[crazylemon]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
A catalytic converter for standard vehicles will always be available. Military vehicles which are away in other countries may not be suitable to have their catalysts changed. this is jsut a clause to help ensure that any military vehicle which is urgent required can be used and not be taken out of service.

I've got a lot of ideas for the re-write of this bill which will hopefully be sent to Dayne tomorrow. there are quite a few things changing.

Fair enough then. Though possibly just allow the exemption for vehicles overseas.
Personally I would prefer the externalities dealt with by targeted taxation than by regulation though.

[daniel_williams]

(Original post by crazylemon)
Fair enough then. Though possibly just allow the exemption for vehicles overseas.
Personally I would prefer the externalities dealt with by targeted taxation than by regulation though.

the problem with taxation is its not solving any problems especially on the environmental front. The whole purpose of this bill is to ensure that the emissions are being reduced and trying to counteract global warming rather than just making people pay taxes and still polluting the environment and not taking any action for it.

I'd rather people have to pay for the upkeep of their vehicles and maybe have to replace a catalyst every once in a blue moon than put it into the pocket of the government through taxation where it'll only be used for other projects than trying to reduce damage to the environment.

yeah I'm a bit of a tree huger and have previously explained that I'm working in this industry and the thing is its coming in some ways (not quite to the extent I've written this) but still its coming and people won't even be aware of it.

[crazylemon]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
the problem with taxation is its not solving any problems especially on the environmental front. The whole purpose of this bill is to ensure that the emissions are being reduced and trying to counteract global warming rather than just making people pay taxes and still polluting the environment and not taking any action for it.

I'd rather people have to pay for the upkeep of their vehicles and maybe have to replace a catalyst every once in a blue moon than put it into the pocket of the government through taxation where it'll only be used for other projects than trying to reduce damage to the environment.

yeah I'm a bit of a tree huger and have previously explained that I'm working in this industry and the thing is its coming in some ways (not quite to the extent I've written this) but still its coming and people won't even be aware of it.

My point is that if you tax the emissions then you make them decide: put the catalyst on or take the tax hit. It worked for sulphur emissions in the US from power-stations they all installed scrubbers rather than pay for the licences. I feel the environment is important to protect in the sense that damage done should be paid for but not to this protect it at all costs.
Tax the externalities and see whether it is still worthwhile to pollute. The difficulty is pricing the pollution. I do see that.

[daniel_williams]

(Original post by crazylemon)
My point is that if you tax the emissions then you make them decide: put the catalyst on or take the tax hit. It worked for sulphur emissions in the US from power-stations they all installed scrubbers rather than pay for the licences. I feel the environment is important to protect in the sense that damage done should be paid for but not to this protect it at all costs.
Tax the externalities and see whether it is still worthwhile to pollute. The difficulty is pricing the pollution. I do see that.

to be fair if we look at cars they were forced to have catalytic converters installed in 1993, yet for years before that there was always the road tax... road tax was calculated on emissions and engine size, this still hasn't changed and as we see in London we are being taxed as a congestion charge but only for vehicles which have carbon emissions. trying to work out a taxation bracket ranging from a ride on lawnmower with a miniscule engine up to the realms of a 20 litre challenger 2 tank which weighs 60+ tonnes.

I know its not ideal forcing people into using a catalytic converter but it was accepted for cars and its something people will probably not think twice about accepting for the use on other vehicles. of course some people will have gripes about it, but a tax is going to be based on a yearly usage as well, however if someone has a ride on lawnmower and they only use it say 20 times a year for an hour each time thats 20 hours and they are being taxed a lot for it, whereas industrial uses of one might equate to 600 hours a year of usage and be taxed the same. whereas the catalyst will reach the end of its usable life that bit quicker with the industrial used one compared to the standard home user. the government wont pocket in any way because of this bill other than through corporation tax and general taxation of the employees in that industry which is producing the catalysts.

it will hopefulyl increase investment in companies and research in the uk, bring it up to the levels of germany as well as putting a big tick int he green credentials box. we would also be reaching beyond the agreements we've agreed to in the kyoto treaty which is something brought in by the United Nations, this was something that was planned for future stages within the kyoto treaty as well as whats currently cming into effect in europe with Euro 6 testing.

[crazylemon]

(Original post by daniel_williams)
to be fair if we look at cars they were forced to have catalytic converters installed in 1993, yet for years before that there was always the road tax... road tax was calculated on emissions and engine size, this still hasn't changed and as we see in London we are being taxed as a congestion charge but only for vehicles which have carbon emissions. trying to work out a taxation bracket ranging from a ride on lawnmower with a miniscule engine up to the realms of a 20 litre challenger 2 tank which weighs 60+ tonnes.

I know its not ideal forcing people into using a catalytic converter but it was accepted for cars and its something people will probably not think twice about accepting for the use on other vehicles. of course some people will have gripes about it, but a tax is going to be based on a yearly usage as well, however if someone has a ride on lawnmower and they only use it say 20 times a year for an hour each time thats 20 hours and they are being taxed a lot for it, whereas industrial uses of one might equate to 600 hours a year of usage and be taxed the same. whereas the catalyst will reach the end of its usable life that bit quicker with the industrial used one compared to the standard home user. the government wont pocket in any way because of this bill other than through corporation tax and general taxation of the employees in that industry which is producing the catalysts.

it will hopefulyl increase investment in companies and research in the uk, bring it up to the levels of germany as well as putting a big tick int he green credentials box. we would also be reaching beyond the agreements we've agreed to in the kyoto treaty which is something brought in by the United Nations, this was something that was planned for future stages within the kyoto treaty as well as whats currently cming into effect in europe with Euro 6 testing.

You can vary the tax bracket simple there. The point is to let people decide whether to pay for the pollution or change.

Then then I am not a tree hugger

[Smack]

(Original post by crazylemon)
You can vary the tax bracket simple there. The point is to let people decide whether to pay for the pollution or change.

Then then I am not a tree hugger

Allowing people to simply pay a little bit extra doesn't really help the environment, does it?

[crazylemon]

(Original post by Smack)
Allowing people to simply pay a little bit extra doesn't really help the environment, does it?

Well yes. The funds have to be used to mitigate the damage/other conservation projects. And if the cost difference is as little as £1000/digger than even a small tax on the emissions of even less than £200/year (assuming the machine lasts 7 years) would make it better to put on the converter than to do nothing and pay. If however the costs are massively more than you say, they wont. So the only issue would be if your figures are wrong anyway.

As I have said this method worked with sulphur emissions from US power stations.

[Smack]

(Original post by crazylemon)
Well yes. The funds have to be used to mitigate the damage/other conservation projects. And if the cost difference is as little as £1000/digger than even a small tax on the emissions of even less than £200/year (assuming the machine lasts 7 years) would make it better to put on the converter than to do nothing and pay. If however the costs are massively more than you say, they wont. So the only issue would be if your figures are wrong anyway.

As I have said this method worked with sulphur emissions from US power stations.

And yet making the converter mandatory would do a lot more for the environment than simply giving people and companies the opportunity to pay a little bit extra to destroy it.

[crazylemon]

(Original post by Smack)
And yet making the converter mandatory would do a lot more for the environment than simply giving people and companies the opportunity to pay a little bit extra to destroy it.

You have ignored the fact is if the cost is as little as you have said the results would be the same. Different approach. Same result.


Forcing them to do something that costs hugely makes the end product more expensive which means people have people poorer (what used to cost 5 now costs 6/7 whatever) they can buy less as a result.

It isn't evil companies wilfully destroying the world, it is a by product of something consumers desire.

Everything has a price, even the environment.

[Smack]

(Original post by crazylemon)
You have ignored the fact is if the cost is as little as you have said the results would be the same. Different approach. Same result.

I haven't ignored any 'facts'. I'm not a fan of excessive green taxes because they're not as effective as some simple legislation, people don't like them and because I'm not a fan of excessive taxation.

Forcing them to do something that costs hugely makes the end product more expensive which means people have people poorer (what used to cost 5 now costs 6/7 whatever) they can buy less as a result.

Catalytic converters hardly cost hugely.

It isn't evil companies wilfully destroying the world, it is a by product of something consumers desire.

Consumers can be pricks too.

Everything has a price, even the environment.

Well that's where you and people who actually have the faintest idea on what they're talking about would disagree.

[crazylemon]

(Original post by Smack)
I haven't ignored any 'facts'. I'm not a fan of excessive green taxes because they're not as effective as some simple legislation, people don't like them and because I'm not a fan of excessive taxation.



Catalytic converters hardly cost hugely.



Consumers can be pricks too.



Well that's where you and people who actually have the faintest idea on what they're talking about would disagree.

So we should ban cars now to help save the environment?

As for excessive taxtion. About the only taxes I can see as moral apart from the minimum for defence, courts, police is green taxes and other taxes on externalities. Tax at point of harm rather than income or other taxes. I want less tax overall, not more! It is just where is comes from.

I am probably just an evil consumer though

[Smack]

(Original post by crazylemon)
So we should ban cars now to help save the environment?

That's quite the strawman there.

I am probably just an evil consumer though

Probably.

[crazylemon]

(Original post by Smack)
That's quite the strawman there.

How. The cost is far more massive than the one I was proposing, yes. The point was to illustrate that environmental damage is worth it for some benifits, in this case cars. Thus the difference is degree of damage and amount of cost rather than as you seemed to put it that the enlightened feel it should be the environment above all.

So some clarification from you on what you meant when I said the environment had a price and you said I was wrong?

Probably.

[Smack]

(Original post by crazylemon)
How. The cost is far more massive than the one I was proposing, yes. The point was to illustrate that environmental damage is worth it for some benifits, in this case cars. Thus the difference is degree of damage and amount of cost rather than as you seemed to put it that the enlightened feel it should be the environment above all.

We could get the same benefits without nearly the same level of environmental damage, though.

So some clarification from you on what you meant when I said the environment had a price and you said I was wrong?

That you are wrong when you say everything has its price.

[crazylemon]

(Original post by Smack)
We could get the same benefits without nearly the same level of environmental damage, though.



That you are wrong when you say everything has its price.

So what doesn't?

[Smack]

(Original post by crazylemon)
So what doesn't?

The environment.

[crazylemon]

(Original post by Smack)
The environment.

But you have already admitted tolerating some environmental damage, so it does have a price.

[Smack]

(Original post by crazylemon)
But you have already admitted tolerating some environmental damage, so it does have a price.

No, I did not say I would tolerate damage, I merely said that we could get the same benefits of cars without nearly the same level of damage.

I think we might be using different definitions of 'environmental damage'. When I say environmental damage I'm not referring to a tree getting cut down or something silly like that, I am referring to things like deforestation, pollution, and the release of greenhouse gasses.

We could most certainly have cars very similar to how we know them today without internal combustion engines. We could run our grid on zero emissions and we could pollute a lot lot less.

I think it's unacceptable that we don't try and minimise our damage to the environment as much as possible, or put profits before it.

[Drogue]

(Original post by crazylemon)
Fair enough then. Though possibly just allow the exemption for vehicles overseas.
Personally I would prefer the externalities dealt with by targeted taxation than by regulation though.

This is targetted taxation, by another name: either you reduce your emissions by fitting a catalytic converter, or you pay a hefty fine/other penalty.

Now, taxation on emissions themselves would be more efficient in a perfect world, however in the real world it's impossible to perfectly measure each individual's emissions and expensive to make an attempt. If it's cheaper to fit a catalytic converter than pay the efficient level of tax to emit those pollutants for almost all people, then it's often more efficient to simply require it by law.

[Drogue]

(Original post by paperclip)
People are to stupid to care for the environment.

Not necessarily stupid, they just don't have the incentive. For example, one extra jar in a landfill rather than recycling makes very little difference to me personally, indeed probably less than the effort to walk down to my recycling bins rather than shoving it in with the general rubbish. But the cumulative tiny effects on everyone add up to more than that effort. It's a co-ordination failure.

For a more extreme example, it's in very few people's best interests to die for their country, even if it saves 100 other people. However it's clear in that situation what's best for the state.