*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3900
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #40 on: March 20, 2014, 03:45:23 PM »
Wasn't it just a few decades ago that scientists knew conclusively that we were heading towards another ice age?

We should probably finish up the current one first.
There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #41 on: March 20, 2014, 06:39:11 PM »
Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.
You think trillions of dollars of environmental and fuel taxation around the world is a good thing, just in case? Who gets this money?


Price right now on a litre of fuel.

I'm paying more than 188% of my fuel product cost in tax. That's bloody outrageous. How is this tax being used to save the earth?

Its been going on for decades. What is this money spent on?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2014, 06:41:20 PM by Thork »

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #42 on: March 20, 2014, 07:39:08 PM »
If they didn't tax the fuel, they'd just tax something else.

(Yes, I'm dropping the sadaam.  There are enough genuine deniers here, anyway.)

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #43 on: March 20, 2014, 08:09:01 PM »
They could legalise drugs and tax them. That wouldn't bother me one jot.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 3873
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #44 on: March 20, 2014, 08:10:05 PM »
They could legalise drugs and tax them. That wouldn't bother me one jot.

Just think of petrol like it is a drug then.  People claim they are dependent on it and cannot imagine their life without it.  Seems about the same.
FE'ism requires suspension of disbelief...

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #45 on: March 20, 2014, 08:50:36 PM »
Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.
You think trillions of dollars of environmental and fuel taxation around the world is a good thing, just in case? Who gets this money?


Price right now on a litre of fuel.

I'm paying more than 188% of my fuel product cost in tax. That's bloody outrageous. How is this tax being used to save the earth?

Its been going on for decades. What is this money spent on?


On the graph, look on the bright side, there has been a net 4% decrease in taxes (in terms of percentage of the total cost)

On the fuel tax, in the USA (where the tax appears to be much much lower) it is used to pay for transportation upkeep, like keeping the bridges from falling down.
our
Anyways, consider the large a payment for negative externalities. If you want to use the atmosphere (which is a commons) as your dumping ground for your CO2, then ya gotta pay a tax.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #46 on: March 20, 2014, 09:50:50 PM »
Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.
You think trillions of dollars of environmental and fuel taxation around the world is a good thing, just in case? Who gets this money?


Price right now on a litre of fuel.

I'm paying more than 188% of my fuel product cost in tax. That's bloody outrageous. How is this tax being used to save the earth?

Its been going on for decades. What is this money spent on?


I don't know what argument your trying to have here. I said nothing about the tax on fuels and whether it's efficient and being spent wisely, because I don't think it is.

The tax they make off of fuel duty should go into providing alternate and cheaper forms of transportation and the reduction of CO2 emissions. It doesn't and I think it's a stealth tax.

Secondly there's a few other reasons, which has nothing to do with CO2 emissions, why they tax fuel. It's easy to get it by the electorate, it reduces our dependency on fossil fuels (which is a noose around our necks influence wise) and it allows the government to control price fluctuations. That's probable not all of them but it's the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Also just because you have to pay more means bugger all to me. If that's the gist of your argument I don't care. Use a bike instead or walk. Earn more and get a better job. It's extremely selfish to only think about how issues like this effects your wallet. It's not just about you and your bank balance.

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #47 on: March 20, 2014, 11:59:29 PM »
Its precisely about me and my wallet, because I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. I see it as a way to justify extortionate rates of tax. Those fuels taxes are allegedly to reduce people's consumption of fossil fuels.

Punitive deterrents are disgusting. Why should the poor have to save the planet? Does a millionaire with a 6.0 litre car drive less because fuel went up a few pence per litre? Nope. The rich have much larger carbon footprints anyway. Several foreign holidays a year, private jets, luxury yachts, larger homes to heat, several homes, more possessions that generate carbon during manufacturing.

The whole thing is a scam. And I don't want to pay for it, just because you think there 'might' be a chance and want to err on the side of caution. You get a bike. You have a compost heap. You sort through your rubbish. You're the one worrying about the carbon-boogieman.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 12:01:54 AM by Thork »

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #48 on: March 21, 2014, 12:01:22 AM »
Its precisely about me and my wallet, because I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. I see it as a way to justify extortionate rates of tax. Those fuels taxes are allegedly to reduce people's consumption of fossil fuels.

Punitive deterrents are disgusting. Why should the poor have to save the planet? Does a millionaire with a 6.0 litre car drive less because fuel went up a few pence per litre? Nope. The rich have much larger carbon footprints anyway. Several foreign holidays a year, private jets, luxury yachts, larger homes to heat, several homes, more possessions that generate carbon during manufacturing.

The whole thing is a scam. And I don't want to pay for it, just because you think their 'might' be a chance and want to err on the side of caution. You get a bike. You have a compost heap. You sort through your rubbish. You're the one worrying about the carbon-boogieman.
Yeah but let's face it:
Quitting smoking doesn't stop others from smoking around you.  And until we can move off the planet to someplace else, we gotta share.

So stop acting like a slob and clean up your room!

Thork

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #49 on: March 21, 2014, 12:02:37 AM »
I've no problem cleaning my room. But handing over £300 for having a messy room is another matter.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #50 on: March 21, 2014, 12:29:35 AM »
Its precisely about me and my wallet, because I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. I see it as a way to justify extortionate rates of tax. Those fuels taxes are allegedly to reduce people's consumption of fossil fuels.

Punitive deterrents are disgusting. Why should the poor have to save the planet? Does a millionaire with a 6.0 litre car drive less because fuel went up a few pence per litre? Nope. The rich have much larger carbon footprints anyway. Several foreign holidays a year, private jets, luxury yachts, larger homes to heat, several homes, more possessions that generate carbon during manufacturing.

The whole thing is a scam. And I don't want to pay for it, just because you think there 'might' be a chance and want to err on the side of caution. You get a bike. You have a compost heap. You sort through your rubbish. You're the one worrying about the carbon-boogieman.

Your the one who's worrying about the size of his wallet. If you have a problem with the amount charged in fuel duty then don't pay it. Buy a bike or walk everywhere. Problem solved.

The world's bigger and more important than you and your poxy wallet.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5763
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #51 on: March 21, 2014, 02:03:07 AM »
EU and UK gets ass pounded for gas taxes. The US actually pays more in gas subsidies than it receives back in gas taxes, which is why comparatively our gas is mindbogglingly cheaper than the EU and UK.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #52 on: March 21, 2014, 02:06:09 AM »
While Thork is, as per usual, phrasing his argument in the worst possible way and making it sound like he just wants to buy a new TV or something, the burden on taxpayers is a valid concern.  Driving isn't a luxury that one can easily just forgo if the price tag gets too high.  We need to be able to drive - or at least we need to be able to travel a fairly large distance in a fairly short length of time - which is a task that (at least so far) only motor vehicles can accomplish.  Handwaving this away with "just ride a bike lol" doesn't cut it.  Not when you have a job and are expected to function in the modern world.

Now, if the argument is "I don't want to pay these taxes, therefore global warming isn't real," well, that's stupid.  But piling exorbitant taxes onto fuel - and not even for the fuel companies, but the consumers, the people on the street who simply have to drive - for the express purpose of trying to discourage driving is completely fucking stupid.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 05:43:56 PM by Saddam Hussein »

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5763
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #53 on: March 21, 2014, 02:10:21 AM »
Rather than tax fuel, governments should concentrate more on subsidizing the research and development, as well as implementation of alternative energy vehicles. While this certainly isn't the best method of getting things done, it is a lot better than taxes, which, even if they are on the company as you suggested, get pushed to the consumer regardless.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2014, 02:28:45 AM »
While Thork is, as per usual, phrasing his argument in the worst possible way and making it sound like he just wants to buy a new TV or something, the burden on taxpayers is a valid concern.  Driving isn't a luxury that one can easily just forgo if the price tag gets too high.  We need to be able to drive - or at least we need to be able to travel a fairly large distance in a fairly short length of time - which is a task that (at least so far) only motor vehicles can accomplish.  Handwaving this away with "just ride a bike lol" doesn't cut it.  Not when you have a job and are expected to function in the modern world.

Now, if the argument is "I don't want to pay these taxes, therefore global warming isn't real," well, that's stupid.  But piling exorbitant taxes onto fuel - and not even the fuel companies, but the consumers, the people on the street who simply have to drive - for the express purpose of trying to discourage driving is completely fucking stupid.
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2014, 03:00:55 AM »
Instead of taxing the fuel, you could just add an emissions tax to the yearly tag renewal based on the emission level of the vehicle (admittedly it is another tax on the poor since they tend to drive older cars but at least it is only once a year).  To say that only 10% of the population has a vehicle (source needed by the way) is pretty ridiculous when the argument is about first world countries having taxes applied to them based on green initiatives.  I know for a fact that more than 10% of the first world population of driving age has a vehicle they drive regularly.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5763
  • Videmus Omnia
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2014, 03:03:02 AM »
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

Wow.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2014, 03:20:10 AM »
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.

*

Offline Tausami

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 890
  • Magistrum Fallaciae
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2014, 03:54:54 AM »
Rather than tax fuel, governments should concentrate more on subsidizing the research and development, as well as implementation of alternative energy vehicles. While this certainly isn't the best method of getting things done, it is a lot better than taxes, which, even if they are on the company as you suggested, get pushed to the consumer regardless.

I agree with this. The government really ought to be working to encourage electric cars to be a thing, while also encouraging green energy sources. That's how you fix the problem. Not demanding more money to spend on the military-industrial complex.

Really though, I'm unconvinced that we can do much to prevent global warming. A lot of our carbon emissions come from things like farming, which we aren't going to stop doing any time soon. And we're never going to convince China or India to cut back on their emissions. The best we can realistically do is prepare for the worst and pray for the best.
That's how far the horizon is, not how far you can see.

Read the FAQ: http://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=FAQ

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 820
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2014, 08:41:26 AM »
It's nice to see that the deniers have largely accepted that warming IS happening. It's a step up from where we were 5 or 10 years ago.