So that just about wraps it up for global warming

[alitalf]

I watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" a couple of days ago. It increased my knowledge of some of the reasons I had already had doubts about the theory that human activity was causing any significant fraction of the climate change that is happening, as well as adding other reasons not to be a true believer.

Global warming caused by human activity seems to have many aspects including; a misunderstanding, a scam, an excuse to increase taxes, and a cult or a religion.

Comments

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

I think the story changes because nobody really knows what the detail of the truth actually is. Also it is reported by the media; the media, as you well know, (a) don't understand things and (b) change the emphasis on things to produce a story that will sell papers or what have you.

The fact that governments use the change of governing party as way of justifying raising taxes has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. That is simply just a red herring.

As far as I'm concerned the tax on all but the most efficient vehicles should be raised by a very high amount. And the money raised should be put towards incentives for people to get energy efficient things (heating, transport, etc.), proper insulation, public transport infrastructure, reducing waste (including litter), etc.

People who can justify their need for things like SUVs (see my second comment to didiusjulianus) should be able to claim for a tax refund, or something similar. However, I can see this as potentially being open to abuse.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

My main point is that I don't think it a good idea to collect one tax that is NEVER going to be abolished and that is cheap to collect, then supplement it with a tax that is very expensive to collect that is approximately equivalent in incentive terms.

A tax on inefficiency and therefore on carbon dioxide can be handled by taxing fuel purchased, and road tax appears to me as a way to employ more civil servants for little or no good purpose. The more complex the tax rules, the more bureaucrats in all likelihood.

I can't agree with your idea of charging a very high road tax on all but the most economical cars for many reasons. The most obvious is that scrapping and making cars has an environmental impact, and it is pointless to make an incentive for a low mileage driver to scrap a working car and buy a new one to save tax. That won't help the environment.

A tax on fuel does give an incentive to burn less, however you achieve that end. Only a small proportion of the tax collected is needed to pay for the collection, and the cost does not change if the exact rate alters.

As for the concept of giving people a refund if they can show they need the less efficient vehicle - that would be a bureaucratic nightmare at best and another corrupt system more probably. Oh yes, and it would waste a lot of the extra tax collected. [sigh] To my mind a tax on actual fuel purchased, not the amount that would theoretically used if you drove an average mileage at a specified speed in specified road conditions etc, is about as fair as you can get in the real world, and simple enough not to cost too much to run.