Association of British Drivers calls for restraint over fuel duty
13 August 2004, 07:47 PM
#1
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Association of British Drivers calls for restraint over fuel duty
Recent press release:
Association of British Drivers calls for restraint over fuel duty
The Environmental Audit Committee is expected to call for even higher levels of fuel duty to put a brake on rising emissions from transport that have been linked to global warming. However, this claimed environmental basis is fatally flawed.
"The environment is a fig leaf used to hide the government's embarrassment at having the greediest approach to taxing fuel in Europe, and an attempt to stave off the electoral unpopularity they deserve" said ABD Environment Spokesman, Ben Adams.
"Raising fuel duty is a King Canute exercise as far as climate change is concerned, its true aim is to fleece motorists. Current modest variations in climate remain well within geological limits, which have seen temperature gradients several times greater on many occasions when there were no cars or factories around."
"The entire rationale for fuel duty hikes is flawed. The UK will already meet its Kyoto target, although this 'success' won't do the planet any good. All the scientific research the ABD can find - seven papers published in the last 5 years - show that rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide always occur after the temperature has gone up (1) due to natural astronomical and geophysical forces. No self-proclaimed environmentalist, and no politician, can put effect before cause by raising taxes."
"Whilst there is a consensus amongst some political parties, environmental groups and sections of the media that emissions of carbon dioxide are affecting the global climate, the independent scientific community has always leaned the other way. The Leipzig Declaration (2) and the Oregon Petition (3) show this clearly, but these statements and the overwhelming majority of independent scientists supporting them remain under-reported as politicians use spin to force scary 'predictions' under the spotlight."
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory said "At a time when oil prices have risen sharply this is the last thing our economy needs. Motorists have been mugged too many times. There is no excuse for short-term fiscal greed founded on what Professor Bellamy (4) has described as green 'poppycock'."
ENDS
(1) Scientific research evidence:
Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, and concluded that during global cooling (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 during global warming "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."
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 between 900 and 1200 years.
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 warming phase temperature increase by 800 years.
From a 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 1300 to 5000 years.
In their study of sediments in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia, Yokoyama et al. (2000) determined 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 3000 years.
The most recent study the ABD has reviewed covering this theme is that of Caillon et al. (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), who focused on an isotope of argon (40Ar) that offers 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.
(2) The Leipzig Declaration:
"As scientists, we - along with our fellow citizens - are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate; indeed, land clearing and urban growth have been changing local climates for centuries. Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs - with warmer periods, such as the medieval 'climate optimum', playing an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations that depend primarily on agriculture. For these reasons we must always remain sensitive to activities that could affect future climate.
Attention has recently been focused on the increasing emission of 'greenhouse' gases into the atmosphere. International discussions by political leaders are currently underway that could constrain energy use and mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Although we understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change, we believe this approach may be dangerously simplistic. Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the so-called 'scientific consensus' that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty actions.
As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that - contrary to conventional wisdom - there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever. And to match this fact, the mathematical climate models are becoming more realistic and are forecasting temperature increases that are only 30 percent of what was considered the 'best' value just four years ago.
We consider the Global Climate Treaty concluded in Rio de Janeiro at the 1992 'Earth Summit' to be unrealistic; its goal is stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which requires that fuel use be cut by 60-80 percent worldwide! Energy is essential for all economic growth, and fossil fuels provide today's principal global energy source. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For this reason, we consider 'carbon taxes' and other drastic control policies - lacking credible support from the underlying science - to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."
This statement is based on the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on November 9-10, 1995, under the sponsorship of the Prime Minister of the State of Saxony.
(3) The Oregon Petition:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (SIGNED BY OVER 18,000 SCIENTISTS WORLD-WIDE)
(4) see http://www.dangly.co.uk/ABD/poppycock.pdf
**************************************************
Press Enquiries: 0870 4442535
ABD general enquiries and membership: 07000-781544
For more information about the ABD visit our Website at http://www.abd.org.uk
The Association of British Drivers is run on a voluntary basis to lobby for the beleaguered British motorist:
"Reclaiming the roads for the people who pay for them"
"Demanding proper roads (and railways) in exchange for paying one seventh of all taxes"
"Debunking the nonsense you hear about the environmental impact of the car"
"Promoting effective road safety instead of the criminalisation of safe driving"
Association of British Drivers calls for restraint over fuel duty
The Environmental Audit Committee is expected to call for even higher levels of fuel duty to put a brake on rising emissions from transport that have been linked to global warming. However, this claimed environmental basis is fatally flawed.
"The environment is a fig leaf used to hide the government's embarrassment at having the greediest approach to taxing fuel in Europe, and an attempt to stave off the electoral unpopularity they deserve" said ABD Environment Spokesman, Ben Adams.
"Raising fuel duty is a King Canute exercise as far as climate change is concerned, its true aim is to fleece motorists. Current modest variations in climate remain well within geological limits, which have seen temperature gradients several times greater on many occasions when there were no cars or factories around."
"The entire rationale for fuel duty hikes is flawed. The UK will already meet its Kyoto target, although this 'success' won't do the planet any good. All the scientific research the ABD can find - seven papers published in the last 5 years - show that rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide always occur after the temperature has gone up (1) due to natural astronomical and geophysical forces. No self-proclaimed environmentalist, and no politician, can put effect before cause by raising taxes."
"Whilst there is a consensus amongst some political parties, environmental groups and sections of the media that emissions of carbon dioxide are affecting the global climate, the independent scientific community has always leaned the other way. The Leipzig Declaration (2) and the Oregon Petition (3) show this clearly, but these statements and the overwhelming majority of independent scientists supporting them remain under-reported as politicians use spin to force scary 'predictions' under the spotlight."
ABD Chairman Brian Gregory said "At a time when oil prices have risen sharply this is the last thing our economy needs. Motorists have been mugged too many times. There is no excuse for short-term fiscal greed founded on what Professor Bellamy (4) has described as green 'poppycock'."
ENDS
(1) Scientific research evidence:
Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, and concluded that during global cooling (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 during global warming "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."
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 between 900 and 1200 years.
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 warming phase temperature increase by 800 years.
From a 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 1300 to 5000 years.
In their study of sediments in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia, Yokoyama et al. (2000) determined 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 3000 years.
The most recent study the ABD has reviewed covering this theme is that of Caillon et al. (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), who focused on an isotope of argon (40Ar) that offers 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.
(2) The Leipzig Declaration:
"As scientists, we - along with our fellow citizens - are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate; indeed, land clearing and urban growth have been changing local climates for centuries. Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs - with warmer periods, such as the medieval 'climate optimum', playing an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations that depend primarily on agriculture. For these reasons we must always remain sensitive to activities that could affect future climate.
Attention has recently been focused on the increasing emission of 'greenhouse' gases into the atmosphere. International discussions by political leaders are currently underway that could constrain energy use and mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Although we understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change, we believe this approach may be dangerously simplistic. Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the so-called 'scientific consensus' that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty actions.
As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that - contrary to conventional wisdom - there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever. And to match this fact, the mathematical climate models are becoming more realistic and are forecasting temperature increases that are only 30 percent of what was considered the 'best' value just four years ago.
We consider the Global Climate Treaty concluded in Rio de Janeiro at the 1992 'Earth Summit' to be unrealistic; its goal is stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which requires that fuel use be cut by 60-80 percent worldwide! Energy is essential for all economic growth, and fossil fuels provide today's principal global energy source. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For this reason, we consider 'carbon taxes' and other drastic control policies - lacking credible support from the underlying science - to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."
This statement is based on the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on November 9-10, 1995, under the sponsorship of the Prime Minister of the State of Saxony.
(3) The Oregon Petition:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (SIGNED BY OVER 18,000 SCIENTISTS WORLD-WIDE)
(4) see http://www.dangly.co.uk/ABD/poppycock.pdf
**************************************************
Press Enquiries: 0870 4442535
ABD general enquiries and membership: 07000-781544
For more information about the ABD visit our Website at http://www.abd.org.uk
The Association of British Drivers is run on a voluntary basis to lobby for the beleaguered British motorist:
"Reclaiming the roads for the people who pay for them"
"Demanding proper roads (and railways) in exchange for paying one seventh of all taxes"
"Debunking the nonsense you hear about the environmental impact of the car"
"Promoting effective road safety instead of the criminalisation of safe driving"
13 August 2004, 08:09 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, I agree that we should not have 'green poppycock' from the goverment.
We truly need some accountability and visibility of any hike in fuel duty to be shown to be going towards greener forms of public transportation.
How this is done, I'm not sure, but I think you'd get more 'on-side' if the extra duty was being properly spent on :
a) improving public transport
b) investigating greener fuels
It'd also be nice to see the public coming halfway too, and doing their bit to reduce personal car usage where & when possible.
We truly need some accountability and visibility of any hike in fuel duty to be shown to be going towards greener forms of public transportation.
How this is done, I'm not sure, but I think you'd get more 'on-side' if the extra duty was being properly spent on :
a) improving public transport
b) investigating greener fuels
It'd also be nice to see the public coming halfway too, and doing their bit to reduce personal car usage where & when possible.
13 August 2004, 08:39 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Imlach - why should 'the public' do "..their bit to reduce personal car usage .."? Last time I looked we were a free country - some even call it a democracy. It'd be nice if our elected leaders actually listened to what *we* wanted and asked for instead of a) lining their own pockets, b) inflating their own egos by trying to tell us we 'should do things for the good of humanity' and c) trying to control our every thought and deed.
Dave
Dave
13 August 2004, 08:45 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is, we talk about what we'd do with 'extra' fuel duty now, but cast your mind back 10 years or so. We had lower, but still unpopular, fuel duty then, and we'd have said just the same that we'd maybe accept more tax if it were spent on improving the transport infrastructure. My point? It's the extra duty we now already pay, that should be going into improving the roads and public transport, not some extra. If more general funds are needed, raise them through the only fair means which is income tax.
13 August 2004, 08:48 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doing their bit to reduce personal car usage where & when possible
13 August 2004, 08:48 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hutton_d
Imlach - why should 'the public' do "..their bit to reduce personal car usage .."? Last time I looked we were a free country - some even call it a democracy.
Remember, you're one of a VERY small percentage of people on the planet to own a car. Use it wisely.
13 August 2004, 08:51 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the argument against reducing personal car use might even be more basic than the personal choice thing. There is no evidence that people are causing global warming. Why should we stop doing something that is, as Bellamy says, not actually causing global warming to start with? Current climate change is well within the boundaries of natural climate change that has been happening for a long, long time.
Of course to some degree it does come back to the government's desire to control our right to free movement. From their perspective cars are like some SciFi wormhole: the man in the street can climb into one and just pop out somewhere totally different only a few hours later and without any need to let the administration know of your intentions. They want this stopped and believe me unless we fight long and hard they are going to have it stopped real soon now.
To be honest it shocks me just how few people on this forum, where we are supposed to be interested in cars and driving, are actively involved in the fight. Open your eyes. In 5 years time you will no longer have the right to drive what you want where you want. Some Stalinist with a bowl of lentil soup in one hand and a court summons in the other will be telling you what you can and can't do with your car, and for a start those turbo charged performance things will be right out.
Wake up before it's too late: if you are not part of the fight you are part of the problem.
Of course to some degree it does come back to the government's desire to control our right to free movement. From their perspective cars are like some SciFi wormhole: the man in the street can climb into one and just pop out somewhere totally different only a few hours later and without any need to let the administration know of your intentions. They want this stopped and believe me unless we fight long and hard they are going to have it stopped real soon now.
To be honest it shocks me just how few people on this forum, where we are supposed to be interested in cars and driving, are actively involved in the fight. Open your eyes. In 5 years time you will no longer have the right to drive what you want where you want. Some Stalinist with a bowl of lentil soup in one hand and a court summons in the other will be telling you what you can and can't do with your car, and for a start those turbo charged performance things will be right out.
Wake up before it's too late: if you are not part of the fight you are part of the problem.
Trending Topics
13 August 2004, 08:52 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
Most people don't drive for fun, they drive because it's the only viable way to get around. The Government has this bizarre notion of an 'unneccessary journey' - something of which I can think of exactly one example. It's when I have to drive a load of, say, garden rubbish to the tip, because the council refuses to take it. A dustbin lorry is perfect public transport for garbage - yet I'm made to use my car instead. Madness
In Edinburgh, brown bins are being rolled out, so we now have :
a) refuse collection
b) paper collection
c) garden waste collection
Of course, thinking out of the box, you can reduce your garden rubbish (depending on the type of waste) by mulching/shredding/composting, and thereby reducing the amount you store up to take to the dump. Over time, that might mean 1 less journey over the space of 1 year....who knows.
Of course, it involves thought, effort and common-sense, something our selfish nation is losing sight of.
How did you think your forefathers got their rubbish to the dump when they didn't have a car???
13 August 2004, 09:02 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Want some more facts?
- The amount of oil consumed in 6 weeks, half of which is used in transportation, would have lasted 1 year in 1950.
- In industrial countries, the volume of garbage generated per inhabitant has tripled in the last 20 years.
- If the Earth had formed a year ago, on January 1st, life would have appeared on February 26th, dinosaurs would have arrived on December 10th to vanish 16 days later, and Homo sapiens would only have showed up very late on December 31st. A few minutes later, in less than a second, he would have drastically altered the fragile balance between land, seas and atmosphere.
...and finally to prove that it CAN work :
1986: 1,1, million tons of CFCs (the substances mainly responsible for ozone layer depletion) are produced yearly throughout the world.
1989: the Montreal protocol sets about to reduce world production of CFCs.
1996: effective reduction; 160,000 tons produced yearly worldwide.
So, the Montreal protocol had an effect.
- The amount of oil consumed in 6 weeks, half of which is used in transportation, would have lasted 1 year in 1950.
- In industrial countries, the volume of garbage generated per inhabitant has tripled in the last 20 years.
- If the Earth had formed a year ago, on January 1st, life would have appeared on February 26th, dinosaurs would have arrived on December 10th to vanish 16 days later, and Homo sapiens would only have showed up very late on December 31st. A few minutes later, in less than a second, he would have drastically altered the fragile balance between land, seas and atmosphere.
...and finally to prove that it CAN work :
1986: 1,1, million tons of CFCs (the substances mainly responsible for ozone layer depletion) are produced yearly throughout the world.
1989: the Montreal protocol sets about to reduce world production of CFCs.
1996: effective reduction; 160,000 tons produced yearly worldwide.
So, the Montreal protocol had an effect.
13 August 2004, 09:21 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes indeed, I agree that things are improving in industrial countries and that in many cases the increases in pollution etc. are coming from 3rd world countries as they try to develop. Freedom of transport is fundamental to economic growth, otherwise I'd still be sitting in a boghole eating potatoes for a start.
Therefore we need to encourage economic development in both the developed world and the 3rd world, that is the only way to improve the environment.
In truth we will have found alternatives to oil long before we run out of supplies. It is also interesting to reflect on the panic stricken stories we see in the media about the ozone layer depletion. The cycle riding nutters, along with the media, lived for many years on the story that it was going to give us all cancer due to incresed UV levels. In truth the increase in UV was about the equivilent to living 110 miles further south than your current home. How many people will not move from, say, Birmingham to London because they might get skin cancer? Exactly. More sensationalist crap from the greens.
Of course we need to consider the environment and we need to do the correct thing but we also need to get away from the scare stories and loonie schemes driven by some green nutter who has no experience in the real world but once read an interesting book.
I'm current involved in a fight against a huge windfarm development on an island in the Outer Hebrides. The government, Greenpeace, WWF, and Friends of the Earth want to destroy a unique and delicate ecosystem to build 300 wind turbines. This is so the country can meet some halfwit target for renewable energy. Along with the 300 turbines will come 100+ miles of access roads across a remote and sensitive bog. It will have no environmental benefits, even David Bellamy says so, but it will destroy a large island and a community of several thousand people. That's green politics for you: crap on anybody you can't see or who is too far away from London for the politicians to worry about as long as it fits some ill conceived agenda.
Therefore we need to encourage economic development in both the developed world and the 3rd world, that is the only way to improve the environment.
In truth we will have found alternatives to oil long before we run out of supplies. It is also interesting to reflect on the panic stricken stories we see in the media about the ozone layer depletion. The cycle riding nutters, along with the media, lived for many years on the story that it was going to give us all cancer due to incresed UV levels. In truth the increase in UV was about the equivilent to living 110 miles further south than your current home. How many people will not move from, say, Birmingham to London because they might get skin cancer? Exactly. More sensationalist crap from the greens.
Of course we need to consider the environment and we need to do the correct thing but we also need to get away from the scare stories and loonie schemes driven by some green nutter who has no experience in the real world but once read an interesting book.
I'm current involved in a fight against a huge windfarm development on an island in the Outer Hebrides. The government, Greenpeace, WWF, and Friends of the Earth want to destroy a unique and delicate ecosystem to build 300 wind turbines. This is so the country can meet some halfwit target for renewable energy. Along with the 300 turbines will come 100+ miles of access roads across a remote and sensitive bog. It will have no environmental benefits, even David Bellamy says so, but it will destroy a large island and a community of several thousand people. That's green politics for you: crap on anybody you can't see or who is too far away from London for the politicians to worry about as long as it fits some ill conceived agenda.
13 August 2004, 09:27 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Imlach - so what? With regard to CFCs, do some research and you'll see that the *science* of Ozone depletion is about as spurious as that of global warming. A couple of quotes for you , playing devils advocate, from Google.
Enjoy!
Dave
"Also, coincidentally(of course) to the ban, Dupont's international patent on Freon expired at the same time the ban went into effect".
[The ban on CFCs that is ..... big business and the US government again ....]
"Article originally published in 21st Science & Technology magazine, Fall 1993.
FAEC´s commentary by Eduardo Ferreyra: F.S. Sherwood Rowland was "awarded" the Noble Prize in 1995, along with Mario Molina and Paul J. Crutzen, for their work related to this issue. The prize was awarded not on the basis of scientific merit, however, but as a political statement of support for the promoters of the ozone depletion scare: "The three researchers have contributed to our salva-tion from a global environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences", states the Nobel citation. In other words, it is not science, but the political agenda that matters.
This Nobel motive is not at all hidden, Henning Rhodes, a member of the Swedish Academy of Scien-ces, told the Associated Press concerning this award that "the timing is good in view of the Vienna meeting" (of the Montreal Protocol signatories). "I personally hope that the Noble Prize will put some pressure on the participants".
Rhode made clear that one of the principal reasons for awarding this prize was to stifle the opposition to the ozone depletion fraud in the scientific community. "The Nobel Prize will put a rest to this debate on whether the ozone hole really is a result of CFCs". Rhode is a close personal friend and collaborator of Paul J. Crutzen, and has been preparing the way for the Nobel award for the two pre-vious years, appearing on Swedish national radio to speak against the book "The Holes in the Ozone Scare", and against scientists who have publicly opposed the ozone catastrophe scenario.
As Haroum Tazieff, one of France´s best known scientists, said about his: "The aim of this Nobel Prize in chemistry is to intimidate honest scientists who have tried to resist the catastrophism and the lies about the ozone layer".
Enjoy!
Dave
"Also, coincidentally(of course) to the ban, Dupont's international patent on Freon expired at the same time the ban went into effect".
[The ban on CFCs that is ..... big business and the US government again ....]
"Article originally published in 21st Science & Technology magazine, Fall 1993.
FAEC´s commentary by Eduardo Ferreyra: F.S. Sherwood Rowland was "awarded" the Noble Prize in 1995, along with Mario Molina and Paul J. Crutzen, for their work related to this issue. The prize was awarded not on the basis of scientific merit, however, but as a political statement of support for the promoters of the ozone depletion scare: "The three researchers have contributed to our salva-tion from a global environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences", states the Nobel citation. In other words, it is not science, but the political agenda that matters.
This Nobel motive is not at all hidden, Henning Rhodes, a member of the Swedish Academy of Scien-ces, told the Associated Press concerning this award that "the timing is good in view of the Vienna meeting" (of the Montreal Protocol signatories). "I personally hope that the Noble Prize will put some pressure on the participants".
Rhode made clear that one of the principal reasons for awarding this prize was to stifle the opposition to the ozone depletion fraud in the scientific community. "The Nobel Prize will put a rest to this debate on whether the ozone hole really is a result of CFCs". Rhode is a close personal friend and collaborator of Paul J. Crutzen, and has been preparing the way for the Nobel award for the two pre-vious years, appearing on Swedish national radio to speak against the book "The Holes in the Ozone Scare", and against scientists who have publicly opposed the ozone catastrophe scenario.
As Haroum Tazieff, one of France´s best known scientists, said about his: "The aim of this Nobel Prize in chemistry is to intimidate honest scientists who have tried to resist the catastrophism and the lies about the ozone layer".
13 August 2004, 09:32 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not an expert on CFCs. I'm also not naive. I have to question what we replaced CFCs with, and what effect the replacements have on the environment.
So, whether CFC reduction was good or bad, who knows.
What is good is that it stops and makes people think about their usage of certain things. Hopefully.
So, whether CFC reduction was good or bad, who knows.
What is good is that it stops and makes people think about their usage of certain things. Hopefully.
13 August 2004, 09:36 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
"What is good is that it stops and makes people think about their usage of certain things. Hopefully".
Bollux! It's all about 'control'. 'Control' of the proletariat by the those in power who a) supposedly know what's best for us and b) are out to line their own pockets.
Witness President Bliar and his package holidays!
Dave
Bollux! It's all about 'control'. 'Control' of the proletariat by the those in power who a) supposedly know what's best for us and b) are out to line their own pockets.
Witness President Bliar and his package holidays!
Dave
13 August 2004, 09:45 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wake up before it's too late: if you are not part of the fight you are part of the problem.
13 August 2004, 09:52 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The windfarms are interesting. They do seem to split the environmentalists.
Wind power is not 100% reliable either, so not a perfect form of energy production, along with the massive cost of building them. I'm not sure what their lifespan is either, nor what maintenance costs they have.
Let's face it, NO form of current/proposed energy production will ever suit everyone.
Wind power is not 100% reliable either, so not a perfect form of energy production, along with the massive cost of building them. I'm not sure what their lifespan is either, nor what maintenance costs they have.
Let's face it, NO form of current/proposed energy production will ever suit everyone.
13 August 2004, 09:59 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's face it, NO form of current/proposed energy production will ever suit everyone
13 August 2004, 10:03 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
True - although the current energy sources certainly don't either, so that's not such a great loss. I vote for hydrogen produced electrolytically from sea water using nuclear power - what's your proposal for when the oil runs out?
13 August 2004, 10:04 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several organisations that motorists can join if they wish to make their views known, the ABD who produced the press release are one and every additional member puts more pressure on the government. Membership is £20 per year, it would take 3 times that to fill up with petrol.
It is also in our power to present our views to politicians. Not just national politicians but those who operate at a local level as well. Write to your MP, write to your local Council and even send letters for publication in your local paper. If you meet a politician then let them know that you will be voting on a motoring agenda rather than a party political agenda at the next election. If enough people start doing that then word will get back to "central office" than there is trouble afoot. I don't care which central office, we need to play them off one against the other to get exactly what we want.
There are 23 million motorists in the UK who are also registered to vote. If motorists organised and united with a clear statement of intent to vote for the most motorist friendly party I can assure you that plans for GPS speed limiters, number plate tags to track your movements, more taxes, restrictions on which car you can drive and where and such things would soon vanish.
It is down to all of us to make our voices heard and to try and encourage others to do likewise. There are about 40,000 subscribers to SN. Consider the political impact even that small number of people could have if, say, we all wrote to the PM! Remember, if you don't do it you'll not be driving what you like where you like in a very, very short space of time.
It is also in our power to present our views to politicians. Not just national politicians but those who operate at a local level as well. Write to your MP, write to your local Council and even send letters for publication in your local paper. If you meet a politician then let them know that you will be voting on a motoring agenda rather than a party political agenda at the next election. If enough people start doing that then word will get back to "central office" than there is trouble afoot. I don't care which central office, we need to play them off one against the other to get exactly what we want.
There are 23 million motorists in the UK who are also registered to vote. If motorists organised and united with a clear statement of intent to vote for the most motorist friendly party I can assure you that plans for GPS speed limiters, number plate tags to track your movements, more taxes, restrictions on which car you can drive and where and such things would soon vanish.
It is down to all of us to make our voices heard and to try and encourage others to do likewise. There are about 40,000 subscribers to SN. Consider the political impact even that small number of people could have if, say, we all wrote to the PM! Remember, if you don't do it you'll not be driving what you like where you like in a very, very short space of time.
13 August 2004, 10:07 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, if you don't do it you'll not be driving what you like where you like in a very, very short space of time.
13 August 2004, 10:11 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: London
Posts: 4,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you can't drive where you like at the moment. most of the population centres of the UK are congested to the point where it is already questionable whether it makes sense to drive. where is all this "freedom" driving going to be taking place? personally, i actually don't get that much enjoyment of spending 2 hrs + every day getting to and from work. if there was a convenient alternative transport solution, i would use it.
i agree in the proincipal of freedom of movement, but in a country the size of the uk, with densely clustered population centres, advocating greater and less expensive car use is madness, imo.
i agree in the proincipal of freedom of movement, but in a country the size of the uk, with densely clustered population centres, advocating greater and less expensive car use is madness, imo.
13 August 2004, 10:18 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say, I much prefer walking and taking the train to work. You can socialise with workmates on the train, and have some solitude while walking. Or listen to music while reading the paper etc etc.
13 August 2004, 10:21 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fine if a train goes anywhere near your office. Mine's in a converted barn on a cattle farm - proximity to public transport wasn't really a priority when it was built...
13 August 2004, 10:24 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The quote in the following comes from Hansard and should be sufficient to scare any motorist stupid:
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350579
In support of this there are plans for police to be able to take fingerprints and DNA from motorists. Why motorists? Why not black lesbians for example? Can you imagine the uproar if that were to be the case:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1055
Not primary perhaps, but you might be able to get the idea if you try hard enough:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1269637,00.html
Some info relation to ISA, including the link to Leeds Uni where the UK research is being carried out. They are currently running 20 cars on the road with this system as a pilot. The US information is important because we are using this as a model:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nr...oceed/00152.pdf
http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/brie...ISAbriefing.htm
http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.a...ProjectID=11704
http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/ISA/
I don't have any primary stuff on numberplate tags to hand just at the minute, but it follows the same trend. Anyone with any doubts after reading all this is living in a fantasy land.
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=350579
In support of this there are plans for police to be able to take fingerprints and DNA from motorists. Why motorists? Why not black lesbians for example? Can you imagine the uproar if that were to be the case:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1055
Not primary perhaps, but you might be able to get the idea if you try hard enough:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1269637,00.html
Some info relation to ISA, including the link to Leeds Uni where the UK research is being carried out. They are currently running 20 cars on the road with this system as a pilot. The US information is important because we are using this as a model:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nr...oceed/00152.pdf
http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/brie...ISAbriefing.htm
http://www.rmd.dft.gov.uk/project.a...ProjectID=11704
http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/ISA/
I don't have any primary stuff on numberplate tags to hand just at the minute, but it follows the same trend. Anyone with any doubts after reading all this is living in a fantasy land.
13 August 2004, 10:25 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
Fine if a train goes anywhere near your office. Mine's in a converted barn on a cattle farm - proximity to public transport wasn't really a priority when it was built...
ie,
- the majority work in urban centres, or areas close to them.
- the majority also live in suburban areas.
- the majority of public transport serves urban & suburban areas.
Therefore, a large proportion of working people could make better use of public transport. Not all cities are as lucky as London and Edinburgh in having good public transport. This is what needs improved.
13 August 2004, 10:36 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
imlach: I think you're being a bit simplistic here. When I took my first job after graduation, it was near a station and so was my house. So, I took the train to work.
Then, a few months later, the company moved to a bigger office - nowhere near a station. Then the company was acquired by a bigger one and we all got moved into a bigger building on an industrial estate - nowhere near a station. Then I quit and took another job, still in a built-up area yet nowhere near a station. Spotting a pattern yet?
That's why constantly punishing the motorist is as ineffective as it is unpopular - the genuinely viable alternative isn't there yet. What's even sadder is that the policy makers live and work in the one city in England where public transport actually is the best way to get around. Can you say 'biased'?
Then, a few months later, the company moved to a bigger office - nowhere near a station. Then the company was acquired by a bigger one and we all got moved into a bigger building on an industrial estate - nowhere near a station. Then I quit and took another job, still in a built-up area yet nowhere near a station. Spotting a pattern yet?
That's why constantly punishing the motorist is as ineffective as it is unpopular - the genuinely viable alternative isn't there yet. What's even sadder is that the policy makers live and work in the one city in England where public transport actually is the best way to get around. Can you say 'biased'?
13 August 2004, 10:37 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The freedom to decide is fundamental here.
I personally, despite my comments, use public transport for every commuting journey that I can. It is not always possible due to timing or other factors but my car has been in the work carpark probably no more than twice or three times in the past 18 months.
However, I have the choice. I also have the choice when it comes to driving for recreation and family reasons and these are my real life. Work is just something I do so I can do those other things. What I do not want is the government telling me where and when I can drive and even, I suspect, what I can drive. They already try to control this to some degree by financial penalties.
As Andy has pointed out the people such control will have most impact upon are those living, or working, in rural areas and once more we get back to my windfarm point which is that, by and large, the greens live in the town along with the politicians and don't give a toss about anyone living in the countryside. The personal motor car has been very successful as a means of transport and this has been for a very good reason: it gives people what they want. What frightens the government is that there are aspects of this they can no longer control. They can see that they can make you present your new ID card when you buy an rail, bus, boat or plane ticket but they now need a way to track your movements in your car.
With this in mind they roll out an environmental story, tell it to the right cycle riding nutters and sit back and wait to get control of our personal mobility.
I personally, despite my comments, use public transport for every commuting journey that I can. It is not always possible due to timing or other factors but my car has been in the work carpark probably no more than twice or three times in the past 18 months.
However, I have the choice. I also have the choice when it comes to driving for recreation and family reasons and these are my real life. Work is just something I do so I can do those other things. What I do not want is the government telling me where and when I can drive and even, I suspect, what I can drive. They already try to control this to some degree by financial penalties.
As Andy has pointed out the people such control will have most impact upon are those living, or working, in rural areas and once more we get back to my windfarm point which is that, by and large, the greens live in the town along with the politicians and don't give a toss about anyone living in the countryside. The personal motor car has been very successful as a means of transport and this has been for a very good reason: it gives people what they want. What frightens the government is that there are aspects of this they can no longer control. They can see that they can make you present your new ID card when you buy an rail, bus, boat or plane ticket but they now need a way to track your movements in your car.
With this in mind they roll out an environmental story, tell it to the right cycle riding nutters and sit back and wait to get control of our personal mobility.
13 August 2004, 11:04 PM
#29
Scooby Senior
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
Hedgehog: Can you suggest what I, and the other motoring enthusiasts who read this site, should be doing then please?
Has Hedgehog suggested, a good start is to join the Association of British Drivers. Their web site is here: http://www.abd.org.uk/. It costs £20 to join & you'd be supporting an organisation that was representing all road users.
13 August 2004, 11:32 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AndyC_772
...what's your proposal for when the oil runs out?
get a golf turboD and use cooking oil
I can remember debating this very same topic in 1986 when the CFC thing was big. wind farming, solar power and wave power seemed like viable alternative energy sources if there was enough uptake to bring the cost down to a reasonable level, but they would be to hard to tax and the oil comapnies wouldn't like it. At that very time, there was no such thing as a PC, many good schools might be looking at getting a second computer if the could find funding, mobile phones and the internet existed only in the minds of a few geeks and broadband was still 15 years in the future . Strange how wind farms, solar panels and wave energy are still as prohibatively expensive 18 years on, while every kid on the planet seems to have a mobbly and braodband access to the internet for a tenner a month