Europe firmly commited to Kyoto protocols.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I've already stated that quite clearly before I am not going into it in depth again. A more progressive taxation model on vehicles depending on emissions and fuel usage.

We already have this.

If you use x litres of petrol and pay y tax on that, then surely it would be fair that he who uses 2x petrol pays 2y tax?

Or are you arguing for something totally different? Please be clear and quantify.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Americans understand one thing : BOMBS. We get our act together and we go bomb them

Maybe you should take your eco-mercenaries out to the rain forests and protect them from slash and burn agriculture and illegal clearcut logging. It won't be as fun as trolling Americans, but it might be a lot more useful than Kyoto.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Sikander


Maybe you should take your eco-mercenaries out to the rain forests and protect them from slash and burn agriculture and illegal clearcut logging.

Or maybe just make that an emission-reducing project under Kyoto ?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland

Or maybe just make that an emission-reducing project under Kyoto ?

Maybe I could get a credit for my tank if I use it to wipe out indigenous peoples for the environment from time to time.

[Roland]

"slash and burn agriculture and illegal clearcut logging" - done by some indigenous people, but at such a small scale that the credits would be wiped out by your tank's fuel consumption.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
"slash and burn agriculture and illegal clearcut logging" - done by some indigenous people, but at such a small scale that the credits would be wiped out by your tank's fuel consumption.

Perhaps a light tank. Does Suzuki make a light tank?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by faded glory
There is 0 evidence man is responsible.

Brilliant, we didn't do it, so as the last few people suffocate in their undergrounbd bunker as temperatures of 45 degrees C rage outside can say without any trace of guilt "Oh well, it wasn't our fault, we were right not to try and stop this"

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And faded glory, I have, but there are many factors involved here. We can verify that natural sources of greenhouse emissions are generally part of an already existing equilibrium. Carbon we bring back into the carbon cycle after tens and hundreds of millions of years if not.

Greenhouse effect is not only due to human factor, maybe.

What we are sure :
Human activity increased significaly in the biosphere the mass of carbon by bringing back fossil carbon.
Human activity is destroying significaly the carbon bio-recycler :
Great forests and planctons.

[Lefty Scaevola]

"No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood"


2002 calendar, Despair, Inc

[Provost Harrison]

I like that expression Lefty, so true too.

Originally posted by Boddington's
We already have this.

If you use x litres of petrol and pay y tax on that, then surely it would be fair that he who uses 2x petrol pays 2y tax?

Or are you arguing for something totally different? Please be clear and quantify.

You know perfectly well what I am saying. The less efficient the vehicle, the higher the road tax should be...whereas a small car in the UK is taxed in the region of £100, cars over 2 litres equivalent, for example, should be taxed maybe £500 and cars over 3 litres equivalent should be taxed, say £5000...perhaps on a more graduated sliding scale. You get the idea?

[rah]

Actually the tax on the gas might work out better. Your way doesn't take into effect a poorly maintained more efficient rated vehicle which might polute more than a higher rated one. Or in my case, a higher rated vehicle that is driven considerably less.

BUT, the big problem still remaining would be the Commerical trucks. An increase in the tax would ripple through the entire economy if shipping costs were to increase to cover the expense. We've seen this tank the economy in the past.

It's all the little details that make this issue very complex, with no simple answer.

[Roland]

"BUT, the big problem still remaining would be the Commerical trucks."

Would be ?

They are, at least here. Subsidized to no end, wasting resources. For example, they cause most of the repair need on roads, without paying remotely close to the costs. They pollute, noise and emissions reduce land values. They are a collossal misallocation of resources, and if done over 10 or 20 years, cost truth in transport would have its benefits.

[Ecthy]

1. Sun emits radiation with a certain wavelength.

2. The radiation reaches Earth, which absorbs the energy of the radiation.

3. To get rid of that energy, Earth emits radiation with another wavelength.

4. That wavelength is about equal to the resonance wavelength of carbone dioxide molecules.

Conclusion: The more carbone dioxide there is, the warmer the atmosphere gets. Carbone dioxide in the air made a high temperature and thereby life and evolution possible. But too much of it makes the atmosphere too warm.

So global warming is caused by a high emission of CO2. And it is a given fact that the US' share of the global CO2 output is 25%. What else is there to deny I wonder....

[rah]

But what is the percentage of manmade vs. produced by nature?

[rah]

Originally posted by Roland
"BUT, the big problem still remaining would be the Commerical trucks."

Would be ?

They are, at least here. Subsidized to no end, wasting resources. For example, they cause most of the repair need on roads, without paying remotely close to the costs. They pollute, noise and emissions reduce land values. They are a collossal misallocation of resources, and if done over 10 or 20 years, cost truth in transport would have its benefits.

Same here, not sure if it's exactly the same. Truck licenses make up some of it, but no where near enough. But not sure if the ratio is the same. Truck drivers whine otherwise.

The main problem is the lack of upkeep on the rail network. While the highly trafficed ones are, the lesser used ones are not. Many lines have fallen into disuse so there is no alternative to using trucks. Personally, I would like to see this addressed, (even though the upfront cost could be huge) But I believe it would help greatly and over time, it could pay for itself.
Unfortunately, the current US GOV, isn't leaning in that direction.

RAH