Random said:
I fear your right. And there`s also the feeling that Truckers/farmers etc will sell everyone else out , as soon as they can cut a good deal for themselves. I do agree with your post.
Fuel Protests To Return?
- Thread starter greenman
- Start date
I fear your right. And there`s also the feeling that Truckers/farmers etc will sell everyone else out , as soon as they can cut a good deal for themselves. I do agree with your post.
Give me reliable public transport and I'll get out of my car. Somedays I just can't be bothered with driving, but I don't have any other choice
james_walsh said:
An ironic "Right" isn't personal abuse. Calling someone an "arsehole" or "You are full of shit" is.
james_walsh said:
I've quoted you a standard fare for a 35 mile journey into London in the peak from a random staton and I got it off the internet this afternoon.
You can PM your local station or the first part of your postcode and I'll do the same for your local journey becasue quite simply I do not believe you when you claim a single ticket for a 25 mile journey into Central London in the peak is £28.
Offer is on the table, it's your chance to prove a "middle class, green, 2 Jags" wrong.
Let us take an example.
The livelihood of someone who works in a factory producing widgets depends on the amount of widgets being produced finding enough of a market to create a profit for the employers so that they can continue employing them.
The price of the raw materials for Widgets goes up because a/ the government taxes widgets in an attempt to curb the growing toxic used widget mountain that they have agreed with the EU and UN to reduce and b/ a natural disaster in the country that is a main supplier of widget raw materials pushes up the price.
Would said widget workers be justified in downing tools and blocking imports of widget raw materials, bringing the country to a halt, to pressurise the govt to drop widget tax? Or should they pressure their own employers to diversify away from widgets to secure their long term employment given that the widget tax is a signal that governments (supported by a large section of the population) want to find alternatives to widgets?
As for self employed widget makers? Surely key skills for self employment are the ability to be flexible, to know when to get out of a particular sector, to be prepared to move with the times and changing markets? Are people to put their sectional producer interest before the need of people not to be poisoned by the toxic widget mountains? Will a romantic view of these groups as "salt of the earth" traditional male workers blind the left to the basicly anti-progressive nature of their position?
As for people in isolated areas who really need cheap widgets to live due to lack of access to post widget technology, are this small minority to define policy for the whole country? Perhaps they should organise collectively to demand post widget technology be more available in their area, or ordinary widgets be specially subsidised for them. Or perhaps they should organise at work to get a pay increase to keep up with the cost of living?
In the long term of course, the logic of the market is that a country that sticks with outdated widget technology due to political cowardice will end up with having its' widget factories go bust anyhow as the widget raw material runs out and other countries steal the lead on post widget technology.
Of course it could be argued that there is no need to curb widgets, they are not poisonous and the government is just using them to raise "stealth taxes", but then you might be accused of donning a tinfoil hat and joining the conspiraloons............
The livelihood of someone who works in a factory producing widgets depends on the amount of widgets being produced finding enough of a market to create a profit for the employers so that they can continue employing them.
The price of the raw materials for Widgets goes up because a/ the government taxes widgets in an attempt to curb the growing toxic used widget mountain that they have agreed with the EU and UN to reduce and b/ a natural disaster in the country that is a main supplier of widget raw materials pushes up the price.
Would said widget workers be justified in downing tools and blocking imports of widget raw materials, bringing the country to a halt, to pressurise the govt to drop widget tax? Or should they pressure their own employers to diversify away from widgets to secure their long term employment given that the widget tax is a signal that governments (supported by a large section of the population) want to find alternatives to widgets?
As for self employed widget makers? Surely key skills for self employment are the ability to be flexible, to know when to get out of a particular sector, to be prepared to move with the times and changing markets? Are people to put their sectional producer interest before the need of people not to be poisoned by the toxic widget mountains? Will a romantic view of these groups as "salt of the earth" traditional male workers blind the left to the basicly anti-progressive nature of their position?
As for people in isolated areas who really need cheap widgets to live due to lack of access to post widget technology, are this small minority to define policy for the whole country? Perhaps they should organise collectively to demand post widget technology be more available in their area, or ordinary widgets be specially subsidised for them. Or perhaps they should organise at work to get a pay increase to keep up with the cost of living?
In the long term of course, the logic of the market is that a country that sticks with outdated widget technology due to political cowardice will end up with having its' widget factories go bust anyhow as the widget raw material runs out and other countries steal the lead on post widget technology.
Of course it could be argued that there is no need to curb widgets, they are not poisonous and the government is just using them to raise "stealth taxes", but then you might be accused of donning a tinfoil hat and joining the conspiraloons............
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
greenman said:Let us take an example.
The livelihood of someone who works in a factory producing widgets depends on the amount of widgets being produced finding enough of a market to create a profit for the employers so that they can continue employing them.
The price of the raw materials for Widgets goes up because a/ the government taxes widgets in an attempt to curb the growing toxic used widget mountain that they have agreed with the EU and UN to reduce and b/ a natural disaster in the country that is a main supplier of widget raw materials pushes up the price.
Would said widget workers be justified in downing tools and blocking imports of widget raw materials, bringing the country to a halt, to pressurise the govt to drop widget tax? Or should they pressure their own employers to diversify away from widgets to secure their long term employment given that the widget tax is a signal that governments (supported by a large section of the population) want to find alternatives to widgets?
As for self employed widget makers? Surely key skills for self employment are the ability to be flexible, to know when to get out of a particular sector, to be prepared to move with the times and changing markets? Are people to put their sectional producer interest before the need of people not to be poisoned by the toxic widget mountains? Will a romantic view of these groups as "salt of the earth" traditional male workers blind the left to the basicly anti-progressive nature of their position?
As for people in isolated areas who really need cheap widgets to live due to lack of access to post widget technology, are this small minority to define policy for the whole country? Perhaps they should organise collectively to demand post widget technology be more available in their area, or ordinary widgets be specially subsidised for them. Or perhaps they should organise at work to get a pay increase to keep up with the cost of living?
In the long term of course, the logic of the market is that a country that sticks with outdated widget technology due to political cowardice will end up with having its' widget factories go bust anyhow as the widget raw material runs out and other countries steal the lead on post widget technology.
Of course it could be argued that there is no need to curb widgets, they are not poisonous and the government is just using them to raise "stealth taxes", but then you might be accused of donning a tinfoil hat and joining the conspiraloons............
I don't really understand your analogy
But in general: Any flat tax which punishes the poor at the expensive of the rich is wrong.
Isambard said:
My local station is luton as i said before. Thameslink`s site is a mess. Find the price before 9am and them a return for a single adult. Also it worth remembering that there only a few adults that are prepared to walk home at night from luton station, upto the top end of dallow road( im one of the few that does that).
You do sound like the politicians that lecture the public, while living completly different lives. The way fuil tax works, it a completly regressive form taxation.
And what if i lived outside a major town, or if i want to go to Northampton or Hitchin and get home at night.Why do millions of people own cars, which are exspensive to run, if they are so unnecessary.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Random said:Lynas is a total maverick; he used to be active in direct action, but is now a kind of eco-controversialist. He's also said that nuclear power may be needed to save us from global warming
Love child of Frank Fureidi and Chris hitchens?
He was one of the organisers of "Reclaim the Streets" in Oxford in the 1990s wasn't he?
I have always tried to be as 'green' as possible but here is my situation:Isambard said:You have no local public transport?
Right!
Tell us here or PM me (I'll not tell it) the first bit of your postcode and I'll put my anorak on and go away for a little search shall I?
I go to a physio class once a week at the hospital 5 miles away to help with my ankylosing spondylitis. While there is a bus service there during the daytime it stops running in the evenings so while I could take it one way there is no return service. It also takes about 40 minutes each way and I'd have to walk for another 20 minutes to catch it (therefore 1 hour door-to-door) and costs about £5 (this was the cost one way - as there is no return service). This compares with £1 in petrol and a 20 minutes drive. If I want to come up to Offline it costs me £10 each way - £20 in total. This compares with £5 in petrol. I often go scuba diving, my full kit weighs maybe 30 or 40 kilos (6 stone) and there is no public transport to where I go each week.
It is true that petrol is only part of the cost of a car as Tax, MOT, insurance, parking & repairs cost me probably about £15-20/week even if I don't drive it. Ironically this means that the more I drive it the cheaper it is per mile:
5 miles/week would cost £4/mile.
50 miles = 50p/mile
100 miles = 30p/mile
200 miles = 20p/mile
In other words there is a "trap" where either you don't bother having car, or you have one and therefore need to make use of it since you have already paid the money to keep it parked outside.
This suggests that costs of car ownership should be shifted from fixed costs towards pay-per-use costs. This would mean that simply owning a car would be relatively cheaper but driving it and pushing up the miles would be relatively more expensive. More people would be able to afford to own a car for 'emergencies' and 'necessities' (I think this would be a good thing, in social terms) but *everyone* would be dissuaded from using them excessively.
As much as I want to be green and don't want to see the planet wrecked, I am left with a hard choice - simply don't go to physio classes or do scuba diving and fork out more money for expensive trains etc so I can see my friends in London or run a small car and try and use it sensibly and only when I need to. I used to live in london, be fit and mobile and ride a bike everywhere. I now live out in Surrey, have a lot of pain and stiffness, don't have a bike and often carry very heavy stuff. I also have to admit that I am a bit more of a older and lazier bastard who wants more creature comforts and is less obsessed about being greener and green in all aspects of my life. Rather than martyr myself on a personal level I would support government action and regulation to force through technological changes, tax and pricing structures, school buses, cycle lanes and traffic calming and spatial planning so that people don't have to travel so far to work, shop and so forth.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
The public transport around where i live is fantastic, we've got a very regular train to london and are on a major rail line so you can get most anywhere if you know how to change lines.
On the other hand it's not possible to move all your stuff around on the train. The bus into town runs hourly and doesn't start running untill i've got to be arriving in london. Public transport just doesn't cut it when you're not living in london (and possibly other major cities)
On the other hand it's not possible to move all your stuff around on the train. The bus into town runs hourly and doesn't start running untill i've got to be arriving in london. Public transport just doesn't cut it when you're not living in london (and possibly other major cities)
It is possible to compensate for 'flat taxes' through the tax/benefit system. IIRC the Green Party says that while it wants eco-taxes on certain goods, these should only be implimented alongside adjustments to benefits, pensions and tax rates that would ensure poorer people are not made worse off...sihhi said:
for example:
"Eco taxes need not hurt the poor" say Greens 27th Oct 2004
Greens challenge socially unfair proposals of new report
Responding to a report released today by the Policy Studies Institute and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation entitled "Reducing the impact of 'green' taxes and charges on low-income households"(1) Green Party Climate Change Spokesperson Spencer Fitz-Gibbon today commented;
"Green tax policy must aim for social justice as well as sustainability. Of course, we must have higher fuel taxes to combat climate change, which is now the biggest threat to our economy. However, this must be implemented in a context of overall tax reform to redistribute wealth in the direction of the poorest people. For example, Green Party tax policy incorporates basic fuel allowances to abolish fuel poverty despite higher prices overall.
"Implementing so called 'eco taxes' in a way that hurts the poor, brings environmental taxation unfairly into disrepute and promotes misunderstanding of green economics.
"We need to ditch the false dichotomy of the environment versus the economy and proceed with modern green economic policies."
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/1649
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
sihhi said:
I can believe that he was involved in organising an RTS, but can't really say yes or no to that one. I'd be surprised if he was in the GPEW.
To soulrebel -- that's an interesting idea. Are the high fuel prices actually making bio-diesel competative now? Anyone got figures on what a lite costs now, and where to get it in bulk?
Does anyone know if there already exist concessions on fuel duty for those whose trade depends on using petrol?
Ok, I know, I should do my own research.
I think, though someone will prob correct me on this, that Farmers already pay less duty than motorists for tractors and other farm stuff, but I've no idea about road haulage (fasinating subject that I'm sure it is
)
Ok, I know, I should do my own research.
I think, though someone will prob correct me on this, that Farmers already pay less duty than motorists for tractors and other farm stuff, but I've no idea about road haulage (fasinating subject that I'm sure it is
)
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
TeeJay said:
No I said he wasn't in the Green Party but I'd seen him advertised with Caroline Lucas at a public meeting- it was a while ago. (I didn't go)
He is in CACC
http://www.globefox.com/cacc/about.html
along with Lucas, Lambert and Ackers
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
It's more than just transport though. Our whole way of life is predicated on lots of cheap oil. To reduce the oil dependency you have to address a number of areas. Public transport is the obvious one, and that's already being discussed.
Another big one is agriculture. The post-WW2 revolution in agriculture is based around large oil inputs. It allows a very small number of workers to get about the same yield as organic methods, but thanks to cheap oil, at a much lower labour cost per yield. A temporary price hike hurts small endebted farmers, but I don't think anyone really knows what would happen if what we're seeing reflects a longer-term trend. Our food systems might experience profound disruption.
A third big one is domestic heating. Our housing stock is largely not a bit energy efficient and local autonomous power systems are viewed as rather eccentric. North sea oil is well past peak and the gas is depleting rapidly. This means we're going to be increasingly dependent on Russian pipelines and may have to compete with the rest of Europe and possibly Asia to get that gas. We do have a fair bit of coal, and it may soon become economic to start seriously using it again. Meanwhile though, we can expect some cold winters.
To do something about that, we'd have to make a great many small, local investments, which is anathema to any government capable of being elected here it seems. Insofar as they can invest it's in big capital projects like massive windfarms. The grants available for the micro-scale stuff that would actually help people instead of corporations are quite pitiful compared to the corporate welfare provided to the privatised power companies and so on.
A fourth big one is economic prosperity in general. Expensive fuel puts everybody's costs up, leads to unemployment and recession/depression. In effect it makes us all a lot poorer in real terms, and some of us very much so.
It seems unlikely that the government will focus on the micro-scale stuff that would really make a difference to ordinary people, public transport that works, local sustainable power systems, community farming (a la Cuba) and so on.
I think that ultimately, we have no choice but to just start autonomously fixing this stuff at the micro-level however we can. Ideally while things are relatively soft rather than in the middle of some horrible 1920's depression.
Another big one is agriculture. The post-WW2 revolution in agriculture is based around large oil inputs. It allows a very small number of workers to get about the same yield as organic methods, but thanks to cheap oil, at a much lower labour cost per yield. A temporary price hike hurts small endebted farmers, but I don't think anyone really knows what would happen if what we're seeing reflects a longer-term trend. Our food systems might experience profound disruption.
A third big one is domestic heating. Our housing stock is largely not a bit energy efficient and local autonomous power systems are viewed as rather eccentric. North sea oil is well past peak and the gas is depleting rapidly. This means we're going to be increasingly dependent on Russian pipelines and may have to compete with the rest of Europe and possibly Asia to get that gas. We do have a fair bit of coal, and it may soon become economic to start seriously using it again. Meanwhile though, we can expect some cold winters.
To do something about that, we'd have to make a great many small, local investments, which is anathema to any government capable of being elected here it seems. Insofar as they can invest it's in big capital projects like massive windfarms. The grants available for the micro-scale stuff that would actually help people instead of corporations are quite pitiful compared to the corporate welfare provided to the privatised power companies and so on.
A fourth big one is economic prosperity in general. Expensive fuel puts everybody's costs up, leads to unemployment and recession/depression. In effect it makes us all a lot poorer in real terms, and some of us very much so.
It seems unlikely that the government will focus on the micro-scale stuff that would really make a difference to ordinary people, public transport that works, local sustainable power systems, community farming (a la Cuba) and so on.
I think that ultimately, we have no choice but to just start autonomously fixing this stuff at the micro-level however we can. Ideally while things are relatively soft rather than in the middle of some horrible 1920's depression.
sihhi said:
Here is prominent environmentalist Mark Lynas (who's been on the same platform as Green Party people but I do think is an actual Green) back in May in the NS:
I presume this was meant to read "I don't think he is an actual Green"? The 'platform' thing might have been taken by some to mean 'shared a political platform' (ie set of policies). Sorry if I misunderstood - I just thought it was worth clarifying.
james_walsh said:
Peak hour standard single fare to London: £ 11.60
Cheap day return: £11.00
Cheap day return including London Travelcard: £14.00
Hitchin, direct buses running hourly in the evenings until 2330.
Slightly worse with Northampton, last bus around 2230.
So, car fan on Urban 75 believing overexagerated claims about lack of public transport shocker!
james_walsh said:
What makes you think I live a different life?
I live in a large city with decent public transport but I've lived in the country with no car before too.
As mentioned with the excellent "widget" analogy above
, the number of people who "have" to have a car is a minority in the UK.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
I found in my bookmarks an interesting article that appeared in the Guardian around the time of the last (2000) 'fuel protests'. It's worth reading again.
I have it filed under "
".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4071229-103772,00.html
I have it filed under "
".
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Bernie Gunther said:
Here's an extract from a 'Farmers Weekly' article from last month:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2005/08/11/88492/Red+diesel+prices+soar+on+back+of+oil+rises.htm
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
Mark Lynas (who's been on the same platform as Green Party people but I DONT think is an actual Green) back in May in the NS:[/i]
I presume this was meant to read "I don't think he is an actual Green"? The 'platform' thing might have been taken by some to mean 'shared a political platform' (ie set of policies). Sorry if I misunderstood - I just thought it was worth clarifying.[/QUOTE]
I always make mistakes towards the end of the day.
It should be DONT of course it should. I am editing n
I presume this was meant to read "I don't think he is an actual Green"? The 'platform' thing might have been taken by some to mean 'shared a political platform' (ie set of policies). Sorry if I misunderstood - I just thought it was worth clarifying.[/QUOTE]
I always make mistakes towards the end of the day.
It should be DONT of course it should. I am editing n
What happened to the planned 'meet up' between the farmers/road hauliers and the 'anarchists' (copywrite montevideo) at G8?
No-one turned up, they were scared Geldof might be there
wake_up said:
And using it all up at an overly cheap price til there's next to none left is better?
Markets aren't instant action - things will adjust/change. But they will settle and the economy will have to (eventually) cope with the fact that oil is (probably) undervalued and the price will rise.
Except the government loses duty as the price rises. Oops!
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
You are much too kind the B.
I'm not sure that a soft landing is possible either. I do think it would be a really excellent thing to get some dialogue going with the broader left, with a view to autonomously doing something useful about it, because it affects everybody.
I'm not sure that a soft landing is possible either. I do think it would be a really excellent thing to get some dialogue going with the broader left, with a view to autonomously doing something useful about it, because it affects everybody.
Biofuel's been mentioned a couple of times, I think that's pretty much a dead end. It uses up the same space as is needed for food, and probably requires siginificant fuel inputs to produce in the same way as food. If there was absolutely no oil left it'd be fine for ambulances etc. but it's no good as a widespread solution.
What needs to happen in the short term is massive increases in local food production, and the replacement of the commuter lifestyle with people living and working locally.
I mentioned in the transport forum that people doing similar jobs and travelling past each other to work should be able to swap jobs. At my workplace there's someone who travels from near Hounslow to Hackney to work in a library - 2 hours each way on public transport, passing dozens (hundreds?) of libraries on the way. I'm sure there's plenty of examples like that, enough that an on-line match-matching system could massively reduce both car and public transport use - a mixture of shorter journeys, or switching to cycling/walking in some cases. Would be a piece of piss in the public sector, harder with private companies, but they expect their workers to travel, why not make them pay commuting time at full rate if they don't allow people to swap jobs.
Longer term, you'd need production of useful goods in most localities - to allow some work to be done locally, and to reduce shipping.
With food, there's also plastics use for packaging when oil prices go up. Most of the packaging could just be done away with, the rest replaced with alternatives easily enough. None of the places I've lived in London have had PET recycling either (most drinks bottles, some fruit punnets are PET), which'd help a little at the other end.
I'm anti-car to a large extent, but me and my wife own one
She works as a piano teacher, and all her work has to take place between 4pm and 9pm because she teaches kids at their homes - right across North, East and South-East London including places off the tube network with few buses. Her journey times would be taking 150% to 300% more on public transport, which'd mean she'd be able to teach about half the time she does. She did have a scooter, but is pregnant so doesn't want to risk it, and in a few months it'll be impossible anyway. The (used) car we bought cost only £200 more than the (used) scooter we sold, although the running costs are higher obviously. She could do the same work without the travelling if she taught peripatetically in local schools, but that kind of provision has been cut out of school budgets to a massive extent, especially in London, so the work simply isn't there in many cases.
What needs to happen in the short term is massive increases in local food production, and the replacement of the commuter lifestyle with people living and working locally.
I mentioned in the transport forum that people doing similar jobs and travelling past each other to work should be able to swap jobs. At my workplace there's someone who travels from near Hounslow to Hackney to work in a library - 2 hours each way on public transport, passing dozens (hundreds?) of libraries on the way. I'm sure there's plenty of examples like that, enough that an on-line match-matching system could massively reduce both car and public transport use - a mixture of shorter journeys, or switching to cycling/walking in some cases. Would be a piece of piss in the public sector, harder with private companies, but they expect their workers to travel, why not make them pay commuting time at full rate if they don't allow people to swap jobs.
Longer term, you'd need production of useful goods in most localities - to allow some work to be done locally, and to reduce shipping.
With food, there's also plastics use for packaging when oil prices go up. Most of the packaging could just be done away with, the rest replaced with alternatives easily enough. None of the places I've lived in London have had PET recycling either (most drinks bottles, some fruit punnets are PET), which'd help a little at the other end.
I'm anti-car to a large extent, but me and my wife own one
She works as a piano teacher, and all her work has to take place between 4pm and 9pm because she teaches kids at their homes - right across North, East and South-East London including places off the tube network with few buses. Her journey times would be taking 150% to 300% more on public transport, which'd mean she'd be able to teach about half the time she does. She did have a scooter, but is pregnant so doesn't want to risk it, and in a few months it'll be impossible anyway. The (used) car we bought cost only £200 more than the (used) scooter we sold, although the running costs are higher obviously. She could do the same work without the travelling if she taught peripatetically in local schools, but that kind of provision has been cut out of school budgets to a massive extent, especially in London, so the work simply isn't there in many cases.
I don't think it is actually the scarcity of oil in the ground that has pushed up the prices this year. I think it is increased demand - for example from China - coupled with an insufficent increase in production (ie the volume being pumped out of the ground). There are in fact still vast known reserves in the ground but it does take a few years to put in the required infrastructure (rigs, pipelines, refining capacity etc) to pump it out, and also OPEC and other producers don't simply pump at their maximum possible rates. Another issue is that some countries (eg Indonesia & India) actually subsidise fuel for their domestic markets.the B said:
I will see if I can find some links from The Economist that say all this as I am actually posting all this from memory and might have got half of it wrong.
Similar threads
