Further Proof (as if needed) that Global Warming Taxes are a Farce...

ytareh

I was browsing the latest issue of What Car magazine flicking through the car stats pages .Now these things have gotten poncey enough as it is what with CO2 emissions levels ,Green ratings (A-F),NCAP crash ratings ,company car tax % etc etc but wait, whats this ,a new one?

"CARBON OFFSET COST"

mmm curious ...I check up on it ...apparently its the cost of 'neutralising' the effect of your CO2 (man I hate when they call CO2 Carbon!)Now theres a website quoted by What Car called

http://www.climatecare.org/

who you can pay the relevant amount to to offset the 'damage' done by your CO2 (and ease the guilt on your little green conscience LOL) .I assumed they would be planting trees but it seems they have projects like giving people in third world countries more efficient ovens believe it or not...


Now here's the good bit (of course I think the whole thing is an utter load of rubbish)(by the way you can 'pay' for your holiday flight CO2 emissions also on this site -and it did appear as if passenger flight produces a hell of a lot more CO2 than car travel-a sample return flight from London to Dublin return produced about a tenth of a TONNE of CO2(per passenger) compared with figures in grams for car journies....)

So how much do you think the 'Carbon Offset Value' for a YEAR or 12000 miles was comparing say a Toyota Yaris and a Lamborghini Gallardo???!!!

Come on guess ...all that environmental catastrophe being unleashed upon the planet ??!!! Ten thousand pounds sterling?....a grand?....A hundred pounds sterling???

No, way off ....The small car had a value of £18 and the Lambo £68.....So what this is saying is that if you paid an extra £50 a year all your 'carbon' (grr!)footprint would be erased for the supercar .

Now if this doesnt make three and even four figure (five in the Netherlands?) 'green' taxes the biggest swindle of recent years I dont know what is ...

leeroybrown

Carbon trading is a mess based on politically negotiated notional values. The numbers really mean nothing.

L1011

£21.84 for my slightly OTT mileage in a brand new hot hatch... can I pay this direct to the Green Party in return for NEVER hearing Deirde de Burca blithering on the radio again please?

Tipsy Mac

It's best that we use all the oil on the earth ASAP, otherwise we are only prolonging the problem, in the future everything will be CO2 free

Zube

I seem to remember Audi saying that it would only cost a few hundred euros to offset all the carbon emitted during manufacture and the entire lifetime emissions of any car.

Zube

Tipsy Mac wrote: »

It's best that we use all the oil on the earth ASAP, otherwise we are only prolonging the problem, in the future everything will be CO2 free

Joking aside, does anyone imagine that any of the economically extractable oil is going to be left unused in the ground? I believe the science of CO2 and climate change (unlike a lot of the LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU crowd in motors), but reducing our oil consumption will have no impact whatsoever: all that oil is going to be burnt, along with a lot of coal.

If atmospheric CO2 is to be reduced, it will have to be actively reduced, just reducing our output won't do it.

ART6

I would be happy to contribute to the carbon offset cost of shipping John Gormley and the rest of the "Greens" to an uninhabited island in the South Pacific.:D

Heroditas

ART6 wrote: »

I would be happy to contribute to the carbon offset cost of shipping John Gormley and the rest of the "Greens" to an uninhabited island in the South Pacific.:D

We'll put them on a sailing boat - that way they won't emit any CO2 through the use of engines.

KTRIC

This is all very reminiscent of the scam that the Roman Catholic church ran in the middle ages where people would buy there way into heaven. :rolleyes:

craichoe

ytareh wrote: »

I was browsing the latest issue of What Car magazine flicking through the car stats pages .Now these things have gotten poncey enough as it is what with CO2 emissions levels ,Green ratings (A-F),NCAP crash ratings ,company car tax % etc etc but wait, whats this ,a new one?

"CARBON OFFSET COST"

mmm curious ...I check up on it ...apparently its the cost of 'neutralising' the effect of your CO2 (man I hate when they call CO2 Carbon!)Now theres a website quoted by What Car called

http://www.climatecare.org/

who you can pay the relevant amount to to offset the 'damage' done by your CO2 (and ease the guilt on your little green conscience LOL) .I assumed they would be planting trees but it seems they have projects like giving people in third world countries more efficient ovens believe it or not...


Now here's the good bit (of course I think the whole thing is an utter load of rubbish)(by the way you can 'pay' for your holiday flight CO2 emissions also on this site -and it did appear as if passenger flight produces a hell of a lot more CO2 than car travel-a sample return flight from London to Dublin return produced about a tenth of a TONNE of CO2(per passenger) compared with figures in grams for car journies....)

So how much do you think the 'Carbon Offset Value' for a YEAR or 12000 miles was comparing say a Toyota Yaris and a Lamborghini Gallardo???!!!

Come on guess ...all that environmental catastrophe being unleashed upon the planet ??!!! Ten thousand pounds sterling?....a grand?....A hundred pounds sterling???

No, way off ....The small car had a value of £18 and the Lambo £68.....So what this is saying is that if you paid an extra £50 a year all your 'carbon' (grr!)footprint would be erased for the supercar .

Now if this doesnt make three and even four figure (five in the Netherlands?) 'green' taxes the biggest swindle of recent years I dont know what is ...

I .. don't .. get it, isn't this optional ???? ... and its been around A GOOD WHILE. Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Dusseldorf, Berlin and Cologne airports always had the machines whereby you could pay your carbon offset IF YOU WANTED TO.

The Figures meen sweet FA and thats bloody obvious, its a fund to help reduce Co2 emissions. If you don't agree with it then don't donate.

Zube

craichoe wrote: »

The Figures meen sweet FA and thats bloody obvious

How is this obvious?

Do you know the real figures?

craichoe

Zube wrote: »

How is this obvious?

Do you know the real figures?

From: https://www.climatecare.org/business/business-co2-calculator/calculator-data

For emissions calculations based on the amount you spend on gas and electricity or the size of your car, there is a subjective element in converting these to kWh or litres of fuel. We have made assumptions based on energy prices and general fuel consumption figures.

Because they wrote it down.

Its clearly stated on all the Co2 emission offset pay points in Airports that its on Assumptions and is more of a donation scheme to a fund rather than a taxation system for Co2 offset.

There is no concrete figures, its all based off assumptions to give you a roundabout number on what you can 'donate'

I would have serious misgivings however if it was a required payment i.e. a TAX, not a Donation.

E.G. Certain aircraft have Winglets which reduce the amount of Fuel they burn and hence the amount of Co2 they produce, that figure would be different to a plane without Winglets.

Riskymove

Also our new VRT/Motor Tax rates are not about offsetting the carbon but rather encouraging the purchase of lower emmission cars so they would not be similar.

Zube

craichoe wrote: »

Its clearly stated on all the Co2 emission offset pay points in Airports that its on Assumptions and is more of a donation scheme to a fund rather than a taxation system for Co2 offset.

I understand that it's based on assumptions, that doesn't mean it's worthless. Obviously if it's based on the assumption that I get 50 mpg and I only get 40, it's off a bit. But the OP's point stands: offsetting carbon emissions from cars is pretty cheap, far less than our current road tax. Even if those figures are wrong by 100%, that's still true.

craichoe

Zube wrote: »

I understand that it's based on assumptions, that doesn't mean it's worthless. Obviously if it's based on the assumption that I get 50 mpg and I only get 40, it's off a bit. But the OP's point stands: offsetting carbon emissions from cars is pretty cheap, far less than our current road tax. Even if those figures are wrong by 100%, that's still true.

Its a different system though,

Co2 VRT and Road tax: To stop people buying large cars
Paying a Co2 offset is like giving 3 euro a month to Trocaire.

100%, 500% wrong doesn't matter, one is a Tax paid to the Government, the other is essentially a Charity that plants trees.

One is designed to stop you doing it in the first place
The other is designed to offset it by doing so called tasks that will counteract this.

Bottom line, if it was cheap, you'd still buy a big damned car.

Zube

craichoe wrote: »

Bottom line, if it was cheap, you'd still buy a big damned car.

Since the effect on the environment is the same, why the focus on smaller, more efficient cars, reducing speed limits etc, instead of a few cents carbon offset tax on a litre of petrol, and buy what you like?

This, I think, is the OP's point, and it's a good one.

Balfa

Carbon offsets work in theory, but most places selling the offsets aren't up to much. A lot of money goes towards trees that would have been planted anyway, for example.

Carbon taxes, as craichoe says, are deterrents. And as a deterrent, it's effective and useful.

Seth Brundle

ART6 wrote: »

I would be happy to contribute to the carbon offset cost of shipping John Gormley and the rest of the "Greens" to an uninhabited island in the South Pacific.:D

Personally I would keep Mary White here purely for the entertainment!
Actually she is surely due to come out with another stupid idea soon!

craichoe

Zube wrote: »

Since the effect on the environment is the same, why the focus on smaller, more efficient cars, reducing speed limits etc, instead of a few cents carbon offset tax on a litre of petrol, and buy what you like?

This, I think, is the OP's point, and it's a good one.

A. Theres too many cars on Irish roads as it is, they don't want to increase the amount of cars on the road.
B. Its a Tax, we signed up to Kyoto which means we need to make the Co2 emissions quota. If we don't then the country has to pay a fine.
C. By making VRT and Road Tax expensive for big cars, people are less likely to buy big cars.

The per Kilometer taxation system has been done to death, unfortunatly with a relatively poor public Transport infrastructure we rely on road transport for almost everything, the truck drivers would hold the country to randsom.

Tax needs to be expensive to get BIG cars with high emissions off the road, this is so we meet the target for Kyoto.

Donations to a Co2 offset fund has no bearing on this as it has nothing to do with trying to stop people from buying cars, planting a tree in the Amazonian rainforrest does not change the amount of Co2 emissions we produce.

There is no real figure you can put on how much Co2 costs to pump into the atmosphere, a Mandatory Tax and a Voluntary Donation have two different principals, hence the figures are different.

Zube

craichoe wrote: »

Donations to a CO2 offset fund has no bearing on this as it has nothing to do with trying to stop people from buying cars,

Why are the policies focussed on stopping people buying the cars they want instead of addressing the environmental problems? Because the Government collects more money this way from an easy target, the private motorist.

Ultimately, all the oil will be burnt and all that carbon will end up as CO2. Policies should be designed to deal with that, not to collect cash while slowing the process down by a year or two.

ART6

A bit off topic perhaps, but OK, it isn't a tax. But then when our politicians go off jetting all over the world the government nowadays pays money into a carbon offset fund. Whose money is that? Not theirs, ours, obtained by taxation. So technically it could be argued that a proportion of the fund is provided from taxes:D.

craichoe

Zube wrote: »

Why are the policies focussed on stopping people buying the cars they want instead of addressing the environmental problems? Because the Government collects more money this way from an easy target, the private motorist.

Ultimately, all the oil will be burnt and all that carbon will end up as CO2. Policies should be designed to deal with that, not to collect cash while slowing the process down by a year or two.

Because people want big cars, big cars burn more fuel. Hence charge more tax for big cars and it becomes less desirable.

Zube

craichoe wrote: »

Because people want big cars, big cars burn more fuel. Hence charge more tax for big cars and it becomes less desirable.

If those people offset their emissions, it doesn't matter, they are carbon neutral, problem solved.

I think the real motivation is charge more tax for big cars, collect more tax, end of story. The environmental excuse for such taxes is a smokescreen.

And again, I am someone who accepts that CO2 emissions are causing climate change, not one of those in denial.

Riskymove

Zube wrote: »

If those people offset their emissions, it doesn't matter, they are carbon neutral, problem solved.

I think the real motivation is charge more tax for big cars, collect more tax, end of story. The environmental excuse for such taxes is a smokescreen.

And again, I am someone who accepts that CO2 emissions are causing climate change, not one of those in denial.

I am afraid that you are overlooking the fact that the vrt and tax is higher on higher emmission vehicles not to do with size...many types of cars considered "big" (e.g. BMW, AUDI, etc) are now cheaper as a result of the new system (therefore less tax collected) while some smaller petrol cars are more expensive

the bottom line here is that if people want to offset they can, thats an individual choice.

I dont think you can argue that the new system is not environmentally friendly compared to the old one (which people forget charged a lot for "big" cars).

The optimum position is IMO a carbon tax at the pump, it should be based on usage. This can be offset through the tax system to be revenue neutral

Zube

Riskymove wrote: »

I dont think you can argue that the new system is not environmentally friendly compared to the old one (which people forget charged a lot for "big" cars).

In this thread, I haven't been comparing it to the old system, I'm comparing it to the cost of neutralising the CO2 emitted. If that cost is €50-€100, and the annual road tax is €2000, that is significant. The ecological excuse is just an excuse for high taxes.

Similarly when the Greens want to reduce our motorway speed (when we finally have some motorways) supposedly in order to reduce our CO2 emissions, it's worth pointing out that a 1c per litre carbon offset tax would do the same job without wasting our time and therefore money puttering about at an even less sensible motorway maximum.

craichoe

craichoe wrote: »

Because people want big cars, big cars burn more fuel. Hence charge more tax for big cars and it becomes less desirable.

Thats retarded, and retarded is the correct term to use because it holds back progress. Let them buy large cars and as oil gets more expensive companies will let out more and more fuel efficient vehicles which pollute less.
There is a long way to go yet with hybrids, electric vehicles and biofuels.

Slow down cars - did ya ever hear such ****:rolleyes:

Why tax speed? Gearing and engine modifications mean optimum fuel economy can be adjusted for certain speeds. Technology has already overcome wind resistance to a certain extent using gearing and manipulating engine output.
Of course different cars are built for cruising on motorways others are built for city driving.

If you want to decrease Co2 by hitting drivers tax fuel more. Altering speeds holds back progress literally.

bigtime

Man made global warming is in itself a scam, so anything based on thid cannot help but be a scam.

Funny how the elite own these offset companies, and how it is anways the little man who get fleeced.

In case people have not noticed it will soon be impossible for the average person to run a car, as planned by the big boys. They want us all living in the cities, leaving the countryside for the rich.

bigtime

bigtime wrote: »

They want us all living in the cities, leaving the countryside for the rich.

A shift to the city like that would require Pol Pot. However, yea, they will try and make it hard as they can and it is what they want

Damien360

Carbon tax is a joke. The idea was that you put an extra charge on the fuel purchased and hense everyone would limit the use of their car and save the planet. Fuel prices have doubled since it was first proposed and fuel comsumption has not fallen. It is a tax, pure and simple.

Damien360

Damien360 wrote: »

Carbon tax is a joke. The idea was that you put an extra charge on the fuel purchased and hense everyone would limit the use of their car and save the planet. Fuel prices have doubled since it was first proposed and fuel comsumption has not fallen. It is a tax, pure and simple.

yeah and you know what it proves that cars arent a luxury like the greens seem to think


bah thank god for technology:
http://www.trident-vehicles.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=1

The engine is sourced from GM, a 6.6l V8 turbo diesel.
It's an 8-speed automatic,
A constant 70 mph, gives a recorded fuel consumption of 68.9 mpg!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/7562819.stm

Irelands entry

There is a system of sensors and it monitors the engine, how it is running and it adjusts our systems to match a specific oil. So if you are using sunflower oil we'll adjust our algorithm to suit sunflower oil, if it's rape-seed oil it will be a different program,

Bee

craichoe wrote: »

Tax needs to be expensive to get BIG cars with high emissions off the road, this is so we meet the target for Kyoto.

.

Jealous of successful people that can afford high performance road vehichles are we?

"We signed up to Kyoto"!!! I didn't and neither did the electorate!

Wingnutz in the government signed up to the environmentally useless Kyoto non-agreement, why is it a non-agreement? Answer = beacuse the USA, India, China are not complying with it..the biggest polluters in the world.
Irelands contribution to the supposed man made global warming industry is extremely minimal and does not justify the governent taxing anyone at all.

The carbon offset rip off tax will do damn all for the environment except make speculators happy and the dingbat idiots in the Green party that take your tax euros to give to companies to supposedly plant trees!

More to the point, where is the evidence that this will make any difference? Is the amount of Co2 to be “sequestered” statistically significant? We would be better off spending the rip off taxes on building some new nuclear power plants, which would not only decrease carbon emissions but NO2 and SO2 emissions as well by displacing coal and natural gas power?

The motorist is been squeezed too much!