Do you believe Global Warming is just another stealth tax?

[Phillikon]

OK, so I will probably be flamed to hell and back for this, but here goes.
My problems with the whole global warming thing are as follows:
How will taxing me more on the fuel I HAVE to use change the way I use it.
If the government is taking so much money off of me to “combat” global warming, why then aren’t Government engineers using that money to design new engines or leaner burning fuel?
I read an article last year stating that if something wasn’t done soon the river Thames would freeze so badly in winter that you would be able to have parties on it.
It’s a shame these Scientists don’t also study history, because they used to hold a fair on the ice every year a few hundred years ago.
Also the pattern of so called global warming is following exactly the same patterns of the last ice age. (Same thing different name)
I have scoured the history books but I can’t find any mention of a prehistoric Range Rover Sports.
So what caused that one?

[usxhe190]

Yes i think it is a tax, not really a stealth tax - governments have an additional thing they need to fix so need more funding. Whether they use it for global warming or something else...we will never 100% know...

No, i think scientists do look at historical data.

[godsdog]

Don't confuse climate science with government. Read something like RealClimate from top to bottom first. And then accept governments will try anything to fleece and subjugate the bulk of a flock. Doesn't mean you have to comply - in fact it's usually mandatory that you don't.

[[GSV]Trig]

Its not Global Warming, its Climate Change, the climate has been changing for a long time and the reletively small amount of data we've collected over the last few hundred years doesnt even count in the grand scheme of things.

Yes we should recycle, yes we should run nice eco friendly cars but thats more of a habitat and wildlife thing than a Climate Change thing IMHO.

As for Tax, we'll always get taxed to the balls, be it an obvious tax or a backdoor blame the european union tax, what annoys me is they tax us on everything and say its for this that and the other but you dont see this that and the other improving, we shouldnt be using coal power stations, they burn coal which we buy from abroad and at some point that supply will be stupidly expencive or will dry up totally. We cant use wind farms cos, there crap tbh, and people dont want the bloody things near them as there fugly. We should be using nuclear but no1 wants to be near a nuke station because theres been a few well publisized incidents and people are scared.

[Anders]

I suppose I believe Global Warming is coming and it will be used to generate tax.

The RealClimate is a great site, I lost a lot of respect for Channel 4 after they exposed their so called Global Warming documentary.
RealClimate » Swindled!
also
PURE PROPAGANDA - THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

There's just so much research out there that it's diffucult to be sure, however I found this very simple video quite effective:
YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

In recent news:
Boreholes on the Moon could solve climate puzzle - earth - 05 January 2008 - New Scientist Environment

[Funkstar]

We also have to remeber there are two parts to this whole argument: climate change and natural resources.

Climate change is debatable, and to be honest I'm not convinced.

On the other hand we have finite natural resources and they are being depleated, especailly hydrocarbons (oil, coal, gas etc.) at an alarming rate.

You could argue that the climate change debate is good for the natural resources problem as they go hand in hand. But there may be a problem, when people are confused by the mnessages and contradictory information, they won't do anything. So in that respect the climate change debate is having a detremental effect on something which is not debatable.

As for applying green taxes, i'm not sure. A companies green credentials have become a marketing tool, this is only going to increase, so the market and us as consumers are likely to be more effective at changing our own future than any government scheme, incentive or penalty.

[Phillikon]

I have studied the history of quite a lot of Weather change and I do find it plausible that we may be accelerating it by a small amount, but while it is being used as a stick to beat me with, and with no discernable R&D for my tax money, I just see this as a club for certain Governments in a particular geographical area to raise money while not needing to show any output. Dissent isn’t really possible due to Climate change hysteria and political correctness whipped up by Government press officers.

[Jay]

Can I add to this (before I read it all)

Read this

VOLCANO VS MAN

Its also natural for the globe to warm and cool hence the ice age.

are we adding to the warming?

Yes we are, there are no two ways about it but even if we stop the globe will still warm. Global warming is natural even if we cause it... why? Becuase we are from this earth hence anything we do is also natural. If we did this to Mars it would not be natural.

I am not worried about warming I am worried about the loss of animals in the wild caused by over population, destruction of forests and illegal hunting, I think this will have more of a say on how the human population will fair in the future than global warming

[[GSV]Trig]

I am not worried about warming I am worried about the loss of animals in the wild caused by over population, destruction of forests and illegal hunting, I think this will have more of a say on how the human population will fair in the future than global warming

Nail, head, hammer

[Rosaline]

I think everyone else has done a good job so far on stressing that climate change is real and well supported, however poorly presented by the media, governments and certain scientists. The RealClimate blog is excellent for discussing this, and the IPCC reports are generally fairly good now. If I'm recalling the name correctly, the Stern report highlights how business, the least flappable major entities on earth, have good cause to worry.

Global warming is really a misnomer, as has been mentioned. Global warming is all cosy and fuzzy sounding, isn't it? It's like something your grandma might encourage. Climate change is a more accurate name, but again it seems a little "Oh, I think I'll pop outside, I want a climate change"

Habitats for many species are already showing signs of being effected by climate change. These small-scale changes are not proven to be down to the effect of man's greenhouse gas emisions, however they are similar to what models tell us to expect. These changes are resulting in species being threatened, predator/prey relationships changing, disease vectors spreading differently, and so on. It is also having effects upon the ability to grow crops, which is perhaps of more significant importance to us.

Natural resource depletion is also a major problem that, unlike climate change, is very much a finite and unpreventable process.

Regarding the Thames freezing over in the past, it once was a major public event, yes. However, it must also be remembered that the Thames is a key waterway for shipping still, with large loads still being moved down the river. There would also be problems with boat-based tourist services. Whilst we can adapt, this takes time, energy and money.

Phillikon wondered why government scientists do not invent better engines or leaner fuel. The answer for this is quite simple and quite simply annoying. Any such inventions would then need to make it out to general public usage, and the most efficient process for this is commercial enterprise. As such, government research would support business. Companies that do not receive this support, for example ones based outside the UK, would be at a disadvantage. It is for that reason that such things are broadly prohibited under international trade agreements. Furthermore, when real customer demand exists for innovation, no government scheme is needed at all. Business will happily respond to this demand themselves, which they are slowly doing.

You might recall that horrid government proposal to track your every mile driven and tax you per mile. Those who have to drive long distances for a living (commuters, sales reps, consultants, etc) would have been worse off under such a system. In fact, regardless of the milage driven, they would have been unfairly discriminated against by a significant factor, when you take into account environmental and congestion aspects. The majority of car journeys are short affairs, a trip to the shops, picking the kids up, driving to work when one could easily even just walk or ride two stops down on a bus. It is these journeys that cause most city congestion. And as you may well know, low speeds for short periods prevent engines reaching their efficiency point, resulting in significantly increased emissions compared to the same mile in a longer journey. It also means more fuel is burnt.

Taxing fuel is a close approximate to an emissions tax, the way any such measure should be done. It encourages the purchase of more efficient cars, and discourages trivial uses for motor vehicles. And by such measures, industry is encouraged to change.

A better question would be not "why do we pay so much for fuel?", but "why do citizens in certain countries (*cough*US*cough*) pay so little?". Certain company practices over here are direct analogues of their US counterparts, and as such people in certain jobs feel the high cost of fuel more than others. The US needs to realistically price this scarce and depleting resource.

Edit: I forgot to comment that the key term in all this is Sustainability. The present is pretty nice, so we want to carry on, right? Everybody needs a certain amount of food a day, which necessitates a certain amount of land to be set aside for crops and rearing cattle. Then you need a roof over your head, warmth, light, water, entertainment, something to get up to each day, which all needs space for buildings and means to generate power and supply water. You will need replacement items from time to time, so the production of these and the acquisition of raw materials must be taken into account. And then there is raising the next generation. The question is, how much total raw inputs does a single adult person need on a daily basis, and as such how many such people can the world support. Current estimates indicate, that at the absolute best, we could squeeze in the entire world's current population to European first world level of living. A US-style lifestyle for all would require more usable resources than we currently have access to or predict that we will gain access to. This is a highly specialist area of consideration (because who wants to hear that their lifestyle is unsustainable?), but it is one which is increasingly worrying, especially since the studies done generally do not take wildlife into account.

[Phillikon]

A case well put Rosaline.

But even you must agree your point still leaves many unanswered questions.
Yes we would overcome the Thames problem but that really isn't the point here, the point I was trying to make was that one of the advertisements for Global Warming was how awful that the Thames would freeze, and my point as you agreed was "so what" it has always frozen, how will my paying more tax stop this?

[[GSV]Trig]

Paying Tax isn't going to solve anything to do with "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" its just the Governments way of making us think were doing something to solve the problem and gives us a warm fuzzy feeling

[Funkstar]

hmmmmm

The cash raised by "green taxes" isn't directly going to effect anything to do with climate change, but the act of paying them probably will. No-one likes paying taxes and just about everyone will do what they can to avoid paying them. If that means people act more responsably towards the environment to avoid the tax, then they have done their job.

A simple example: In an idea world, the goverment would introduce a 'tax' for every glass bottle you throw away. No-one thows away and glass bottles and recycles them all. This helps the environment, but the government doesn't make any additional cash. Still, job done. I know that is over simplifying things, but you get the general idea

[smellybumlove]

oh god yes!.

have you ever been offshore?
my god its more polluted at sea then it is inland, we have 1000's of diesel drinking boats and 1000's of polluting oilrigs yet that is allowed with nothing ever mentioned on the news about it, but joe blogs and his 3.0 x5 is a polluting communist and must be punished.....

did you know the prius markets itself on being hybrid friendly, but they are made in japan and the amount of CO2 the boat uses to cross from japan to the western world (it also goes the longway round) compleatly cancels out everybody driving them around for about 10 lifetimes!!!.

its all a joke and im happy here in taiwan 3.5 is considered the norm

[Funkstar]

oh god yes!.

have you ever been offshore?

I work offshore, mainly in the North Sea (UK and Norway), but also in Nigeria and Egypt. As a company we work in Canada and the middle east too, although I've not been there yet.

Shipping is actaully an incredibly efficiant way of moving large amounts of cargo from one place to another. I don't have a problem with cars coming accross from Japan, but i do have issues with the Prius anyway, but thats for another thread.

[Phillikon]

I work offshore, mainly in the North Sea (UK and Norway), but also in Nigeria and Egypt. As a company we work in Canada and the middle east too, although I've not been there yet.

Shipping is actaully an incredibly efficiant way of moving large amounts of cargo from one place to another. I don't have a problem with cars coming accross from Japan, but i do have issues with the Prius anyway, but thats for another thread.

I'm curious about the Prius thing, this thread is as good as any to discuss all our dislikes of greenery cash ins.