But these rich people pay multiple times the taxation
This is supposed to already happen...(the wealthy paying more tax) Given that there always seems to be a way around paying your taxes, aren't you just creating a market for "greenwashing"? ie giving the rich another incentive to avoid taxation.
But these rich people pay multiple times the taxation which then creates surplus which can be used to mitigate issues
Surely the solution isn't to have the issues in the first place? If you're mitigating it's already too late. We already pay tax on tailpipe emissions in this way and I don't see much progress in that respect.
Plus, as pointed out, a regressive tax impacts the poor more than the rich and the actual rich can fiddle things so as not to pay tax.
There is no simple solution to such complex problems.
TJ, if you're ever bored in retirement I'd thoroughly recommend the OU T213 and T313 courses, they go through all this in great detail, otherwise look for their textbooks [url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Energy-Systems-Sustainability-Sustainable-Future-dp-0199593744/dp/0199593744/ref=dp_ob_title_bk ]Energy Systems and Sustainability[/url] (there is a new edition due out in January) and [url= https://www.amazon.co.uk/Renewable-Energy-Power-Sustainable-Future/dp/0198759754/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_0/257-0753496-1219966?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0198759754&pd_rd_r=5fb78f5e-24a5-4750-8dce-9b1a681a1d23&pd_rd_w=jOoTp&pd_rd_wg=B3oW7&pf_rd_p=7b8e3b03-1439-4489-abd4-4a138cf4eca6&pf_rd_r=BA0NBHPS6468M5JJAJGM&psc=1&refRID=BA0NBHPS6468M5JJAJGM ]Renewable Energy[/url]. I have the old versions which are rather dated in terms of technological content but still convey the same overall info, once my new ones come in I'd be happy to fling them to you. They are drawn from Without the Hot Air quite heavily IIRC.
Surely the solution isn’t to have the issues in the first place?
There will always be issues. 7bn humans will always have a massive impact on the planet. So we will always need mitigation.
Squirrel. I meant .mitigating the issues from taxation changes
You can't fiddle taxes on consumption
There will always be issues. 7bn humans will always have a massive impact on the planet. So we will always need mitigation.
Yeah I'm not even sure why I wrote that, looking back it doesn't make sense. You're right.
Squirrel. I meant .mitigating the issues from taxation changes
Ah okay.
You can’t fiddle taxes on consumption
Sure you can, BIK, C2W, business expenses, the list goes on. Hell, I can buy TVs, computers and other crap tax/NI free through work as a deductible if I wanted to. There's always a way to fiddle the system..
There is no simple solution to such complex problems.
A wealth tax. The problem with that is that any country that adopts one suffer capital flight. And there's unlikely ever to be a world wide concensus on adopting one.
On the dual powertrain thing, what’s wrong with an engine coupled to a generator separate to the drivetrain like you see in trains?
Mazda are possibly going down this route, using a single rotor ****el engine set horizontally into the floor of the car, specifically to generate a constant supply of electricity for the main battery and electric motors.
Squirrel - only if you leave loopholes. if you don't? simply make the tax on everything based around resources / co2/ embedded energy and remove all those loopholes. You cannot for example do the Starbucks thing of exporting the profits - because thats not what you are taxed on. starbucks are taxed on their energy useage. No tax avoidance possible
you cannot hide energy consumption!
There was an article a while back (Can't remember where unfortunately, think it was on LinkedIn) that suggested that synthetic fuels that is made from CO2 is likely to be the future, beyond electric vehicles. These synthetic hydrocarbons are carbon neutral and would work with existing ICE technologies, and would not be harmful to the environment as harmful compounds such as benzene can be removed completely.
The problem with electric is that a lot of rare earth elements are required for batteries, and with current technology, there is no where near enough resources of these elements on earth to make every vehicle on the road electric, unless battery cell/motor technology dramatically improves in terms of the materials used in their production.
As for hybrids, I don't see the point. Having two engines is inefficient in terms of embedded CO2 in the production process and means a hybrid is on par with petrol/diesel over the lifetime of the car.
These synthetic hydrocarbons are carbon neutral and would work with existing ICE technologies, and would not be harmful to the environment as harmful compounds such as benzene can be removed completely.
low carbon maybe but cewrtainly not zero carbon
1) the plant to make them would have embedded energy
2) there are always loses converting energy from one form to another
3) if used in an ICE you will get pollutants like oxides of nitrogen
TJ, you do realise that EVERYTHING has embedded carbon don't you? And that can be offset.
Yes, we need to be carbon negative but not forever, the world can take an amount of carbon release though obviously less is better.
And yes, nitrogen oxides are a problem but only where they cannot be easily dispersed or eliminated. That's why you take a range of measures so the impact of one doesn’t overwhelm the system. As I keep saying you need a diverse range of solutions, in this case these fuels seem ideal for heavy haulage.
Of course i do
Just pointing out that synthetic fuels are not carbon neutral or pollutant free
Surely their neutrality is dependent on how they are produced? If its fossil fuel power then no, not carbon free but other forms of power are available.
None of which are carbon free
ad4m
As for hybrids, I don’t see the point. Having two engines is inefficient in terms of embedded CO2 in the production process and means a hybrid is on par with petrol/diesel over the lifetime of the car.
Various studies have said that's not the case, and particularly so for PHEVs, but that's not the point I want to make which is that hybrids are not only about CO2, but also local air quality i.e. less brake dust, NOX, diesel particulates etc in city centres.
The only hybrid that makes any sense is an eBike 😉
None of which are carbon free
You are aware of what offsetting is no?
You're literally arguing with someone who has studied this in the past and is now specialising in it for their degree. I've given you the resources so go read them. Stop arguing semantics.
Which is why I am listening and indeed learning
If you can count offsetting the carbon cost of synthetic fuels why not the same for fossil fuels
The only hybrid that makes any sense is an eBike
Yeah those don’t seem to matter where the batteries come from.
Squirrelking. I think the disconnect is about where we are coming from. I am a dark green - to me the only answer is to use less energy and i can see holes in every attempt to reduce pollution without reducing energy.
You are aware of what offsetting is no?
I sure am. It's why we ship virgin timber from the US and burn it at Drax, because it's "Carbon-neutral" and therefore "sustainable".
Yeah those don’t seem to matter where the batteries come from.
If you insist on having motorized transport, ebikes are about the most power effecient ones out there. Obviously you should just pedal harder, but there we go.
Not good for the environment though compared to a normal bike, where does the charge come from? I
And so on....
Not good for the environment though compared to a normal bike
Very true, which is why I don't have one. I'm just making the argument that an ebike is better for the environment than a hybrid car, if you used one as you main motorized transport.
I once idly thought about doing a DIY electric conversion on an old car. As I priced up the batteries, I mentally made the car lighter and smaller until I realized I could save a lot of weight by removing some of the wheels. It didn't take much more to realize someone had already done this, in the form of an ebike. Then I remembered I hate ebikes and should pedal more.
the plant to make them would have embedded energy
Not necessarily.
A lot of work is being done on this. Cellulose fermentation, algal oil and bacterial biproducts being a few. The scientists are of course aware that the processes cost energy - it's usually mentioned in the articles - but in theory any process can generate enough spare energy to power itself. Often the energy comes from the sun, for example, or from bi-products from food production.
Very true, which is why I don’t have one.
I’m not being serious I’ve nothing against E Bikes it’s poor satire about those who make a reason for disliking hybrids and electric cars.
