2020 officially saw a record number of $1 billion weather and climate disasters.

Mr. teddywinkles

Danno wrote: »

Have you some context about this temperature swing of 19c? Which incidentally is not a rare occurrence for these parts of the world.

This last month. Have you watch the weather or gone outside.

Danno

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

This last month. Have you watch the weather or gone outside.

I've done more than that and have measured weather data for many a years now and have recorded days that went from say -2c at night up to around 20c during the afternoon, so I'm not sure where you're going with the "it's not normal" line.

Gaoth Laidir

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Frankly this guy Goath comes on calling me disruptive, he/she/it spelled my thread name wrong, I assume deliberately. I’ve been following this forum for some time now and there are three types of poster.

1 The anti AGW climate change cohort who try two mask there spoofer by using long meandering sentences, jargon, and graphs. I would put contributors MT Cranium and Gaoth laoider into this bracket, the may truly believe what their shovelling or are genuine disruptors, trying to show up the “establishment”,

2 They other basket contains people like Danno, the “moderator” who got the last tread closed down following his racist comments, and the other red letter Fleet Street eaters.

Group three, the peddlers of genuine science who try to use facts to catch out the other two cohorts. I have tried that several times and will continue to do so why because I like researching things, just like MTs Bering Straits spoof, but the anti lot don’t read counter articles or watch clips which may discredit them so why waste energy on them.

When MT is rumbled he’s doesn’t respond. When Gaoth is rumbled he gets flustered and reverts to personal attacks often and I’m merely responding to that with a made up graph drawn from the internet, which he may or use in the future to support one of his mini ice age claims.

As you say yourself, can you not take a joke? Yes, it was a deliberate change to your username (not your real name). And if we're on the subject of spelling I would look at your post above first. It's actually hard to read what you're saying at some points. Plus you spelt my name incorrectly too.

Your posts were disruptive in that they were mere cheap shots of no scientific value, so it's a bit rich to be accusing me of personal attacks. If you don't understand the "jargon" or graphs then maybe this forum is not for you. It is a science forum, not After Hours, though you treat it like the latter. Your last comment on your childish graph is case in point.

Gaoth Laidir

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

This last month. Have you watch the weather or gone outside.

There is absolutely nothing strange about such a temperature change. Even Akrasia will attest to that, I'm sure. Completely normal when you get a change of airmass like we have.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

A few tenths of a degree over 5 years is a huge difference that completely invalidated the point you were making while also demonstrating the need up use peer reviewed sources instead of home made graphs from some guy who seems to think he knows what he’s going

OK, you're still missing my point about the running mean so I'll leave it there.

There's nothing wrong with plotting data on that AR5 graph, as long as it's done correctly, of course. Unless you have a source of an official updated version of it?

Mr. teddywinkles

Danno wrote: »

I've done more than that and have measured weather data for many a years now and have recorded days that went from say -2c at night up to around 20c during the afternoon, so I'm not sure where you're going with the "it's not normal" line.

So from past deductions. I mean the last 20 to 30 years. Is that normal ? Doesn't matter a fook if its manmade or natural climate change. It is definitely massive change. That's the problem. Either way.

Danno

Danno wrote: »

I've done more than that and have measured weather data for many a years now and have recorded days that went from say -2c at night up to around 20c during the afternoon, so I'm not sure where you're going with the "it's not normal" line.

Just to put some fact to my post, I've went through my AWS data which is available here publicly: http://www.laoisweather.com/wxnoaaclimatereports.php

(Please note that my AWS data is usually out by a sensitivity of ~0.2c - so daytime maxes on the AWS are under recorded and night time lows are over-recorded) but here goes:

January 7th 2009: Min -7c; January 12th 2009: Max +12.0c (19c swing)
March 5th 2009: Min -0.2c; March 7th 2009: Max 14.2c (14.4c swing)
April 5th 2013: Min -6.1c; April 6th 2013: Max 10.5c (16.6c swing)

These are just examples from a quick glance at some of my earlier data in my series, but if you really want, I can pick out lots more examples of large temperature swings over just a few days or hours.

Danno

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So from past deductions. I mean the last 20 to 30 years. Is that normal ? Doesn't matter a fook if its manmade or natural climate change. It is definitely massive change. That's the problem. Either way.

See my previous post.

FWIW, I've been collecting climate data here for over a decade using the exact same equipment the Met Office uses. I also use a highly regarded Davis monitoring station along side the Met Office equipment.

Gaoth Laidir

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So from past deductions. I mean the last 20 to 30 years. Is that normal ? Doesn't matter a fook if its manmade or natural climate change. It is definitely massive change. That's the problem. Either way.

Past, present, future...whatever way you look at it it's nothing extraordinary. It has always happened and always will.

Nabber

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So from past deductions. I mean the last 20 to 30 years. Is that normal ? Doesn't matter a fook if its manmade or natural climate change. It is definitely massive change. That's the problem. Either way.

Are you talking about Ireland specifically?
If so it's been common for as long as records exist. It's also weather and not climate, not sure you will find much if any data to support your concerns.

You like many others are probably recalling from memory, which often happens in weather forums, memory is a fickle thing, it's why most folks will us data and not experiences to make a point. Notably though human recollection is given a platform were it supports extreme change. Saying "it's the same as it was 80years ago" will have you cancelled and put in with big oil :pac::pac:


If swinging is your gig... Have a look at these!

During the day, desert temperatures rise to an average of 38°C (a little over 100°F).
At night, desert temperatures fall to an average of -3.9°C (about 25°F).

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Is there actually something wrong with you? I don’t take kindly to being gaslighted

Now let me see, I politely asked you to link a specific dataset, which is not unheard in a 'scientific' thread, and in response you 1. posted a broken link then 2. posted an irrelevant set of data that I didn't even ask for. So is there something wrong with me? quite possibly, but is there also something wrong with you? Well, that is a more definite positive.

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

I said the world rightly sacrificed economic activity to try to limit the spread of the virus. Not every country acted quick enough, many delayed action or took half measures

There is more than enough evidence now that countries that took this seriously and acted early with decisive actions to limit the spread of the virus have done the best both economically and in terms of having the lowest economic and social costs

Countries that didn’t act early are getting the worst of all worlds, worst economic impacts, and worst death rates, and longer more drawn out lockdowns when they eventually realize that it’s not actually a choice between protecting the economy and saving lives

Yeah, you should stick to reading scientific papers and all that stuff because quite obviously, your understanding of how the world works outside of that tiny little bubble you live in is more than a little wanting.

Akrasia

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So swings from - 7 to 12 degrees in our climate is normal occurrence in a 2 day period throughout history. Sry but in my lifetime it is not normal lads.

This is normal weather

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

OK, you're still missing my point about the running mean so I'll leave it there.

There's nothing wrong with plotting data on that AR5 graph, as long as it's done correctly, of course. Unless you have a source of an official updated version of it?

You posted your home made graph to counter a graph I posted from NASA and you believed your own incorrect graph over the NASA one

What’s wrong with that? Well, it took me hours to go off and find the actual numbers and prove you wrong. Most people won’t do that and just take you at face value. This is why sources matter. Your home made graph, MTs ‘research’ most of the rubbish posted by bloggers like Tony Heller etc are not worth the paper they’re not printed on because nobody has checked them to make sure the data supports their claims
This is why peer reviewed papers published in reputable journals are the gold standard, followed by reports published by reputable professional bodies like NASA or the MET Office, or NSIDC etc
These bodies have procedures to catch errors before publication, and if errors are found, they quickly correct them

Back of the envelope rebuttals by amateur know it all’s can be fun conversation but you have no right for anyone to believe you, especially when you’re going against the established scientific consensus

Akrasia

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Now let me see, I politely asked you to link a specific dataset, which is not unheard in a 'scientific' thread, and in response you 1. posted a broken link then 2. posted an irrelevant set of data that I didn't even ask for. So is there something wrong with me? quite possibly, but is there also something wrong with you? Well, that is a more definite positive.

Lol. The funny thing is you asked for a link to a dataset and then literally didn’t even know a dataset when it was staring you in the face

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

Lol. The funny thing is you asked for a link to a dataset and then literally didn’t even know a dataset when it was staring you in the face

You linked wrong data. A dataset I didn't ask for. Just own it.
And I got my sleep last night, thanks. Had a lovely dream too. Standing in a vast desert of white sand looking up and 3 moons in the twilight sky which were all, curiously, in different phases to one another.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

The tech just isn't there yet to transition to a zero-carbon near zero-carbon scenario.

Private transport is a must for the vast majority of people around the world, even in places served quite well with public transport, the need for private transport still exists and always will.

Until the tech is able to realistically compete with petrol/diesel then it won't be widely adopted. This is where the wise ones missed a trick. I should be able to pull in at my local "petrol station" in my EV and an attendant grabs a battery off a rack, pops it into my car and takes my battery back to the rack to charge up for the next driver in a few hours time.

Failing that, a 5-minute charge for 500 miles needs to be achieved.

That tech already exists, not the battery swapping stuff, cause that’s more of a question of economics than technology, but you can fast charge batteries now that can take you hundreds of Kms in a few minutes

The regulations I would be looking for from governments and blocs like the EU are things like commitments to increase carbon taxes over time, requirements for higher energy efficiency standards in any goods manufactured or imported into the customs Union, requirements for CO2 emitting power plants to either scrub 100% of GHGs at the point of generation, or be decommissioned by a date in. The not too distant future

And there is scope for radical economic ideas. Create a global scheme that pays people for sequestering carbon. Like a more accessible carbon credit scheme. Allow people to gain a steady income as micro sequesters, or bigger operations to become successful operating as commercial businesses in a carbon capture and storage industry

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

Venus average surface temps are about 480c
We don’t need to worry about getting anywhere near Venus, we’ll be cooked way before then
Runaway climate change of only 5c to 10c would be enough to melt every glacier and ice cap and raise sea levels by hundreds of feet within a few centuries. You might not like the language but apocalyptic would not be unreasonable Ireland would change from an island to an archipelagoIs this supposed to be a rebuttal? If you’re driving on an icy road and your grip levels are ‘uncertain’ does this mean you should be extra careful, or less careful? If you read my post, I said the tipping points are uncertain but the risks only increase the higher temperatures rise, so to reduce the risk, we need to keep temperature increases as low as we can
I look forward to Richard Betts’ peer reviewed paper where he demonstrates that the PNAS paper is ‘a dramatic narrative’ cause until he does the scientific analysis his opinion is not scientific data If you have a link to such a paper, please post it here. I’m sure he’s written something given that it’s more than 2 years since the hothouse earth paper was published

The use of apocalyptic language is most certainly 'unreasonable' when used to deliberately sensationalise scientific research or its interpretation. Your comment was notable for its bingo of such terms.

But as for your analogy. If someone is driving on an icy road - it is certainly not useful to tell them that no matter what they do - they are all going to die or wtte unless they stop driving immediately.

Btw I'm truely delighted that you think that your personal interpretation of Richard Betts outweighs his professional expertise as a respected climate scientist. Well done.

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

That tech already exists, not the battery swapping stuff, cause that’s more of a question of economics than technology, but you can fast charge batteries now that can take you hundreds of Kms in a few minutes

Have you an example of such?

Akrasia wrote: »

The regulations I would be looking for from governments and blocs like the EU are things like commitments to increase carbon taxes over time, requirements for higher energy efficiency standards in any goods manufactured or imported into the customs Union, requirements for CO2 emitting power plants to either scrub 100% of GHGs at the point of generation, or be decommissioned by a date in. The not too distant future

Why burden people with more carbon taxes? Surely the most sensible thing to do would be to use the current fleet of vehicles to the end of their life. Scrapping vehicles now would result in a huge consumption of energy to a) manufacture their replacement; b) huge consumption of energy to recycle the materials of scrappage. I thought the whole purpose of this experiment was to decrease energy consumption, but your first go to solution is to increase energy consumption and burden people with taxes. I doubt you'll get a good reception from the public with these policies. Perhaps set a date banning new sales of petrol and diesel vehicles once EVs can be charged in five minutes and give the range of a tank of petrol or diesel.

Akrasia wrote: »

And there is scope for radical economic ideas. Create a global scheme that pays people for sequestering carbon. Like a more accessible carbon credit scheme. Allow people to gain a steady income as micro sequesters, or bigger operations to become successful operating as commercial businesses in a carbon capture and storage industry

There could be scope to pay farmers to give up unproductive lands and return them to wilderness, however I'd rather this be done voluntary.

Danno

Mod Note: Deleted some responses not related to this topic, there is a Covid-19 forum for discussing that.

Also, can responders refrain from personal snides - it is totally unhelpful for the discussion.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

The use of apocalyptic language is most certainly 'unreasonable' when used to deliberately sensationalise scientific research or its interpretation. Your comment was notable for its bingo of such terms.

But as for your analogy. If someone is driving on an icy road - it is certainly not useful to tell them that no matter what they do - they are all going to die or wtte unless they stop driving immediately.

Btw I'm truely delighted that you think that your personal interpretation of Richard Betts outweighs his professional expertise as a respected climate scientist. Well done.

Not a single word in this post relates in any meaningful way to anything I have previously said
Well done on that.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Have you an example of such?

Lucidair can charge 100 km in 5 minutes, that’s 200km in 10 mins. Not much longer than it takes to go into a shop, get a coffee, pay and leave

Why burden people with more carbon taxes? Surely the most sensible thing to do would be to use the current fleet of vehicles to the end of their life. Scrapping vehicles now would result in a huge consumption of energy to a) manufacture their replacement; b) huge consumption of energy to recycle the materials of scrappage. I thought the whole purpose of this experiment was to decrease energy consumption, but your first go to solution is to increase energy consumption and burden people with taxes. I doubt you'll get a good reception from the public with these policies. Perhaps set a date banning new sales of petrol and diesel vehicles once EVs can be charged in five minutes and give the range of a tank of petrol or diesel.

The point is to ‘encourage’ anyone in the market for a new vehicle to buy an EV instead of an ICE
You can either Ban ICE or tax them out of the market
Either way works

Creating a carbon tax allows governments to create a fund that can be used to subsidise lower income people to transition away from ICE

But transport is only one segment, the carbon tax would also apply to things like Cement production. We can make sustainable concrete but it is not competitive with legacy products. Carbon taxes include the costs that are currently avoided as ‘externalities’

There could be scope to pay farmers to give up unproductive lands and return them to wilderness, however I'd rather this be done voluntary.

Anything can be voluntary when the right incentives are in place

Nabber

Batteries are dirty by their nature, majority of batteries currently store energy from carbon sources which is grossly inefficient transfer of energy, batteries are poor form on energy store in comparison to fossil fuels. They reduce carbon out put from the end user but are not at the moment good replacements for combustion engines.

I’m a big battery fan, but as energy stores we are still some ways off having clean ones. They are the future but certainly not the green ambassadors some would have you believe.

The issue with EVs is that they set a false sense of comfort. The removal of a vehicles should be the override for AGW proponents. Some people think driving an EV means they are having a net benefit.

Climate change and the solutions are a muddled mess, it’s a political and social engineered disaster (even if we are doomed) how it’s been cultivated is an unmitigated abomination.
Science plays second fiddle to sensationalist spin doctors. It’s a shame.

The planet isn’t getting better. Twitter activists make it worse.
USA as an example, Trump pulls out, Biden employs John Kerry to bring the USA back in on his private jet.

If AGW is the existential threat for the past 30years, why is science wasting its time updating us on how fooked we are?

To me the science reports makes it feel like we have fallen out of a plane with no parachute, but we get an update on our, speed, altitude, direction and how much we slow down by flapping our arms, if we can fly back up 1000ft we’ll be back on the plane. Useless waste of reporting.

It’s like misdirection half the time.
Science release a wiggle ridden announcement:

It’s warmer and here are some vague statistics that allude to higher temps perhaps being somewhat likely to have maybe made it potentially possible to have caused this natural disaster

MSM: worst disaster since 1970, caused by global warming. Science says you are dead in 8years.

All the while the bank are handing out 35year mortgages like the future has never been brighter. Somethings just don’t line up.


Maybe we are doomed?
Maybe climate change is a fantastic cash cow?
Maybe both?

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

Lucidair can charge 100 km in 5 minutes, that’s 200km in 10 mins. Not much longer than it takes to go into a shop, get a coffee, pay and leave

Good, its getting better. Shame they don't sell in Ireland though. At a direct XE conversion the cheapest model is almost €60k. Well out of reach for the vast majority of families. They need to be half that price.

Akrasia wrote: »

The point is to ‘encourage’ anyone in the market for a new vehicle to buy an EV instead of an ICE
You can either Ban ICE or tax them out of the market
Either way works

It won't encourage many - the vast majority of families are price sensitive. Many families will keep their ICE vehicle until it fails a NCT and it's not worth investing in repairs, even at that alot of folk turn to the second-hand market.
Ramming up fuel prices will mean they can never save for something new.

Akrasia wrote: »

Creating a carbon tax allows governments to create a fund that can be used to subsidise lower income people to transition away from ICE

The carbon tax scam is already here. Those that can afford EVs are already wealthy and have just received an unnecessary tax break on their purchase. The carbon tax scam is punishing the poor and rewarding the rich.

Akrasia wrote: »

But transport is only one segment, the carbon tax would also apply to things like Cement production. We can make sustainable concrete but it is not competitive with legacy products. Carbon taxes include the costs that are currently avoided as ‘externalities’

Have you seen house prices lately? You want to drive the cost up further? :eek:

Akrasia wrote: »

Anything can be voluntary when the right incentives are in place

Except carbon taxes.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Good, its getting better. Shame they don't sell in Ireland though. At a direct XE conversion the cheapest model is almost €60k. Well out of reach for the vast majority of families. They need to be half that price.

yes they do. Car manufacturers initially focused on upmarket models as EVs were low volume because the infrastructure or demand wasn’t in place. The government needs to invest in charging infrastructure or put the necessary incentives in place for the private sector to build them.
Then costs will come down and people will naturally choose EV over ICE and affordablility will follow. This happens with depreciation or finance instruments such as leasing or pcp

The car I drive now cost over 60k when it was new, I paid 2k for it. The only chance the average family will get to own an EV is if the ‘national fleet’ transfers from ICE to EV
Maybe the ownership model will change with shared ownership becoming more mainstream via car sharing platforms like GoCar

It won't encourage many - the vast majority of families are price sensitive. Many families will keep their ICE vehicle until it fails a NCT and it's not worth investing in repairs, even at that alot of folk turn to the second-hand market.
Ramming up fuel prices will mean they can never save for something new.

This is why the focus should be on getting the small % of people who buy new cars to choose an EV over ICE
Their choices today will affect the market 10 to 15 years later

The carbon tax scam is already here. Those that can afford EVs are already wealthy and have just received an unnecessary tax break on their purchase. The carbon tax scam is punishing the poor and rewarding the rich.

Maybe that tax incentive was the difference between that ‘wealthy’ person choosing an ev over an ICE car, maybe the fear of ICE cars being more difficult to sell later on if carbon taxes are increased, or things like congestion charges force them out of city Centre’s
Maybe finance companies stop financing ICE cars on lease or PCP or charge higher interest, if they think they will lose money on the resale at the end of the finance term...

Have you seen house prices lately? You want to drive the cost up further? :eek:

Land prices drive up house prices more than regulations on energy efficiency
Why else would an identical house cost 200k in a regional town, and 350k in Dublin

Akrasia

I wanted to deal with this little nugget separately

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akrasia View Post
Anything can be voluntary when the right incentives are in place

Danno wrote: »

Except carbon taxes.

The entire point of Carbon taxes is that they are supposed to be avoided. They are supposed to incentivise people to choose cleaner alternatives whenever they are making purchasing or investment/infrastructure decisions

Its like an excise duty on tobacco, the tax is high on purpose to 1. cover the cost of healthcare for smokers, 2, discourage people from smoking


If there is a carbon tax on Coal, then the point is to use less coal, If there is a carbon tax on Gas, the point is to get people up use less gas, the next time they need to replace their boiler, either consider something like a BioLPG compatible boiler or at minimum, spend a little bit more on an A rated condensing boiler.

Ultimately, if you're spending a lot of money on carbon taxes, then you're doing something wrong. (Given the current low rate of tax)
Carbon taxes are too low because they do not make it financially worthwhile to invest in carbon neutral technology. People aren't going to spend a thousand euros to avoid 30 euros a year in tax, Manufacturers know this so they're not worried about improving their efficiency at the lower end of the market

If the carbon tax was a 200 euros a year with a 50% efficient heating system, or 20 euros a year with a 95% efficient boiler, then it becomes a 5 - 10 year payback time to dump the coal fireplace (including fuel savings fuel savings) and end up with a much cheaper more efficient heating system

Danno

Akrasia wrote: »

I wanted to deal with this little nugget separately

The entire point of Carbon taxes is that they are supposed to be avoided. They are supposed to incentivise people to choose cleaner alternatives whenever they are making purchasing or investment/infrastructure decisions

I think you are missing an important point: Carbon taxes cannot be avoided. A family with say a 151 people carrier that they probably bought second hand for €10k a year or two ago probably spent a chunk of their savings and part-borrowed to finance such an option. There are loads of people in this bracket. If you went to them and said, hey you should have spent €60k on an EV, they'd shrug their shoulders and say how can I afford that. You are now going to roast these families with higher fuel bills for nearly the next decade until an EV is affordable to them.
Ditto with house heating systems, they defiantly won't be replacing these until the burner had failed and needs replacement.
For the vast majority of people, investing in a car is a once-a-decade purchase, and for home heating, once every twenty years event.

Akrasia wrote: »

Its like an excise duty on tobacco, the tax is high on purpose to 1. cover the cost of healthcare for smokers, 2, discourage people from smoking

People have a choice to smoke/drink/ingest unnecessary sugars or whatever. Most people in a job have no choice but to drive to work, drive to the nearest shopping centre, etc...

Akrasia wrote: »

If there is a carbon tax on Coal, then the point is to use less coal, If there is a carbon tax on Gas, the point is to get people up use less gas, the next time they need to replace their boiler, either consider something like a BioLPG compatible boiler or at minimum, spend a little bit more on an A rated condensing boiler.

Again see my point about heating systems above. Hardly anybody has the funds just sitting there in their accounts to go out in the morning and upgrade their heating systems. The vast majority are living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Akrasia wrote: »

Ultimately, if you're spending a lot of money on carbon taxes, then you're doing something wrong. (Given the current low rate of tax)
Carbon taxes are too low because they do not make it financially worthwhile to invest in carbon neutral technology. People aren't going to spend a thousand euros to avoid 30 euros a year in tax, Manufacturers know this so they're not worried about improving their efficiency at the lower end of the market

If you're paying too much carbon tax it is because governments have raised the taxes. If you want to tackle the manufacturers, then ban them selling ICE and FF heating systems from a set date.

Akrasia wrote: »

If the carbon tax was a 200 euros a year with a 50% efficient heating system, or 20 euros a year with a 95% efficient boiler, then it becomes a 5 - 10 year payback time to dump the coal fireplace (including fuel savings fuel savings) and end up with a much cheaper more efficient heating system

Or, if there was no carbon tax, people could afford to heat their homes and save some money until their burner died and needed replacement anyway.

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

I think you are missing an important point: Carbon taxes cannot be avoided. A family with say a 151 people carrier that they probably bought second hand for €10k a year or two ago probably spent a chunk of their savings and part-borrowed to finance such an option. There are loads of people in this bracket. If you went to them and said, hey you should have spent €60k on an EV, they'd shrug their shoulders and say how can I afford that. You are now going to roast these families with higher fuel bills for nearly the next decade until an EV is affordable to them.
Ditto with house heating systems, they defiantly won't be replacing these until the burner had failed and needs replacement.
For the vast majority of people, investing in a car is a once-a-decade purchase, and for home heating, once every twenty years event.



People have a choice to smoke/drink/ingest unnecessary sugars or whatever. Most people in a job have no choice but to drive to work, drive to the nearest shopping centre, etc...




Again see my point about heating systems above. Hardly anybody has the funds just sitting there in their accounts to go out in the morning and upgrade their heating systems. The vast majority are living paycheck-to-paycheck.


If you're paying too much carbon tax it is because governments have raised the taxes. If you want to tackle the manufacturers, then ban them selling ICE and FF heating systems from a set date.



Or, if there was no carbon tax, people could afford to heat their homes and save some money until their burner died and needed replacement anyway.

You are wrong
Now, if you said ‘Carbon taxes cannot be completely avoided’
You would be correct, but then your point would be severely diluted

Carbon taxes are designed to be avoided. If you walk to the shop instead of driving, you’ve avoided carbon tax. If you rent a Higher BER rated house, you avoid carbon tax....

Also. Where did you get this 60k cost for an EV from?

I can go on donedeal today and buy a perfectly serviceable family sized EV for about 5k

I can go into a showroom and buy a brand new family sized EV for less than 35k

Akrasia

Danno wrote: »

Or, if there was no carbon tax, people could afford to heat their homes and save some money until their burner died and needed replacement anyway.

And just buy the same cheap inefficient boiler they had before committing themselves to 15 more years of higher fuel costs and higher pollution

The carbon tax is designed to change the behavior of both producers and consumers

High carbon taxes reduces demand for inefficient boilers, so producers of boilers stop making them and the pricing structure realigns so that the cheap boilers are all more efficient and they ‘price distinguish’ on something else, like ‘form factor’

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

High carbon taxes reduces demand for inefficient boilers, so producers of boilers stop making them and the pricing structure realigns so that the cheap boilers are all more efficient and they ‘price distinguish’ on something else, like ‘form factor’

The Irish government pulls in ~€5.2 billion per annum in environmental taxes and pays out ~€5 billion in interest payments on the national debt. The debt is increasing and environmental taxes are going to increase in lockstep for the time being.

The choice of fuel to provide the energy for home heating is dictated by the nature of the dwelling, location, availability of supply, price of fuel and trade-offs in the costs of substitutes.

People who can afford it upgrade their systems to substitute the next cheapest fuel source for heating subject to availability in the area they live. Those who can't afford to upgrade maintain existing heating systems until parts are no longer available.

As conditions get colder, those on fixed or limited incomes ration their fuel consumption to stay within their budget, living and sleeping in the kitchen during the winter months is not uncommon, nor moving out to stay with a relative (if any are alive and living in this country). There are other costs due to increased hospitalisation (Flu, pneumonia) and excess winter deaths.

Our entire distribution system for essential goods such as food and clothing is dependent on hydrocarbon fuels. By taxing fuel, the added cost works its way into the cost of living. (food, transport, clothing). Most people who need to be physically present in the workplace who are not specialists are lower income earners (retail assistants, porters, waiters, cooks etc), lower income means trade-offs in where you can live and commute times, all energy taxes do is lower purchasing power of the population as a whole while subsidising government debt expansion.