|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 2, 2023 6:43:01 GMT
I've already told you that... So businesses don't do R&R and invest in their products? Did 'we' pay for the oil and gas infrastructure that we have come to rely on? The cost of 'green' technology is no different from the cost of 'dirty' energy but it will be better for all of us. I think you are finally getting it - well done |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2023 7:21:21 GMT
So businesses don't do R&R and invest in their products? Did 'we' pay for the oil and gas infrastructure that we have come to rely on? The cost of 'green' technology is no different from the cost of 'dirty' energy but it will be better for all of us. I think you are finally getting it - well done What I don't understand is the scare tactic headline that 'going green' will bankrupt the country, which is the effect the headlines are having when 'going green' is mentioned. You yourself eluded to this when I asked you "And that will all be borne by the taxpayer"? meaning the £50b a year. And you replied "you think someone else is going to pay"? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 2, 2023 7:45:50 GMT
I think you are finally getting it - well done What I don't understand is the scare tactic headline that 'going green' will bankrupt the country, which is the effect the headlines are having when 'going green' is mentioned. You yourself eluded to this when I asked you "And that will all be borne by the taxpayer"? meaning the £50b a year. And you replied "you think someone else is going to pay"? 'Going green' is going to cost an extra £50 Billion a year at least. Now who pays is simple - the same people who pay for everything now. The relevant question is whether that extra £50 Billion is money worth spending. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Oct 2, 2023 9:14:36 GMT
So businesses don't do R&R and invest in their products? Did 'we' pay for the oil and gas infrastructure that we have come to rely on? The cost of 'green' technology is no different from the cost of 'dirty' energy but it will be better for all of us. I think you are finally getting it - well done I admire your optimism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2023 9:26:21 GMT
What I don't understand is the scare tactic headline that 'going green' will bankrupt the country, which is the effect the headlines are having when 'going green' is mentioned. You yourself eluded to this when I asked you "And that will all be borne by the taxpayer"? meaning the £50b a year. And you replied "you think someone else is going to pay"? 'Going green' is going to cost an extra £50 Billion a year at least. Now who pays is simple - the same people who pay for everything now. The relevant question is whether that extra £50 Billion is money worth spending. You see you are 'skirting' around and re-meaning you statement. When you said "you think someone else is going to pay" leaves only one conclusion, you believe the taxpayer is going to pay £50b a year to go green, this is not true and the way it is paid for will be the same as how fossil fuel energy was funded. These are just 'scare mongering' statements designed to make people think going green will bankrupt the country, it will not. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 2, 2023 10:54:47 GMT
Going green without infrastructure, would take us back into the pre industrial age.
We need lots of power.
We need fuel.
Algal biofuel / synthetic fuels, doesn't matter.
There's not enough lithium to make the Musk dream work, alternatives are needed asap.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2023 12:17:01 GMT
Going green without infrastructure, would take us back into the pre industrial age. We need lots of power. We need fuel. Algal biofuel / synthetic fuels, doesn't matter. There's not enough lithium to make the Musk dream work, alternatives are needed asap. That's why we need investment from those that stand to profit, just like the oil industry. No one says we have to stop using oil right now, that would be impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 2, 2023 12:25:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 2, 2023 17:14:12 GMT
'Going green' is going to cost an extra £50 Billion a year at least. Now who pays is simple - the same people who pay for everything now. The relevant question is whether that extra £50 Billion is money worth spending. You see you are 'skirting' around and re-meaning you statement. When you said "you think someone else is going to pay" leaves only one conclusion, you believe the taxpayer is going to pay £50b a year to go green, this is not true and the way it is paid for will be the same as how fossil fuel energy was funded. These are just 'scare mongering' statements designed to make people think going green will bankrupt the country, it will not. It is going to cost the taxpayer - whether you think that the taxpayer can absorb another £50 Billion raid on their pockets I suppose depends on your political viewpoint. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2023 4:29:10 GMT
You see you are 'skirting' around and re-meaning you statement. When you said "you think someone else is going to pay" leaves only one conclusion, you believe the taxpayer is going to pay £50b a year to go green, this is not true and the way it is paid for will be the same as how fossil fuel energy was funded. These are just 'scare mongering' statements designed to make people think going green will bankrupt the country, it will not. It is going to cost the taxpayer - whether you think that the taxpayer can absorb another £50 Billion raid on their pockets I suppose depends on your political viewpoint. Of course it is going to cost the taxpayer as does the subsidies we give to oil giants. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 4, 2023 21:18:15 GMT
It is going to cost the taxpayer - whether you think that the taxpayer can absorb another £50 Billion raid on their pockets I suppose depends on your political viewpoint. Of course it is going to cost the taxpayer as does the subsidies we give to oil giants. what subsidies? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2023 5:06:14 GMT
What I don't understand is the scare tactic headline that 'going green' will bankrupt the country, which is the effect the headlines are having when 'going green' is mentioned. You yourself eluded to this when I asked you "And that will all be borne by the taxpayer"? meaning the £50b a year. And you replied "you think someone else is going to pay"? 'Going green' is going to cost an extra £50 Billion a year at least. Now who pays is simple - the same people who pay for everything now. The relevant question is whether that extra £50 Billion is money worth spending. When global warming reaches a certain point it will be impossible for us to stop it, that point is not far away. Our children and grandchildren will pay the true price of global warming and we will be responsible for killing them. Even if 'we' have to pay £50b a year, which is not true, it will be true investment in our kids future and a legacy that future generations will thank us for. When we have a global tragedy approaching cost should not be a barrier. On your own, flawed, figure of £50b a year. That's three years of HS2. Two years of Tory waste on the pandemic. Six months of Johnson waste on vanity schemes. Six months on 'planning stupidity'. Two years on 'lost' tax revenue. That's at least 8 years where 'going green' would cost net zero if the Tories get out of the way, that's without big business investment similar to oil and gas giants. The money is there but it is 'wasted' by greed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2023 5:10:53 GMT
Of course it is going to cost the taxpayer as does the subsidies we give to oil giants. what subsidies? production subsidies: these are tax breaks or direct payments that reduce the cost of producing fossil fuels consumption subsidies: these are energy price cuts for consumers, such as by fixing prices at petrol stations so that fuel is less than the market rate. The UK government has not given any subsidies to fossil fuels, according to the International Energy Agency’s definition of fossil fuel subsidies as measures that reduce the effective price of fossil fuels below world market prices. However, some have argued that the UK does support the industry in other related ways. In contrast, a recent report by The Guardian revealed that the UK government has given £20bn more in support to fossil fuel producers than those of renewables since 2015. The research, commissioned by the Liberal Democrats, found that while renewable energy was given £60bn in support over that time, fossil fuel companies were given close to £80bn. From 2016 to 2020, companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, including £15 million of direct grants for exploration, and £3.7 billion in payments towards decommissioning costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 5, 2023 6:45:00 GMT
production subsidies: these are tax breaks or direct payments that reduce the cost of producing fossil fuels So normal investment taxation that applies to every other business Fuel taxation is one of the largest revenue earners for the Government - a subsidy it is not..  Again - normal taxation on investment. Are you suggesting that capital investment should not be treated favorably under taxation law? Of course these taxation refliefs are vastly outweighed (like petrol) by the amount of tax revenue the government receives. The only energy sector that gets any subsidy are rewewables. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2023 8:47:45 GMT
production subsidies: these are tax breaks or direct payments that reduce the cost of producing fossil fuels So normal investment taxation that applies to every other business Fuel taxation is one of the largest revenue earners for the Government - a subsidy it is not.. Again - normal taxation on investment. Are you suggesting that capital investment should not be treated favorably under taxation law? Of course these taxation refliefs are vastly outweighed (like petrol) by the amount of tax revenue the government receives. The only energy sector that gets any subsidy are rewewables. That's not the point they are subsidised just like the private railways. You obviously read things in tinted glasses. |
|
