Will the end of Red Diesel Make for Better yachting?

Are you shouting - get the sense that you might be :) Sorry.

If you knew about complex system then you'd know about small changes leading to large-scale effects. Butterfly wings and all the chaos theory popular writing.

We need to change people's expectations. Small changes in what people see as possible and acceptable. This is how societies change; through evolution by way argument, education and example, small things becoming big - and now and then this leads to laws that become customs. Small changes to begin with that grow. It takes a long time but that's no reason not to play a part.

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

To put some more (red) Diesel to this fire:
Why is it that we still do not have taxes on aviation fuels? Shouldn't people that do flying as a hobby pay up like we do? (Says a guy spending maybe 100 Euro's on petrol every year for his sailingboat...)

BTW
In Holland the red diesel thing took place a few years back, but I do not think the number of MoBo's decreased since. The number of gas guzzles is limited though, most MoBo's have engines with less then 200 HP. Not many Fairlines in these area's. But that could also have to do with the fact that there are speed limits throughout the inwaters in Holland.

Arno

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

Re: Veggies.

Did you know that the majority of UK land is extensively farmed and wild life reduced to grow food to feed animals to feed people?

Is that something that might concern you?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
<blockquote><font size=1>Quote from previous post:</font><hr>

• Do you really believe that? Scary.

<hr></blockquote>

No I don't have to 'believe' it as it is true, not somehting I have to take on faith. If you want to improve the environment, you need to reduce CO2 emissions (lets assume that that link does at least exist , although some would argue other wise)
Thats good as far as it goes. There is also a direct link between CO2 emissions and the amount of fossil fuel usage, therefore to reduce CO2 you need to reduce carbon based fuel usage, again I quite agree with that. What I do not agree with , as it is factually incorect, is that reducing the amount of diesel used by a handful of boats will have any effect, it won't. The environment is a chaotic system not a deterministic system. its not "put x Co2 in and get y global warming out" it is much, much more complex than that. Also the amount of CO2 generated each year varies enourmously and the amount which may or may not be 'saved' by reducing boating will be lost in these fluctuations. The change will not be 'statistically significant'. A couple of 747's bucking a headwind, or staying in the hold because of some bad weather will more than cancel out any 'difference'

And yes I do know what I 'm talking about as my MSc thesis is about.. guess what, the mathematical modelling of random systems, and experimentation therein.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
It is enirely unforgiveable that I am using more electricity, hence oil, in order to answer you. I must cut some of my quota elsewhere, so sail an extra 1.347m before taking down my sails and turning on the afterburner next time I'm out.

Of course when fuel taxes are so high and taxes are applied to aviation spirit and all the plastics and chemicals that come from oil then we can start taxing the coal and wood we will burn instead, that should help. I bet someone has already worked out how to tax solar power and wind power! Now how much CO2 went into the atmosphere with the recent volcanic activity, or the Iraq oilfields burning, or the illegal European computers and components being burned in China, not to mention all the African elephants farting (though they are probably a declining species so that's OK).

Someone please help me. I NEED TO PAY MORE TAX, I know it is right, it is my duty to pay more tax, surely without it I can never be happy, someone help me please and find something else to tax. How about a tax on the internet, loads of hot air there on all the forums and chat rooms...

HELP!!!!

<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

re Is that something that might concern you?

Only if they stop doing it!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Why do you think sailing/boating is getting a tax break?
Under present rules, any non road vehicle can use red diesel, so why should sailing/boating be an exception?
But since your on about enviroment, should the goverment not be insisting that all boats having holding tanks which can only be emptied at designated pumping out facilities to prevent raw sewage from being discharged directly into the seas and rivers and damaging the fragile marine enviroment.
If the price of red diesel is trebled it will make boating appear to be much more the elite leisure activity of the rich , which should allow the goverment to clobber it with more taxes and restrictions with the full support of the general public

<hr width=100% size=1>
28_4_9.gif
 
MSc? Okay - then - you mean complex systems. Chaotic behaviour is one part (region - think of boolean networks) of the behaviour of a complex system, you can also think about it as turbulence. Complex systems are highly deterministic, it's just that outcomes are unpredictable. That is, what happens is caused directly by interactions within the system it's just that there are so many that their effects cannot be plotted with any accuracy. For example, weather systems are complex systems that display chaotic behaviour. Weather systems are highly determined. We can't predict the weather though, beyond the short term, because we cannot have sufficient knowledge of the world's weather at any given time. Indeed, as you will know, any measurement is but one position on an infinite scale. Think about fractals if you have a problem with this particular concept.

So, on the social level, which is itself a semi-permeable complex system, we can effect change through small inputs. We can never, though, be sure of the outcome in the long term. There's some interesting research around on the ability of the human mind to follow patterns in chaotic regions of social space over the short time. You might find it interesting.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Think best suggestion would be to get rid of all politicians and enviromentalists and turn them into fertiliser, that way they could do something useful

<hr width=100% size=1>
28_4_9.gif
 
um, a small note re energy use

The main energy use in cars (and boats) by far is ...making the car or the boat in the first place. People buying newer cars that burn a bit less fuel are helping themselves lower their own costs, perhaps, but not the general environment. Quite the reverse.

The same applies if a large number of owners of one sort of newish boat are persuaded to nip out and buy another sort of new or newish boat. Energy use is dramatically increased overall.

The aim of the tax rise is to increase tax revenue. CO2 arguments are a total red herring, and saving the of fossil fuels is a similar red herring. One day it'll all be gone. Might be 50 years, might be 100 years, or 200 years or even 500 years. So what? It'll still be gone.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Hi Mike, I wish the world was different. I wish energy was infinite and harmless. I wish in this world of infinite and harmless energy I had a massive, silent ocean going ship with power levels that could propel the Houses of Parliament to the moon. I wish everywhere everyone was free to act without constraint.

Alas, here we are, in this place at this time, and so I think (keeping to red diesel) fuel for big mobos should now, this moment, be £5 per gallon.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: um, a small note re energy use

tcm, but if we use it wisely then they'll be the products of that use, some heritage, to pass on to future generations.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Surely the whole point of red diesel is that it is not for road vehicles and therefore there is no logic in applying a road tax element to the fuel. As has been mentioned earlier, the figures tend to show that the reduction in MOBO usage that will inevitably follow a 400% increase in fuel costs will inevitably lead to a net loss to the treasury.

As a diesel engined MOBO owner who made the decision to go for power rather than sail because power best suits my circumstances, my main argument is that by removing the concession on red diesel, the treasury is achieving nothing other than the taxing of a leisure activity without the benefit of financial gain - and that should be of concern to all of us.

<hr width=100% size=1>Of all the things I've lost - I miss my mind the most!
 
Having read through and admired the various arguments in this thread I have a couple of questions.

If I had a petrol engine capable of running on it, could I legally use aviation fuel?

If I had a diesel engine could I legally use treated vegetable oil?

Both questions refer to boating, not to road use

I sould be interested in the answers

Regards Briani

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
If you pay the appropriate duty,.

Then your use of AvGas or ChipOil probably would be legal.

There is a very small duty on Gas Oil, methinks about 2p/l, so you should account to the C&E - shortly to the the Inland Revenue(...). Somehow I don't think either agency would want to know.

(I don't want to demolish your argument BUT) there's no point in your examples at the moment as Aviation Spirit is more expensive than Petrol, and veg: oil is more expensive than MGO.

I guess that when the true details are known the above will probably still apply (i.e. not worth the bother.

That however, was not your question.. Apologies.

<hr width=100% size=1>
x_sm.gif
Stop what you're doing and wait my signal
 
Heritage for next generation

Eh? You're sounding like a speechwrite for Tony Blair.

Anyway, erm, exactly what fuel-dependent "heritage" could we pass on to future generations? Mozart, pyramids, green fields, hedges, beethoven, rolling stones, a few buildings. Nothing much there that needed fossil fuel. In fact, almost nothing that uses fuel could be described as "heritage" other than a particular harley davidson model of motorcycle, and that won't last more than 20 years. Alright, mebbe 80 years tops.

The only issue of any import is to decide whether we get to use the stuff, or our great greatgrandchildren. Hm, difficult one. NOT. The kids are already hard at work wondering how to hoik the stuff out from under antarctica. Their kids will sort out the fusion thingy.

All this environment crao is the last resort of timid teachers, imho. In the begining, God was gonna strike you down unless you sit down and do what you're told. Then, that was a bit hopeless, so it was the bogeyman. Or Hitler, or aliens, or the russians with nukes. Now, its a non-specific envirnometal threat that has our kids a-quiver, and this is perhapsd the most destructive of all.

The world is there for kids of today to bestride with confidence and to mould in their image. Not to tiptoe around in frightened anxiety. I'd like to see a few more teachers with Lamborghinis and Ferraris, sailing yachts and Mobos. "How did you get one of those, sir? " I bet that would be a bit more encouragement for them to get on a create some decent heritage?
 
Re: Heritage for next generation

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.rya.org.uk/images/uploaded/e75bf488-7711-4ad5-a739-88466c9c192c/Briefing_doc_for_press_1210_final.pdf>Click here</A>. A reasonable write up, though it does overegg the pudding with regards to the risks of petrol.

The alarm bells ring a bit at the 'Boating is predominantly a middle income activity'. That marks us all out as a group from which more money can be sucked.

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
One thing that I think is worth mentioning , is that oil is far too important a commodity to use for fuel.

The drugs that keep humanity alive , are hugely dependant on oil and we all know how easily a plastic bucket is to make and supply to the Third World.

Although TCM has a point with the ‘you can only use it once theory’ until a comparable alternative is found, we deny the health and well being to millions of fellow human beings now - not in the future. Even if you do possess the clout of wallet to override. This I feel is the real issue here , not red diesel. At least tractors running on red have the potential to produce cheaper food rather than one man in a thousand having a mild on-water thrill.

It seems to many that any ‘wasteful’ use of a substance is surely illogical no matter what age you live in.

Concorde dictated that although a fine ‘vessel’ , and a fantastic achievement , it has proved no use to man – at least in the air ticket mode, even without tax on aviation fuel.

Modern pleasure planing boats will inevitably fall into this category whether any of us like it or not.

Slow running, non-turbocharged engines consume a fraction of the fuel used by those travelling at 20 knots or more. The problem, is that for the moment, very few non planing powerboats are around to buy.

It seems logical that many powerboaters will switch to sailing, motorsailer, or non planing craft,which was the way it was up until the late sixties. We could then all have a good time together like we used to.




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

Share this page

Top