Labour's newest tax on motoring

[Simon Pieman]

The first point you raise of CO2 being attributable (infact its a major amplifier) of global warming & the cause being fossil fuels is true. The way that (i think) your suggesting that CO2 is not a pollutant & the fossil fuels are isn't totally incorrect. As an amplifier of global warming,which affects the worlds eco&biological system,it is a harmful substance = pollutant.

I see where your point lies,in the fact that other harmful gases such as sulphur are not combated against as much as carbon. The problem is that carbon is produced on a totally higher scale than other polutants, and throught the past century and half has exponentially increased in production, is why there is so much action being taken against it,as in the kyoto agreement. But i blame the americans.

I don't disagree with any of that, save the fact crbon dioxide doesn't contaminate anything so is not a pollutant

[leefer]

excellent news,more needed to get lazy people out of their cars.

the fact is, we're all going to have to make concessions in order to make climate change less severe. when carbon trading becomes commonplace people will find ways to get to work without emitting too much in order to have a yearly holiday in Spain. I'm all for selling my carbon allowance to you rich fuckers who can afford to drive to work every day and fly half the way around the fucking world for a fucking poxy two week holiday at the detriment to thousands of fucking poor living below sea level. 

Cookie...us paying more tax isnt going to help the fukin planet........if i payed less tax i might be able to afford the train...buses are piss poor and more pollution from one bus to a hundred cars.
Global warming is down to factories and big buisness so tax them....not me and you.

[Arriba]

er thats what they are proposing leefer.

[leefer]

What taxing us to drive their cars?

[leefer]

And park them?

[Talk Talk]

Yes it is,the worst kind. My laptop died so i don't have the figures anymore to back my point up,but i've done enough work regarding CO2 to prove the emissions are damaging the environment.

I don't think you have.

If your research consists of reading IPCC reports, listening to the media, the politicians or Al Gore then that's not looking in the right places.

What is wrong with the CO2 argument? Well most people have no understanding of climate science overall or the facts about CO2. The IPCC have also effectively made it the sole cause of climate change. AGW advocates and governments talk about reducing greenhouse gases, but they mean CO2. Few know it is less than 4% of all the greenhouse gases and the human portion is just a fraction of the 4%. Indeed, the amount we produce is within the error factor of the estimates of three natural sources.

CO2 EMISSIONS :

1. Respiration Humans, Animals, Phytoplankton 43.5 - 52 Gt C/ year

2. Ocean Outgassing (Tropical Areas) 90 - 100 Gt C/year

3. Volcanoes, Soil degassing 0.5 - 2 Gt C/ year

4. Soil Bacteria, Decomposition 50 - 60 Gt C/ year

5. Forest cutting, Forest fires 0.6 - 2.6 Gt C/year

6. Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.5 - 7.5 Gt C/year

TOTAL 192 to 224 Gt C/ year

The table shows the range of estimates of natural CO2 and human production in 2005 (Gt C/year is Gigatons of Carbon per year). Accuracy has not improved since. Notice the human contribution (6) is within the error range of three (1, 2, & 4) of the natural sources. The total error range is almost 5 times the amount of total human production. If we play the carbon tax game we can reduce that by 50 percent to 3.75 Gt C/year net because we remove half of what we produce through agriculture and reforestation. In other words, if everyone left the planet but one scientist remained to measure the difference in atmospheric CO2 he or she would not be able to measure any difference.

[jonny72]

The Tories have already stated they'll make massive cuts in public spending, if elected next year...fair enough, at least voters will know where they stand.

Labour would have to make massive cuts in public spending as well, to balance the books from the massive increase in public borrowing. Funniest thing I heard a politician say came in their recent arguments in parliament over who was going to cut spending most, Brown accused Cameron of planning to cut health spending then said under Labour it would be increased by 0%. Fuck only knows how he worked that one out.

[santasdead]

I don't think you have.

If your research consists of reading IPCC reports, listening to the media, the politicians or Al Gore then that's not looking in the right places.

OK. So i've not done alot of work,but i've done enough to realise al gore was stupid & the media will say what they want to get a reaction,whilst the politicians don't understand the science. My research consisted of reading plentyful amounts of credited scientific reports.

You may recognise this sentence seeing as it is the title of the report you have quoted above :

Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science

I don't mean to be a twat here,but to ignore science? its like somebody coming out and saying "there is no such thing as gravity".

There are two camps within the greenhouse gas emmision & CO2's role in GHG's. Firsttly the ignorants,who blatantly say the science is wrong & have come up with numerous ways as to why CO2 isn't the cause of global warming (oh and pretty much all of them have been discredited by a thing called science). secondly, the scientists who can prove that human emissions of CO2 corelate to increased global temperatures.

Its clear which camp i sit in, and it is clear which camp that article wants people to be in,but it is utter bollocks that only 4% of GHG's is CO2. Aside from water vapour CO2 is the leading greenhouse gas created by humans & its properties allow it to have greater re-radiating ability than other gases such as nitrous oxide or methane.

I don't disagree with any of that, save the fact crbon dioxide doesn't contaminate anything so is not a pollutant

seems as though we have different ideas of pollution/pollutants,which is fair enough.

[pauld]

santasdead, what you have blatantly failed to realise is that global warming is all a plot by the lizard people to take over the earth by undermining the pure truth of the one true God FreeMarket. Reading so-called "science" and "facts" is all well and good but that is to fall into the trap set by the unbelievers. You are not looking in the right place - you need to read more obscure neocon blogs and watch Fox anchors on YouTube. ONLY THEY TELL THE TRUTH AS REVEALED TO THE TRUE BELIEVERS OF THE DENIM CREED.

[santasdead]

HAHA. I do apologise to Pauld & everyone else (especially TalkTalk) if my comment has pushed the boundaries abit too much. but that article talk talk quoted just set me off,sorry.

 

[4D]

Now, I don't normally like to get involved in political discussions on here, but this newest tax is just plain fucking ridiculous.

If your employer provides you with a parking space, you will now be charged £250 a year to park at your place of work. Technically the government will charge your employer, but they are free to pass the cost on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/5942306/Motorists-to-pay-250-tax-for-parking-at-work.html

So if this happens can I just park out on the road outside the works car park? Actually I think I'll just give up working and sit at home, it's gotta be cheaper 

[pauld]

HAHA. I do apologise to Pauld & everyone else (especially TalkTalk) if my comment has pushed the boundaries abit too much. but that article talk talk quoted just set me off,sorry.

 

Erm, I was taking the piss. I'm with you (whereas TalkTalk is off with the pixies)

[Div]

Blah Blah

You obviously don't have a car, so it doesn't affect you (you won't be left with a nice big hole in your pocket will you)
Unless your taxi services decide to tax you on every journey you take... :eatkf:

Also, i hope you didn't buy a new laptop, or get your broken one fixed; it would only lead to extra C02 emissions.

[pauld]

You obviously don't have a car, so it doesn't affect you (you won't be left with a nice big hole in your pocket will you)

It doesn't affect anyone who doesn't run a large company in Nottingham which provides parking spaces for it's employees or, to be more accurate, plans to do so from 2012 onwards. I'm guessing the number of people on here that that description fits is vanishingly small

[herthab]

It won't affect me.

The view from my house is shit.

All in all, I feel these tax proposals are fine.