"Green" policies are destroying this country

It's as infeasible as continuing the trillions of tonnes of coal oil and gas we've been burning globally to keep the lights on (and leaving us with trilions of tonnes of waste products in the form of slag and ash and water and air pollution)

The best way to prevent people from dying from deadly heatwaves is to stop global warming from making large regions of highly populated areas uninhabitable to humans.

What do you think "ring fenced" means exactly? The government come out with these ludicrous statements all the time but in real terms it all goes into one pot. There was no talk of fuel duty being ring fenced for water when they were trying to set to set another quango to bleed the population dry.

We have arbitrary targets set by eurocrats.

Carbon taxes are revenue neutral? They take money out of ordinary citizens pockets. By definition that's not revenue neutral.

So they aren't free, someone always has to foot the bill. It's not as if the government actually generate any revenue themselves, it's all taken from citizens and companies operating here.

Ok, so you don't understand what revenue neutral means

That's nice to know

Total nonsense, an energy tax can never be "revenue neutral", have you been living under a rock for the last 2 years? The price of energy makes it's way into everything we do. Diesel is the very lifeblood of the economy, without it the shelves are bare and the just in time economy falls asunder. Anyone been keeping an eye on their grocery bill for the last few years?

Here is a simplified example, a product cost analysis might look something like this:

Unit production cost = €10 materials + €10 labour + €10 energy = €30 cost per unit.

Because I'm a greedy capitalist my unit sales price is twice unit cost, i.e. €60 a unit.

In LaLa land the deal with a "revenue neutral tax" is that the consumer is supposed to get the money back from the state. According to your theory, this means that a revenue-neutral tax won’t slow down the economy, since the taxes aren’t removed from circulation, instead they’re returned right back to the consumers.

Here’s the problem. Let’s run the new unit cost numbers to include the tax.

Unit production cost = €10 materials + €10 labour + €20 energy = €40 total cost

Remember me, the greedy capitalist, twice production cost is €80 a unit. €10 extra for me, €10 for the state. Did not need to invest to improve the product in any way and I am making more money, government will give you back your €10 - their handling fee. Except for the part, you Joe Soap the punter who bought the unit is short a tenner, and me the greedy capitalist made a tenner extra on the same unit. The revenue is neutral, and despite that, in the case of energy taxes the net effect is to slow down the economy and cause labour unrest through strikes and unemployment.

Why will the economy slow? If we have the same amount of goods at higher prices, demand must fall and trade must slow. It’s basic economics and no magic money theory games are going to change that.

I'm torn on this part. On one hand I agree that carbon tax should be there to discourage emissions, however, I also think we need to keep old things running as long as possible. Granted the emissions from a 10, 12, 14 etc year old ice will be high, but dumping a well running car and buying a new one seems like a waste. Need to tax new goods in the same way, estimate carbon tax needed in production and add it to the cost.

Hypothetical is exactly what "revenue neutral" assumptions are. Just like climate model results that have no semblance to real world, the economic modelling tells the story the activists want to hear. It ignores the real world of effects caused by a tax upon a tax, the effect of rent seekers, the costs of tax avoidance and evasion, the cost of bureaucratic administration and the hypocrites covering up when reality does not confirm to their model. It's an old argument, described previously as the socialist calculation problem where the socialists simply assumed away the issue of human nature and could not set the prices to reflect peoples needs and wants leading to widespread poverty and scarcity once their capital reserve had been consumed.

Ok, so you agree the green energy transition as currently conceived is infeasible. That's progress.

Yes, but since you agree the current green approach is infeasible, the next best thing is to look at developing terawatts of nuclear and providing everyone with aircon. And that might just mitigate global warming for you too.