More from Gore - DPChallenge Forums

01/31/2007 06:54:36 AM · #226

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

I still find hummers on the streets of London environmentally offensive - but this is less because of the actual quantity of pollution that they produce, and more because of the attitude of gross waste it represents. Many small changes are required, and sensible vehicle choice is one of them - but I accept that I am not a poster model for the cause.

My preferred solutions don't involve restricted choice, but I am a supporter of high taxes on waste (including wasteful vehicles) in order to push people in a more ecologically sound direction. This should form part of a much larger plan (carbon credits, emissions trading, carbon trapping etc).

I trust that you support this then.London taxes parking

Is it just Hummers that you find offensive or Land Rovers and other SUV type vehicles as well? What about the new H3with its 5 cylinder engine? Or jeep CJ5's? As mentioned in the above article, the "greenies" continue to claim that vehicle emmisions (namely form SUV's) must be removed from the driving public, in a need to address "Global Warming". This we have seen from this thread is not quite accurate and as you mentioned above, is akin to a bit of hipocracy.

01/31/2007 07:58:37 AM · #227

Originally posted by Flash:

I trust that you support this then.London taxes parking

Yup. The idea of driving a Range Rover around Chelsea is absurd: it is huge, wasteful, polluting, excessively dangerous to pedestrians and other cars in accidents, and the pinnacle of excess. If you can afford a $140k car and pay $200 every time you fill the tank with fuel, then you can afford to pay $600 a year for parking on the street. In London, that remains a bargain (a private parking spot costs c.$30-100,000 to buy in London). I would support a higher parking charge.

There are proposals to put the congestion charge in central London up for these vehicles from the current $15 to $100 or more per day for entering the congestion zone. Again - I would support that measure. These vehicles are totally impractical and undesireable in this area.

A farmer, however, has every right to use a Land Rover and should get a tax break - he needs to use that vehicle to do his work.

Similarly, there are (as there should be) massive tax breaks for electric vehicles in the city (no congestion charge, free parking, free recharge stations).

The problem of SUVs etc is not *just* global warming - it is a general pollution/danger/waste issue. However, I generally support the policy of encouraging people to use energy proportionately and appropriately, and doing this through the owner's pockets is one of the more practical and efficient ways of doing so.

To be effective, the encouragement and shift must be gradual, but it must be sure.

01/31/2007 08:47:06 AM · #228

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

The idea of driving a Range Rover around Chelsea is absurd: it is huge, wasteful, polluting, excessively dangerous to pedestrians and other cars in accidents, and the pinnacle of excess. If you can afford a $140k car and pay $200 every time you fill the tank with fuel, then you can afford to pay $600 a year for parking on the street. In London, that remains a bargain (a private parking spot costs c.$30-100,000 to buy in London). I would support a higher parking charge.

...

The problem of SUVs etc is not *just* global warming - it is a general pollution/danger/waste issue. However, I generally support the policy of encouraging people to use energy proportionately and appropriately, and doing this through the owner's pockets is one of the more practical and efficient ways of doing so.

I suspected that you were opposed to SUV's for general public transport/use.

Given your positions on taxing waste, shouldn't you also support taxing airline tickets due to the massive quantities of fuel used? How about even higher taxes for longer flights? Higher taxes for large public vehicles like Semi-tractor/trailers (lawrys - not sure of spelling) or other transports? Heathrow would be a tax collectors heaven.

01/31/2007 09:39:11 AM · #229

Originally posted by Flash:

Given your positions on taxing waste, shouldn't you also support taxing airline tickets due to the massive quantities of fuel used?

How very topical - for this reason, airport duties in the UK double tomorrow! Again - I am in favour.

01/31/2007 10:02:20 AM · #230

I did not see in the article why the tax was added, only that a new tax was being collected. The tax is for...?

01/31/2007 10:40:15 AM · #231

Originally posted by Flash:

I did not see in the article why the tax was added, only that a new tax was being collected. The tax is for...?

From the Beeb's FAQ

Originally posted by BBC:

Why has the government raised the duty and given less than two months' notice?

The Treasury says the aviation industry is not meeting its environmental costs so a decision was taken to introduce the duty increase swiftly.

A spokesman said the chancellor had taken into account economic and social as well as environmental factors.

He said the Air Passenger Duty was not a tax on passengers but a tax on airlines for the number of passengers they carry. It was up to the airline to decide whether they pass that levy on to passengers.

The move would see income from the duty rise from £1bn a year to £2bn, paying for extra resources in public transport and the environment sector, he added.

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/31/2007 01:47:39 PM · #232

Thanks.

I appears that the "greenies" are making a bit of progress. Hereis an article referncing the banning of light bulbs. An article on Yahoo news today mentioned a California legislator who proposed banning incandescent light bulbs...claiming to do so to favorably impact "climate change" and green house gasses.

I think I have enough evidence that the politics of this issue has supporters coming out of the woodwork to claim almost any action could be on behalf of impacting climate change. As we have seen from RonB's numerous posts, that climate change will occurr regardless of our existence. However, this is the hot political issue of the days. As some have said, prudence is a good thing and responsible stewardship is beneficial to all. I do find it a bit unsettling to see the lengths that some would go in behalf of saving others from themselves. At some point, the global warming police will restrict what size house you can have, where you can vacation, whether you can use air conditioning, and a miriad of other impactors.

David Ey

Nikon D80

01/31/2007 02:37:25 PM · #233

This is now known as the legalbeagle/Flash forum

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2007 03:08:09 PM · #234

David: not quite!

Originally posted by Flash:

Higher taxes for large public vehicles like Semi-tractor/trailers (lawrys - not sure of spelling) or other transports? Heathrow would be a tax collectors heaven.

In the US trucks (lorries in Britain) are taxed at higher rates than cars, not only for their fuel/pollution issues, but because of the extra damage their weight does to the roadways, though usually not at a high enough rate to actually pay for the damage.

Planes and buses can be taxed lower (or exempt) because their fuel efficiency is measured in gallons per passenger-mile -- a bus getting 10 mpg but carrying 40 passengers is getting "better milage" than a car getting 40 mpg but carrying only 4 passengers, not to mention the congestion relief afforded by getting at least 8 (more likely 30) cars off the road.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/31/2007 03:33:59 PM · #235

Originally posted by GeneralE:

1. Thanks for the correct spelling of Lorries.
2. I certainly cannot speak for busses in your area, however I can in mine. Our MTA (Mass Transit Authority) busses are lucky to carry more than a couple of people at any one time. I literally see them day after day spweing black deisel smoke and carrying zero passengers while they make their scheduled rounds.
3. It would make sense to me, that opponents of SUV's, would demonstrate their committment to enviornment saving efforts by using public transportation for the very reasons you mention. Benefitting from the person per mile efficiency.

4. In Michigan, we use to pay passenger vehicle license fees based on weight. However, as vehicles became lighter and thus more fuel efficient, the State began taxing us on vehicle price instead.

edit to add #4

Message edited by author 2007-01-31 15:40:11.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/31/2007 03:44:54 PM · #236

Some slightly relevant humor:

Before going to Europe on business, a man drove his Rolls-Royce to a downtown New York City bank and went in to ask for an immediate loan of $5,000.

The loan officer, taken aback, requested collateral and so the man said, "Well then, here are the keys to my Rolls-Royce."

The loan officer promptly had the car driven into the bank's underground parking for safe keeping, and gave him $5,000.

Two weeks later, the man walked through the bank's doors, and asked to settle up his loan and get his car back. "That will be $5,000 in principal, and $15.40 in interest", the loan officer said. The man wrote out a check and started to walk away.

"Wait sir", the loan officer said, "while you were gone, I found out you are a millionaire. Why in the world would you need to borrow $5,000?"

The man smiled. "Where else could I park my Rolls-Royce in Manhattan for two weeks and pay only $15.40?

02/01/2007 08:16:39 AM · #237

Anyone see Larry King's show last night on Global Warming. There was some interesting commentary. Sure does not seem to be a complete concensus. As has been demonstrated here.

02/01/2007 08:46:46 AM · #238

Originally posted by Flash:

Anyone see Larry King's show last night on Global Warming. There was some interesting commentary. Sure does not seem to be a complete concensus. As has been demonstrated here.

Sadly not - although you can expect discord on pretty much any subject -- there are some people who claim that the earth is flat - which is not a reason to disbelieve the evidence.

Was there discord on whether it is happenning, or what the causes are? What was the relative weight given to each argument?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

02/01/2007 10:43:13 AM · #239

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Was there discord on whether it is happenning, or what the causes are? What was the relative weight given to each argument?

My recollection was primarily the discord was regarding whether "man" was the cause. The arguments were similar to the ones expressed in this thread, namely that the same scientists that today are claiming a Global Warming castrophe were that same ones a few years back that were claiming a new Ice Age was due to wipe out mankind. The other side continued the tired fossil fuel arguments. He had politicians as well as Scientists. The one professor from MIT was the position I most identified with, but that probably was because he maintained much of what RonB had posted earlier. One commentator posed that in the world today with all the people dieing from desease and violence, that the deaths resulting from any Global Warming would be small in comparison, so therefore any energies expended towards reducing Global Warming should really be expended towards current death rates. Another view was that in the next 50 years, the poorest people will be richer and thus be able to afford accomodations away from the coast lines that have been engulfed due to the glacial melt. The polar bear argument was pretty much dismissed - at least from what I remember.

The reason I watched, was due to Larry's propensity to be rather liberal is his views and politics. I was curious to see if it would be slanted, however it came accross to me to be an attempt at balance.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/01/2007 12:55:47 PM · #240

Front page on the BBC again today

Warming 'very-likely' human made

Speaking in Nairobi, United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) executive director Achim Steiner told reporters the findings should be "the full stop behind any arguments over what was causing global warming".

A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.

Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous".

Message edited by author 2007-02-01 12:58:53.

eqsite

Nikon D7100

02/01/2007 02:28:46 PM · #241

Fuel for the fire: Gore nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

02/02/2007 08:26:41 AM · #242

A report released this morning in Paris by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that they have little doubt that climate change is caused by human activity and we will continue to see rising temperatures and sea levels for centuries no matter what we do. Just FYI.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

02/02/2007 09:53:00 AM · #243

how many cycles of global warming has the earth had?
what was the cycle, in years?
what group of people caused them?

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

02/02/2007 10:16:26 AM · #244

Originally posted by David Ey:

how many cycles of global warming has the earth had?
what was the cycle, in years?
what group of people caused them?

Good questions. What has your research shown?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/02/2007 11:31:32 AM · #245

Well, the Climate Change report will finally state clearly that those who feel global warming is not caused by human activity are standing against the global scientific community.

It's quite amazing to me that they managed to do this. The report I read said it only took 90 minutes to come up with the consensus statement that there was a 90% chance man was to blame. I have been in many rooms with many scientists and getting them to all agree on one statement in 90 minutes speaks to the strength of conviction. Only China was opposed and inserted a strangely worded footnote into the statement.

Wake up and smell the coffee people. Global climate change is here and we are to blame. It will be a monumentally difficult task to get 6 billion people to act in unison to minimize the effects so we may as well start trying now.

Message edited by author 2007-02-02 11:31:59.