Reduce motorway speed limit to 110 km/h ?

Almaviva

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/07/spain-lowers-motorway-speed-limit-save-oil


(seems they also have their conspiracy theorists on speeding fine revenue motives)

Matt Simis

Almaviva wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/07/spain-lowers-motorway-speed-limit-save-oil


(seems they also have their conspiracy theorists on speeding fine revenue motives)

Repost and speeding fines are not a theory.

RobAMerc

thank fook the idiot greens have been turfed out of it here eh?

Testament1

Why bother reducing the speed limits on motorways? If you're worried about your fuel consumption then change your own driving style to suit.

dnme

RobAMerc wrote: »

thank fook the idiot greens have been turfed out of it here eh?

Why?

Matt Simis

Testament1 wrote: »

Why bother reducing the speed limits on motorways? If you're worried about your fuel consumption then change your own driving style to suit.

It was more a national reserve concern due to their over reliance on Libyan oil, not a private individual issue.

dnme wrote: »

Why?

Seriously? Cos its the kinda of ill conceived, green at face value only crap they tried to roll out, thats why.

Overature

It should be increased if anything, im sick of only doing 120

Anan1

Matt Simis wrote: »

Seriously? Cos its the kinda of ill conceived, green at face value only crap they tried to roll out, thats why.

I'm not happy at the idea of being limited to 110km/h on a motorway, but there's no denying that it would save fuel and benefit the environment.

questionmark?

How about increasing the speed on motorways by 10kph. And why we are at it why not increase the joke that is the 60kph limit on some sections of dual carriageway while boreens have limits of 80kph that should be reduced.

/end of rant:o

Matt Simis

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm not happy at the idea of being limited to 110km/h on a motorway, but there's no denying that it would save fuel and benefit the environment.

So would not driving at all. Just cos it has some high level gains doesnt make it a good idea.. there are better ways of achieving non-reliance on foreign oil.
Helping the environment isnt really what they are trying to achieve here and again, a minimal help anyhow.

dnme

Matt Simis wrote: »

Seriously? Cos its the kinda of ill conceived, green at face value only crap they tried to roll out, thats why.

Honestly, I was never as sad to see a party leave office. I think we threw the baby out with the bath water there. IMO they did a lot of good in Ireland. They are people with real integrity and want real political reform. They suffer from the fact that they carry little clout and have very limited funding. Their association Fianna Fail destroyed them as did us in the way we voted.

I thank them for the following

* The carbon tax, they use it to provide very generous grants to insulate our homes.

* Reforms to motor tax. We are now buying smaller engine cars. It just makes sense.

* Their attempts to rid the country of animal cruelty and their action on behalf of animal rights.

* Their championing of green energy and related industries. This is our way ahead, it really is. Read up on it. The opportunities for us (Ireland) are enormous if we want it.

* Their proposals to reform planning. They were screaming about the crazy building and out of control development that was destroying this country for years. Have you seen Achill Island for eg. or parts of Donegal where holiday homes literally litter the place by the thousand. It's truly disturbing.

* Re-introduced cycling to us in Ireland in a big way. The great Bike-To-Work scheme, the Dublin Bike scheme etc, we're buying more bikes now than ever before.

* I thank them for bringing down Fainna Fail at the expense of their own party.

I'm not a green btw, not affiliated with any party or movement. I just appreciate these guys for their integrity and what they actually achieved with the golliath of Fianna Fail breathing down their necks.

That's my argument, you'll all probably hate me now, but hey, at least I made an argument huh.

Matt Simis

dnme wrote: »

Honestly, I was never as sad to see a party leave office. I think we threw the baby out with the bath water there. IMO they did a lot of good in Ireland. They are people with real integrity and want real political reform. They suffer from the fact that they carry little clout and have very limited funding. Their association Fianna Fail destroyed them as did us in the way we voted.

I thank them for the following

* The carbon tax, they use it to provide very generous grants to insulate our homes.

* Reforms to motor tax. We are now buying smaller engine cars. It just makes sense.

* Their attempts to rid the country of animal cruelty and their action on behalf of animal rights.

* Their championing of green energy and related industries. This is our way ahead, it really is. Read up on it. The opportunities for us (Ireland) are enormous if we want it.

* Their proposals to reform planning. They were screaming about the crazy building and out of control development that was destroying this country for years. Have you seen Achill Island for eg. or parts of Donegal where holiday homes literally litter the place by the thousand. It's truly disturbing.

* I thank them for bringing down Fainna Fail at the expense of their own party.

I'm not a green btw, not affiliated with any party or movement. I just appreciate these guys for their integrity and what they actually achieved with the golliath of Fianna Fail breathing down their necks.

That's my argument, you'll all probably hate me now, but hey, at least I made an argument huh.

Good god. Go post this in a separate thread for one, but seriously;
there is no reason its "good" to buy smaller engines, which incidentially they didnt do as they made it so larger, dirtier diesel engines became more attractive than cleaner petrol engines (small and large), they wiped out E85, they didnt bring back clean burning fossil fuels like LPG, they wiped out BioDiesel, they didnt promote Veg Oil home fuel usage, they brought in taxes against Veg Oil farmers, they announced grants that were impossible to get (I tried, I live out in the sticks), they did nothing to facilitate off-grid home energy production (again I tried), an illogical carbon tax that was levied against the rural commuter and those unable to buy a new vehicle, an similarly illogical Mineral tax applied carte blanche and finally a scrappage scheme that promoted the massively CO2/toxin positive production of new vehicles and the scrappage of effectively Carbon paid usable older vehicles.... and thats just off the top of my head. I mean seriously!?!


As a huge alternative (I hate the idea of lumping it as "green") energy enthusiast and qualified SEI BER assessor (BER's.. remember them?) Im telling you that you really put your eggs in the wrong basket if you honestly think they are aligned as such.

I have posted many many researched things on this and your pure naievity honestly makes my blood boil and embarrassed by the fellow voters.

johnos1984

dnme wrote: »

* The carbon tax, they use it to provide very generous grants to insulate our homes.

That was designed to get builders back working and was originally proposed by FF

dnme wrote: »

* Reforms to motor tax. We are now buying smaller engine cars. It just makes sense.

Yes and we are scrapping perfectly good ones. I don't see how a motoring enthusiast likes that

dnme wrote: »

* Their attempts to rid the country of animal cruelty and their action on behalf of animal rights

Rubbish. I take it you live in Dublin where the Green party seem to only exist. They have no respect for the traditions and practices of anyone outside the pale except for their own egotistical needs

dnme wrote: »

* Their championing of green energy and related industries. This is our way ahead, it really is. Read up on it. The opportunities for us (Ireland) are enormous if we want it.

Yes but I fail to see what they achieved in Government on that front. All they ever seemed to do was oppose everything including wind energy schemes and the promotion of cleaner fuels

dnme wrote: »

* Their proposals to reform planning. They were screaming about the crazy building and out of control development that was destroying this country for years. Have you seen Achill Island for eg. or parts of Donegal where holiday homes literally litter the place by the thousand. It's truly disturbing.

Not much point in trying to sort it out after the building boom

dnme wrote: »

* I thank them for bringing down Fainna Fail at the expense of their own party.

I think you'll find FF brought themselves down due in no small part to the economy. The only legacy the greens are left with is of selling out before it all happened

dnme

johnos1984 & Matt Simis thanks for the replies and all arguments well made. I expect we will be shut down soon for going OT but anyways it's an enjoyable debate while it lasts.

I'm a country lad, always have been, not a farmer thought but grew up on neighbours farms saving hay in the summer, calving, you name it. I just love the country and sometimes we have to evaluate ourselves and our land on a deeper level than the economy. The greens were the best thing we ever had as a junior co-coalition partner, such a shame we don't see it.

johnos1984

I have come from a farming background and lived in the city and done it all but all I ever heard them talking about before and during their tenure was tax tax and more tax.

Tax was the incentive to improve and always was their solution to these problems. I do embrace the green philosophy and think it is something we need to keep central going forward but policies that piss people off will not help achieve whats needed. Just my two cents

squod

dnme wrote: »

johnos1984 & Matt Simis thanks for the replies and all arguments well made. I expect we will be shut down soon for going OT but anyways it's an enjoyable debate while it lasts.

I'm a country lad, always have been, not a farmer thought but grew up on neighbours farms saving hay in the summer, calving, you name it. I just love the country and sometimes we have to evaluate ourselves and our land on a deeper level than the economy. The greens were the best thing we ever had as a junior co-coalition partner, such a shame we don't see it.

I'd be all in favour of a genuine green influence in government. I think your confusing what the greens say they might do with what they actually did. Raising inflation and pushing an upper middle class agenda that's detrimental to the average worker is what they actually achieved.

dnme

Folks, I could argue a case against some of your points but I reckon this is not the forum for it and I would piss everyone off. Maybe we'll get together for a chat someday or a cycle

Anan1

Matt Simis wrote: »

So would not driving at all. Just cos it has some high level gains doesnt make it a good idea.. there are better ways of achieving non-reliance on foreign oil.
Helping the environment isnt really what they are trying to achieve here and again, a minimal help anyhow.

You're confusing 'we don't like it' with 'it's not a good idea'. That an enforced reduction in the motorway limit would save fuel is beyond question, and saving fuel is unquestionably a good thing. Why not just be honest and say 'Yes, it's a sensible idea, but I just don't like it because it will reduce my driving pleasure.' This whole 'I drive a fast car so I must hate the Greens' thing is quite parochial, TBH. It's quite possible for me to drive a 15l/100kms car and still accept the need for policy changes that don't suit me.

Zubeneschamali

Anan1 wrote: »

That an enforced reduction in the motorway limit would save fuel is beyond question, and saving fuel is unquestionably a good thing. '

Nonsense.

I use fuel to get from A to B in a reasonable time, and it is not an "unquestionably good thing" to slow me down and waste my time.

If I wanted to slow down and save fuel, I could do it myself, but I've done the sums, and I'd save less than the minimum wage per hour on the road.

My time is worth more than that, and I don't appreciate busybodys trying to force me to slow down to save fuel which I bleedin' bought with my own money.

Matt Simis

Anan1 wrote: »

You're confusing 'we don't like it' with 'it's not a good idea'. That an enforced reduction in the motorway limit would save fuel is beyond question, and saving fuel is unquestionably a good thing. Why not just be honest and say 'Yes, it's a sensible idea, but I just don't like it because it will reduce my driving pleasure.' This whole 'I drive a fast car so I must hate the Greens' thing is quite parochial, TBH. It's quite possible for me to drive a 15l/100kms car and still accept the need for policy changes that don't suit me.

Im not confusing anything, its just not a good idea! What I dont understand how some minor saving of fuel instantly becomes a good idea.

It has nothing to do with me wanting to drive fast. I already drive over the limit and would, like most Spaniards have said, continue to do so at 110. I can also choose not to drive and work from home.
Enforcing this new limit to the level required gain total enforcement on a national level on a country the size of spain would consume all sorts of other resources in abundance. Presumably as this is a stop gap they will not actually invest in any even medium term new enforcement techniques anyway, so this is unenforceable in national terms..

Yes this would marginally reduce foreign dependence and also slightly bolster fuel reserves, I already said that.
Brazil had a similar concern and their solution was (decades ago) to invest in local Ethanol production. And it worked, they lead the world in that sector today.

Spain's solution of "lets just drive slower on motorways" is, without question, moronic. As it was when the Americans introduced it.

Even without the rather technical alternative fuel solution, [off the top of my head]
- They could for instance incentivise Businesses to introduce mandatory teleworking, not driving saves vastly more fuel than driving slightly slower.
- They could bring in a program that rewards car pooling at a community level.
- They could operate long distance bus services for free (with note their objective is to save fuel, not money)
etc

I would be embarrassed if I was on their National Oil Reserve board and this is best solution I came up with.


PS: I dont understand the "I hate the Greens as I drive a fast car" snip, I drove two fast cars and I dont "hate" them.
I feel they failed in their mandate, I of all people would have been a keen supporter of them for reasons already noted if they did any of the things they could/should have.

shedweller

Matt Simis wrote: »

I
Brazil had a similar concern and their solution was (decades ago) to invest in local Ethanol production. And it worked, they lead the world in that sector today.

Teensy bit off topic but don't they make something like 80 or 90% of their fuel from 3 or so % of their arable land? I believe it's because they use cane sugar which nets them much more ethanol per acre than corn which is used elsewhere. That's impressive!
Re; lowering motorway speed limits. It'll never work. Nobody does the speed limit on motorways and it isn't enforced there anyway.
Car pooling is far more effective.

billyboy01

I agree with the idea of lowering the speed limits, lower to 80km/h for all Motorways and National roads and 50km/h for all others! With Zealot levels of speed camera enforcement, to create jobs and generate much needed revenue for road maintenance!

We need to keep the CO2 emissions down and increase fuel efficiency, we need an EU directive for this!

challengemaster

I'm not surprised people fall asleep at the wheel doing 120km/hr on motorways, it's boring as fook. up the limit to ~200km/hr, i'd like to see someone fall asleep doing that. :pac:

Seriously though, it should be ~160km/hr atleast

shedweller

billyboy01 wrote: »

I agree with the idea of lowering the speed limits, lower to 80km/h for all Motorways and National roads and 50km/h for all others! With Zealot levels of speed camera enforcement, to create jobs and generate much needed revenue for road maintenance!

We need to keep the CO2 emissions down and increase fuel efficiency, we need an EU directive for this!

Ah jaysus you're joking! Right?
Ok, i'm an mpg nut and have tried 80kph for a while. Saved me a bit but not a whole lot more than at 100kph. My patience was severely tested at 80kph.
The jobs created will be minimal. It's not enough in itself.
However, i would like to see it or something like it tried for a week so we could get some definite figures and make plans accordingly. It may work, it may not but at least we would know.

freighter

billyboy01 wrote: »

I agree with the idea of lowering the speed limits, lower to 80km/h for all Motorways and National roads and 50km/h for all others! With Zealot levels of speed camera enforcement, to create jobs and generate much needed revenue for road maintenance!

We need to keep the CO2 emissions down and increase fuel efficiency, we need an EU directive for this!

Are you taking the pisx. 80kmh on our motorways and 50kmh everywhere else. OMFG.

billyboy01

Well in another few months when the cost of a litre of Juice is touching 2 quid a litre. We'll all be granny driving! I laughted at a neighbour who bought a Aygo in January. Im not now!

JimmyCrackCorn

Matt Simis wrote: »

Good god. Go post this in a separate thread for one, but seriously;
there is no reason its "good" to buy smaller engines, which incidentially they didnt do as they made it so larger, dirtier diesel engines became more attractive than cleaner petrol engines (small and large), they wiped out E85, they didnt bring back clean burning fossil fuels like LPG, they wiped out BioDiesel, they didnt promote Veg Oil home fuel usage, they brought in taxes against Veg Oil farmers, they announced grants that were impossible to get (I tried, I live out in the sticks), they did nothing to facilitate off-grid home energy production (again I tried), an illogical carbon tax that was levied against the rural commuter and those unable to buy a new vehicle, an similarly illogical Mineral tax applied carte blanche and finally a scrappage scheme that promoted the massively CO2/toxin positive production of new vehicles and the scrappage of effectively Carbon paid usable older vehicles.... and thats just off the top of my head. I mean seriously!?!


As a huge alternative (I hate the idea of lumping it as "green") energy enthusiast and qualified SEI BER assessor (BER's.. remember them?) Im telling you that you really put your eggs in the wrong basket if you honestly think they are aligned as such.

I have posted many many researched things on this and your pure naievity honestly makes my blood boil and embarrassed by the fellow voters.

I can post the query i sent to ask why E85 tax relief was removed.

They failed to develop Irish biofuel intensives.

The Irish renewable energy sector has been crippled due to failure to speed up wind-farms connecting to the main inter-connectors.

The production of new smaller engined cars is proven to be worse for the environment than the use of the existing stock.

Ogh and best of luck to anyone who trys to get the grants for insulation ect.




I was aiming to convert my car to e85 about now i have all the equipment i need already purchased.

Thank you greens


120km Speed limits are too low on motorways. Also m50 should be revised back to 120km at off peak hours.

Eric Cartman

dnme wrote: »

I thank them for the following

* Reforms to motor tax. We are now buying smaller engine cars. It just makes sense.

No, No it doesnt, it really really doesnt, the goverment shot themselves in the foot and are now losing VRT and fuel revenue, + the average take of motor tax per person has decreased and the spending on garda enforcment of tax has gone up , The price of diesel is rising with demand and its getting harder for businesses to run , I can just t
hink of the ridiculous amount of fuel duty the goverment would get off me if running a 750iL was cheaper

* Their attempts to rid the country of animal cruelty and their action on behalf of animal rights.

do you mean actual animal cruelty , or things that hippys hate like hunting and other blood sports ?

* Re-introduced cycling to us in Ireland in a big way. The great Bike-To-Work scheme, the Dublin Bike scheme etc, we're buying more bikes now than ever before.

true, but with no training a lot of these cyclists are a menace to our streets and dont give way for motorists. Also they intoruced that insane 30km/h limit in dublin which is madness

* I thank them for bringing down Fainna Fail at the expense of their own party.

this is not the politics forum , please take your horrible FF bashing elsewhere. Your just a bandwaggon jumper, give it 3 years and youll be bitching about gilmore and enda

That's my argument, you'll all probably hate me now, but hey, at least I made an argument huh.

We dont hate you, but I certainly think your a moron

Atlantic Dawn

What they should do before they spend many millions changing the signage on every motorway in the country for something which may be a temporary problem (we hope) is put some info on the information displays on the motorways informing motorists of how much cash they will save by slowing down to 100km/h eg on a return to trip to Galway from Dublin a car will save €30 when run at 100km/h as oppossed to 120km/h and you will only lose about 20minutes. Motorway network is fine for anyone who wants to use the overtaking lane to bypass the eco drivers, each to their own.

shedweller

Here's a little something for you speed freaks! (of which i used to be, until that fateful day...)

The mpg is in US gal but you get the picture!

Matt Simis

shedweller wrote: »

Here's a little something for you speed freaks! (of which i used to be, until that fateful day...)

The mpg is in US gal but you get the picture!

I like how a 535d starts to beat everything at 140mph.
"I was just keeping it in the sweet spot officer!"

PS: Are you sure those are US MPG? They look too high and some of those cars arent sold in the US AFAIK.

Vertakill

That can't be US surely? I can't imagine an American even knows what a 1.9 diesel Opel Zafira is. Not to mention the 'Rabbit' being referred to as a Golf there.

billyboy01 wrote: »

I agree with the idea of lowering the speed limits, lower to 80km/h for all Motorways and National roads and 50km/h for all others! With Zealot levels of speed camera enforcement, to create jobs and generate much needed revenue for road maintenance!

Good idea! Lowering the limit by that much would increase drivers time on the roads, which would increase the number of cars at any given moment... thus increasing traffic - and we all know how great our MPG is when we're sitting in traffic!

Really though... great idea. You must be Spanish.

shedweller

Matt Simis wrote: »

I like how a 535d starts to beat everything at 140mph.
"I was just keeping it in the sweet spot officer!"

PS: Are you sure those are US MPG? They look too high and some of those cars arent sold in the US AFAIK.

I'm sure they are as yer man is based in the US. I'm open to correction there though. He may have got the data as european but converted it for his home audience.

billyboy01

Vertakill wrote: »

That can't be US surely? I can't imagine an American even knows what a 1.9 diesel Opel Zafira is. Not to mention the 'Rabbit' being referred to as a Golf there.



Good idea! Lowering the limit by that much would increase drivers time on the roads, which would increase the number of cars at any given moment... thus increasing traffic - and we all know how great our MPG is when we're sitting in traffic!

Really though... great idea. You must be Spanish.

So driving at 80km/h will create traffic jams!

Oh right Ted!:rolleyes:

keithclancy

Anan1 wrote: »

You're confusing 'we don't like it' with 'it's not a good idea'. That an enforced reduction in the motorway limit would save fuel is beyond question, and saving fuel is unquestionably a good thing. Why not just be honest and say 'Yes, it's a sensible idea, but I just don't like it because it will reduce my driving pleasure.' This whole 'I drive a fast car so I must hate the Greens' thing is quite parochial, TBH. It's quite possible for me to drive a 15l/100kms car and still accept the need for policy changes that don't suit me.

Why bother having High Speed Trains
Why not go back to Zeppelins

Its because its progress, people get from A to B faster.

Saying that though I think variable speed limits are a good idea, i.e. have a speed limit when theres congestion. This does makes things 'faster'

If it was a 110 km/h speed limit all the way for work to me it would had another 30 minutes onto my journey each way, thats an hour of my time lost each day. 4 hours per week, 184 hours per year.

Screw that

The Greens were a pack of fruit loops, they wanted to fix things by going backwards. Emerging economies such as China and India are going to chew through natural resources regardless of what western governments do. We need to look at ways of fixing or improving what were already doing through technology and not go back to delivering goods to shops with horse and cart.

Matt Simis

billyboy01 wrote: »

So driving at 80km/h will create traffic jams!

Oh right Ted!:rolleyes:

But it would increase time on road per car which means more cars on roads at any given moment. This is simple logic, you arent seriously disputing that are you? for you.

Vertakill

billyboy01 wrote: »

So driving at 80km/h will create traffic jams!

Oh right Ted!:rolleyes:

Erm, yeah. There's a reason we have speed limits on roads. It's not just set @ 120kmh to get people's "need for speed" out of their system. It's to keep a constant flow of traffic and keep congestion at a minimum. You could lower it a little and it would be fine, but lowering it to 80kmh is idiotic.

I would love to see the traffic on the M50 every morning/evening with a speed limit of 80kmh.

If it was set that low, there's more cars on the road (as their journey's are taking longer), therefore there will be congestion. More cars on an already busy road means there's going to be times where you are going to have to stop/start.
The same would be said for increasing our speed limit as cars would be getting to certain destinations too quickly causing bottlenecks.

There are very thorough studies done on traffic flow and congestion...

ArphaRima

One of the core principles that drives humankind has been the ability to get from A to B faster. The wheel, sails, the steam engine, the railway, internal combustion engine, flight, rockets, jets, supersonic flight; they all are landmarks in human progress.

Slowing down as part of a "green" agenda is a retrograde step. This is not the answer. We should use technology and design to further ourselves, not give up and resign ourselves to failure. In short: this is not an answer.

AugustusMinimus

I always got the feeling that the Greens were trying to push their own agenda on 100% eventhough they only received 10% of the vote.

The truth is that Ireland hardly polutes at all compared to the likes of the US and China. In China, two new coal fired are opened every single week.

On an aside, this isn't the first time the Green party has come up with stupid ideas. Dan Boyle (unelected Senator) wanted to knock 20kph off of motorway and national route speed limits. Mary White wanted old people with provisionals to be given new licences which would allow them to drive around the country side without ever having to sit a driving test. Crazy stuff.

I think it all boils down to a simple fact. We are living in a banana republic. If we are to take our Kyoto limits seriously, we need to plan now for the future. We need to follow the lead of the likes of Finland who are building a carbon free nuclear power plant to provide the country with electricity. The likes of Finland, Sweden and France will meet their Kyoto targets with ease due to a mix of Nuclear and Hydro-electric power generation.

We on the other hand like to follow the meditteranean banana republic route. We'll ban nuclear power (just like Italy) and then be force to buy electricity from foreign countries, who produce their electricity via nuclear power.

AugustusMinimus

What causes traffic jams on motorways when people are doing 120kph, is not the speed itself, but people's inability to drive on motorways. People hogging the overtaking lane meaning that the driving lane is empty. People on 3 lane motorways not using the 1st lane at all, essentially reducing the capacity of the road from 3 to 2 lanes. Reducing speed limits ain't going to solve any of this.

Ash.J.Williams

dnme wrote: »

Honestly, I was never as sad to see a party leave office. I think we threw the baby out with the bath water there. IMO they did a lot of good in Ireland. They are people with real integrity and want real political reform. They suffer from the fact that they carry little clout and have very limited funding. Their association Fianna Fail destroyed them as did us in the way we voted.

I thank them for the following

* The carbon tax, they use it to provide very generous grants to insulate our homes.

* Reforms to motor tax. We are now buying smaller engine cars. It just makes sense.

* Their attempts to rid the country of animal cruelty and their action on behalf of animal rights.

* Their championing of green energy and related industries. This is our way ahead, it really is. Read up on it. The opportunities for us (Ireland) are enormous if we want it.

* Their proposals to reform planning. They were screaming about the crazy building and out of control development that was destroying this country for years. Have you seen Achill Island for eg. or parts of Donegal where holiday homes literally litter the place by the thousand. It's truly disturbing.

* Re-introduced cycling to us in Ireland in a big way. The great Bike-To-Work scheme, the Dublin Bike scheme etc, we're buying more bikes now than ever before.

* I thank them for bringing down Fainna Fail at the expense of their own party.

I'm not a green btw, not affiliated with any party or movement. I just appreciate these guys for their integrity and what they actually achieved with the golliath of Fianna Fail breathing down their necks.

That's my argument, you'll all probably hate me now, but hey, at least I made an argument huh.

Just a pity all their charges and taxes seem to hit me harder than the wealthy...

you can tax a brand new BMW now for €150....my corrolla costs €400...

Matt Simis

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Just a pity all their charges and taxes seem to hit me harder than the wealthy...

you can tax a brand new BMW now for €150....my corrolla costs €400...

Yes but if you
a) Only look at C02 per mile (and not per litre) and in isolation to every other toxin emitted
b) Do not factor in the environmental production cost of a new car
c) Fully buy into Anthropological Global Warming, debunk the idea of GW natural high and low periods and the subscribe to the concept we can cause and/or stop GW.
d) Do not factor in total scrappage cost of the old car in environmental terms
e) Ignore that fact that even if C is fully correct, developing 3rd - 2nd world countries will certainly do 100s if not thousands of times more damage than Ireland will so any "green" changes here will have a net effect of zero on a planetary scale

Then it makes perfect sense that you are penalised for not destroying your car and taking out a loan for a new one.

Zubeneschamali

Matt Simis wrote: »

c) Fully buy into Anthropological Global Warming, debunk the idea of GW natural high and low periods and the subscribe to the concept we can cause and/or stop GW.

I agree that biasing road tax against pre 08 cars in favour of post 08 low-CO2 cars is stupid and not at all green, but:

Sticking in a climate change denial point into your argument is counter productive. You might as well put in a bit about Noah's ark and cavemen riding dinosaurs. The science is done, climate change is happening and we're causing it.

Raskolnikov

All this talk of limits is ridiculous. In the end, market forces will determine the outcome. If reserves get too low, the price of juice will go up. When prices go up enough, people will be forced into driving less, or slowing down.

Job done, no costly government intervention required.

keithclancy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I agree that biasing road tax against pre 08 cars in favour of post 08 low-CO2 cars is stupid and not at all green, but:

Sticking in a climate change denial point into your argument is counter productive. You might as well put in a bit about Noah's ark and cavemen riding dinosaurs. The science is done, climate change is happening and we're causing it.

Humans are a dominating factor in Climate Change.
Climate change happens regardless of whether humans exist or not, there is emperical evidence that proves this.

Years ago you might remember CFC's were all the rage, now its Co2. I do believe we need to change what we do to sustain the climate in a way its comfortable for Humans.

Does anyone even give a toss about Ozone depletion anymore ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

No .. because its not something that can be easily taxed.

Matt Simis

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sticking in a climate change denial point into your argument is counter productive. You might as well put in a bit about Noah's ark and cavemen riding dinosaurs. The science is done, climate change is happening and we're causing it.

And I think dismissing others by using the term "denial" is counter productive to your own argument even before getting to the second sentence which is pure condescension. The Science is most certainly not "done", there are multiple "facts" out there proving and disproving multiple theories. I was genuinely on the other side of the fence and the more data I looked up to prove that argument, the less I convinced myself of it.

Besides, I didnt say it was flat out incorrect, I simply was pointing about the faith based nature of the "correctness" of C02 Taxation.

Zubeneschamali

keithclancy wrote: »

Years ago you might remember CFC's were all the rage, now its Co2.

CFCs were in the news because they were destroying the Ozone layer. We stopped using CFCs, they stopped destroying the Ozone layer.

It's not going to be that easy to stop emitting CO2.

Zubeneschamali

Matt Simis wrote: »

Besides, I didnt say it was flat out incorrect, I simply was pointing about the faith based nature of the "correctness" of C02 Taxation.

Sure, I'm just saying that putting that into a perfectly reasonable argument about motor tax rates is like putting creationism vs. evolution into a discussion of health care.

It's a distraction, and it puts you on the wrong foot, attacking the consensus of the entire scientific community on the subject. There's plenty of reasons to attack our motor tax system: siding with creationists and oil-industry shills against the scientific community isn't a good one.

keithclancy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

CFCs were in the news because they were destroying the Ozone layer. We stopped using CFCs, they stopped destroying the Ozone layer.

It's not going to be that easy to stop emitting CO2.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125192016.htm

I'm not talking about Ozone hole Depletion, Ozone hole Healing which may actually accelerate Climate change.

Im merely saying that the information rammed down peoples throats by the Government are just one side of the coin and not necessarily correct either.

The scrappage scheme was an attrocity, in Germany it was purely to drive the German economy. In Ireland it was to get cleaner cars on the road, which is true for Ireland. The only problem is that the Climate is global, your just moving the Co2 emissions to wherever the Manufacturing and resource retrival occured.

On a global scale it would be far cleaner to keep your old car on the road than waste lots of resources
A. Manufacturing your shiny new car
B. Crushing and recyling your old car.

Matt Simis

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's a distraction, and it puts you on the wrong foot, attacking the consensus of the entire scientific community on the subject. There's plenty of reasons to attack our motor tax system: siding with creationists and oil-industry shills against the scientific community isn't a good one.

Creationists dont believe with AGW or are you just trying to associate me with another fringe element??
Again, there is no consensus in the scientific community on this topic. There are multiple studies and the overriding mass of them do support AGW, Im not debating that. But not all of them do and even the ones that are supporting it arrive at different direct causes, solutions, timelines and even affects. And some of what we are told is contradictory, as Keithclancy noted, there is a correlation between Ozone Holes being beneficial to releasing Green House gases.

So therefore again I dont see questioning AGW and its direct connection to CO2 taxation (AGW is 100% the reason C02 Taxation exists afterall) is a tangent nor siding with "Creationists and shills".

Zubeneschamali

Matt Simis wrote: »

Again, there is no consensus in the scientific community on this topic. .

Again, you are wrong. There absolutely is a scientific consensus, and there is a fringe of wackos and fossil fuel industry shills fighting a rearguard action against that consensus.