filling up. It will still not change their driving habits though nor the cars they buy IMO. Actually, contrary to popular folklore I have never found their cars any heavier on fuel than ours and whenever we are there we always rent a full sized 6 cylinder car or a 4x4, maybe it is because their roads are much less clogged with traffic and you can cruise at a nice steady speed. It is important to remember if calculating differences in consumption that a US gallon is is rather smaller than an Imperial one, around 10% I think, plus nowadays many of the cars driven in the States are German, Japanese or even British anyways.

All of which is irrelevant to the likely demise of red diesel which I will still regret despite in relative terms being a small user. Neither do I think it will have any effect on the true mobo peeps other than an initial drop in hours run or in speeds, eventually all will return to normal as they will find savings elsewhere to fund their addiction - just like smokers and drinkers have done for years.

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>
 
Re: Will the end of Red Diesel Make for Better yac

Well, it was argued that there was no reason why leasure boaters should not have to pay tax on fuel - I thought tax is (was) supposed to be a method of raising funds to help support the industry that is taxed. Fuel tax - goes on the road *cough* well .. it should do.
Unfortunately it seems that the governments have realised that tax is an easy way to slow down purchasing of particular products - hence the high tax on cigarettes and booze.
Whilst I don't condone the burning of "greenhouse gas emitting" fuel as though it is going out of fashion, I cannot see the point of taxing for taxing sake. If it does nothing to benefit the industry that is being taxed then it shouldn't be taxed. I don't see why I should subsidise the funding (however limited) of other non-boating causes through tax paid on fuel.
The limited amount of tax that will be implented will not make a significant change to greenhouse gasses or further the development of alternatives.

Our loverly government seems quick to tax but reluctant to give any back..... perhaps they should more closely account for the taxes received to money spent on various projects.... There was a big project in local G a while back - called "Best Value" ... just another excuse to spend loads of money!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Sorry Robin, the arguments about CO2 and SUVs, and general pollution by cars, has been well documented. Anecdotal evidence about family holidays don't really help. I know that sounds confrontational, sorry, but check out:

http://environment.about.com/gi/dyn...dn=environment&zu=http://suv.org/environ.html

You may be right about any hike in taxes not affecting mobos long term - pity, such waste - but there is still the issue of the effective subsidy that users currently have when compared with others, but why? How can that be justified?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Anecdotal or not, I used to drive around 8,000 mls pa in the USA, now nearer 2,000 so I feel I can comment with experience. Mercedes, BMW, Audi, VW, Honda, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Land Rover or Jaguar of which there are many in the USA use the same amount fuel per mile over there as they would in Europe. There are plenty of US built cars that are fuel efficient too and I have always found even their big engined saloons quite economical, for the simple reason perhaps that they don't spend as many hours sitting in the interminable traffic jams that we endure here. There is no dispute however that there are many millions more cars in the USA, but that wasn't my point. If people want SUVs that is their business too, I have a Honda CR-V, a dreaded 4 x4 but I now do a much lower mileage than I used to and use less fuel than when I had a 'regular' saloon, yet some uninformed people will sneer at my choice of an environmentally unfiendly car.

I don't see who is 'subsidising' red diesel either. Not collecting yet more tax is not a subsidy - are you saying that motorists are contributing some of their fuel tax to subsidise red diesel?

Hiking fuel taxes on road vehicles to me seems contrary to true socialism, namely that you clobber the poor in their 20 year old banger whereas the rich guy money no object carries on as usual. But then I'm not a socialist nor even Newly Spun Labour nor ever will be.

My politics on this subject are simply those of realism. I don't think anything governments do will change peoples attitudes to personal transport but it might bring a smug smile to the face of an environment minister and sure as hell will to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The UK is about the size of just one US state, and imposing even more punishing taxes here will not make much of difference in the overall scheme of things globally, especially as people IMO will rearrange their finances to keep their transport and hobbies.

Why is it a pity that hiking taxes will in the long term have little effect on mobos? If you want to see them banned why not say so openly instead of hiding behind an 'I'm greener than thou' tax. Personally I would like to see PWCs and speed cameras banned but that has no relevance to red diesel either. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>
 
"I used to drive around 8,000 mls pa in the USA, now nearer 2,000 so I feel I can comment with experience."

• That's drawing on anecdotal evidence - like the person who smoked 15,000 cigarettes a day and lived to be 123 claiming that they know smoking doesn't cause harm. :)

"I don't see who is 'subsidising' red diesel either. Not collecting yet more tax is not a subsidy - are you saying that motorists are contributing some of their fuel tax to subsidise red diesel?"

• Not taxing one thing means taxing another - or not spending. It's not the amount it's the principle. Not taxing is a kind of indirect subsidy.

"Hiking fuel taxes on road vehicles to me seems contrary to true socialism, namely that you clobber the poor in their 20 year old banger whereas the rich guy money no object carries on as usual. "

• Yes, you're quite right. I touched on this in an earlier post. Quota systems would be best - rationing. It will happen one day unless renewable energy becomes more available and global warming hasn't damaged too badly the global economy. All those hurricanes - who pays?

"My I don't think anything governments do will change peoples attitudes to personal transport."

• Of course not, any more than evidence about smoking stops so many people dieing young from its effects.

"The UK is about the size of just one US state, and imposing even more punishing taxes here will not make much of difference in the overall scheme of things globally"

• The US needs to change its policy on fuel, as do we. There need to be international agreements (which in part there are and to which the US has so far failed to sign up to) so everyone shares the same social and economic burden, proportionately.

"If you want to see them banned why not say so openly instead of hiding behind an 'I'm greener than thou' tax."

• I thought my views had been really clear. I believe in reducing use of fossil fuels. I especially dislike wasteful use. But, if someone wants a big mobo then that's fine, they can save their share of our limited resources until they have enough to go out and race around. No problem with that, but why should they be able to squander cheaply and in an uncontrolled way what we should be using more wisely for the future.

"Personally I would like to see PWCs and speed cameras banned but that has no relevance to red diesel either"

• Sorry if, for clarity, I broadened the argument. My view on red diesel is that I don't see why sailing/motor boating should be given a tax break on fuel use. I don't think people have rights that are separate from responsibilities. Given the growing evidence of the effects of global warming and the fact of the non-renewable nature of fossil fuels, we need to take more responsibility for the future. The world isn't just a playpen that the well off, or the financially incautious, can run around in without constraint in their toys.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I see you're rolling out the ole CO2 argument again. This is fine - but as long as all CO2 is taxed, and not a random smattering of conveneint users. However the 2 users of carbon based fuels who use almost all of it in europe are elecrtricity generation and commercial aviation, and they pay zero fuel tax.
So based on the fact that I pay about 8p per mile in fuel tax in my car, and a commercial plane does not even get the same(yes really!) mpg per passenger as an average family car then a flight ticket to new york should have quite a few hundred quid in pure fuel tax alone added to the ticket.
All this messing about with road duty and red diesel for boats etc is just pure taxation, nothing at all to do with Co2 or the environement or fossil fuel resource usage. You might as well argue that tripleing the tax on a cheese and ham sandwich will have a beneficial effect on the environment, theres about the same amount of logic in it!

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by AlexL on 24/11/2004 15:29 (server time).</FONT></P>
 
I knew I would regret joining this post.....

I should have known better....................

I will write out 100 times 'do not join in unwinnable arguments'

Do not join in unwinnable arguments...............
Do not join in unwinnable arguments...............
Do not join in unwinnable arguments...............
Do not join in unwinnable arguments...............
Do not join in unwinnable arguments...............


Roll on spring and a new sailing season............

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>
 
Be thankful there's no posting tax. Of course, some will object to the subsidy you're receiving:

<blockquote><font size=1>Quote from previous post:</font><hr>

• Not taxing one thing means taxing another - or not spending. It's not the amount it's the principle. Not taxing is a kind of indirect subsidy.

<hr></blockquote>

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
See my other post, but I've come to the conclusion that most so called environmentalists are really, really, really bad at maths. How the hell is taxing (note taxing, not even guaranteing to change use of) about 0.0000000000000000000001% of the worlds supply of oil going to make any difference at all?
I suggest that people go away and do some research on fuel use, then read up on the priciples of random and chaotic processes (i.e the environment ) and the effects of changes therein (as opposed the the effects of changes in directly deterministic systems, which the environement is not). and then learn about statistics, and then review their arguments for logic.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
"the 2 users of carbon based fuels who use almost all of it in europe are elecrtricity generation and commercial aviation, pay zero fuel tax."

• These points are valid but to respond we'd have to get into complex arguments about trade and employment. I agree that aviation fuel tax is an important issue. Flying is too cheap. Vested interests will ensure that for some time nothing will happen. I deplore that.

"You might as well argue that tripleing the tax on a cheese and ham sandwich will have a beneficial effect on the environment, theres about the same amount of logic in it."

• Do you really believe that? Scary.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Will the end of Red Diesel Make for Better yac

<blockquote><font size=1>Quote from previous post:</font><hr>

My view on red diesel is that I don't see why sailing/motor boating should be given a tax break on fuel use.

<hr></blockquote>


Sorry, don't quite follow your point here ... it has already been argued that adding tax will do little to the consumption of fuel in the marine industry and have even less impact on the global use and make insignificant contribution to the treasury, so what justification (other than "harmonisation of taxes") is there to add tax on? It is just yet another tax imposed on this already over taxed country.

I would not complain at all if they ploughed the money back into the marine industry either through public marinas/pontoons or other facilities etc. But they won't, the money collected will just get swallowed up in larger funds and used to fund the latest political cause.
And this doesn't take into account the extra pumps/tanks and administration that will be required to deliver the taxed fuel, an overhead that cannot easily be carried by some smaller suppliers (delivery of both types of fuel also required).

So what you have to ask yourself is: what will the country/world have to gain by adding tax to fuel for leisure boat owners. The answer is: very little, but it will annoy the little g*ts who can afford to own the vessels to start with.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Will the end of Red Diesel Make for Better yac

<blockquote><font size=1>Quote from previous post:</font><hr>

You might as well argue that tripleing the tax on a cheese and ham sandwich will have a beneficial effect on the environment

<hr></blockquote>

Well - the vegans would love it ... veggies would accept it as it would save the piggies ...
Hey - just tax the air we breath - the more you live the more it costs you.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top