Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The climate change industry isn't happy at the prospect of having to take its hands out of Uncle Sams bottomless pockets, what's the point of inventing a lucrative new worldwide religion if there's no lucre...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    232

I think you have to look twice at any venture that suddenly turns into a tax generating opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asperity    266

The climate change scam is a clever method of taking money from taxpayers in wealthy countries and transferring it to poorer countries. This has also been described as transferring money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

It's also a method of ensuring that so called "climate scientists" keep getting "research funds".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    588

The agreement was meaningless in the first place, as it was totally voluntary, with no sanctions on non-compliance.  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    232

As i recall one of the first outcomes of the revelations of the Al Gore film was that taxing consumers would somehow stop people using the very things that were allegedly causing global warming. Seeing as consumers were not the people causing the problems ,the tax was nothing more than a money making scam for HM Gov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bazj    493

No... total money making scam as has already been said.... on a par with the UK Health and Safety industry and Electrical PAT testing for businesses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fugtifino    76
16 hours ago, Freeborn John said:

The climate change industry isn't happy at the prospect of having to take its hands out of Uncle Sams bottomless pockets, what's the point of inventing a lucrative new worldwide religion if there's no lucre...

 

Who are the "climate change industry"?

 

Names please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fugtifino    76
15 hours ago, Davy51 said:

I think you have to look twice at any venture that suddenly turns into a tax generating opportunity.

How do taxes generated from green energy compare to those generated from fossil fuels and nuclear energy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fugtifino    76
12 hours ago, observer said:

The agreement was meaningless in the first place, as it was totally voluntary, with no sanctions on non-compliance.  :ph34r:

That's what made it meaningful, nobody had to do it, but most nations believed it would be best to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davy51    232
7 hours ago, fugtifino said:

How do taxes generated from green energy compare to those generated from fossil fuels and nuclear energy?

Sorry,i haven't a clue ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asperity    266
7 hours ago, fugtifino said:

How do taxes generated from green energy compare to those generated from fossil fuels and nuclear energy?

Badly. Green energy consumes tax in the form of subsidies to make it competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, asperity said:

Badly. Green energy consumes tax in the form of subsidies to make it competitive.

You are not answering the question asked you're not a politician by any chance are you?

fugtifino is asking for the amount of income generated by green energy and other fuels in pounds, subsidies were to encourage the new industry to get started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fugtifino    76
48 minutes ago, asperity said:

Badly. Green energy consumes tax in the form of subsidies to make it competitive.

Does this kind of stuff bother you then?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/uk-breaks-pledge-to-become-only-g7-country-increase-fossil-fuel-subsidies

Or this?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/oct/22/hinkley-point-uk-energy-policy-is-now-hunkering-in-a-nuclear-bunker

Geoff - think you may have been on your sabbatical when this discussion took place here, you might find it, er, instructive:

https://tinyurl.com/ycvhqb2s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    588
10 hours ago, fugtifino said:

That's what made it meaningful, nobody had to do it, but most nations believed it would be best to.

No, nobody "has" to do it, meaning - it can be ignored if it proves economically inconvenient to any individual country, similar to the nuclear non- proliferation Treaty - just words.    :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, observer said:

No, nobody "has" to do it, meaning - it can be ignored if it proves economically inconvenient to any individual country, similar to the nuclear non- proliferation Treaty - just words.    :ph34r:

Just playing with word hey Obs - you know that's NOT what he meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    588
14 minutes ago, Geoffrey Settle said:

Just playing with word hey Obs - you know that's NOT what he meant.

Nope, I don't do semantics - all these "Treaties" require 100% compliance, in order to work (assuming a sound basis in the first place of course); but I'm afraid national self interest rules, even if, like the Yanks, they don't admit it openly.     :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fugtifino said:

Yes I think I was I took a year or so off - One of the photos show Green Dave - can anyone remember him at one of the poles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
observer    588

What we've seen in the build up to this Climate Agreement, is basically a blackmail scenario from countries like India.  If you want us to stop using coal (which is cheaper) then start paying us to subsidise renewables (that's us of course, doing the paying).  Not, oh yes we can see your argument, therefore we'll convert to a renewable economy, cos we believe it's in the interest of our own population; even if that means paying for it ourselves. Similarly the Chinese, who were building a coal fired power station every week, are now late converts, due to a spate of choking smogs in Beijing.  If countries are really concerned about their own people, they'll take the necessary environmental measures to protect their own, without handouts; and that will apply to more immediate and tangible issues, such as traffic and waste pollution; and of course (the elephant in the room), over-population.      :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×