big brother pays me to cycle?

Erik Sandblom said:

Hello

One idea to reduce carbon emissions is to give everyone a carbon
allowance they may use or sell.

We could do that for other things too. Why not start with a cigarettes,
alcohol, saturated fat, salt and sugar allowances.

This could be followed by the fairer rationing of government services
such as health care and road space usage, and even for fairer rationing
of private services at times of peak demand such as rail travel and bus
travel.

Alternatively, if CO2 emission is bad why not ban it for all, rather
than reserve it for the use of the rich, as happened in the 1950s to
smoke emission from coal burning - hence the lack of smog in London.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, from a liberal/libertarian perspective, it would be
seen as the state abusing its power over the individual.

That doesn't trouble them over all their other policies which result in
the direct abuse of their citizens.

Quoted message said:

So I was
thinking that a softer approach to this might be to require carbon
emissions to be printed on receipts, the same way VAT is. That way every
time you buy

Quoted message said:

an airplane ticket,

Nobody knows the CO2 consequences of an aeroplane ticket until the plane
type, occupancy levels, flight time etc. are known i.e. after the
journey has taken place.

Quoted message said:

gasoline/petrol,

This would be politically unacceptable because it would let the cat out
of the bag on the fact that motorists are already paying about 5 times
the Stern suggested 'high estimate' of the the cost implications of
their CO2 emissions.

Quoted message said:

fossil electricity, [and gas]

Good idea - we'd all then see where the true source of CO2 emissions
really was.

--
Matt B

Den 2006-12-13 23:25:34 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

So I was thinking that a softer approach to this might be to require
carbon emissions to be printed on receipts, the same way VAT is. That
way every time you buy

Quoted message said:

an airplane ticket,

Nobody knows the CO2 consequences of an aeroplane ticket until the plane
type, occupancy levels, flight time etc. are known i.e. after the
journey has taken place.

An average value would be used. These are already in use today.
http://sasems.port.se/
http://www.climatecare.org/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gasoline/petrol,

This would be politically unacceptable because it would let the cat out
of the bag on the fact that motorists are already paying about 5 times
the Stern suggested 'high estimate' of the the cost implications of
their CO2 emissions.

Can you substantiate this?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fossil electricity, [and gas]

Good idea - we'd all then see where the true source of CO2 emissions
really was.

A car uses 68 kWh/100km. That's equivalent to ten thousand 60W lightbulbs
being lit for an hour. Unless you use ten thousand lightbulbs, worry more
about your car use than your electricity.
http://www.vv.se/templates/Pressrelease____9614.aspx

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This would be politically unacceptable because it would let the cat out of
the bag on the fact that motorists are already paying about 5 times the
Stern suggested 'high estimate' of the the cost implications of their CO2
emissions.

There are other negative side effects of motoring besides CO2 emissions

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fossil electricity, [and gas]

Good idea - we'd all then see where the true source of CO2 emissions
really was.

Road transport uses around 42 million tons of oil per year in the form of
petrol or diesel. This is more than all the all the energy used by British
industry, and over a quarter of total energy use for all purposes -
industry, business, travel, domestic heating and power.

(source: Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2004, Table 1.1.5, 'Energy
Consumption by Final User'

"archierob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Hi everybody my name is Wilbur

Not much different from Wayne and Shaz...

Tim
--
Sent from Birmingham, UK timdunne at blueyonder.co.uk
'God's electrician sparked up the heavens once again, heading northbound
on the 7:10. And the lord said let there be commuters...' - Thea Gilmore
Look, mum, an anorak on a bike! Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

Erik Sandblom said:

Hello

One idea to reduce carbon emissions is to give everyone a carbon allowance
they may use or sell. An article in the Guardian says Labour is taking a
serious look at it:

Miliband plans carbon trading 'credit cards' for everyone December 11,
2006
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1969163,00.html

It might be good for cyclists, because you could sell your carbon to
someone else. You would actually get something for nothing.

On the other hand, from a liberal/libertarian perspective, it would be
seen as the state abusing its power over the individual. So I was thinking
that a softer approach to this might be to require carbon emissions to be
printed on receipts, the same way VAT is. That way every time you buy an
airplane ticket, gasoline/petrol, fossil electricity, etc, you would have
a good idea of what it's costing the environment.

For those who have already made progress in reducing their carbon
footprint it might be hard to say no to free money, but ... is it ethical?

Erik Sandblom

You don't believe any of that green [censored] spouted by the Uk government do
you? It's just more tax to fund their massive 66% pay rise and other
expenditures such as ID cards and Police State measures.
Our government are murdering scroats - they don't give a flying **** about
anything except themselves and their kin/ilk.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

Adam Lea said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fossil electricity, [and gas]

Good idea - we'd all then see where the true source of CO2 emissions
really was.

Road transport uses around 42 million tons of oil per year in the form of
petrol or diesel.

The 2005 figure for total transport use is 53 million tonnes, of which
aviation accounts for 13 million tonnes, rail 0.8 million tonnes,
navigation 1.3 million tonnes and road transport 38 million tonnes.[1]

Of the fuel used on the roads, buses and goods vehicles account for 16
million tonnes of it, that leaves cars and taxis consuming 22 million
tonnes per year.

Quoted message said:

This is more than all the all the energy used by British
industry, and over a quarter of total energy use for all purposes -
industry, business, travel, domestic heating and power.

Domestic use of electricity and gas is equivalent to 53 million tonnes
of oil per year.

So from the above you can see that the domestic use of electricity and
gas produces *2.4 times* the CO2 emissions of cars and taxis.

[1] http://www.dtistats.net/energystats/dukes06_c3.pdf

--
Matt B

Erik Sandblom said:

Den 2006-12-13 23:25:34 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

So I was thinking that a softer approach to this might be to require
carbon emissions to be printed on receipts, the same way VAT is. That
way every time you buy

Quoted message said:

an airplane ticket,

Nobody knows the CO2 consequences of an aeroplane ticket until the
plane type, occupancy levels, flight time etc. are known i.e. after
the journey has taken place.

An average value would be used. These are already in use today.

Ah, not based on actual emissions then. Why not average all the
emissions of the country by the entire population then?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

gasoline/petrol,

This would be politically unacceptable because it would let the cat
out of the bag on the fact that motorists are already paying about 5
times the Stern suggested 'high estimate' of the the cost implications
of their CO2 emissions.

Can you substantiate this?

Yes.

The recent Stern Report talks about carbon emission and suggests a
monetary cost for it. He justifies his figure, which is "higher than
typical numbers in the literature" because as he says "we treat risk
explicitly and incorporate recent evidence on the risks". The figure he
suggests as "the social cost of carbon today" is $85 (£40 today) per
tonne of CO2.

Car fuel; petrol and diesel, typically releases somewhere around
2.5kg/litre CO2. So based on Stern's figure the cost of the CO2 emitted
by cars is about 10p per litre.

Fuel duty is 48.35 p/litre. If we include the VAT on the duty (but not
the VAT on the fuel price itself) we actually pay 56.8 p/litre.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fossil electricity, [and gas]

Good idea - we'd all then see where the true source of CO2 emissions
really was.

A car uses 68 kWh/100km. That's equivalent to ten thousand 60W
lightbulbs being lit for an hour. Unless you use ten thousand
lightbulbs, worry more about your car use than your electricity.
http://www.vv.se/templates/Pressrelease____9614.aspx

Cars and taxis consume 22 million tonnes of oil per year. Domestic
electricity and gas consumption is equivalent to 53 million tonnes of
oil per year - 2.4 times the amount!!!

--
Matt B

Erik Sandblom said the following on 13/12/2006 21:11:

Quoted message said:

One idea to reduce carbon emissions is to give everyone a carbon
allowance they may use or sell.

I assumed this was either a very early or a very late April Fool's joke.
The politician (Microband, or something?) did a good job of telling us
all about it whilst keeping a straight face.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Erik Sandblom said:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1969163,00.html

Did anyone else get an advert for BA after the second paragraph when the
clicked this? "London to New York, 11 times a day". Very appropriate ...

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, from a liberal/libertarian perspective, it would be
seen as the state abusing its power over the individual. So I was

I'd have thought free market liberals would be all for a scheme that
externalises the environmental costs of their transport. It's certainly
distorting the market less than the obvious alternatives of banning CO2
emission outright or continuing to ignore it.

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Den 2006-12-14 11:47:23 skrev Daniel Barlow <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1969163,00.html

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, from a liberal/libertarian perspective, it would be
seen as the state abusing its power over the individual. So I was

I'd have thought free market liberals would be all for a scheme that
externalises the environmental costs of their transport. It's certainly
distorting the market less than the obvious alternatives of banning CO2
emission outright or continuing to ignore it.

There is a school of thought to the right of free market liberalism, often
called "libertarianism". Its supporters might say for instance, that speed
limits are bad, because they infringe on my freedom. The justification
would be that I can be punished for running someone over, but not for
simply exceeding the speed limit. Same with public health services and
smoking, it's my business if I get sick, and it's wrong to raise taxes to
prevent me getting sick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

You don't have to agree with this position, but the arguments are going to
be made. What do you think of them?

I think carbon emissions should be printed on airplane tickets, fuel
receipts and power receipts. That would be a simple first step. An
enforced carbon market for individuals could be implemented after a public
debate and perhaps a referendum.

I think carbon emissions vs personal freedom is an issue that needs to be
dealt with by anyone interested in the workings of society.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Den 2006-12-14 11:00:45 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

An average value would be used. These are already in use today.

Ah, not based on actual emissions then. Why not average all the
emissions of the country by the entire population then?

Because that wouldn't tell anyone anything about their carbon emissions.

Cycling will, on average, emit less carbon than flying; and flying from
London to Thailand will, on average, emit less carbon than flying from
London to Rome. So even averaged values will help people make informed
decisions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> gasoline/petrol,

This would be politically unacceptable because it would let the cat
out of the bag on the fact that motorists are already paying about 5
times the Stern suggested 'high estimate' of the the cost implications
of their CO2 emissions.

Can you substantiate this?

Yes.

No. You're assuming that 100% of the tax on fuel is attributed to carbon
dioxde emissions. That's not true, gasoline/petrol tax is generally
attributed to:

o road building & maintenance
o policing the roads
o ambulance and hospital services for the dead and injured
o other emissions besides CO2 such as SOx, NOx, etc.
o lost labour due to death and injury

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> fossil electricity, [and gas]

Good idea - we'd all then see where the true source of CO2 emissions
really was.

A car uses 68 kWh/100km. That's equivalent to ten thousand 60W
lightbulbs being lit for an hour. Unless you use ten thousand
lightbulbs, worry more about your car use than your electricity.
http://www.vv.se/templates/Pressrelease____9614.aspx

Cars and taxis consume 22 million tonnes of oil per year. Domestic
electricity and gas consumption is equivalent to 53 million tonnes of
oil per year - 2.4 times the amount!!!

Natural gas and nuclear emit less carbon dioxide then gasoline/petrol.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Den 2006-12-14 01:51:03 skrev Tim Dunne <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"archierob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Hi everybody my name is Wilbur

Not much different from Wayne and Shaz...

Not much different from Bill O'Reilly:

On his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly asserted that "we
may have to" "level cities like Tehran, kill hundreds of thousands of
people," which, he explained, the United States has "already done in
Germany and Japan." O'Reilly then argued that such a move would be
necessary, for example, "[i]f Iran takes over Iraq and then fosters a
revolution inside Saudi Arabia ... and gets control of all the oil and
says we're not selling to the USA, we are going to level that country,
because you ... need gasoline to live."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200612060008

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Den 2006-12-14 10:16:58 skrev Dead Paul <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

You don't believe any of that green [censored] spouted by the Uk government do
you? It's just more tax to fund their massive 66% pay rise and other
expenditures such as ID cards and Police State measures.
Our government are murdering scroats - they don't give a flying ****
about
anything except themselves and their kin/ilk.

It's not just the UK government, it's basically all governments, the UN,
Kyoto Protocoll, former vice president Al Gore, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Erik Sandblom wrote on 13/12/2006 21:11 +0100:

Quoted message said:

So I was
thinking that a softer approach to this might be to require carbon
emissions to be printed on receipts, the same way VAT is. That way every
time you buy an airplane ticket, gasoline/petrol, fossil electricity,
etc, you would have a good idea of what it's costing the environment.

I can't remember the last time I looked at what the VAT was on a receipt

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Erik Sandblom said:

Den 2006-12-14 11:00:45 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

An average value would be used. These are already in use today.

Ah, not based on actual emissions then. Why not average all the
emissions of the country by the entire population then?

Because that wouldn't tell anyone anything about their carbon emissions.

What does paying the same regardless of the efficiency of the plane, the
journey length and the number of passengers tell you? You'd charge the
same for each of the 850 passengers crammed onto an A380 as you would
for each of the few on a sparsely filled private jet, or on an old
inefficient (by modern standards) Concorde (if they were still flying)?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> gasoline/petrol,
>
> This would be politically unacceptable because it would let the cat
> out of the bag on the fact that motorists are already paying about 5
> times the Stern suggested 'high estimate' of the the cost
> implications of their CO2 emissions.
Can you substantiate this?

Yes.

No. You're assuming that 100% of the tax on fuel is attributed to carbon
dioxde emissions. That's not true, gasoline/petrol tax is generally
attributed to:

o road building & maintenance

That is adequately covered by the Vehicle Excise Duty.

Quoted message said:

o policing the roads

We /all/ pay for the police through our Council taxes. Would you tax
each other activity for police cover?

Quoted message said:

o ambulance and hospital services for the dead and injured

If a motorist is liable for the incident he pays all the costs (through
his insurance).

Quoted message said:

o other emissions besides CO2 such as SOx, NOx, etc.

OK, double the CO2 tax of 10p/litre on fuel to 20p/litre to cover all
those too (reducing it from the current 56.8 p/litre). Who would get
the money for those pollutants (and for the CO2 for that matter), and
what should it be spent on?

Quoted message said:

o lost labour due to death and injury

Also covered by motorists' insurance.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> fossil electricity, [and gas]
>
> Good idea - we'd all then see where the true source of CO2 emissions
> really was.
A car uses 68 kWh/100km. That's equivalent to ten thousand 60W
lightbulbs being lit for an hour. Unless you use ten thousand
lightbulbs, worry more about your car use than your electricity.
http://www.vv.se/templates/Pressrelease____9614.aspx

Cars and taxis consume 22 million tonnes of oil per year. Domestic
electricity and gas consumption is equivalent to 53 million tonnes of
oil per year - 2.4 times the amount!!!

Natural gas and nuclear emit less carbon dioxide then gasoline/petrol.

Yes, that's all factored into the 'equivalent' tonnes of oil per year.
That's why it's only 2.4 times as big as for cars.

--
Matt B

Erik Sandblom said:

There is a school of thought to the right of free market liberalism,
often called "libertarianism". Its supporters might say for instance,
that speed limits are bad, because they infringe on my freedom.

Should they do so, I would point out that the roads they wish to speed
on are not in fact their property, and according to their own system
it's within the rights of the road owner to set any restrictions he
feels like on the use of his property by others. Don't like it?
Don't contract to use it, then.

What's that? It's a monopoly? No alternative exists? Oh, boo hoo.
Sounds like that should be a bigger priority to sort out than carbon
credits, then - cos they're no more new or important a philosophical
issue than State intervention to control any other kind of pollution
is. What do libertarians do with noisy neighbours?

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Den 2006-12-14 16:35:43 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

Den 2006-12-14 11:00:45 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom wrote:
> An average value would be used. These are already in use today.

Ah, not based on actual emissions then. Why not average all the
emissions of the country by the entire population then?

Because that wouldn't tell anyone anything about their carbon
emissions.

What does paying the same regardless of the efficiency of the plane, the
journey length and the number of passengers tell you?

Firstly you're not paying anything, you're just being informed of the
typical carbon emissions for that journey. The scheme mentioned in the
Guardian mentions paying, but I'm saying you could start by just informing.

Secondly the journey length is not being disregarded, on the contrary:
longer journeys will generally mean higher carbon emissions. The consumer
will be interested in knowing, how much more? My scheme will tell them
that.

Quoted message said:

You'd charge the same for each of the 850 passengers crammed onto an
A380 as you would for each of the few on a sparsely filled private jet,
or on an old inefficient (by modern standards) Concorde (if they were
still flying)?

The planes and load factors used on a particular route are generally the
same, even over different operators. New York-London planes generally
carry 300-400 passengers, while Copenhagen-Stockholm planes generally
carry 80-110 passengers. Taking the average over a 12-month period for
each route will give an assesment accurate enough for information purposes.

The idea is not to guide consumers to the greenest flight to a given
destination. It is to inform them that a transatlantic flight emits about
1000kg of carbon dioxide per passenger; that driving 10km emits about 2kg
of carbon dioxide; that a kilowatt of coal electricity emits X kg; and
that cycling emits practically nothing.

http://sasems.port.se/
http://www.climatecare.org/
http://www.volvocars.co.uk/models/s60/techSpec.htm

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Den 2006-12-14 16:26:28 skrev Tony Raven <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom wrote on 13/12/2006 21:11 +0100:

Quoted message said:

So I was thinking that a softer approach to this might be to require
carbon emissions to be printed on receipts, the same way VAT is. That
way every time you buy an airplane ticket, gasoline/petrol, fossil
electricity, etc, you would have a good idea of what it's costing the
environment.

I can't remember the last time I looked at what the VAT was on a receipt

What about the list of ingredients on food packages?

Carbon dioxide emissions are not widely known among consumers. Printing
that info on receipts would be an effective way to let people know the
emissions of different goods and services. It would enable them to act as
they see fit.

This is a cheap way for any country to reduce its carbon dioxide
emissions. Other methods will be more costly, less efficient, and less
sensitive to personal liberty.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Den 2006-12-14 17:20:02 skrev Daniel Barlow <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

What do libertarians do with noisy neighbours?

They suffer in silence, speak to the neighbours, or move, I guess.

So anyway, you see no problem at all with Miliband's scheme? All for it,
gung ho?

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies