'Taxe Carbone' struck down before it is implemented.
France to rethink carbon tax planGovernment body rejects Sarkozy's 'carbon tax'
Well I have to say, it was somewhat half-baked and ill-conceived.
"93 percent of carbon dioxide emissions of industrial origin, other than fuel, will be totally exempt from the carbon tax" Yes, good news. The facade is cracking Not really, but this was a really badly (and in the end unconstitutional) attempt.As for carbon taxes per se they do seem the most sensible way to finance subsidies for stuff like loft insulation (there was a thread in GC about this) and energy efficient lightbulbs etc through The Carbon Trust or similar.
You pay a bit more tax (in this case it would have been 4 centimes per litre of fuel*) and then if the money raised is used to help people buy insulation, efficient bits of kit and whatever, then that does seem reasonable to me.
* funny how nobody protests on the streets when the Hedge Funds and speculators help push the price of petrol up by 25% or more for their own greedy ends, but when Governments try a more modest rise for the best of reasons, then everyone starts getting uptight.If you don't like the carbon tax when it comes, I suggest that every time you see a Carbon trust sponsored offer, you fill your boots.That will show them! Governments take at least 75% of the cost of fuel anyway. So they can stick their 'modest rise' up their trumpet. How much will be raised in carbon tax when the decide to dig this lot out of the ground USGS Release: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate (4/10/2008 2:25:36 PM) Its articles like this that knock one of the arguments well and truly on the head.We may have reached 'Peak Oil', where the rate of pumping oil is at its greatest, but there is still plenty out there and lots more yet to be found.So any argument that CC is just an excuse to make us cut our consumption to make the remaining oil go further doesn't really hold water.
And in answer to your question (approximately):
4.3 Billion barrels of oil is about 600 million tonnes.
600 million tonnes would give 1.8 billion tonnes of CO2
The French were going to impose carbon tax at 17 per tonne of CO2 which is about £15 per tonne, so it would raise about £27 Billion
The price of Brent Crude is about $78 per barrel, which is about (very roughly) £50 per barrel.
So selling the oil today would generate £215 billion for the oil company and £27 billion in carbon tax. John, the governments are just cohorts of the speculators/banks indeed in America Paulson was giving bailouts to the very Goldman and Sachs which he had interests in. The speculation bubble has been growing and growing and the government have turned a blind eye to the naked short selling. We also know that a huge new speculation bubble is on the edge of coming to fruition through carbon taxes. Again you know this, so why do you then pretend like this is all very reasonable and will help to subsidise loft insultation etc?, they could afford this right now, if they wanted to do it!.
Also as for the banning of fluorescent lights, we had a bulb shatter when we switched the light on yesterday. Fortunately it was only a fluorescent light and not one of the mercury filled energy saving lights. If it was,we would have had to leave the house immediately and not return until a specialist team had cleaned up the mercury and we would then have to pay the bill for them cleaning up.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Also as for it's a mere x amount increase, they have increased VAT, increased national insurance contributions we keep getting hit by more taxes people have had enough of taxes.
This aint a party political point, the conservatives and the lib dems will do exactly the same. The proper thing to do in this case is open a window - where did you get the idea you need to get in a specialist team to clean up?!
EDIT.
I guess I should mention where this advice comes from because so many use the Daily Mail and Blogs!
Prof. H S MacIntosh (professor in Environmental Health - University of Harvard) Let me rewrite that, because that was misleading, if you break one of the mercury light bulbs, they advise you to leave the room for 15 minutes, then clean up, the official advice is it's safe, it's only trace amounts etc. However if you want to ensure it is down properly and professionally and do not want to expose yourself to the mercury, then you will need to call in a team and that is extremely expensive.
However forgive me if I don't trust this advice, particularly this "it's harmless" line. The British Dental Association has changed it's lines so much on the issue of mercury fillings, that I am not sure if they know what they advised now. No need to 'trust' this advice - one can do some very simply calculations to come to your own conclusion unrelated to any government/industry advice.
Suggest you give it a go and let us know what you find.
Pages:
[1]
2