40 odd yrs ago the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence said that we were set for global cooling. Perhaps they were correct after all.

errrr, they were right, the problem is that now despite the particulte emmissions causing global cooling, CO2 emmissions have counteracted that. Scientist weren't wrong, they just didn't anticipate quite how big a f*** up we were headed for!

couldnt see the laut one, link didnt work for me.

Sorry, i'm on a university network so it must be through our library.

Here's the Royal Society page:
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

See: Misleading argument 6: ’Global warming is all to do with the sun’

just from a quick look at the end of my lunch hour, but some comment on the Benestad & Schmidt paper here

I find it amazing that people think that governments taking money off people is a bad thing. They dont' pocket that money you know. They spend it back on us. You do realise that, don't you? If Governments want to take money off us they raise taxes. They don't have to invent a carefully manged global hoax to do that, do they? Think about it.

40 odd yrs ago

Everyone was using wood or coal for fuel and producing loads of smoke. The Clean Air Act hadn't long been in force.

There are some thick tw*ts on this forum aye.

The problem is that the money being collected in the name of green taxes and saving the planet aren't auditable and i would amazed if even 10% was being spent on green causes.

The problem is that the money being collected in the name of green taxes and saving the planet aren't auditable and i would amazed if even 10% was being spent on green causes.

Not auditable? WTF you talking about?

And green taxes aren't solely for the purposes of green spending. Let me spell it out:

Governments take money from us, then spend it back on us. Sometimes they want to discourage certain things, so they tax them more. Sometimes they want to encourage them more, and then they give tax breaks. All the money goes into one big pot, and how it gets spent is about policy. So yes we need to spend money on green causes but also on other stuff. We also need to tax activities in such a way that doesn't harm business we want to encourage.

So tell me again why green tax money shoudl only go on green spending?

Because it is a GREEN tax.

Thats why!!

Why don't they just call it "We'll pull your trousers down and screw you up the wrongun tax instead" If its being collected due to the impact on the environment, i.e. airline tax, then it should be spent on offsetting that impact. Anything else isn't a green tax and shouldn't be labelled so.

If you are happy with being taken for a mug by our government then that is your choice. Not everyone elses.

Anything else isn't a green tax and shouldn't be labelled so.

So why do people complain when "Road Tax" isn't spent on the roads?

Surely it's a classic green tax and should be spent on mass transit, cleaner fuel research etc?

I imagine though that the money spent on UK roads and infrastructure each year is proportional to that collected in road tax. Where as the money raised in the name of "green taxes" isn't proportionally spent on green initiatives.

Actually I believe expenditure on roads massively exceeds the money raised by "Road Tax", but that's a different issue.

The point is that Green Taxes, like road tax, still have other non-green things to pay for (like roads) – they are not exclusively green tax, but their application does help to alter attitudes and behaviours (e.g. many people will now consider the VED banding when buying a new car).

Grahams/Hainey

There is no such thing as Road Tax. You may be paying Vehicle Excise Duty for your permission to use a motorised vehicle on the road. Sorry to be pedantic but you could look at it as "polluter pays". Perhaps this is how more tax should be levied, though the goverment should then reduce tax in other areas. The idea that money raised in tax should be used in the area that the tax was extracted from is not often done. The goverment is using these taxes to modify our actions, this is not a bad thing but it could lead to accusations that certain things are now only for the wealthy or subsidised.(goverment/business)

There is no such thing as Road Tax. You may be paying Vehicle Excise Duty

Yeah I know – hence the quotes. 🙂
It is a duty that allows you to pollute by a given amount, based on the CO2 output of your engine.

My point is though that if they are doing it to modify our actions, which is fair enough, then they need to do it fairly and start taxing the other main polluters i.e beef production. The problem is that the motorist and airline industry are easy hitters.

Any tax levied in the name of green taxes should be auditable against green initiatives in my opinion otherwise they shouldn't call it green taxes.

Any tax levied in the name of green taxes should be auditable against green initiatives in my opinion otherwise they shouldn't call it green taxes.

So we'll be left with billions to be spent on green initiatives, but no money for non-green thing like healthcare, schools, etc?

If they call it green taxes yes.

If its not being spent on green initiatives then they should call it

"Healthcare tax" and "Education tax"

Or even better, like everything else, just call it "tax".

So what about "Road Tax", where it is a general tax, which most of the public believe is spent on roads, but also has a green effect?

As already stated, the money spent on the roads each year is proportional, or as pointed out above, more than collected from Road Fund License each year. So the money being collected is proportional.

My issue is that i am sure that the money collcted in the name of green tax isn't proportionally spent on green intiatives.

I find it amazing that people think that governments taking money off people is a bad thing. They dont' pocket that money you know. They spend it back on us.

So someone remind me what the whole expenses scandal was about then?

"My issue is that i am sure that the money collcted in the name of green tax isn't proportionally spent on green intiatives. "

it doesn't need to be. So long as it discourages people doing un-environmentally friendly things its doing its job.

it doesn't need to be. So long as it discourages people doing un-environmentally friendly things its doing its job.

Like building an extra runway at Stansted for example. Or giving Jaguar money to build more gas guzzling cars.

My issue is that i am sure that the money collcted in the name of green tax isn't proportionally spent on green intiatives.

But why should it be? Tax money earned from cigarette tax isn't ringfenced for spending on anti-smoking initiatives, but it is still useful for discouraging people from smoking.

Incidentally Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) raised £5.4 billion for the Exchequer in 2007-08. No idea what the overall budget was for new roads, network maintenance, road safety, public transport, alternative fuel research, etc was but I'm guessing it was considerably more.

So someone remind me what the whole expenses scandal was about then?

As much as I don't like what the MP's were getting on expenses, you'll find the tax that is spent on services to the public makes MP expenses look like chicken feed and more notably nothing more than a storm in a teacup.

It's hardly surprising that after a few mild winters, you eventually get a cold one…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

I don't think it says anything about global warming, other than that some people have probably incorrectly tried to hype up a short run of mild winters as evidence of a warming trend – which leads naturally to the counter argument that it must all be nonsense as soon as you get a cold winter. I don't think any scientists hyped GW in this way, but some in the media certainly did.

someone remind me what the whole expenses scandal was about then?

LOL ! Yes – that was it …….. the government had to put up taxes in a devious, cunning, and stealthy manner, otherwise …… there wouldn't have been enough money in the coffers for their own personal expenses ! 😀

……. and they cunningly coordinated it all, with the policies of other governments, throughout the world !

Or giving Jaguar money to build more gas guzzling cars.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/aug/11/jaguar-secures-funds-without-bailout

Oh FFS, are we back to this one again!

As much as I don't like what the MP's were getting on expenses, you'll find the tax that is spent on services to the public makes MP expenses look like chicken feed and more notably nothing more than a storm in a teacup.

I was interpreting the post literally – the point being that politicians haven't exactly always behaved with the public's interests at heart.

How many politicians are also employed as "consultants" by various businesses? Don't tell me that some juicy private sector contracts haven't been dished out with a nod and a wink.

Billions of pounds of public money has been wasted on various projects which have massively overrun and like it or not we all pay for it.

My point remains, I don't believe this government is doing anything nearly enough to deal with both climate change and peak oil, they've already reneged on several manifesto pledges relating to public transport and if you research "Green Wave Traffic Management" you'll see this government vetoed this strategy because they didn't want to risk losing fuel duty revenue. Brown's administration even admitted as such in 2008.

Doing the right thing? Not a bit.

Yes but cigarette money goes to help out the NHS etc. Its all interlinked and you can proportionally look at money collected against money spent.

Where as man-made global warming is essentially an unproven theory. It would be like saying that we will eventually be hit by a meteorite and as such we need a meteorite tax to help us build underground housing to keep us all alive for years but then spending all that money on bailing out failed banks, MPS duck ponds and extracting oil from the middle east.

Its just wrong.

A few here, like the thread starter are doing nothing more than trying to de-bunk the climate change issue by pointing out the hypocrisy in Government(s) policy, either by claiming that they so love to tax us, or claiming that they are green whilst approving runways(Business comes first).

This is nothing more than a convenient sideshow for these people to steer it away from the main issue.

As already stated, the money spent on the roads each year is proportional, or as pointed out above, more than collected from Road Fund License each year. So the money being collected is proportional.

how is that proportional?

The only tax I cna think of that is proportiona is the TV licence? You pay a certain ammount each year, that ammount x number of households = the BBC's budget + whatever it cost to administer the collection of the licence fee.

If RFL or petrol was a proper green tax ( by your definition proportional to the spend on mitigating the -ve effects and that spend would be sufficient to mitigate those effects entirely) it would be soemthing like 5 years before we ran out of space to plant any new trees (2 years if you green taxed all CO2 emmisions)!

A few here, like the thread starter are doing nothing more than trying to de-bunk the climate change issue by pointing out the hypocrisy in Government(s) policy, either by claiming that they so love to tax us, or claiming that they are green whilst approving runways(Business comes first).

That's fine though – it aids debate

It aids the debate in a way that an argument about wearing a helmet or not aids discussion about the science behind gravity!!

Let's not get started on helmets… or AIDS..

Yes but cigarette money goes to help out the NHS etc. Its all interlinked and you can proportionally look at money collected against money spent.

But it's not interlinked. Cigarette tax goes in the big pot along with "road tax", green taxes and everything else.

It would be very difficult to look at money raised from smoking versus total money spent on smoking. Some are obvious (like anti-smoking campaigns), some are far less obvious (treatment of asthmatics affected by passive smoking, treatment of COPD, cost of anti-smoking legislation and enforcement).

Maybe, but i can guarantee that the money spent on smoking related issues, i.e. ad campaigns, awareness, NHS costs etc are somewhat proportional to the revenue collected in tax from cigarettes. I also bet that the money spent on green related issues is not proportional to that collected in tax. Also issues due to cigarettes are proven. Issues due to man made global warming are not.

A few here, like the thread starter are doing nothing more than trying to de-bunk the climate change issue by pointing out the hypocrisy in Government(s) policy, either by claiming that they so love to tax us, or claiming that they are green whilst approving runways(Business comes first).

This is nothing more than a convenient sideshow for these people to steer it away from the main issue.

For my own part, I'm not trying to debunk anything. I am extremely critical of the way this government is handling climate change with what amounts comes across as blatant doublethink.

Public money and green taxation is a side issue, however it remains relevant if we want our MPs to prioritise public spending to help mitigate the problem.

Eh?

Maybe, but i can guarantee that the money spent on smoking related issues, i.e. ad campaigns, awareness, NHS costs etc are somewhat proportional to the revenue collected in tax from cigarettes.

Fair enough then, please prove it. You keep saying stuff expecting it to be true. I call your bluff – prove it.

I see no evidence that the money spent on smoking related issues is proportional to the revenue from the taxes from it. It's one big pot that is dipped in as the government feel like.

Unfortunately (and this is my point) the government keeps all the figures under wraps. However i think its pretty obvious to all that the government collects billions a year from cigarette tax a year and spends billions a year on treating smoking related illnesses.