Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

hetuzozaho

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Are people suggesting that you are a wife beater?

You've lost me

jackboy

joe40 wrote: »

How can an individual answer that question. I don't know the exact figure, no one does there is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the global climate will react to increased CO2 levels.

There are international agreements which have laid out targets, we can take those as a starting point.

There are obvious problems with setting targets when there is a lot of uncertainty about how the climate reacts to increased CO2 levels. The targets are little more than guesses. Which is fine except when people are asked to change their lives to achieve targets which are not based on facts.

SafeSurfer

joe40 wrote: »

ForestFire wrote: »

No one is being unfair, Its the question that is unfair, as you cannot answer a question if you do not know what you are trying to achieve....

Yes we can do things better anyway and I'm all for that, but remember, this is not just about incremental improvements, its about saving the planet urgently (Or at least taking more of our money through taxes to be wasted).

For example...

If I told you I need to build a children's Hospital, but did not tell you how many children's its needs to cater for, where it should be built, how people would travel to it etc...would you or anyone else be able to do it and estimate the cost??

Of wait.........We tried that didn't we:o...but the point is still valid, you need to know what you are trying to achieve (Target)

How can an individual answer that question. I don't know the exact figure, no one does there is still a lot of uncertainty as to how the global climate will react to increased CO2 levels.

There are international agreements which have laid out targets, we can take those as a starting point.

Uncertainty? But Joe, the science is settled.

SafeSurfer

You are suggesting people have said things that they haven’t is my point.

hetuzozaho

Eric Cartman wrote: »

in itself - no, will every policy agreed require more taxation - yes, are people intentionally suggesting tax increases and using climate as an excuse - yes.

Ah ok. So there are tax increases being suggested but people believe they are not in good faith. And that's a type of propaganda(?), rather than climate change and the need to do something about it being propaganda Apologies as I'm finding it hard to distinguish within in the thread.

What taxes are being suggested in Ireland over the next few years?

hetuzozaho

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are suggesting people have said things that they haven’t is my point.

Apologies - trying to keep up. And wondering was the propaganda about the information coming from scientists and UN.

Where you just suggesting that RTE will be peddling some other propaganda on an upcoming show?

SafeSurfer

hetuzozaho wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are suggesting people have said things that they haven’t is my point.

Apologies - trying to keep up. And wondering was the propaganda about the information coming from scientists and UN.

Where you just suggesting that RTE will be peddling some other propaganda on an upcoming show?

Do you not think it odd that at the very moment that Brexit happens RTE have set the main focus of their news agenda on climate change?

Eric Cartman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Ah ok. So there are tax increases being suggested but people believe they are not in good faith. And that's a type of propaganda(?), rather than climate change and the need to do something about it being propaganda Apologies as I'm finding it hard to distinguish within in the thread.

What taxes are being suggested in Ireland over the next few years?

carbon taxes in general. When the fake 'green wave' took the last elections FG and FF pledged to ruin our lives more .

Everything that summit will agree will have either a fine for failing to meet targets (which will need a tax to pay it) or will be a tax to implement it. The current 'climate alarmism' is clearly being blown massively out of proportion to funnel more money out of peoples pockets.

hetuzozaho

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you not think it odd that at the very moment that Brexit happens RTE have set the main focus of their news agenda on climate change?

I honestly don't think I have an opinion on it.

Have you seen a preview of the show?

SafeSurfer

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I honestly don't think I have an opinion on it.

Have you seen a preview of the show?

You don’t have an opinion on the main focus of the news agenda of RTE this autumn when Brexit happens, being climate change?

hetuzozaho

Eric Cartman wrote: »

carbon taxes in general.

But I guess it is too discourage us and try to use alternatives?

Let's take the carbon tax on petrol - what is a better way to get me to reduce my petrol usage?

(I'm probably one of the worst as I was terrible for plastic bags until they charged me a tiny amount and I'm sure I'm not unique in this!)

hetuzozaho

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You don’t have an opinion on the main focus of the news agenda of RTE this autumn when Brexit happens, being climate change?

I might after I watch the show. Is there a link I can check out?
I may shout propaganda with you if the show is full of misleading information.

Hector Savage

SafeSurfer wrote: »

“Will Ireland Survive 2050?”
A new show being rolled out for RTE’s autumn schedule.

“Climate change and it’s influence on Ireland is set to dominate the agenda for autumn schedule on RTE” - Journal.ie

A propaganda campaign for more taxes from the organization that campaigns for more taxes to fund its propaganda for more taxes.

There is an opportunity here for investigating RTE’s own carbon footprint like flying reporters and camera people half way round the world for a 20 second news piece.

Is that the one that will be hosted by Philip Boucher Hayes ?
.... he who drives around in a Land Rover defender ?









yeah :rolleyes:

ForestFire

joe40 wrote: »

There are international agreements which have laid out targets, we can take those as a starting point.

So what are the targets from these agreements?, What total actions are needed to achieve these targets, and is there a plan with these actions clearly defined to be implemented?

Because I pretty sure paper straws was not one on the actions defined and is not going to help us meet the target, or do they know already the impact paper straws will have on the total target?

Also how are these targets (If they have any) being correlated to how much additional tax they take from us?

Do we know yet when they plan to shift the targets (Based on nothing again), so they can take more money?

Again, I am all for making improvements to the way we live, but when you ask for my money, with no plan, no correlation, and you will be back for more later, because you do not know even what the target should be.........all this when the wasted how many billions on the Children's Hospital and Broadband overspends??

Eric Cartman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

But I guess it is too discourage us and try to use alternatives?

Let's take the carbon tax on petrol - what is a better way to get me to reduce my petrol usage?

(I'm probably one of the worst as I was terrible for plastic bags until they charged me a tiny amount and I'm sure I'm not unique in this!)

the problem is when your public transport options are crap , you have no other option and they still get the tax but you haven't been 'discouraged' out of anything.

taxing the bad option only really works when there is a 'good option' close to hand, also if the good option is just cheaper, a lot of people will choose it anyway.

Giving people massive grants on solar for instance rewards good behaviour and encourages change but does not punish those who simply cannot participate.

we need to work towards positively encouraging and making available the 'greener' options , without sitting in this mentality of chastising those who cannot afford to make the change.

hetuzozaho

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the problem is when your public transport options are crap , you have no other option and they still get the tax but you haven't been 'discouraged' out of anything.

taxing the bad option only really works when there is a 'good option' close to hand, also if the good option is just cheaper, a lot of people will choose it anyway.

Giving people massive grants on solar for instance rewards good behaviour and encourages change but does not punish those who simply cannot participate.

we need to work towards positively encouraging and making available the 'greener' options , without sitting in this mentality of chastising those who cannot afford to make the change.

Yes that is a massive issue and a complicated one. People who don't have options(public transport) and people who have options (electric vehicle or whatever) but the cost makes it not an option so they just get punished.

It's tricky cause I deserve to be punished as I have the options.

But I guess the best way is what you mention, investing money so everyone can move to the 'greener' options.

I guess they have the grant for EV vehicles but the cost is still very prohibitive for many. How else could we positively encourage people into EV for arguments sake to reduce petrol usage and in a fair manageable way?

Eric Cartman

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yes that is a massive issue and a complicated one. People who don't have options(public transport) and people who have options (electric vehicle or whatever) but the cost makes it not an option so they just get punished.

It's tricky cause I deserve to be punished as I have the options.

But I guess the best way is what you mention, investing money so everyone can move to the 'greener' options.

I guess they have the grant for EV vehicles but the cost is still very prohibitive for many. How else could we positively encourage people into EV for arguments sake to reduce petrol usage and in a fair manageable way?

pick a year, say 2021, revenue has a 1 year deal that whatever you spend on an EV you don't pay in income tax over the max of the next 5 years , no limit on EV price, to most people on 50k or over that would be an effectively free car. 5 years later you'd have a lot of used options that most on 30k+ could afford, thats already about half the people of Ireland sitting in an EV in 5 years.

ForestFire

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I guess they have the grant for EV vehicles but the cost is still very prohibitive for many. How else could we positively encourage people into EV for arguments sake to reduce petrol usage and in a fair manageable way?

This is another thing that's bugs me, i.e. the EV Grant (Since we are digressing )

This EV grant will only be available to "Wealthy" people to fund their expensive new cars (I know there is a 50K Limit), that they can probably afford anyway.

Do you even think there will be any grant available to the average person, when EV become affordable?

No because it will cost to much money at that stage to give everyone the money, so only the wealthy have and will benefit from this grant, that we all paid for through our taxes. Thats right your CO2 taxes are paying for luxuary Tesla EV's!!

So how can we improve this?

- Take away the grant to the early adopters to start with.
- Invest all this grant money in chargers, Network etc, that we will all benefit from whenever we can afford an EV.

Another thing .....the early "Rich" adopters are getting is free public charging, but this will be soon gone also, before the average folk get to even get near one...

SafeSurfer

ForestFire wrote: »

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I guess they have the grant for EV vehicles but the cost is still very prohibitive for many. How else could we positively encourage people into EV for arguments sake to reduce petrol usage and in a fair manageable way?

This is another thing that's bugs me, i.e. the EV Grant (Since we are digressing )

This EV grant will only be available to "Wealthy" people to fund their expensive new cars (I know there is a 50K Limit), that they can probably afford anyway.

Do you even think there will be any grant available to the average person, when EV become affordable?

No because it will cost to much money at that stage to give everyone the money, so only the wealthy have and will benefit from this grant, that we all paid for through our taxes. Thats right your CO2 taxes are paying for luxuary Tesla EV's!!

So how can we improve this?

- Take away the grant to the early adopters to start with.
- Invest all this grant money in chargers, Network etc, that we will all benefit from whenever we can afford an EV.

Another thing .....the early "Rich" adopters are getting is free public charging, but this will be soon gone also, before the average folk get to even get near one...

Just how green are electric cars anyway? Two thirds of the electricity used to power them comes from burning fossil fuels.

SafeSurfer

Eric Cartman wrote: »

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Yes that is a massive issue and a complicated one. People who don't have options(public transport) and people who have options (electric vehicle or whatever) but the cost makes it not an option so they just get punished.

It's tricky cause I deserve to be punished as I have the options.

But I guess the best way is what you mention, investing money so everyone can move to the 'greener' options.

I guess they have the grant for EV vehicles but the cost is still very prohibitive for many. How else could we positively encourage people into EV for arguments sake to reduce petrol usage and in a fair manageable way?

pick a year, say 2021, revenue has a 1 year deal that whatever you spend on an EV you don't pay in income tax over the max of the next 5 years , no limit on EV price, to most people on 50k or over that would be an effectively free car. 5 years later you'd have a lot of used options that most on 30k+ could afford, thats already about half the people of Ireland sitting in an EV in 5 years.

Eminently sensible proposals but the bleeding hearts would argue that it discriminated against those not working or who do not pay income tax.

hetuzozaho

ForestFire wrote: »

This is another thing that's bugs me, i.e. the EV Grant (Since we are digressing )

This EV grant will only be available to "Wealthy" people to fund their expensive new cars (I know there is a 50K Limit), that they can probably afford anyway.

Do you even think there will be any grant available to the average person, when EV become affordable?

No because it will cost to much money at that stage to give everyone the money, so only the wealthy have and will benefit from this grant, that we all paid for through our taxes. Thats right your CO2 taxes are paying for luxuary Tesla EV's!!

So how can we improve this?

- Take away the grant to the early adopters to start with.
- Invest all this grant money in chargers, Network etc, that we will all benefit from whenever we can afford an EV.

Another thing .....the early "Rich" adopters are getting is free public charging, but this will be soon gone also, before the average folk get to even get near one...

I wouldn't say its only available to the wealthy and the rich?

hetuzozaho

Eric Cartman wrote: »

pick a year, say 2021, revenue has a 1 year deal that whatever you spend on an EV you don't pay in income tax over the max of the next 5 years , no limit on EV price, to most people on 50k or over that would be an effectively free car. 5 years later you'd have a lot of used options that most on 30k+ could afford, thats already about half the people of Ireland sitting in an EV in 5 years.

What do you mean over the max of the next five years. Throw up the figures and it'll probably click with me

ForestFire

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I wouldn't say its only available to the wealthy and the rich?

I put this is quotation marks, as I meant relatively speaking.

But the point is that the grant and free charging will be gone before they become mainstream. Do you not agree?

How many people will benefit from this "Tax", that we all paid, in the end before it finishes?

I cannot get an EV at the moment, even though I did "buy" (PCP) a new car this year.

Why?.....

- There simply is not an option for a family EV car that suits my needs, i.e. Estate
- Any EV was going to be 10K more Minimum, even with the Grant
- I am renting, so the Home charging grant is only going to benefit my Landlord and not me.
- The range is not enough for a family car when needed, Holidays and business trips to airport)

So here is am, happily driving around in my 1.5 TSi Petrol car.

At least it have the benefit of shutting down 2 Cylinders when not needed, so its really only a nice small 0.75L car
(I suppose you could say my car is the equivalent to sailing instead of Flying, when the cylinders are deactivated:rolleyes:....Super)

hetuzozaho

ForestFire wrote: »

I put this is quotation marks, as I meant relatively speaking.

But the point is that the grant and free charging will be gone before they become mainstream. Do you not agree?

How many people will benefit from this "Tax", that we all paid, in the end before it finishes?

I cannot get an EV at the moment, even though I did "buy" (PCP) a new car this year.

Why?.....

- There simply is not an option for a family EV car that suits my needs, i.e. Estate
- Any EV was going to be 10K more Minimum, even with the Grant
- I am renting, so the Home charging grant is only going to benefit my Landlord and not me.
- The range is not enough for a family car when needed, Holidays and business trips to airport)

So here is am, happily driving around in my 1.5 TSi Petrol car.

At least it have the benefit of shutting down 2 Cylinders when not needed, so its really only a nice small 0.75L car
(I suppose you could say my car is the equivalent to sailing instead of Flying, when the cylinders are deactivated:rolleyes:....Super)

Ah yeah. I suppose I have friends and family who have benefited etc. They certainly don't consider themselves "rich" and "wealthy" probably just suited them where it didn't suit you.

Obviously these things are tricky and it's seldom we are all happy! The government that manages that wont be seen in my lifetime anywhere on this planet I imagine!

ForestFire

Here's another Idea.... I was lucky to benefit from the SSIA scheme, or whatever it was called.

Why not allow each Citizen to avail of this type of savings scheme, once in their lifetime, where the final money saved can be spent on an ECO passive house deposits or EV cars or similar.

If you decide after the savings term to spend it on Planes tickets for an around the world trip, or a sports car, or an expensive racing yacht:o, you lose the interest/bonus part that was gained.

hetuzozaho

ForestFire wrote: »

Here's another Idea.... I was lucky to benefit from the SSIA scheme, or whatever it was called.

I couldn't afford SSIA at the time. God damn you rich man forestfire!

I presume the government just don't have the money for this anymore. I must go read about SSIA, it's like a dream to me.

hetuzozaho

These updates are really making want to buy a racing yacht!

https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1164589072955916288?s=09

Thelonious Monk

Also instead of this silly EV red herring why aren’t we trying to get more people on bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes, especially in cities? You can fill a tank for next to nothing and they don’t cause traffic jams.

Blueshoe

quokula wrote: »

Because she’s vegan which is a major difference on its own. And she relies on public transport and clean transport whenever feasibly possible. She’s foregone many opportunities to travel at all because she refuses to fly, and even if you argue that this one trip in her lifetime has some carbon footprint that does not in any way undo the rest of it.

But does it really matter?

hetuzozaho

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Also instead of this silly EV red herring why aren’t we trying to get more people on bicycles, mopeds and motorbikes, especially in cities? You can fill a tank for next to nothing and they don’t cause traffic jams.

I think the lads here where saying that bikes don't suit them with kids etc.