Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just read this story, and I find this to be very chilling. How do you Brits feel about this suggestion? From the time I have spent in Britain, I already felt like the government was far to intrusive in terms of privacy and such, but this seems ridiculous. It is Orwellian indeed, and I hope that this doesn't come into being...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/carbon/6527970/Everyone-in-Britain-could-be-given-a-personal-carbon-allowance.html

Man that sounds like a savvy capitalists dream! I would make so much money!


of course I would do it sitting in the comfort of my own home in the USA, free from the eyes of big brother. (oh BTW how is that whole camera on every street corner thing working out for you brits?)

Why don't they just tax things that produce carbon dioxide more?

It's a load of nonsense on several levels and can't possibly work.

Much easier to tax energy use. That's easily accounted for by an existing system.

Clthomps wrote:
of course I would do it sitting in the comfort of my own home in the USA, free from the eyes of big brother. (oh BTW how is that whole camera on every street corner thing working out for you brits?)

Cameras are on the streets in the town centres, to protect property, not on the rough housing estates or known crime hotspots where fights happen or women are assaulted. Just like the police in the country, the CCTV is another bodyguard of the rich.

One of a great many reasons I am moving to the states to be with my girl instead of her moving over here.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Cameras are on the streets in the town centres, to protect property, not on the rough housing estates or known crime hotspots where fights happen or women are assaulted. Just like the police in the country, the CCTV is another bodyguard of the rich.

So the poor don't have spy cameras on them?

Sounds like they finally got a lucky break!

It's just one more step towards the new world order. Educate yourselves. See below.

It's just one more step towards the new world order. Educate yourselves. See below.

Or its an unappeasable and unenforceable suggestion. I don't need to watch an hour of crappy youtube news clips to understand that much.

I really hope Warpcrafter is pulling our leg.

Alex Jones and 'educate' cannot exist in the same room. Alex Jones and 'Brainwash' however....

ShumaGorath wrote:

It's just one more step towards the new world order. Educate yourselves. See below.

Or its an unappeasable and unenforceable suggestion. I don't need to watch an hour of crappy youtube news clips to understand that much.

Many "unappeasable and unenforceable suggestions" of yesterday ( after slight modifications) have become policy of today,whether you agree or disagree with Warpcrafter,this sort of idea warrents peoples attention.

This idea warrants scorn.

Mind you, in a country that gives convicted baby killers holiday money when they are released early from prison, i wouldn't be at all surprised if it actually happened

Remember, this is a project that has been in the works for more than a hundred years. You've already been exposed to it and are not even aware of its effects. You've been conditioned to scorn anybody who is not afraid to think for themselves. Yes, Alex Jones is more than a little shrill and reactionary, but what would you do if you were in his place?

If i was in Alex Jones' place?

I'd set up a big website full of BS so i could continue to pull in the corporate dollar and maintain my high-standard of living. Then I'd record videos of myself talking nonsense with other morons. In the evenings, i would drink wine from the skulls of council estate children whilst laughing at the amount of hits my absurd form of paranoia has generated. Tomorrow? I'd do it all again....

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why don't they just tax things that produce carbon dioxide more?

Because voters hate paying tax and it will cripple a developed economy if they slap a huge tax on energy that China and India aren't doing... goodbye to more jobs.

The majority of Australians are for an Emissions Trading Scheme (A Tax on Carbon) but when they find out the one being developed by the Australian government will cost at least $1000 for every man, woman and child, every year they start to baulk at the idea.

Guaranteed it is us poor saps who will have the costs by business passed on.

Electricity bills are expected to go up 40% in the first year alone (after a 30% rise in our state in the last 3 years thanks to deregulation which was supposed to offer cheaper prices, but that is a whole other world of annoyance).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also despite carbon levels rising every year, the world has been cooling for the last 10 years.... more carbon = GLOBAL COOLING!!!!


ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

Well, I really only meant that as an alternative to the quota idea that JEB posted.

What are the bets the government will fine you for over your limit? If they can make money out of it feasibly, it'll happen.

Ketara wrote:What are the bets the government will fine you for over your limit? If they can make money out of it feasibly, it'll happen.

Yep, that would be a sure thing.

Did you know that a 4 cylinder medium sized car emits less carbon dioxide in city driving over 5 km (obviously not when stuck in gridlock traffic jams for hours) than if a single person was to walk the same distance.

So I'm helping the environment by driving to work.

Also the first world's lazy fatties are saving the planet by not exercising.

Is that factoring in the breathing of the person in the car?

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a load of nonsense on several levels and can't possibly work.

Much easier to tax energy use. That's easily accounted for by an existing system.

There's an issue that directly taxing energy use will be regressive, costing the poor a greater portion of their income than the rich. So on those grounds this idea has some merit, as it only taxes people once they exceed a certain level of emmissions per month.

But it does strike me as very impractical all the same. There are myriad reasons that a person might justifiably burn through a lot more credits than the norm, such as fuel use for a business or similar, and I could see the allowances for increased consumption building up very quickly, to the point where the scheme becomes either meaningless or very unfair. I think it would be simpler and just as fair to tax energy use directly while allowing for the impact on lower incomes and certain professions like taxi drivers with increased benefits and allowances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Also despite carbon levels rising every year, the world has been cooling for the last 10 years.... more carbon = GLOBAL COOLING!!!!


ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

That's an old and long discredited piece of rhetoric. It is very easy to produce a misleading trend line if you cherry pick your beginning and ending periods. In this case the beginning of the period to show 'global cooling' just happens to be the hottest year ever recorded, so if you start there and look at everything

The ten years of global cooling is an obvious trick, contrived for political purposes and with no science behind. You're obviously a pretty cluey guy, so why would you fall for that, and then keep repeating it? Do you want to be a disgruntled skeptic so much that you're willing to buy in to deceptive politics?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:What are the bets the government will fine you for over your limit? If they can make money out of it feasibly, it'll happen.

100%. Charging people for exceeding their limit is the explicit purpose of the scheme.

J.Black wrote:If i was in Alex Jones' place?

I'd set up a big website full of BS so i could continue to pull in the corporate dollar and maintain my high-standard of living. Then I'd record videos of myself talking nonsense with other morons. In the evenings, i would drink wine from the skulls of council estate children whilst laughing at the amount of hits my absurd form of paranoia has generated. Tomorrow? I'd do it all again....

I have set out a goal to uncover the conspiracy of Alex Jones... but wait, that is just reality though... hmm.

Alex Jones is a massive fething plonker, and in all honesty, I am a bit surprised about some of the people that have graced his program. Ron Paul just used Alex Jones to whip up a nice political slice of pie... I wonder why he never cites Jones though... hmm.

Anyway though, this whole idea is a bad one, as mentioned before. Taxing the energy use, rather than trying to artificially regulate it through credits, is a much more realistic plan. Prius drivers should be taxed extra though . Woe be to those who think that they are actually helping the planet by getting a prius... at best, they are helping the concept of helping the plan to help save the world. Knights in shining armor... every single on of them.

I am not trying to say the idea is not sound, just that hybrids have an awfully long way to go, before they actually start to cut back on overall carbon input.

Oh... and now Prius are apparently driving themselves off of roads... wow, what a goddam joke. Toyota needs to step their game up a bit here, seriously.

Watch out for those magically potentially dangerous floormats... what a transparent attempt to cover their ass. The most likely issue is the fact that pedals are no longer connected mechanically to the engine, and there have been reported problems with Toyotas electronics. Here is a clip about it... want to go on a joy ride? Huh? Well, do you?

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
Also despite carbon levels rising every year, the world has been cooling for the last 10 years.... more carbon = GLOBAL COOLING!!!!

The Goddard Institute lists 2005 as the warmest year on record.

Also, ten years is a relatively insignificant period of time. When discussing climate long term trends are generally more important, if only because we don't fully understand how everything fits together. Regardless of yearly fluctuations the temperature now is considerably higher than Medieval Warm Period.

Now that doesn't mean we have to do anything about it, but it does mean the planet is getting warmer.

Many "unappeasable and unenforceable suggestions" of yesterday ( after slight modifications) have become policy of today,whether you agree or disagree with Warpcrafter,this sort of idea warrents peoples attention.

Yeah, but an HOUR of youtube videos? I have better things to do.

Did you know that a 4 cylinder medium sized car emits less carbon dioxide in city driving over 5 km (obviously not when stuck in gridlock traffic jams for hours) than if a single person was to walk the same distance.

So I'm helping the environment by driving to work.

Also the first world's lazy fatties are saving the planet by not exercising.

You reeeaaallly need to post statistics when you say things like that, especially since it's amazingly deceiving considering the driver of that vehicle doesn't stop emitting carbon.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why don't they just tax things that produce carbon dioxide more?

Exactly what i think...

Orkeosaurus wrote:Is that factoring in the breathing of the person in the car?

That is a very good question. I don't know.

however the study was done with people breathing at a more rapid rate due to exercise.

Perhaps we need to kill off 3-4 billion humans, and their carbon emitting lungs?

Kilkrazy wrote:It's a load of nonsense on several levels and can't possibly work.

Much easier to tax energy use. That's easily accounted for by an existing system.

Gah, I can't help but picture your avatar saying every post you put up in a Anglo-Japanese accent, that is somewhat reminiscent of a crotchety old man...

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, I really only meant that as an alternative to the quota idea that JEB posted.

Could you clarify? I hope you don't mean that I was suggesting this load of Bolshevik in any way....

Oh no, I just meant you had brought the idea up.

Bad phrasing on my part.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:That is a very good question. I don't know.

however the study was done with people breathing at a more rapid rate due to exercise.

Perhaps we need to kill off 3-4 billion humans, and their carbon emitting lungs?

The study wasn't considering the CO2 emissions from the individual at all, it was actually looking at the emissions produced by food. It compared the emissions from a car trip with the emissions needed to produce an amount of food equal to the calories burned in walking.

The point is that modern farm practices are huge emitters and a big part of cutting down on emissions will likely come from improving agricultural practices. It isn't about how human breathing is so deadly we need to wipe half the population.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I just read this story, and I find this to be very chilling. How do you Brits feel about this suggestion? From the time I have spent in Britain, I already felt like the government was far to intrusive in terms of privacy and such, but this seems ridiculous. It is Orwellian indeed, and I hope that this doesn't come into being...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/carbon/6527970/Everyone-in-Britain-could-be-given-a-personal-carbon-allowance.html

I think the British, Chinese, and Indians should do this immediately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why don't they just tax things that produce carbon dioxide more?

Because voters hate paying tax and it will cripple a developed economy if they slap a huge tax on energy that China and India aren't doing... goodbye to more jobs.

The majority of Australians are for an Emissions Trading Scheme (A Tax on Carbon) but when they find out the one being developed by the Australian government will cost at least $1000 for every man, woman and child, every year they start to baulk at the idea.

Guaranteed it is us poor saps who will have the costs by business passed on.

Electricity bills are expected to go up 40% in the first year alone (after a 30% rise in our state in the last 3 years thanks to deregulation which was supposed to offer cheaper prices, but that is a whole other world of annoyance).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also despite carbon levels rising every year, the world has been cooling for the last 10 years.... more carbon = GLOBAL COOLING!!!!


ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

See its thinking like this that requires you to wear a mask Waughy.
I for one welcome the new carbon offsetting overlords over the British. That'll teach 'em for foisting Haggis upon the rest of the world.

Oh the government, the government, don't get me started, it really is ridiculus, they want to know every last detail, DNA database, I.D. cards, recording our phone calls, losing all our child benifit data. and all so they can tax us more and give it to gypsies, peopel too lazy to work and moat cleaners...