Global warming....

[R1Geezer]

Not a man made phenomenon shocker!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2496902/Lord-N elson-and-Captain-Cooks-shiplogs-question-clim ate-change-theories.html
It's the Telegraph people, must be true! Will the ECO terrorists be convinced? I doubt it!

[sp1814]

New Judge

It worked on us.

My partner bought a ridiculous Jeep Cherokee a few years back, but with the tax rises and the predicted increase in the Congestion Charge we swapped it for another car.

People driving big 4X4s in London is stupid, stupid stupid. What are they expecting? A big Ribena slick on Hampstead Hill.

[Gromit]

how is the additional tax revenue raised to be used to combat the alleged climate problem?

Manchester as an example. The money raised will be used to open more Metrolink Tram routes. The existing network eliminates an estimated 5 million car journeys every year, and replaces them with less polluting electric powered tram journeys. Adding more routes (paid for by congestion charge) will eliminate even more car journeys.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/man chester/

[New Judge]

Are you pleased to have been virtually forced to do so, sp? And are you content that having done so, man made emissions will be reduced sufficiently to make a difference?

Even if man made emissions are the principle cause of climate change (which has had its title quietly changed from "global warming" since it was realised that "warming" is not happening quite as quickly as forecast - if at all) and even if something could be done about it by change of habits, your action (laudable as it may seem) will not make the slightest difference.

Between them, China (24%), the US (22%) and India (8%) produce more than half the world's carbon emissions. None of these countries has any intention of doing anything which will significantly reduce their outputs and indeed their emissions are set to rise. Many countries responsible for the remainder also have no plans for cuts. The EU produces just 12% and the UK is responsible for just over 1% of the global total. The UK is also among a significant minority among EU members to have any firm plans which may result in reductions and even if we reduced our output to zero it would be more than offset by increases elsewhere.

For the last eight months huge trucks (many of them old and dirty) each carrying 15-20 tons of spoil have made a 30 mile round trip from the Olympic site in East London to dump the spoil in north west Kent. Some 70 -80 journeys are made daily. Much of the London Olympic propaganda promotes the games as a �Green� event. Meantime you have been forced to change the vehicle of your choice because it is allegedly too polluting.

Only when I begin to see changes in things like this, and when I see "climate change conferences" being held over tele-link rather than face to face, will I believe that the strategy to penalise the population is anything other than a revenue raising scam.

[Gromit]

New Judge

Something is having the desired effect:

4x4 sales down as green cars soar 120%

Sales of 4x4 'Chelsea tractors' have dropped by a fifth as fuel prices soar and drivers face hefty taxes on gas-guzzling vehicles.

New registrations of 4x4s last month fell by more than 18% compared with May 2007, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said. But sales of the smallest and most fuel-efficient cars have soared by 120%.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html ?in_article_id=442587&in_page_id=2

[New Judge]

Once again, gromit propaganda has taken a hold over you.

Electrically powered vehicles (even trams and trains) have a higher overall �carbon footprint� than those powered by conventional i.c. engines.

Forget the pollution at source, but consider the increased emissions caused by the power generation (power stations are not very efficient and most are dirty), and the increased emissions caused during the vehicles� manufacture and the manufacture, installation and maintenance of the electricity distribution network.

Electric vehicles are more complex than their conventionally powered counterparts and when the entire picture is viewed it is not nearly so rosy as you�ve been led to believe.

Once again, individuals are being told to keep their lights off as much as possible (whilst government offices, of course, remain illuminated 24/7) and switch to poxy dim �green� lightbulbs � containing toxic pollutants themselves (I bought one once and threw it away � it was useless). Meantime plans are made to hugely increase electricity generation requirements by the type of plans you describe.

[Gromit]

New Judge

More propaganda for you:

"Metrolink has become the first tram system in the UK to be powered using water.

Transport bosses at Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) have signed a deal with Scottish and Southern Energy to use hydroelectricity to run the service.

The decision to use hydroelectricity to power the trams will also substantially cut Metrolink�s carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere."

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/news/news_article/i ndex.asp?id=184

[New Judge]

I imagine, Gromit, that the reduced sales of large vehicles has far more to do with increased fuel prices than the desire of potential owners to �cut their emissions�.

Schemes such as the hydro-electric powered trams you describe are fine. They may produce a small benefit (though I doubt it) and there is no direct cost borne by individuals. But as I pointed out, the production of the electricity is small beer when considering the effect of electrically powered vehicles in total.

Like I said, even if the UK (and indeed the whole of the EU) reduced its emissions to zero (neither practical nor desirable unless you want to live in a cave in the dark and cold) the overall global effect would be negligible.

All this can be argued over ad infinitum but it somewhat evades my main point (which I think is being missed and that�s my fault), which is about the dishonesty of politicians. To justify punitive taxes under the banner of "saving the planet" is dishonest � and that�s where I part company with �conventional wisdom� and become a heretic.

To start with it has not been demonstrated that the planet needs such a rescue. Even if it does, excessively taxing people in the UK because of the car they drive, or because of the household rubbish they produce, or the number of flights they take will not see any significant global benefits. It is the modern day equivalent to Window Tax � devised to extract money from the population when other revenue streams have reached their practical limits.

[Gromit]

New Judge

Electrically powered vehicles (even trams and trains) have a higher overall �carbon footprint� than those powered by conventional i.c. engines.

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/boyapati.shtml

More propaganda for you.
"...the average figure of 60 grams of carbon emissions for every kilometre one passenger travels by tram.
In comparison, most cars produce between 250 and 400 grams of carbon emissions per kilometre, more than four times as much.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/factsheets /cc_other_transport.pdf

[sp1814]

New Judge

Absolutely.

There is no reason whatsoever for us to have a 4X4. It drank fuel at a furious rate, and we never, ever, ever made use of it's 4X4 capabilities.

Personally, I think if there is a debate about the causes of climate change, it makes perfect sense to err on the side of caution.

I don't remember anyone in needing a 4X4 in City Of London in the 70s.

[New Judge]

Because the only model available was the Land Rover (made out of angle iron, with foam rubber seats one inch thick!). We also did not "need" to travel long haul then, but many do now.

When considering the "carbon footprint" of various modes of transport, it is not just the emissions caused by fuelling the motion that needs consideration. It is the other factors I have mentioned.

But once again, my main gripe is the dishonesty of politicians, fooling the public into believing that tax is necessary to solve this problem.

I guess we'll have to agree to differ!