kev, The glacier pictures in Canada started in the late 19th century when industries and vehicles were almost non-existent. Also, record keeping of climate change is not old when compared to the life of this planet. That's the reason why I'm a bit cautious about the conclusiveness of GW. I none-the-less agree that countries must do more to "save the planet." c.i.
c.i.
I think the greatest naturalist of all time is sir David Attenborough, his wild life documentaries are spellbinding to say the least, I have never trusted the opinion of anyone that I did not personally know more than he.
His considerable intellectuall opinion is that at the the rate we are felling the rain forests,the area cut down is the size of Belgium EVERY YEAR, cutting off the very plants that turn carbon dioxide into oxygen, whilst at the same time poisening ourselves with monoxide, means that we, as a species, have completely lost sight of the plot, and at whatever stage, we will pay the price.
My back patio garden looks like a rain forest so if I get a hybrid car, will that let me off the hook?
kev, Man-made and natural forest fires destroy the rain forests of this planet on a 'regular' basis. That man is also harvesting these trees for consumption is the issue; and what the actual reduction is compared to new growth. Somebody needs to look into this issue, and report their findings to everybody that will listen. For example, in Peru, the natives have cut down the good lumber trees to make money to survive; the problems are not simple ones with easy answers. c.i.
Thanks to all those who replied in relation to my question. Food for thought there, or would that be "fuel" for thought?
It will show your'e making the effort lightwizard, should get you a couple of brownie points.
Not all Americans are backwood, backward and back-and-forth.
soozoo, If you think about it, all the ideas discussed fall under your forum title with a bit of tangential connection. c.i.
I understood that the UK's high fuel prices were due mainly to high excise duty (tax) charged by HM Government. This has been excused by various politicians in recent years as being 'good for the environment' by reducing car fuel consumption (as no-one can afford to drive much anymore).
I still can't understand why this is necessary when other countries, such as the US, get enough taxes without over-taxing fuel?
$2.20 for regular unleaded here this AM.
Some taxes are levied to raise revenue, Graham, others to produce some desired social use, like reducing fuel consumption, smoking, and drinking. The ethics are debatable, and in fact have been debated, but that's your answer.
What I haven't read here is how much the State and Federal Governments are reaping on this gas increase since the percentage of tax gives them basically HIGHER TAXES. What happened to LOWER TAXES? It's patently a get elected scam, that's what.
LOWER TAXES that are directed toward the rich, when it is a shared/used tax that basically hampers the lower class and can be passed on - then it is okay!
I reduced tax on a $75,000 humvee - okay; reduced tax on a metro - not a chance!
Right -- how are the very wealthy taking the higher gas prices? It's pin money to them (and the head of the pin at that). It's my pickpocket analogy in action -- give a tax break and when they think nobody is looking, pick your pocket to make up for the lost tax revenue.
Fuel tax may be a percentage of price in California, but federal and most states taxes are stated in cents per gallon. Example is federal diesel tax, which is $.244/gal.
You are correct, Roger -- California's gas tax is cents per gallon and the Federal tax is per gallon so the analogy doesn't work there (you weren't going to let me get away with that one). However, this is a very good reason the federal government wants people to drive gas guzzling SUV's, etc. The minimum tax provision does fit the analogy as well as other state taxes and energy costs that are due directly to federal policies.
