PDA

View Full Version : Raise air travel tax, report says.


PAXboy
7th Aug 2006, 00:35
BBC Web (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5251022.stm) Sunday, 6 August 2006, 23:00 GMT
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee

Taxes on air travel and "gas guzzling" cars should be increased to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a committee of MPs has recommended in a report. The MPs' report criticised the Department of Transport for adopting a "fatalistic" attitude towards cutting emissions caused by increased travel.

The report also called for speed limits to be dramatically cut or rigorously enforced on motorways and trunk roads.
The article continues ...

__________________
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different."
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Nov71
7th Aug 2006, 02:36
I am all in favour := provided Tony pays the full leasing cost of using the Queen's Flight to go on holiday, out of his salary, or Tone + Ministers are taxed on such flights as a Benefit in Kind along with Ministerial cars available to them 24/7 inc fuel tax. Because they use a pool car Daimler etc, not available to lesser Civil Servants, they avoid this tax, as do Captains of Industry. Business travel allowance should be for Business Class with swingeing tax for an upgrade.
Anyone driven by a Chauffeur should be personally responsible for motoring penalties (other than drink-driving) when using the vehicle as per any sales rep with a personal company car. Chief Constables included. Whoever heard of a chauffeur refusing to break the speed limit when instructed by his boss to do so.
I have drifted off-topic but I think you can follow my argument:)

rolaaand
7th Aug 2006, 03:44
All this sounds like politicians saying something about the environment because it is a reasonable way to gain voters.Sure,Britain could hammer tax on aviation fuel and persecute motorists even more that it already does but this is going to have little impact on a global environmental scale.As the average Asian has more and more disposable income then they will want things like cars and cheap air travel,when you consider that China and India have about 40% of the worlds population between them than this WILL have a serious impact. Also have to remember that Tony's boss George doesn't much care for the environment,going green and putting a stop to the all consuming american way of life would be a definite vote loser on the other side of the pond.
That said,sitting back and doing nothing (a la Mr Bush) seems like the easy way out and protecting our environment should be encouraged.Hitting Joe Public in the pocket just adds to the rip off Britain thing though,and smacks of the government raking in cash in the name of a good cause while blinkering themselves to the massive impact that other countries are making,and will make in the future,on our planet.

mccdatabase
7th Aug 2006, 07:05
When will the British public wake up to the fact that if they do not start making a noise, our right to fly,drive, enjoy ourselves,in fact live in the 21st century will be taken from us by a vocal minority of tree huggers and Luddites, TO ALL THE GREENIES OUT THERE if you want to live in communes or eco villages then fine go ahead but DO NOT try and stop the rest of the population living a modern convenient lifestyle just because it does not fit in with your blinkered idea of Utopia, any ideas by MPs about raising taxes on travel whether it be by fuel duties or road pricing has NOTHING to do with environmental concerns, it is merely a revenue raising scheme to prop up a morally and evermore fiscally bankrupt failing Socialist government who will do or say anything to cling on to power

Boy
7th Aug 2006, 07:28
stop manipulating with highly educated people
DO NOT try and stop the rest of the population living a modern convenient lifestyle
Errr.... the better one's level of education the more likely one is to accept that there are real issues with the environment. What is to be done is another matter - but it is increasingly difficult to argue the case that the environment will take care of itself (if you are informed, that is).

The fact that the political leadership in the one country that does most of the polluting refuses to acknowedge this reality does not make it a non-reality. Neither does arguing for individual or minority rights to do their bit of polluting make it a non-reality.

What can or should be done about it is a political issue, to which it is evidently going to be very difficult to find a solution. If you had not worked that out already, the posts above magnificiently demonstrate the gap between the realities and the politics of the matter.

WHBM
7th Aug 2006, 07:29
Here we go again. Politicians find this week's cause which is bad for "the environment" (almost as great a catch-all for them as "security") and decide to make some grand announcement about how bad it all is and how we will all die out next year if something is not done.

But by the most AMAZING COINCIDENCE, if you happen to pay the politicians some extra money, masquerading as taxes but in fact an involuntary contribution to their large funds they can spend on their own politically-correct pet projects, the problem will magically go away.

Isn't being a politician great. In the public interest ? Hah !

Serenity
7th Aug 2006, 07:29
Surely the government can see how much the aviation and transport industries have expanded due to demand. Won`t the addition of such large taxes suffocate the industries.
You can also increase the prices as much as you want but you have to have viable alternative. Basically public transports is too expensive and unreliable, and that`s just in the cities, let alone the countryside.
I also heard that they want to increase road tax on such vehicles as 4x4`s from a couple hundred to over a thousand pounds per year. Will the car companies stand for this, their new booming market being strangled!!

rant over - this government winds me up!!!! :ugh: :{

Greek God
7th Aug 2006, 08:55
The point is that you don't have to have your X5 / Cayenne / Range Rover etc - there are alternatives including LPG to what you use for your own road travel but if you want to travel outside the UK how do you do it? Air travel contributes aprox 3% total CO2 in europe but consider the total number of souls moved per day x whatever tax they deem suitable; a further pretty penny to be squandered by the government on fruitless endeavours which will have nothing to with environmental issues. we certainly won't get little cans of ozone to spray out the window each time we fly!!:\

FLR-PSA
7th Aug 2006, 09:30
What annoys me is that in most other transport sectors, the tax is paid by the operator. Taxi companies, HGV operators, Car drivers, bus companies and train operators all pay their own environment related taxes. Profits margins in the road haulage business are getting tighter by the day as operators have to absorb the increasing fuel & VED costs.

You don't arrive outside your house in a taxi and the driver says that 12 plus fuel levy of 3 do you? if the airline operators had to pay these duties instead of immediately passing them directly to the customer so their profit isn't affected we would see a change. Air transport will continue to generate more and more emissions until the operators themselves are hit with taxes that make them think twice.

One way the airline industry could reduce emissions is to shut down all those APU's and plug in some ground power (generally generated with cleaner, less polluting methods) but they won't do that will they because GP is expensive (not the airlines fault). :ugh:

fmgc
7th Aug 2006, 09:47
The point is that you don't have to have your X5 / Cayenne / Range Rover etc

No, but you have a right to have one if you want it.

lardcake
7th Aug 2006, 09:50
What a load of :mad: !! Perhaps "Yo" Blair might like to try paying some of the tax he levies on the rest of the population.

But it is a global politcal mine-field. As a country, yes we could probably cut down emissions (just take 4x4's off the road - where they're supposed to be ;)) but even if we do our bit, other countries need to do the same. The USA's failure to sign the Kyoto agreement doesn't help, given that they produce some 25% of all world emissions. Perhaps when the politicians are choking on the fumes they helped create they might do something - investing in fuel research could be a good start:ok:

A330ismylittlebaby
7th Aug 2006, 10:09
When will the British public wake up to the fact that if they do not start making a noise, our right to fly,drive, enjoy ourselves,in fact live in the 21st century will be taken from us by a vocal minority of tree huggers and Luddites, TO ALL THE GREENIES OUT THERE if you want to live in communes or eco villages then fine go ahead but DO NOT try and stop the rest of the population living a modern convenient lifestyle just because it does not fit in with your blinkered idea of Utopia, any ideas by MPs about raising taxes on travel whether it be by fuel duties or road pricing has NOTHING to do with environmental concerns, it is merely a revenue raising scheme to prop up a morally and evermore fiscally bankrupt failing Socialist government who will do or say anything to cling on to power

I think it would be funny if they woke up and found that we have all left the country to live elsewhere:p

AMF
7th Aug 2006, 11:07
All this sounds like politicians saying something about the environment because it is a reasonable way to gain voters.Sure,Britain could hammer tax on aviation fuel and persecute motorists even more that it already does but this is going to have little impact on a global environmental scale.As the average Asian has more and more disposable income then they will want things like cars and cheap air travel,when you consider that China and India have about 40% of the worlds population between them than this WILL have a serious impact. Also have to remember that Tony's boss George doesn't much care for the environment,going green and putting a stop to the all consuming american way of life would be a definite vote loser on the other side of the pond.
That said,sitting back and doing nothing (a la Mr Bush) seems like the easy way out and protecting our environment should be encouraged.Hitting Joe Public in the pocket just adds to the rip off Britain thing though,and smacks of the government raking in cash in the name of a good cause while blinkering themselves to the massive impact that other countries are making,and will make in the future,on our planet.

What nonsense. I see you've been suckered into the false notion that now CO2 emmisions....oh excuse me "greenhouse gases"....represent pollution and the U.S. the biggest so-called Offender.

By every quantifiable measure the air is cleaner, the water more drinkable, and than land more protected, conserved, and curated in the U.S. than it was decades ago, with regards to real pollution.

If those of you in UK/Euroland continue to be hoodwinked by the social engineers into paying more "guilt tax" for living in the modern world, then it's not only your problem, its your fault for allowing them to do it. They rely on you b1tching about the U.S....get you equating Co2 to "pollution" for instance... to act as a self-administered anesthetic for the tax-whipping they're giving you.

Your average American actually cares a whole lot more about his/her environment because we actually HAVE environment to protect, own, and enjoy. By the turn of the 19th century we already had national parks bigger than your country.

And if you think American "consumerism" equates to pollution..I mean real, poisonous pollution not your nebulous boogy-man gas....then you've obviously not gotten off your island and traveled a bit around the Third World and see what they've done to their environments while hardly consuming anything at all. Cesspools, filth, and slash and burn or desertified watelands.

But it's certainly easier to blather about "consumerism" and "greenhouse gases" and b1tch about Americans driving SUVs, than get your hands dirty and clean up harmful, messy things that actually pose a threat.

RogerIrrelevant69
7th Aug 2006, 11:46
Don't know if anyone was reading the Sunday Times motoring bit yesterday but they had this guy who owns the largest 4x4 on the market in the UK and got him to drive the tiny Citroen C1 for a week to see how he got on. Apart from discovering his fuel bill went down from about £120 a week to about £20 a week (for about 250 miles), he actually really liked the C1. He found it nippy, easy to park and people actually let him out at junctions. The only thing he didn't really like was that no one noticed him as he drove the C1 around - apparently he was always getting noticed as he drove his 4x4 around. What a vain twit, most people notice those humongous 4x4's all right but not in a good way. More in a "what a d!ckhead" way especially if you are driving it in and around town.

Well I'm biased, I just bought a C1 and it's great plus it's saving me a fortune on gas!

Anyway, I think going after aviation fuel for fuel tax is utter nonsense while the 4x4 gas guzzlers are given free reign. Just another case of headline chasing versus common sense.

Like Mr.Clarkson I remain to be convinced about global warming but obviously oil is a finite resource so should we waste it on these guzzlers? Plus the ones I have been in are all basically bloody awful cars. Handling, stopping, turning, you name it - crap, crap and crap.

10secondsurvey
7th Aug 2006, 13:00
If everyone in the UK stopped driving cars tomorrow, what do you think the effect would be on the global environment?

Sweet b*gger all.

Some people have this daft notion that if the UK cuts emissions then the UK won't experience 'climate change', but forget the UK is not in a bubble, and there are many many other countries who have a much greater effect on global pollution. The UK is a drop in the ocean - look at a world map and it is obvious.

As for climate change itself, well, it's been changing pretty dramatically since day one (big bang and all that). Climate change is nothing new, but a nice peg for greenies to hang their hat on. If these twits had their way, we'd all get around in rickshaws, with a crippled economy while the rest of the world enjoys the benefits of modern technology.

In addition, so-called 'gas guzzling' cars are already penalised through taxation on fuel, the more you use, the more tax is paid. The faster you drive, the more fuel you use, so the more tax you pay. Do MP's never think before opening their mouths in the UK!

fmgc
7th Aug 2006, 14:44
AMF, so why was the first thing the GWB did on getting elected was to reverse Clinton's promise to sign the Kyoto agreement, especially if the USA is such a "green" Country as you claim?

Flip Flop Flyer
7th Aug 2006, 14:54
FMGC

Actually, what Dubya said was that signing the Kyoto protocol would hurt the US economy. What he meant to say, but was unable to because of his inability to construct a sentence with more than 3 words, was that signing the protocol would have reduced the profit of MegaCorp Inc companies from 100 to 99.5 gazillion dollars, and therefore failing in making extremely rich people even more extremely rich. That the world in general might suffer, well, who gives a flying f*, they don't contribute to the Rep. party!

fmgc
7th Aug 2006, 14:56
You wouldn't of course be suggesting that it might hurt his close friends in the oil industry?

Flip Flop Flyer
7th Aug 2006, 15:08
Me? No, never. Neither would I ever question the wisdom of subsidizing an industry that is turning record profits, profits larger than the GDP of whole nations - and we're not talking banana republics here! Of course not.

Back on topic.

Yes, fuel tax is a fantastic idea - in my humble opinion - that includes tax on avation fuel in case you wondered, but in the interest of fairness it should obviously also be applicable to road, rail and sea transport. But only as long as the takings from those taxes are but to good use in pollution-reduction measures.

I do appreciate this'll offend a great number of people here. Well, so be it. I prefer not to live in a bubble defined by my own personal interests, and I'd also like to hand over a liveable planet to my grand children, should I be blessed with such. We led the industrial revolution in our part of the world, it's only fair we bear the heaviest burden while developing countries catch up. Catching up economically will also mean increased polution. However, whilst I don't really like to see additional pollution, neither do I belive we can expect developing nations to live a level of comfort so much lower than what we in the industrialized world enjoy. So let them catch up economically, build an infrastructure and lay the foundations of modern and prosperous nations - then hit them over the head with pollution control, not the other way around.

In order to prevent pollution reaching untolerable levels, someone needs to cut down to allow others to increase. That'll be us then.

Now that's my personal point of view. Any politician will probably call it an abortion manual, but then again, the first goal of most politicians is to secure re-election, and that's not necessarily the same as doing what's best for the country, region or world.

fmgc
7th Aug 2006, 15:10
If the UK introduce an Aeroplane Tax we will become uncompetitive amongst our European and American competitors.

rolaaand
7th Aug 2006, 15:12
Your average American actually cares a whole lot more about his/her environment because we actually HAVE environment to protect, own, and enjoy. By the turn of the 19th century we already had national parks bigger than your country.

I was more having a dig at your government and your president's policies than the american people,i visit your country regularly and find most people quite intelligent and engaging(no,really).But this is the kind of "we are the greatest" quote that makes people wonder about the sanity of you and your countrymen! America is responsible for around 20% of global CO2 despite having only about4% of the population.Also,was it not a Brit that started your national park system?I might be wrong but I'm sure I read that somewhere.

RogerIrrelevant69
7th Aug 2006, 15:22
Spot on rolaaand,

It was a certain John Muir from East Lothian in Scotland that started the national park system in the US.

Highflight420
7th Aug 2006, 15:52
With all due respect and as a long standing airline Captain whether we like it or not the explosion in low cost flying is not sustainable in the long term.

The cost of flying both in real terms and its impact on the environment is not beig borne out in the silly prices people are paying to fly at the moment.

Iam more than halfway through my career thank god but with two young children I have become increasingly worried and concerned about the small contribution my job is making to their future.

Anybody who thinks with any degree of responsibility about the future and what it holds for the next generation can't but wonder what damage we are doing .It is far too selfish by far to say that I have a right to a certain lifestyle with no thought to the future impact on the planet as a whole, just remember the pollution we produce we deliver into the high atmosphere where it is doing far more damage.

Nobody has a right to fly any more than I have a right to own the latest Bentley, as in all things in life its what you can afford.

Whilst this low cost travel boom has enabled travel on a scale never seen before, I truly believe it will be shortlived measured in years not decades.

Wedge
7th Aug 2006, 16:13
Spot on High Flight.

Whenever this issue is raised, the reactionaries crawl out of the woodwork hurling insults like 'tree-hugger'. It does nothing to advance the debate, in much the same way that the left-wingers shout 'racist' the minute someone raises the issue of immigration.

I'm far from a tree-hugger, I love flying and driving. But the attitude of some: "I'll be dead by the time it makes a difference; I don't care about the environment; tell the eco-warriors to shut up; they just want to spoil our fun blah blah blah blah blah"...... I find deeply short sighted and frankly moronic.

The simple fact of the matter is that the human lifestyle we have reached is patently unsustainable. The negative impact on the environment is immeasurable, and has already directly caused great environmental catastrophe.

This civilisation is not going to last. The latest estimates (which are probably conservative) predict Southern Florida will be uninhabitable by the end of the century, as a direct result of CO2 emissions. The evidence of the direct human impact on the environment is now entirely irrefutable; for a long time the conservatives have been able to argue 'Oh it's probably not global warming, it's just the natural cycle of the earth'. It isn't.

We're all responsible for the environment we live in, for future generations and the survival of the human race. High taxation is the only way that a realistic disincentive will be put in place to discourage people from activities that harm the environment. But it won't happen in anything like the way it should, such is the nature of politics and our weak and feeble politicians in the pockets of big business for whom profit is everything and the environment is irrelevant. Until it hits profits - which it is already beginning to do.

All great civilisations come to an end. This one started with the industrial revolution, and it's going to end with climactic catastrophe. And that may happen sooner than any of us think.

1DC
7th Aug 2006, 16:28
Just another way for the robber Gordon to get another tax.The gas guzzlers are already paying a premium in fuel tax, the robber Gordon already gets about 75% of every pound the motorist pays for petrol. If a 4WD runs at 20 mpg and a small car runs at 40mpg then 4WD man pays the robber Gordon twice as much tax, assuming they average the same annual mileage.
The robber Gordon should be pleased that 4WD man is paying this extra tax, he should show his appreciation by allocating some of this extra money to help reduce our emissions by giving incentives for industry to reduce green house gases.
As far as Dubya is concerned i don't like his foreign policy but as far as protecting his mates in the oil industry it isn't necessary. The oil industry is already far ahead of most of the competition in reducing emissions and has been for many years, if the rest of business spent the same percentage of earnings on reducing emissions as the oil industry we would be on top of it..

effortless
7th Aug 2006, 16:59
The sooner the feckin' chavs are priced out of the market the better. I had to fly cattle class the other day for the first time for ages ( don't ask but a certain minion is looking for a new job now!). It was awful. :eek:

simon brown
7th Aug 2006, 17:14
We need to employ a "Minister of Commonsense" or an "Energy Tzar"( and pigs will fly)to preside over a forum of experts from varoius walks of life such as Building Services engineers, Architects, Transport/local planners, Members of the motor industry etc etc
It would be so easy to ban imports of electrical gear that has to be left on standby all day
It would be so easy to make sure 20% of all new vehicles are LPG powered
It would be so easy to change building legislation so solar panels are fitted to new buildings along with micro co generation.
Veto petty town planners who wont allow changes to period properties with a view to becoming more energy efficient
It would be so easy to design one way systems that dont require you to drive 2 miles out of your way to travel effectively 250 yards.
What is the point of motor manufacturers spending billions on efficient engine technology when the local anoraks in town planning would have you drive round and round in circles going miles out of your way to get from A-B
It appears all the options the Government can think of are a very simple computer model to determine a buildings carbon footprint called SBEM which is noddy stuff , an SAP rating that gives an idea of a buildings energy efficiency and taxing anything that moves.
As of next year there will be 10-15000 building inspectors assessing all homes that come up for sale...how much co2 do you think 10-15000 building inspectors create running up and down the country assessing whether your boiler is knackered or whether you use low energy lightbulbs.
Get rid of the profit orientated public transport system with cheap mass transport. How many of us see our city centres full of ancient, private, de regulated buses, half empty spewing forth their noxious emissions
A more intelligent approach to carbon emissions on vehicles.
Recycling is another gripe at the moment, at the point where local authorities are asking us to but our slops in an unsealed plastic bin that will encourage flies, rats, etc, the supermarkets are wanting to cut back on plastic bags. We use these plastic bags to ...wait for it , put our recycling in
Everyone is pursuing their own agenda, which invariably ends up as a money making exercise for each respective party, without thinking about the big picture.

effortless
7th Aug 2006, 17:55
It would be so easy to design one way systems that dont require you to drive 2 miles out of your way to travel effectively 250 yards.
What is the point of motor manufacturers spending billions on efficient engine technology when the local anoraks in town planning would have you drive round and round in circles going miles out of your way to get from A-B

There you go son, you are the cause of all this. Get out and walk those 250 yards.

Rob Courtney
7th Aug 2006, 18:20
Just been watching the news. According to them the amount od co2 put into the air for a trip to Glasgow from London is as follows. Air 100kg per passenger, car 90kg per passenger, train 34kg per passenger.

What it dosnt say is how they arrive at the figures, what size of aircraft were they basing the air travel on, how many people were travelling in the car and how long did it take? (how may jams did it get in) and how many people were travelling on the train.

You can make figures do anything you want them to.:ugh:

Rob

haughtney1
7th Aug 2006, 18:33
I wonder how much carbon is produced driving from LHR to JFK? or how much carbon per passenger is produced on the train to Sydney?:hmm:

Numpties..the bloody lot of them

Rob Courtney
7th Aug 2006, 18:54
If they want everyone to travel by rail fine but heres the way to do it.

MAKE IT AFFORDABLE AND RELIABLE.

Im off down to Gatwick on wednesday, but if I wanted to get a return 2nd class ticket it would cost me 160 for the pleasure of maybe standing up in a cramped carrage for 3 hours. I dont think so!!!!

tilewood
7th Aug 2006, 20:00
The point is no country can take steps to limit carbon emissions in isolation.
If it does and the rest of the world does not, then it's economy goes south
very fast.

I am yet to be convinced about global warming. Because I am cynical
and trust nothing that Blair, his scientists and the Green industry tells me.

And that is the dilemma, people no longer trust those in power to be honest with them, we all know they have an agenda. Higher oil prices mean increased profits, higher tax revenues can be extracted by governments using environmental blackmail.

The climate may be changing, it always has, our way of life is not sustainable,
of that I am sure, but the biggest danger is the lack of credibility we
invest in our politicians, and for that they only have themselves to blame.

We have been threatened with scare stories too often, from Bird Flu, to
a new Ice Age.

One thing is certain Mother Nature will win!

Gnirren
7th Aug 2006, 20:18
Maybe there where civilizations before us that reached the same point we soon will. Perhaps the cave drawings where not made by evolving man, but rather the remnants of civilized man clinging to life as oil dwindled and war was raged over what scarce resources where left. After we're gone, man might rise again in 20 million years when a fresh supply of oil has been produced in the depths of the earth.
Makes for an interesting twilight zone episode anyway. :E

mccdatabase
7th Aug 2006, 23:31
The whole idea of raising our transport costs any higher is simply idiotic, we now pay one of the worlds highest rates of fuel taxation for our cars and now the eco brigade want penal levels of tax levied on our (up to now successful) air transport system, do they really think that any reduction of carbon emissions that the UK makes will have the slightest impact on any global warming that may or may not be occuring ?, if they were really serious they would be on the next pedalo(no carbon powered transport for these heroes!!) to India or China whose wholesale industrialisation will make the Carbon emissions that the UK produce look like a drop in the ocean, and they could try and tell the people there they cannot fly or drive!! they would be laughed out of town(quite rightly so!!) why should Air travellers and Drivers in the UK be penalised to allow other countries to develop. We need a modern day version of the Poll tax protests/riots to let this government or any future government know that we will not accept being priced out of the air or off the roads,

Blacksheep
8th Aug 2006, 07:09
Politicians are always keen on raising taxes for anything. So why do we keep electing them? The only justifiable reason for government is to provide public goods and services. Everything else should be left to market forces. ( See! - the London School of Economics and Political Science doesn't only turn out Marxist Socialists ;) )

Traffic congestion - is it caused by too many cars or lack of proper roads? Maybe a few training sessions on SimCity would help our Lords and Masters reach the right decisions. I'm not too keen on the idea of living in a cave and dining on barbequed bison steaks - which is the logical outcome of too much environmentalism.

ShotOne
8th Aug 2006, 09:19
The issue here is not whether we should have "environmental" taxes, but why the airline industry is being specifically targeted as opposed to road, rail and sea transport.The rail industry, far from paying a levy receives hundreds of millions ofs each year. Perhaps we are not contributing quite enough in political donations!

Also, why are they called "environmental" taxes when in fact they are not used for that purpose at all, but stuck into the exchequer with all the other cash extracted by Greedy Gordon?

Gnirren
8th Aug 2006, 09:43
why should Air travellers and Drivers in the UK be penalised to allow other countries to develop
This is exactly the point. Developing countries are just that, but if they make it and become industrialized then we have a problem. Our way of life depends on the fact that they don't share it. This is how wars will start, the battle ultimately for who has a right to live. Too many people, not enough resources and not a shred of evidence that anyone is considering the problem. Who here can honestly say they would be prepared to downgrade their way of life so that one billion chinese can finally enjoy owning a car? I didn't think so.

brakedwell
8th Aug 2006, 09:45
What about Cruise Liners? Their numbers are increasing too. They burn oil and release large amounts of nasty C02. They also dump a lot of pollutants into the sea.

boogie-nicey
8th Aug 2006, 10:44
If we could HIT the main offenders of CO2 emmissions namely the fossil fueled power stations then we would have a significant impact. Different modes of transport have a smaller effect on the environment relative to these static power generating monsters. The first mistake was not planning in advance of how to power the nation and the second is now to lay the blame at the most trendy target of the day.... transport with aviation being one of the front runners.

It's true this is a tax revenue masquerading as some sort of government offensive on the environment. Maybe if the government had a year long campaign of media events, adverts and general education about saving energy by cutting down on needless waste then we'd easily hit our so called environmental targets with out the need for silly taxes and a lead weight around the neck of industry.

This is nothing more than another episode in the Solciast brigade's silly pursuit of their own self serving agenda. First there was the chase of the international war criminals (anyone who dared oppose left wing dellusions). Then it was the globalisation resistance movement, how dare companies come over here and create welath, markets and jobs :) (work? How would the left wing liberals go the library everyday and attend their art exhibitions of some down trodden artist). Of course as they run out of new ideas transport and the environment become fused together for the sake of argument and they are now on the assault once more.

This is nevertheless just a report at this stage as are many other government 'research' issues so as yet it has to be subject to any kind of parliamentary debate or scrutiny. I believe the goverment realises how air travel is a big contributor and so won't be hit that badly as everyone thinks. This is nothing more than another 'free' headline moment.

But hey what do I know ..... :)

simon brown
8th Aug 2006, 10:46
Effortless

"There you go son, you are the cause of all this. Get out and walk those 250 yards."

I would son! I would, if I could find a place to park. I use the Park and ride myself if im not going to be lugging large items about...

I take it the holier- than-though-effortless has never ventured out in to the cities of this country on business where one may actually need to lug stuff about.

I couldnt possible rely on public transport to do my job effectively ( unless I was a bus driver of course!)

WHBM
8th Aug 2006, 10:47
Possibly the green brigade who think we should transfer from air to train because of their skewed calculation of CO2 emissions can explain why their much-loved, greatly subsidised rail system costs MORE for a ticket the 30 miles from Liverpool Street to Stansted than the despised, greatly taxed already airlines charge for the 300 miles from there to Shannon.

boogie-nicey
8th Aug 2006, 11:31
Ah another point (moment of enlightenment :) ) .....

How do you travel from here to Dubai, by boat are these leftists mad? How will I visit my relatives in US/Canada, afterall they're family and I would dearly like to meet them, don't have a right to do that? Even IF somehow ocean transport could get me to West Canada for just 300 return then where on earth would I get my annual leave from work to conduct such a trip or maybe these stupid know nothing sandal wearing idiots would propose that my relatives start the same journey in the opposite direction and we meet somewhere in the middle to save time.... dear oh dear. They are actually starting to make 1980s seem like a technological peak.

Gnirren
8th Aug 2006, 12:34
That's very easy to argue against. To solve the problem, move close to your family or have them move closer to you. It's all about priorities, if you have to change careers in order to achieve your goals then so be it.

Kolibear
8th Aug 2006, 12:43
Can't help feeling that the reason for raising taxes is purely to gain more revenue and 'saving the environment' is just a cynicallexcuse to do so.

If this Government was committed to an environmentally clean policy, then then there would little or no tax on bio-fuel and the like. As it stands at present, there is no incentive to use cleaner fuel as it is more expensive.

Likewise - low-alcohol beer is more expensive than normal beer, so apart from a moral obligation, there is no incentive to drink it.

Blacksheep
8th Aug 2006, 13:14
When I were a lad in the fifties, there were still a few horse drawn commercial vehicles in use in our bit of North East England. Environmentally friendly? Yes, if you were a rose bush or row of potato plants.

Given the amount of manure those few horses dumped in our street, I don't think there'd be many sandal wearers picking their way across the roads if we eliminated the motor vehicle. ;)

Then there's the methane problem.

boogie-nicey
8th Aug 2006, 14:19
CO2 is just a convienent buzz word that's easy to market and parade around as the culprit. Yet the complexities of the weather machine and the numerous other gases involved in our 'industrial' society would nullify this simplistic approach in explaining any weather events.

SET 18
8th Aug 2006, 15:52
The oceans and seas are extremely important in climate terms. The climate involves a lot of non-linear, chaotic processes, with highly significant ocean to atmosphere coupling. It is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 GtC (gigatonnes of carbon, the 'mass yardstick' for carbon dioxide, and giga means 10 to the power 9); the surface ocean contains even more, 1000 GtC; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2200 GtC; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38000 GtC. Annually, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange around 90 GtC, while vegetation and the atmosphere exchange 60 GtC. Compare this with mankind's annual output from fossil fuel burning (and the production of cement) of 6 GtC per year.

Mankind is responsible for only 3.5% of total global carbon cycle CO2 emissions, and transport is responsible for only one-seventh of that 3.5%. This amounts to just 0.5% of total emissions. If every car disappeared from the surface of the Earth overnight, there would be no measurable drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and absolutely no impact whatsoever on climate change.

Couple to this the fact that the world's CO2 emissions totals vary by up to 40% !! every year (because some years are busier in terms of eruptions) I fail to see how anyone could realistically tell me that my having a car CAUSES the earth to warm up.

Earlier this week the BBC News broadcast the findings of this report- it did not see fit to have anyone to contradict it. Later, in the same bulletin the news was of a volcano that was about to erupt. At no time was any mention made of the incalculable amounts of CO2 that this event was contributing to the atmosphere... It is nonsense; transparent nonsense.

G-CPTN
8th Aug 2006, 15:58
Given the amount of manure those few horses dumped in our street, I don't think there'd be many sandal wearers picking their way across the roads if we eliminated the motor vehicle. ;)
I understand that in the days of horse-drawn buses and hackney cabs in London, the congestion (and pollution) were worse than today (well, perhaps worse than 40-50 years ago).

brakedwell
8th Aug 2006, 16:59
I understand that in the days of horse-drawn buses and hackney cabs in London, the congestion (and pollution) were worse than today (well, perhaps worse than 40-50 years ago).

When Londoners got home from work in those smoggy old days, they sat in front of their fires toasting crumpets and grumbling: "Cor blimey, it took me fawer 'ars to get from 'arringay to 'ammersmith. Worst peasouper I ever seen!" What they didn't say was: "Them politicians ought to put a whoppin' great tax on coal"

WHBM
8th Aug 2006, 17:12
Later, in the same bulletin the news was of a volcano that was about to erupt. At no time was any mention made of the incalculable amounts of CO2 that this event was contributing to the atmosphere
Gordon Brown to Tony Blair :

"Prime Minister, I've just had a brilliant idea after reading PPRuNe. A tax on volcanoes ....."

Wedge
8th Aug 2006, 17:19
Mankind is responsible for only 3.5% of total global carbon cycle CO2 emissions, and transport is responsible for only one-seventh of that 3.5%. This amounts to just 0.5% of total emissions.

Which represents an enormous impact on the finely balanced global eco-system, and that is exactly the point. It's not 'only' 3.5%, it is a huge 3.5%. It's getting very difficult to argue that global warming is not happening, much less to argue that it's not as a direct result of post-industrial revolution human activity. I'm 100% convinced that it is, and there are very few people who now cling to the hope that human activity is not to blame for the increasingly chaotic global climate.

If you need statistics, the following graph is pretty conclusive imho. What's most alarming is the massive acceleration of change in the past 25 years. This is nothing to do with 'tree-hugging', it's plain, irrefutable, scientific fact.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

This image shows the instrumental record of global average temperatures as compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office.

SET 18
8th Aug 2006, 21:00
Since computer models working out man-made global warming scenarios invariably arrive at hotter temperatures, we are also subjected to endless spin concerning how this summer or that winter is warmer than anything since records began, or even longer. Fortunately for the scaremongers, formal records didn't begin very long ago, so this particular frightener is easier to justify. But once again the viewpoint we are given is deliberately restricted. If location X has a warm summer or mild winter, we hear about it, but if place Y has a miserable summer and freezing winter, we don't. Once again the partial picture, selective reporting, call it what you may, is the reason why the headlines and temperature records don't match up. For the truth is, the world is not hotting up in the manner predicted by computer models based on greenhouse gas emissions.

Where there are areas of the planet's surface experiencing a warmer climate, the reason is due to one of two things: the urban heat island effect, or the increasing activity of the Sun. These phenomena are totally different to the atmospheric heat build up predicted by man-made global warming theory, of which there is no sign. The urban heat island effect refers to the effect that urbanisation has on a region. Put in some buildings, tarmac and so on, and there will be a slight but measurable upward drift in surface temperature at that location after some time. While this has been happening ever since communities began to settle, it is not a factor limited to issues of human development, since the topography of a location can change through natural evolution and produce a similar result. This is interesting in its own right, but the significance for global warming runs deeper.


There are surface stations across the globe where temperature records are maintained (or not) and then fed into computer data bases. These are then number crunched to see if we are hotting up or cooling down. Many of these ground station sites have seen urbanisation very close by, others have had topographical changes due to trees and shrubs growing and providing shelter, and in both cases the temperature is seen to drift up very slightly, but NOT because of global warming. These phenomena are localised, but once shaken and stirred with other measurements from around the globe, the average obtained is supposed to be meaningful when it isn't. The small rise in temperature arising from the urban heat island effect represents what's called a systematic error, which cannot be removed by averaging.

Satellites can take highly accurate and widely representative temperature measurements across the surface of the globe, including inhospitable terrain, and these show no overall warming trend across the hemispheres. Thus we have confirmation, if it was needed, that there are problems with ground station temperature measurements.

If 3.5% is "enormous" how does that sit with the FACT that the Earth's CO2 output varies by up to 40% each year.....? I don't understand why this is so when the earth itself decides how much to emit by a significantly larger factor than that attributable to man.

jabird
8th Aug 2006, 23:02
"With all due respect and as a long standing airline Captain whether we like it or not the explosion in low cost flying is not sustainable in the long term."

As long as their is no tax on aviation fuel and heavy tax on car fuel, the airline industry will always be the scapegoat - but why single out the no-frills airlines? Point to point flying in a high occupancy 737 or airbus has to be significantly more efficient than multiple sectors through congested mega-hubs - but how can there be such a thing as a "less sinful" plane in the envirovangelists' eyes?

Take the train to Scotland regularly - one of the key reasons being the ease of taking bike with me too. For me, one reason I prefer the train is that there is so much more space than other means of getting around (avoiding Friday afternoons to Edinburgh in August of course). Forget about the self-righteous arguments - if the trains were better value and more convenient, more people would use them. As for cycling, probably the LEAST energy efficient means of transport if you look at the whole food production cycle, but it is enjoyable and healthy.

I think there is a simply solution to the "problem" caused by the "success" of the no frills airlines (how much we like to knock success, and how much we forget that much of the growth is a natural catching up due to years of over-regulation). Let's just pass a law dictating that only clergy can run airlines. If Easyjet had utilisation rates like most churches, they would be out of business in a flash.