Supertax On Gas Guzzlers

[television]

Oh dear, I cant take part in this from reasons out lined above

 

[Brett]

Someone please tell me what constitutes a gas guzzler. Is it mpg? Is it engine size? Is it emissions?

 

[Dieselman]

Someone please tell me what constitutes a gas guzzler. Is it mpg? Is it engine size? Is it emissions?

It would be emissions and fuel usage as those two are inextricably linked.

Engine size is relevant but not necessarily as then efficiency has to be considered.

 

[Rose Chap]

Of my two cars, which is the most polluting? The three cylinder 700CC Smart that does 45 to 50 mpg, or the 2.3 litre four cylinder supercharged Mercedes that rarely betters 25mpg?






Answer? The Smart. Its doing 4000 miles a month vs the CLK's 750.

Unquestionably putting the tax on fuel would be the sensible, fair, correct thing to do, however, the government would then lose out on levying more envy taxes dressed up as green measures and a bunch of Labour voters in the Welsh valleys would lose their jobs.

Therefore its about as likely as getting a Christmas card from Elvis.

 

[Dieselman]

But the CLK is the more polluting PER KILOMETER..

An AMG 65 isn't polluting if it never turns a wheel.

No scientific argument is accurate if you keep introducing variables, can we please stick to a constant, emissions are measured over distance to allow accurate comparison.

At the risk of this conversation going round in circles, there is tax on fuel...

 

[BTB 500]

It's based on g/km, so it is what is actually emitted.

Well, no. What is actually emitted depends entirely on the mileage done.

A 5 litre car that does 2,000 miles a year produces less emissions than a 2 litre car doing 15,000 miles a year. So why should the owner of the 6 litre car pay more VED for being LESS harmful to the environment?!

Hence the case for abandoning VED in favour of increased fuel duty. Not a perfect solution, but better IMO.

 

[Dieselman]

Well, no. What is actually emitted depends entirely on the mileage done.

Hence the case for abandoning VED in favour of increased fuel duty. Not a perfect solution, but better IMO.

Why, what's the problem with RFL.? it's a clear indicator of leagailty, emissions and running costs.

Would you be saying the same if your car attracted £35 per year RFL.?

You can't keep introducing variables, it makes a mokery of sensible discussion.

 

[Rose Chap]

I agree completely with BTB 500.

If this so called scientific argument is comprehensibly rubbished by introducing such basic 'variables' as distance, then its not a very good scientific argument.

 

[munichlegend]

Dieselman, regarding higher levels of Co2 allegedly leading to higher temperatures, please see below:

Over the last 5 years a significant body of scientific research has concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the climate criminal it is made out to be by self-proclaimed 'environmentalist' groups and opportunist politicians.

Below is a summary of this research evidence, with links to a review of each, demonstrating clearly that hysterical demands for carbon dioxide emissions reductions — together with the fuel duty hikes and climate change levy introduced supposedly to further these demands — are an environmentally pointless 'King Canute' exercise designed purely to restrict individual mobility, and exercise corporate energy control, through extortionate levels of taxation.

• Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO₂ concentration profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during glaciation "the CO₂ decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions, Fischer et al. (1999) decided that "the time lag of the rise in CO₂ concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions." In other words, an increase in carbon dioxide levels, the much hyped 'cause' of global warming, actually happens long after the warming has started, demonstrating clearly that it cannot possibly be the cause.
• On the basis of atmospheric carbon dioxide data obtained from Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core samples, and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) looked at the relationship between these two variables over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). A statistical test on the data showed that movement in the air's CO₂ content lagged behind shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO₂ data obtained from high time resolution samples at the Antarctic Concordia Dome site, for the period 22,000-9,000 BP (which covers the last glacial-to-interglacial transition) Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO₂ increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO₂ concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years. Proving once again that the greens have put effect before cause.
• In a study using different methodology, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediments in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. Commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration by about 3,000 years. Once more the order of events confounds the greens: a shift in carbon dioxide levels cannot 'cause' a temperature rise that happened 3,000 years earlier.
• The most recent study available covering this theme is that of Caillon et al. (2003)†, who focused on an isotope of argon (40Ar) that can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the relative timing of CO₂ shifts and climate change. Air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III - which occurred 240,000 years BP - were studied. The result of their painstaking analysis was that "the CO₂ increase lagged behind Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years." This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., confirms that CO₂ is not the forcing that drives the climatic system. Anthropogenic climate change (man-made global warming theory), based on the claimed impact of CO₂ emissions from transport and industry, is stone cold dead.

† Reference: Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO₂ and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731 (2003).

Acknowledgements: CSCDGC; EMA

 

[verytalldave]

Methinks someone on this forum is winding people up.

And probably enjoying it as well...........:bannana:

Naughty!

 

[munichlegend]

A fall in global temperatures from the 1940s to the mid 1970s, despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fuelled speculation that the world was about to enter a new ice age.

 

[Dieselman]

A fall in global temperatures from the 1940s to the mid 1970s, despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fuelled speculation that the world was about to enter a new ice age.

Anything else happen at around the same time that may have had an impact as well.?

 

[munichlegend]

Anything else happen at around the same time that may have had an impact as well.?

.A fall in global temperatures from the 1940s to the mid 1970s, despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fuelled speculation that the world was about to enter a new ice age. Subsequently, sunlight reflected by air pollution, was touted as an explanation. However, Nir Shaviv has a different view, and published an alternative explanation for climate change involving the cosmic ray flux / low cloud cover / 11-year solar cycle-climate connection:

"Solar activity has been increasing over the 20th century. Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940's and 1970's (as can be seen in the ion chamber data), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period. Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically

the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2 C out of the observed 0.6±0.2 C global warming.”​

Nir Shaviv, 2005

There are two reasons why the temperature should rise from the 1970s. First, there is a decrease in the average cosmic ray flux*. If we look at the average of each cycle there is an increase in the average cosmic ray flux until about the cycle of 1970, and then a decrease in the following two cycles. The last cycle was not as strong, so the average CRF increased. This can explain why the temperature stopped warming from around 2000.

Second, one has to realize that the temperature response of Earth's climate is a 'low pass filter' due to the high heat capacity of the Oceans. This implies that:

• The temperature variations over the 11 year cycle are highly damped (but t hey are there at a level of 0.1 deg).
• There is a delay time in the system's response. This means that the 11-year cycle will lag the solar forcing (and it does by 1-2 years). Over the centennial time scale, the Sun's activity significantly increased until the middle of the century, then it slightly decreased and somewhat increased from the 1970's with a peak in 2004. If you pass this behavior through the climate "low pass filter", you will find that because of Earth's heat capacity, the temperature at 2000 should be higher than the temperature in 1950's even if the decrease until the 1970's is similar to the increase afterwards

 

[Dieselman]

This can explain why the temperature stopped warming from around 2000.

Has it..?? That's news to me.

I have no comments to make but will post a linky for those that fancy spending some time reading.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/toolkits_cc.html

Also have a look at the Met Office recordings to see whether the temperture is still rising or not.

As far as solar forcing are you aware of Solar Dimming and the effect it had?

 

[verytalldave]

Anything else happen at around the same time that may have had an impact as well.?

Lots of things...............
A world war or two
Double glazing and central heating becomes popular
Refridgerators and freezers in most households
Televisions in every room
Computers invented
Loss of a significant percentage of the worlds rainforests
Coal fired power stations
Air travel increases by 10,000% (or thereabouts)
Atomic bomb testing
Widespread use of plastics
Population of the world has risen from about 2.2B to 6.7B
And of course - the popularity of our beloved motor car

 

[Brett]

It would be emissions and fuel usage as those two are inextricably linked.

Engine size is relevant but not necessarily as then efficiency has to be considered.

Ok, so is 15mpg gas guzzling? What about 25mpg? 35mpg? I'm trying to understand what consitutes the term. Or is it simply any 4x4?

 

[Dieselman]

Who mentioned 4x4.?

In todays world of efficiency I think anything below 25mpg is being a little wasteful. That incidentally ties in with the 226g/km band G.

Why not strive for best in class..??

 

[Benzowner]

Why, what's the problem with RFL.? it's a clear indicator of leagailty, emissions and running costs.

Would you be saying the same if your car attracted £35 per year RFL.?

You can't keep introducing variables, it makes a mokery of sensible discussion.

Except the additional RFL for so called gas guzzlers is not best charged at a fixed rate. If it is more comfortable in my car doing 20k per annum for an additional charge of just £0.10 per mile(based on a £2000 RFL charge) than driving a green car in which I may be cramped up for a saving £1.00 per mile in fuel (based on 40mpg vs 20mpg) then I will drive the gas guzzler. However, if the RFL was put on fuel at say a rate of average 12k mile per annum, that would make a significant difference and I would then look more favourably at the smaller car.

 

[munichlegend]

Has it..?? That's news to me.

I have no comments to make but will post a linky for those that fancy spending some time reading.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/toolkits_cc.html

Also have a look at the Met Office recordings to see whether the temperture is still rising or not.

As far as solar forcing are you aware of Solar Dimming and the effect it had?

Thanks for the link. Very interesting. Well, according to the Met Office/Hadley Centre's own graph for 'Global Average Surface Temperatures 1861-2004' (in the FAQ section), it confirms temperatures have been falling since 2000.

I particularly like this quote from the Met Office, right next to the graph quoted above:

"according to sensors on weather balloons, there seems to have been little change in temperature in the tropical mid-troposphere over the past 25 years, which is not what models predict. This discrepancy and its implications are the subject of ongoing research"

Says it all really.

 

[verytalldave]

Ok, so is 15mpg gas guzzling? What about 25mpg? 35mpg? I'm trying to understand what consitutes the term. Or is it simply any 4x4?

The term "gas guzzler" is fairly loose and is open to individual interpretation. I suppose any car that does less MPG than currently WORLDWIDE average would be standing in line.
I dont know what the worldwide average fuel consumption figure is (for petrol cars - does anybody know?), but for arguements sake, lets guesstimate it at 30MPG.
Now that is probably a bit generous. It wouldnt surprise me if it was nearer to 25MPG given the amount of cars in the US. But lets say 30MPG.
So any car that does MORE than 30MPG is relatively "economical", and any car that does less is not.
But the term "gas guzzler" inferes a car that performs SIGNIFICANTLY less than average in the MPG stakes, and I would suggest a figure of half the average would not be unreasonable.
So there it is. As far as I am concerned, a "gas guzzler" is a car that does 15MPG or less.
Anyone care to comment?