Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Reports in the Sunday Times suggest 'Dont call me Darling' is going to introduce a 'show room tax' on all new cars in this weeks budget.
It will make it cheaper to buy a Prius but the bigger engined cars will get hammered by upto £2000-00 in extra taxation.This is going back to the bad old days of the special car tax which was abolished in the 80's.
Even cars like the 159 2.2 jts will get hammered,rollon the general election and we can vote these plonkers out of office.
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Even cars like the 159 2.2 jts will get hammered,rollon the general election and we can vote these plonkers out of office.
Without wishing to get too political, you don't actually expect anything to change after an election do you? :confused: :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,124 Posts
If true, as long as it's based on CO2 rather than engine size, then it's way overdue.

It's the EU, rather than nation governments, that should have taken action a long, long time ago, in forcing the manufacturers (particularly the Germans) into investing in more efficient engines and cars.

We've got to stop kidding ourselves that we can carry on spewing out CO2 in increasing amounts into the atmosphere without consequence for our children and their children.

Sure, it's going to hit Alfa Romeo hard, but they can't not have seen this stuff coming and much of current model range is appallingly inefficient (all the evidence is here on AO), so it's their own fault.

The new guy, de Meo, sounds like he want to take Alfa into a more traditional Alfa niche rather than trying to make another lardy German car with a prettier frock, so the future looks rosier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,591 Posts
Good thing that the increase of CO2 has been linked to Climate change rather than Global Warming ;)

Climate dissent grows hotter as chill deepens

By Christopher Booker

Last week, virtually unreported in Britain, the extraordinary winter weather of 2008 elsewhere in the world continued. In the USA, there were blizzards as far south as Texas and Arkansas, while in northern states and Canada what they are calling "the winter from hell" has continued to break records going back in some cases to 1873. Meanwhile in Asia more details emerged of the catastrophe caused by the northern hemisphere's greatest snow cover since 1966.



In Afghanistan, where they have lost 300,000 cattle, the human death toll has risen above 1,500. In China, the havoc created by what its media call "the Winter Snow Disaster" has continued, not least in Tibet, where six months of snow and record low temperatures have killed 500,000 animals, leaving 3 million people on the edge of starvation.

advertisement

It might have seemed timely that in New York an array of leading climatologists and other experts should have gathered for the most high-powered international conference yet to question the "consensus" on global warming. After three days of what the chairman called "the kind of free-spirited debate that is virtually absent from the global warming alarmist camp", the 500 delegates issued the Manhattan Declaration, stating that attempts by governments to reduce CO2 emissions would "markedly diminish further prosperity" while having "no appreciable impact" on the Earth's warming.

This inevitably attracted the kind of hysterical abuse that has become so familiar from warmist fanatics, tellingly contrasting with the measured arguments put forward by the scientists present. One was Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who last year famously forced Nasa's Goddard Institute to correct a fundamental error in its data on US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.

On his website, Watts Up With That, he is currently posting a corrected version of the global temperature graph, combining satellite and surface data from all four main official sources. A measure of his scrupulous reporting is that although this shows a recent dramatic dip in temperatures, he cautiously explains that it is not yet conclusive evidence that the world has entered a new cooling phase (as he points out, there was temporarily an even sharper drop after the "peak" El Niño year 1998).

But can we doubt that, if the data showed the opposite, the media would be rushing to report this as yet further "proof" that the planet is heating out of control? The fact is that, for all their caveats that this drop in temperatures can be explained by the cooling effect of La Niña, the official orthodoxy that "more CO2 means more warming" is facing its most serious challenge yet. In light of the colossal price we are all in so many ways being asked to pay for it, the data in coming years will be more than interesting.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Britain is just a big rip off anyway :2: The budget means nothing except ripping off the masses.
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Good thing that the increase of CO2 has been linked to Climate change rather than Global Warming ;)

Climate dissent grows hotter as chill deepens

By Christopher Booker

Last week, virtually unreported in Britain, the extraordinary winter weather of 2008 elsewhere in the world continued. In the USA, there were blizzards as far south as Texas and Arkansas, while in northern states and Canada what they are calling "the winter from hell" has continued to break records going back in some cases to 1873. Meanwhile in Asia more details emerged of the catastrophe caused by the northern hemisphere's greatest snow cover since 1966.



In Afghanistan, where they have lost 300,000 cattle, the human death toll has risen above 1,500. In China, the havoc created by what its media call "the Winter Snow Disaster" has continued, not least in Tibet, where six months of snow and record low temperatures have killed 500,000 animals, leaving 3 million people on the edge of starvation.

advertisement

It might have seemed timely that in New York an array of leading climatologists and other experts should have gathered for the most high-powered international conference yet to question the "consensus" on global warming. After three days of what the chairman called "the kind of free-spirited debate that is virtually absent from the global warming alarmist camp", the 500 delegates issued the Manhattan Declaration, stating that attempts by governments to reduce CO2 emissions would "markedly diminish further prosperity" while having "no appreciable impact" on the Earth's warming.

This inevitably attracted the kind of hysterical abuse that has become so familiar from warmist fanatics, tellingly contrasting with the measured arguments put forward by the scientists present. One was Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who last year famously forced Nasa's Goddard Institute to correct a fundamental error in its data on US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.

On his website, Watts Up With That, he is currently posting a corrected version of the global temperature graph, combining satellite and surface data from all four main official sources. A measure of his scrupulous reporting is that although this shows a recent dramatic dip in temperatures, he cautiously explains that it is not yet conclusive evidence that the world has entered a new cooling phase (as he points out, there was temporarily an even sharper drop after the "peak" El Niño year 1998).

But can we doubt that, if the data showed the opposite, the media would be rushing to report this as yet further "proof" that the planet is heating out of control? The fact is that, for all their caveats that this drop in temperatures can be explained by the cooling effect of La Niña, the official orthodoxy that "more CO2 means more warming" is facing its most serious challenge yet. In light of the colossal price we are all in so many ways being asked to pay for it, the data in coming years will be more than interesting.
I'm aware that this discussion has gone round and round many times (and those who wish to deny will just go on denying regardless of evidence or scientific fact) but the overall long term trend is an undeniable warming of the planet. At any given point we may suffer cooler than usual temperatures, but the trend is definatley and undeniably upwards.
People were talking about the cool smmer that Britain had last year as evidence of global warming being a myth. Whilst not noticing that people were dying in Europe because of the heatwave.

Check out the hottest and dryest years on record, and how many of them have come in the last decade.

If you choose not to believe in Climate change then that's your issue, but your evidence is flawed at best.
 
N

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Typical uk.gov:

You already get taxed in proportion
to the amount of fuel you consume.

Instead of incentivising people
to consume less water/energy/whatever
by reducing tax on more efficient products,
they whack up to tax on everything else.


Robbery.
:rant:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
And do not forget the 2p per litre rise in tax on fuel which is also on the way.Wether he has the nerve to carry this increase out remains to be seen-roll on Wednesday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
If true, as long as it's based on CO2 rather than engine size, then it's way overdue.

It's the EU, rather than nation governments, that should have taken action a long, long time ago, in forcing the manufacturers (particularly the Germans) into investing in more efficient engines and cars.
I think most people agree that climate change is happening, but view the government's response to it as a cynical way of raising yet more taxes rather than addressing the core issue. Taxes on flights were doubled last year, yet this money has been thrown in the general pot rather than used to specifically implement anti-climate change measures. In the same way, additional taxes on car buyers will only find their way to the government's pet projects rather than be re-invested in say better public transportation. The congestion charge is another example of (local) government cynicism. It barely turns a profit, so who is benefiting ? The private company that runs the scheme of course.



If the extra taxes were used to actually combat climate change, then perhaps hammering larger cars would help. Taxes on flights were doubled last year supposedly to
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,381 Posts
I think we need to remember that it isn't just CO2 that causes global warming. Remember! to burn fuel efficiently you create CO2. Restrict the breathing, that is inefficient burning and you create carbon monoxide...which is what catalytic converters need. Hence less power, more fuel consumed, more waste. Start comparing the actual pollutants that cars produce (I did this with my 156 2.0TS and my wifes Honda Jazz 1.2) and the actual total pollutants that the cars produced were more in the Jazz than in the Alfa. Its all on the V5! Remember Chocolate can make you fat, just by stopping eating chocolate doesnt necessarily mean you will stop being fat. Lets see lighter, smaller cars that use fewer natural resources that we are positively encouraged to use and we might last on this planet a bit longer.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top