One Farmers point of view

[Delaney]

^That's basically an ideologically motivated lie.

Carbon tax credits are effectively a form of money.
The initiation of such on companies as a legal requirement, is a form of taxation on business.

 

[DrPhill]

Carbon tax credits are effectively a form of money.
The initiation of such on companies as a legal requirement, is a form of taxation on business.

Or taxation on pollution, which to me sounds reasonable. If a company makes profit from damaging my environment I would like to see them pay something to remediate the harm..... If your neighbour dumps his rubbish on your land to save himself money would you not expect some kind of compensation?

 

[Delaney]

Or taxation on pollution, which to me sounds reasonable. If a company makes profit from damaging my environment I would like to see them pay something to remediate the harm..... If your neighbour dumps his rubbish on your land to save himself money would you not expect some kind of compensation?

Why stop there?

How far have you driven this week?
What did you have for dinner last night?
How many kw’s does your computer consume?
How big is your television?
How many TV’s do you have?

Let me come round and investigate you!

Please contact HMRC immediately and make a voluntary payment for damaging my environment.

I would then like to know what your ancestors did. Coal miners you say! You’ll need to make historic reparations now too.

Or we could just be sensible.

Carbon tax credits doesn’t stop pollution.
It just charges big companies money to do it.
Like ULEZ didn’t stop pollution going up in London. If you had a 5ltr 4x4 Range Rover, you just paid more to pollute!

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I dare say they will be saying that In another 70 years. Way too many examples of ‘research’ designed to prove a specific view.

I dare say that you're a little bit correct.

But I also still maintain that the regulators of today, unlike in those past days are independent (past: mostly self-funded internal "research" or alternatively opaquely funded lobby group "research" - both of which have a fundamental inherent interest in self-preservation).

It is a fundamental tenet of today's regulators that they remain independent, and therefore their views are not tied to the interests of the thing that they are regulating.

Add to that the current crop of well known past mistakes - such as the thalidomide quoted - and the current cultural need for reparations - in other words "financial compensation" - this provides the regulator with a fundamental motivation to get things right, because the motivator is still money - but in this case not losing their shirts - such that where things can't be classified to a certain degree of safety, then not to declare them as safe.

The past is a lesson to us all and the thalidomide lesson is not a strong place to start claiming that "regulation doesn't work", if we can clearly see that regulation has taken the lessons from thalidomide and addressed the shortcomings. Both the foreseen risks as well as making some kind of nod toward the unforeseen risks.


Bottom line is that allowing self-regulation, in any measure whatsoever, is actually anti-regulation. Everyone needs to learn this lesson and learn it well. (And heed this well, particularly when somebody mentions markets regulate themselves - take heed of the potent stench of decaying rat and treat this person with extreme prejudice. Yes, I'm still looking at you, Tufton Street, Truss/Kwarteng, and "free market ideologues"/disaster capitalists).
Saying that "regulation doesn't work, because, for instance, thalidomide happened" is not exactly helping to drive standards forwards and instead serves as a motivation for regression back to the aforementioned Tobacco Industry shenanigans.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Or taxation on pollution, which to me sounds reasonable. If a company makes profit from damaging my environment I would like to see them pay something to remediate the harm..... If your neighbour dumps his rubbish on your land to save himself money would you not expect some kind of compensation?

I'd expect more than this. I'd expect the restoration of the status quo at neighbours expense AND some compensation of some kind.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Like ULEZ didn’t stop pollution going up in London. If you had a 5ltr 4x4 Range Rover, you just paid more to pollute!

So many things to unpack, but I'll just stick with this one.

You imply that there were just as many 5ltr 4x4 Range Rovers in London either with or without ULEZ!

Just stop for a second and analyse what you have said. It is really very shallow, superficial, and dare I say, biased, as if there is an underlying agenda.



Analysis would take account of the following, not just your one-sided observation:

Prior to ULEZ, how many total vehicles. Post ULEZ, how many total vehicles.
Prior to ULEZ, how many electric vehicles. Post ULEZ, how many electric vehicles.
Etc,,,,Etc,,,

I put it to you that there are a high proportion of electric vehicles in the ULEZ for the SOLE reason that it is a ULEZ.

 

[DrPhill]

How far have you driven this week?
What did you have for dinner last night?
How many kw’s does your computer consume?
How big is your television?
How many TV’s do you have?

- < 2 miles (would have walked but there was a storm going on)
- Chilli bean stew (vegetarian)
- 45w
- I don't own any televisions
- None

Edit:
I have not flown in the last 25 years. I own a car that is so light on emissions that I only pay ~25gbp road tax a year. Our house is only heated to ~17 degrees. Most of my mileage in the last year was by public transport or lifts from people already going to my destination. I grow a significant portion of my own vegetables (organically).

How about you?

Edit: I also have solar panels, and a large storage battery. My system is attached to the grid in such a way that Octopus can use it for storing excess electricity at quiet times, and release it at peak times when they need it back. (They pay me for the privilege). I am trying to be a smaller part of the problem, but can only dream of being part of the solution.

 

[artie]

So many things to unpack, but I'll just stick with this one.

You imply that there were just as many 5ltr 4x4 Range Rovers in London either with or without ULEZ!

Just stop for a second and analyse what you have said. It is really very shallow, superficial, and dare I say, biased, as if there is an underlying agenda.

But why is your really very shallow, superficial, and dare I say, biased opinion better than his ?

Analysis would take account of the following, not just your one-sided observation:

Prior to ULEZ, how many total vehicles. Post ULEZ, how many total vehicles.
Prior to ULEZ, how many electric vehicles. Post ULEZ, how many electric vehicles.
Etc,,,,Etc,,,

I put it to you that there are a high proportion of electric vehicles in the ULEZ for the SOLE reason that it is a ULEZ.

Again why is your unsubstantiated claim more worthy than another.

But imo you are missing the point, which is or should be, is the air any cleaner?

 

[John Brown]

But why is your really very shallow, superficial, and dare I say, biased opinion better than his ?

Again why is your unsubstantiated claim more worthy than another.

But imo you are missing the point, which is or should be, is the air any cleaner?

Yes, Ulez has apparently reduced levels of pollution in central, inner and outer London.

 

[Jacob]

Ah yes, the good old argument from authority.

If you mean by "authority" you mean people who have studied and know about a topic then of course you should. It'd be stupid not to. The very definition of stupidity!
OTOH if you mean people who have power, like politicians, then be very dubious. Many of them are complete morons, like Nigel Lawson (prominent climate sceptic) even of they don't have an agenda and malicious intent

Next you'll be saying "Follow the science"

Absolutely! You could think of it as "finding your way", in which case taking the advice of map maker would be sensible.

 

[Jacob]

Carbon tax credits are effectively a form of money.
The initiation of such on companies as a legal requirement, is a form of taxation on business.

Carbon trading is the kiss of death - just another means for crude capitalism to dodge the issue, gamble on the outcome, make money whilst destroying the planet.