Chris Shore wrote:
I think its lack of political will to do anything that may lose an
election, but I hope it all backfires, and people see that 99% of so
called 'green taxes' are totally ineffective in actually reducing carbon
emission - the way that 99% of traffic cameras are ineffective at reducing
road deaths. But are GREAT for raising money.

Indeed. More money will be raised and squandered. If the money
raised were committed to investment in public transport, house
insulation, subsidised fluorescent lightbulbs, more fuel-efficient
cars etc. etc, then these
taxes might have some effect. The other effect they will have will
be to increase the cost base of our economy relative to, say, China
and India (who don't yet care about these things as much as we
apparently do) and export more production to countries who pollute
far more than we do in the process.


That can be countered by taking an essentially protectionist stance
against China..on account of their pollution being our problem as well,
this can be spun into a 'fair' solution.

As I said, my solutin is to replace income tax with a consumption tax.

And underwrite everyones wages with a citizens income

This might reduce cost of labour in the country to a much lower value
relative to china, and stimulate local manufacturing, and be socially
beneficial, and help offset Chinas instransigence with respect to their
currency policy, that aims to keep the Remnimbi low relative to western
currencies.


One good thing the government could do would be to force car
manufacturers to build far more fuel-efficient engines. We had
the chance to do this when pressure came on them to reduce
emissions. They came up with the catalytic converter - an awful
solution. From the point of view of the manufacturers, it was
wonderful - easy to implement, cost passed directly on to
customer. From an environmental point of view, it's a disaster
as far as I can see as it reduces the fuel efficiency of the engine.
An opportunity missed...


I don;t think paring away at efficiencies is going to net us the overall
50-80% reductions we need.

We need a total re-evaluation of lifestyle to a low energy one to start
with, and then replace oil with things like nuclear and wind power...

There are no technical fixes other than those based on that.

Government has only tow tools. Legislation and taxation. Legislation is
oppressive, and taxation will only ultimately work if its *directly*
coupled to fossil energy usage, and the gratuitous consumption of raw
materials in short supply.
In short we need to cerate a playing field that tilts over time (you
need time, because otherwise you get things like the poll tax riots)
towards using what resources we have - unskilled and semi skilled labour
- and away from using what we don't have - energy, particularly carbon
based energy.


The net effect of a switch from income tax/NI/benefit towards carbon
tax, VAT and consumption tax would be to

- raise the cost of importing and imports
- lower the wage cost of local produce.
- make carbon based energy expensive relative to the alternatives.
- reduce government interference and spending on enforcement of fiscal
law - because most of it vanishes.
- eliminate poverty traps and promote entry level labour at very low
employer cost, and make the labour market extremely fluid and flexible.

If there are no 'loss of benefits' no 'income taxes' and no 'employers
national insurance and PAYE then employing someone becomes a simple
matter of 'you work, I pay, cash all right?'..all other pension and
medical assurance stuff is simply done for all citizens as a matter of
right, and of course. If enough jobs are created, you don;t need to
worry about protecting the ones you have..

- make 'stuff' relatively more expensive to PURCHASE, but if the tax is
done the right way, very cheap to FIX..instantly the economics of e.g.
having a £3000 washing machine fixed for £50 - thereby employing someone
local..leads to a huge reduction in refuse and recycling..

The point is you don't have to micro manage this the way Laber is trying
to. Simply by moving the taxation burden, the market itself will go in
the generally desirable direction. No need to send the bailiffs round to
social security scroungers, Make everyone a social security scrounger
and declare it legal..THAT is the sort of equality I want to see ;-)
No need to subsidise alternative technology - make it sufficiently
attractive financially and the banks and private equity houses will do
all that for you , at their risk.




Chris

The Natural Philosopher muttered:

Legislation is
oppressive, and taxation will only ultimately work if its *directly*
coupled to fossil energy usage, and the gratuitous consumption of raw
materials in short supply.

One of the experts on Radio 4 yesterday said that the change required was
similar to that in WW2, i.e. massive.

A poster on the BBC HYS forum had quite an interesting idea in that every
driver would be rationed with a fuel allowance, say 500 litres of fuel per
month, if a driver stuck to his allowance, fine. If he exceeded it, he'd
have to buy his extra ration from people who'd not used up theirs.

The only time I noticed a distinct drop in traffic volumes in London was the
week of the petrol strike in 2001, London was almost a pleasant place to be.

In article ,
magwitch wrote:

A poster on the BBC HYS forum had quite an interesting idea in
that every driver would be rationed with a fuel allowance, say
500 litres of fuel per month, if a driver stuck to his allowance,
fine. If he exceeded it, he'd have to buy his extra ration from
people who'd not used up theirs.

Someone remarked on tv last week that if the whole
of the UK stopped using their vehicles (everything)
today, then it would only take a few months for
China's increase in CO2 production to take our place.

--
Tony Williams.

Tony Williams wrote:
In article ,
magwitch wrote:

A poster on the BBC HYS forum had quite an interesting idea in
that every driver would be rationed with a fuel allowance, say
500 litres of fuel per month, if a driver stuck to his allowance,
fine. If he exceeded it, he'd have to buy his extra ration from
people who'd not used up theirs.

Someone remarked on tv last week that if the whole
of the UK stopped using their vehicles (everything)
today, then it would only take a few months for
China's increase in CO2 production to take our place.

57 days iirc and if the entire continent of australia lived like
aboriginies the china would output their CO2 in 10 months.

don't believe the hype.

.. wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:
In article ,
magwitch wrote:

A poster on the BBC HYS forum had quite an interesting idea in
that every driver would be rationed with a fuel allowance, say
500 litres of fuel per month, if a driver stuck to his allowance,
fine. If he exceeded it, he'd have to buy his extra ration from
people who'd not used up theirs.
Someone remarked on tv last week that if the whole
of the UK stopped using their vehicles (everything)
today, then it would only take a few months for
China's increase in CO2 production to take our place.

57 days iirc and if the entire continent of australia lived like
aboriginies the china would output their CO2 in 10 months.

don't believe the hype.


OTOH if we simply didn't buy chinese, we could live like kings forever :-)

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:29:40 GMT, "." wrote:

Tony Williams wrote:
In article ,
magwitch wrote:

A poster on the BBC HYS forum had quite an interesting idea in
that every driver would be rationed with a fuel allowance, say
500 litres of fuel per month, if a driver stuck to his allowance,
fine. If he exceeded it, he'd have to buy his extra ration from
people who'd not used up theirs.

Someone remarked on tv last week that if the whole
of the UK stopped using their vehicles (everything)
today, then it would only take a few months for
China's increase in CO2 production to take our place.

57 days iirc and if the entire continent of australia lived like
aboriginies the china would output their CO2 in 10 months.

don't believe the hype.

Of course I believe the hype. Because our Government is planning to
make us voters pay for our national 2% - and for all the others -
including the Americans, one presumes. Someone has to pay for it (
though somewhat on a red bill), and no-one else seems to be willing to
do so. What do we do? Boycot Chinese takeaways?

---
GR

Tony Williams muttered:

In article ,
magwitch wrote:

A poster on the BBC HYS forum had quite an interesting idea in
that every driver would be rationed with a fuel allowance, say
500 litres of fuel per month, if a driver stuck to his allowance,
fine. If he exceeded it, he'd have to buy his extra ration from
people who'd not used up theirs.

Someone remarked on tv last week that if the whole
of the UK stopped using their vehicles (everything)
today, then it would only take a few months for
China's increase in CO2 production to take our place.

No I think he said light bulbs (turn them off) so it's even worse.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

We need a total re-evaluation of lifestyle to a low energy one to start
with, and then replace oil with things like nuclear and wind power...

we ? try they ;-)

our household is quite 'green' already: only 5 flights in the last 10 years,
we drive a fuel efficient cars on the grounds of cost an comfort rather than
what other people think of our choice. we use minimal detergents, cosmetics,
etc and we usually don't fill a wheelie bin, we accept we should recycle more.
out gas and electric bills are nowhere near what other people seem to pay.

to cut out "carbon profile" any further would see 'us' living like communists
did in the 50's whilst watching 'them' do whatever they like. India, China and
America are the main culprits and we will be the main scapegoats, taxed
to buggery for the prestige of the politcos who now have a convenient exit
strategy from iraq and afghanistan.

cynical ? moi ?

That can be countered by taking an essentially protectionist stance
against China..on account of their pollution being our problem as well,
this can be spun into a 'fair' solution.

We'd never get away with that.

As I said, my solutin is to replace income tax with a consumption tax.

And underwrite everyones wages with a citizens income

I'm with you on both of those.

One good thing the government could do would be to force car
manufacturers to build far more fuel-efficient engines. We had
the chance to do this when pressure came on them to reduce
emissions. They came up with the catalytic converter - an awful
solution. From the point of view of the manufacturers, it was
wonderful - easy to implement, cost passed directly on to
customer. From an environmental point of view, it's a disaster
as far as I can see as it reduces the fuel efficiency of the engine.
An opportunity missed...


I don;t think paring away at efficiencies is going to net us the overall
50-80% reductions we need.

I agree with you but it still doesn't excuse going with policies which
make things worse when a better solution is available.

We need a total re-evaluation of lifestyle to a low energy one to start
with, and then replace oil with things like nuclear and wind power...

With you again there.

There are no technical fixes other than those based on that.

Chris

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:24:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We need a total re-evaluation of lifestyle to a low energy one to start
with, and then replace oil with things like nuclear and wind power...

I don't know if 'we' can; there's always going to be someone next door
(country-wise) who wants to 'get ahead' by living by existing rules - and
if doing our bit actually ultimately makes no difference, where's the
incentive to try?

I'm sure I saw something on the BBC News site the other day along the
lines that if comsumption worldwide were to happen at UK rates we'd need
three Earths by 2050 to meet demand, which is rather alarming (although
perhaps not surprising). Annoyingly I can't find the reference now


Government has only tow tools. Legislation and taxation. Legislation is
oppressive, and taxation will only ultimately work if its *directly*
coupled to fossil energy usage, and the gratuitous consumption of raw
materials in short supply.

But such initiatives always seem to hit the consumers in small ways.
There's no attempt to deal with the bigger picture, either at the consumer
or the manufacturing level. Unless that changes - and changes worldwide -
it'll be too little, too late.

- raise the cost of importing and imports - lower the wage cost of local
produce.

That I like - couple it with a reintroduction of industry and
manufacturing to the UK, incentives for manufacturers to make products
with greater longevity and ease of repair, and educating society in the
ways of making do and mending what we have rather than always replacing
outright (heck, we managed it for years - it seems like the current
trends have only really crept in within the last 25 years or so).

cheers

Jules

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:24:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We need a total re-evaluation of lifestyle to a low energy one to start
with, and then replace oil with things like nuclear and wind power...

I don't know if 'we' can; there's always going to be someone next door
(country-wise) who wants to 'get ahead' by living by existing rules - and
if doing our bit actually ultimately makes no difference, where's the
incentive to try?

If they jumped in the lake ...

Jules wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:24:11 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
We need a total re-evaluation of lifestyle to a low energy one to start
with, and then replace oil with things like nuclear and wind power...

I don't know if 'we' can; there's always going to be someone next door
(country-wise) who wants to 'get ahead' by living by existing rules - and
if doing our bit actually ultimately makes no difference, where's the
incentive to try?


Massive sea change in taxation would make it that way.

I can remember when a fridge cots 300 quid, and you got paid £1500 a year.

Thats about £1500 equivalent today. If fridges were that expensive, do
you think you would say 'sod it, i'll chuck tis one and buy another'
when it breaks?

If it cost you £4 a mile to travel, would you use teh car toi opo diwn
te shops to get a newspaper?



I'm sure I saw something on the BBC News site the other day along the
lines that if comsumption worldwide were to happen at UK rates we'd need
three Earths by 2050 to meet demand, which is rather alarming (although
perhaps not surprising). Annoyingly I can't find the reference now


Precsiley.

Government has only tow tools. Legislation and taxation. Legislation is
oppressive, and taxation will only ultimately work if its *directly*
coupled to fossil energy usage, and the gratuitous consumption of raw
materials in short supply.

But such initiatives always seem to hit the consumers in small ways.
There's no attempt to deal with the bigger picture, either at the consumer
or the manufacturing level. Unless that changes - and changes worldwide -
it'll be too little, too late.

Thats why OI described the setup. Its perfectly possible to live more or
less comfortably and happily without consuming one quarter of what we do.

Honestly i think we were just as happy in the 50's as we are now. CXrs
were things you might have to go down to the coast on the weekend, but
you certainly wouldn't use one on a daily basis.


- raise the cost of importing and imports - lower the wage cost of local
produce.

That I like - couple it with a reintroduction of industry and
manufacturing to the UK, incentives for manufacturers to make products
with greater longevity and ease of repair, and educating society in the
ways of making do and mending what we have rather than always replacing
outright (heck, we managed it for years - it seems like the current
trends have only really crept in within the last 25 years or so).


Yes, they have. The days when there were engineering shops to
recondition engines in every large town..and shops that repaired
radios..and the like..are gone. They could come back. Several people I
know do this kind of thing.

Its perfectly possible to make a washing machine that can be
economically repaired - or does 10 years without needing it.

BUT there is no money in it largely. And therefore no money to pay an
expensive qualified design engineer to do it.

cheers

Jules

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:53:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

If it cost you £4 a mile to travel, would you use teh car toi opo diwn
te shops to get a newspaper?

And if you were a pensioner, with no local shop?

---
GR

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:09:57 +0000 Gropius Riftwynde wrote :
If it cost you £4 a mile to travel, would you use teh car toi
opo diwn te shops to get a newspaper?

And if you were a pensioner, with no local shop?

If transport was £4 a mile people in villages would have kept using
their village shops so they wouldn't have closed.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:09:57 +0000 Gropius Riftwynde wrote :
If it cost you £4 a mile to travel, would you use teh car toi
opo diwn te shops to get a newspaper?
And if you were a pensioner, with no local shop?

If transport was £4 a mile people in villages would have kept using
their village shops so they wouldn't have closed.

Precisely.

Here where the nearest national brand supermarket is 10 miles away it
costs 6 quid roughly to make the trip..

we have three healthy village stores withing 4 miles..

In message , at 12:06:12 on Thu, 2
Nov 2006, Tony Bryer remarked:
If it cost you £4 a mile to travel, would you use teh car toi
opo diwn te shops to get a newspaper?

And if you were a pensioner, with no local shop?

If transport was £4 a mile people in villages would have kept using
their village shops so they wouldn't have closed.

But if transport becomes £4 a mile, will the shops re-open?

--
Roland Perry

Tony Bryer muttered:

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 11:09:57 +0000 Gropius Riftwynde wrote :
If it cost you £4 a mile to travel, would you use teh car toi
opo diwn te shops to get a newspaper?

And if you were a pensioner, with no local shop?

If transport was £4 a mile people in villages would have kept using
their village shops so they wouldn't have closed.

As they are now if they still have one, when I first moved up here the
village shop was hardly ever busy, but ever since petrol went to over 90p a
litre it's been packed.

Gropius Riftwynde wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:53:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

If it cost you £4 a mile to travel, would you use teh car toi opo diwn
te shops to get a newspaper?

And if you were a pensioner, with no local shop?

---
GR
You are ****ed.
Ive seen 82 year old pensioners moving at 2mph across a busy junction
that they haven't even stopped for. They don't last long ;-)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
snip
If it cost you £4 a mile to travel, would you use teh car toi opo
diwn te shops to get a newspaper?

Spellchecker broken or have you put the gloves back on? :-)

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:53:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Its perfectly possible to make a washing machine that can be
economically repaired - or does 10 years without needing it.

Indeed so. And fridges. When they go wrong, it is very easy to obtain
the parts to make them right again.

BUT there is no money in it largely. And therefore no money to pay an
expensive qualified design engineer to do it.

So go to a dump, get the parts, and do it yourself. Could save several
hundred pounds for the cost of a day out, and a couple of hours
ho-humming.

0---
GR

In message , at 10:16:24 on
Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Gropius Riftwynde remarked:
Its perfectly possible to make a washing machine that can be
economically repaired - or does 10 years without needing it.

Indeed so. And fridges. When they go wrong, it is very easy to obtain
the parts to make them right again.

Fridges are a bad example because of the involvement of CFCs. You don't
want to let them out by fiddling around, recharging in the field is
problematic, and you probably want a more modern refrigerant anyway.
--
Roland Perry

The message
from Roland Perry contains these words:

Indeed so. And fridges. When they go wrong, it is very easy to obtain
the parts to make them right again.

Fridges are a bad example because of the involvement of CFCs.

But it's rarely the cooling system that's died. Commonly it's the
thermostat or the door seal.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Gropius Riftwynde wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:53:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Its perfectly possible to make a washing machine that can be
economically repaired - or does 10 years without needing it.

Indeed so. And fridges. When they go wrong, it is very easy to obtain
the parts to make them right again.

BUT there is no money in it largely. And therefore no money to pay an
expensive qualified design engineer to do it.

So go to a dump, get the parts, and do it yourself. Could save several
hundred pounds for the cost of a day out, and a couple of hours
ho-humming.

0---
GR

Well often enough I do.

I mist say that I averaged out the cost of repair and renewal of the
last couple of washing machines..and bought a Miele with a ten year
guarantee..

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Gropius Riftwynde wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:53:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Its perfectly possible to make a washing machine that can be
economically repaired - or does 10 years without needing it.
Indeed so. And fridges. When they go wrong, it is very easy to
obtain
the parts to make them right again.

BUT there is no money in it largely. And therefore no money to pay
an expensive qualified design engineer to do it.
So go to a dump, get the parts, and do it yourself. Could save
several
hundred pounds for the cost of a day out, and a couple of hours
ho-humming.
0---
GR

Well often enough I do.

I mist say

.... You're the policeman on "'ello, 'ello" , aren't you



--
geoff

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:16:24 -0000, Gropius Riftwynde
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:53:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Its perfectly possible to make a washing machine that can be
economically repaired - or does 10 years without needing it.

Indeed so. And fridges. When they go wrong, it is very easy to obtain
the parts to make them right again.

BUT there is no money in it largely. And therefore no money to pay an
expensive qualified design engineer to do it.

So go to a dump, get the parts, and do it yourself. Could save several
hundred pounds for the cost of a day out, and a couple of hours
ho-humming.

0---
GR



Although in the case of a fridge the difference in energy effeciency
between a 10yr old one & a modern one makes it uneconomic from either
point of view.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:31:40 +0000, Duncan Wood wrote:
Although in the case of a fridge the difference in energy effeciency
between a 10yr old one & a modern one makes it uneconomic from either
point of view.

Out of interest, what is it that makes a modern fridge a lot more
efficient than on from say 15 years ago? Better compressor? Better
refrigerant? Better door seals? Better insulation?