Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 66

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2385318 5-Jan-2020 11:24

Obraik:

I think RUC should be renamed to something like EUC: Environment Use Charges. It should have both a road use component and a pollution component. RUC would no longer be included in the cost of fuel and instead all vehicles would pay EUC based on the KM traveled. The pollution component could be done in a number of ways from the simple solution of "if you use this fuel you get charged this multiplier and if you use that fuel you get charged this other multiplier" or it could be based on the cars efficiency ratings similar to how the Clean Cars subsidy is. If something like the latter option was picked then WoFs would also need to include a test that makes sure the vehicle is within a certain range of its efficiency spec.

Fair points. I see no issue with an EUC, in fact that type of driver does need to kick in at some point

RUC needs to stay as RUC, as you say all vehicles pay. A problem is that a Suzuki Swift then pays the same as a hulk SUV. You could use cc ratings or weight to allow lower and higher RUC to apply

EUC is a means to combat the environment. When there is a vehicle available as ICE and non ICE in new and used options, then you can use that as a driver to push ICE off the road, but you can't do it sooner. Otherwise you tax people that have no greener alternative, whether that be use case or affordability. That would need to wait, or be gradually introduced as used greener vehicles came on stream. You could alternatively tax ICE and give that to greener vehicles. Thats due 2021 and it doesn't affect everyone, which is required as everyone doesnt have an free alternative yet.If that is to be on stream sooner, someone needs to seek out used EV's and hybrids and import them in volume. if thats possible, i.e. if they would be available and maybe they wont be in the neat term as the original country would want them to stay, for the same reasoning

Norton Secure VPN

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Norton Secure VPN helps secure private information using bank-grade encryption when using public Wi-Fi on your PC, Mac, or mobile device.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
15631 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2385319 5-Jan-2020 11:26

I did not mean to trigger a major debate on this. I was just seeking clarification and now I have it. Please let's move on.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2385320 5-Jan-2020 11:29

Obraik:

You actually are, the phrase "Drink the kool-aid" comes from that event. As the article mentioned, the phrase was used by Jobs when referring to the products followers as a cult, referencing back to Jim Jones convincing his cult to drink his poisoned kool-aid.

Freaking hell. The key is cult. When you are discussing fanboys, are you actually discussing cult suicide?? No. In the context here, we are discussing marketing creating a cult following, Koolaid in relation to Apple and its cult following is the context. The origin is not relevant, unless we are discussing cult suicides

You need to spend less time defencing the realm and discussing the issues, where you actually did for a change re RUC today

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2385321 5-Jan-2020 11:30

Rikkitic:

I did not mean to trigger a major debate on this. I was just seeking clarification and now I have it. Please let's move on.

Yes, I would prefer a discussion on the topic of climate change as well, right now its RUC

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2385322 5-Jan-2020 11:32

At least we agree we need RUC to cover all vehicles and a means to target ICE in favour of greener transport its just when thats the problem

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2385324 5-Jan-2020 11:36

tdgeek:

Obraik:

I think RUC should be renamed to something like EUC: Environment Use Charges. It should have both a road use component and a pollution component. RUC would no longer be included in the cost of fuel and instead all vehicles would pay EUC based on the KM traveled. The pollution component could be done in a number of ways from the simple solution of "if you use this fuel you get charged this multiplier and if you use that fuel you get charged this other multiplier" or it could be based on the cars efficiency ratings similar to how the Clean Cars subsidy is. If something like the latter option was picked then WoFs would also need to include a test that makes sure the vehicle is within a certain range of its efficiency spec.

Fair points. I see no issue with an EUC, in fact that type of driver does need to kick in at some point

RUC needs to stay as RUC, as you say all vehicles pay. A problem is that a Suzuki Swift then pays the same as a hulk SUV. You could use cc ratings or weight to allow lower and higher RUC to apply

EUC is a means to combat the environment. When there is a vehicle available as ICE and non ICE in new and used options, then you can use that as a driver to push ICE off the road, but you can't do it sooner. Otherwise you tax people that have no greener alternative, whether that be use case or affordability. That would need to wait, or be gradually introduced as used greener vehicles came on stream. You could alternatively tax ICE and give that to greener vehicles. Thats due 2021 and it doesn't affect everyone, which is required as everyone doesnt have an free alternative yet.If that is to be on stream sooner, someone needs to seek out used EV's and hybrids and import them in volume. if thats possible, i.e. if they would be available and maybe they wont be in the neat term as the original country would want them to stay, for the same reasoning

As I said, in my proposal EUC would include both Road User Charge and emission charges. There wouldn't be a need to charge RUC separately. Just like how vehicle registrations include multiple components (ACC, licensing, etc) all bundled under the term "registration". Yes, new weight categories would need to be added for the RUC component so cars aren't paying the same as SUVs.

A reform of RUC won't be happening until the Clean Cars subsidy goes online in 2021 anyway, so charging people for emissions as per my suggestion before the subsidy is available isn't a concern. The emissions component of the EUC wouldn't have to start off as a large punishment, it could be staged to increase over the years.

tdgeek:

You need to spend less time defencing the realm and discussing the issues, where you actually did for a change re RUC today

LOL. That is VERY hypocritical 🤣

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2385329 5-Jan-2020 11:55

Obraik:

As I said, in my proposal EUC would include both Road User Charge and emission charges. There wouldn't be a need to charge RUC separately. Just like how vehicle registrations include multiple components (ACC, licensing, etc) all bundled under the term "registration". Yes, new weight categories would need to be added for the RUC component so cars aren't paying the same as SUVs.

A reform of RUC won't be happening until the Clean Cars subsidy goes online in 2021 anyway, so charging people for emissions as per my suggestion before the subsidy is available isn't a concern. The emissions component of the EUC wouldn't have to start off as a large punishment, it could be staged to increase over the years.

Road maintenance and development is very different from pollution control. Road charges are needed now, and we are not in a position now to punish ICE users. There needs to be alternate now before you can do that. No its not a concern now, but I doubt in 2021 the gamut of ICE vehicles and use cases will have 100% greener vehicle coverage. Although you could include smaller ICE vehicles, in an attempt to force people to drive lower emission ICE cars. The availability of hybrids can speed that up

So, they do need to be kept seperate. While its easy to get one annual rego bill that covers varying fees, it gets messy to do that for regular RUC payments, if you have say 5 RUC levels and 5 pollution levels. And you can't tax pollution until there is a lower pollution car in the wild that can replace the higher pollution car. Id prefer a separate charge for pollution, and if you have an ICE you pay that. Thats a more visible driver then it being inside another bill.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2385331 5-Jan-2020 12:02

Obraik:

You need to spend less time defencing the realm and discussing the issues, where you actually did for a change re RUC today

LOL. That is VERY hypocritical 🤣

All I mentioned was Koolaid vs premium. So you defend. I could have said fanboy vs premium or Evangelist vs premium but I felt Koolaid was more subtle. If that causes you to get defensive and picky then maybe easier to call a spade a spade. Even then my point wasnt meant to be harsh, so tacky words such as fanboy wasn't appropriate or fair. Hence use the term Koolaid. There is no issue being a huge fan of Ev or Tesla, but to keep it in balance.

So, have an environment tax, which I agree with, but keep it away from maintaining roads. Climate Change is important but its unrelated to road maintenance.

noddy76

55 posts

Master Geek

#2385339 5-Jan-2020 12:18

tdgeek:

or restructure RUC to be all mileage based, not so easy.

RUC is mileage based already. (and weight)

Talkiet

4574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2385344 5-Jan-2020 12:29

Obraik:

tdgeek:

Obraik:

tdgeek:

Back in the day Koolaid was referenced for the fanboys that used Apple. IIRC Steve Jobs drunk the brand, so that became the alternate way to describe Apple fanboys.

You've recalled incorrectly; it has nothing to do with Steve Jobs drinking the brand. It's as @Rikkitic mentioned, the phrase is derived from Jim Jones convincing his cult to drink kool-aid mixed with poison as a form of mass murder. Using the term has had a number of takes on it since then but generally using "drink the kool-aid" when referencing a product is much the same as saying someone is part of a cult surrounding that product despite it being flawed.

No. I wasn't referring to cult suicides when I referred to fanboys and Apple. I was referring to fanboys and Apple, Koolaid being well known in that context

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-xpm-2013-sep-01-la-fi-tn-how-steve-jobs-and-apple-turned-technology-into-our-religion-20130829-story.html

You actually are, the phrase "Drink the kool-aid" comes from that event. As the article mentioned, the phrase was used by Jobs when referring to the products followers as a cult, referencing back to Jim Jones convincing his cult to drink his poisoned kool-aid.

Don't you dare assume to tell someone else what they meant with a clearly multipurpose and evolved idiom. If you're nitpicking a choice of words then you're not actually advancing your side of the argument at all!

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are the product of my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2385349 5-Jan-2020 12:36

noddy76:

tdgeek:

or restructure RUC to be all mileage based, not so easy.

RUC is mileage based already. (and weight)

Cool, thanks. I was referring as I think I mentioned, of the inequality between mileage and small and large vehicles, which you now clarified already exists.

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2385601 5-Jan-2020 21:25

Talkiet:

Don't you dare assume to tell someone else what they meant with a clearly multipurpose and evolved idiom. If you're nitpicking a choice of words then you're not actually advancing your side of the argument at all!

Cheers - N

Calm down. It's not an argument but came across as a side discussion on the origins of the term. I was explaining where the term originated from and why one could take it to mean that the phrase is being used to imply they're part of a cult, given its origins.

tdgeek:

Obraik:

As I said, in my proposal EUC would include both Road User Charge and emission charges. There wouldn't be a need to charge RUC separately. Just like how vehicle registrations include multiple components (ACC, licensing, etc) all bundled under the term "registration". Yes, new weight categories would need to be added for the RUC component so cars aren't paying the same as SUVs.

A reform of RUC won't be happening until the Clean Cars subsidy goes online in 2021 anyway, so charging people for emissions as per my suggestion before the subsidy is available isn't a concern. The emissions component of the EUC wouldn't have to start off as a large punishment, it could be staged to increase over the years.

Road maintenance and development is very different from pollution control. Road charges are needed now, and we are not in a position now to punish ICE users. There needs to be alternate now before you can do that. No its not a concern now, but I doubt in 2021 the gamut of ICE vehicles and use cases will have 100% greener vehicle coverage. Although you could include smaller ICE vehicles, in an attempt to force people to drive lower emission ICE cars. The availability of hybrids can speed that up

So, they do need to be kept seperate. While its easy to get one annual rego bill that covers varying fees, it gets messy to do that for regular RUC payments, if you have say 5 RUC levels and 5 pollution levels. And you can't tax pollution until there is a lower pollution car in the wild that can replace the higher pollution car. Id prefer a separate charge for pollution, and if you have an ICE you pay that. Thats a more visible driver then it being inside another bill.

Both are needed. Some kind of emissions fee needs to start happening sooner rather than later. For the purpose of the topic of this thread (Climate Change) the mechanics of how it's done isn't important, I was merely stating an example of how something could be done that keeps it simple.

While I think the mechanics of something like this should be discussed in its own thread, to summarize my reasoning, having to track four different fees separately (registration, WoF, RUC and potentially an emissions fee) is a bit silly which is why I'm in favour of combining as many of those fees into one item. If RUC and Emissions are to be tracked by distance traveled then they make sense to combine into one.

noddy76

55 posts

Master Geek

#2385647 5-Jan-2020 23:05

Obraik:

While I think the mechanics of something like this should be discussed in its own thread, to summarize my reasoning, having to track four different fees separately (registration, WoF, RUC and potentially an emissions fee) is a bit silly which is why I'm in favour of combining as many of those fees into one item. If RUC and Emissions are to be tracked by distance traveled then they make sense to combine into one.

You need to look at what each of those four fees are for and charge appropriately.

WOF : is a physical inspection of the vehicle primarily for safety. It is payable, and needs to remain payable to the inspection agent, when the vehicle gets inspected, nothing else makes sense unless you want to go to entirely govt run inspection agencies who get paid out of one of the other fees.

Registration: The majority of the fee is in fact ACC charges. (even more so if its a RUC vehicle as diesel/LPG etc doesn't have ACC levies on it, so all ACC charges for diesel vehicles are paid with the rego (actually vehicle license is the correct name, and Registration is what happens when the vehicle enters the country/fleet). To my mind ACC levies shouldn't be on Rego, if I own four cars, three of which are occassional weekend toys, why should I pay significant amounts more ACC levies compared to the guy that drives the same overall distance in just one car? Acc levies should be distance based, drive more, pay more. Except ACC gets funky with its four majors accounts Work related, Earner, Non-earner, Motor vehicle. If you are a professional driver and get injured driving at work, should your treatment come out of the work related injury account, or the motor vehicle account? Which is why we have the mess we have now.

Emissions fee: since emissions are directly proportionate to amount of fuel being burnt, why not just put it on the fuel as it leaves the refinery gate, - Hey, guess what, we already do, and have done since 2010!

RUC: fee to pay for use of roads, currently this is currently a pigs ear of a thing, for petrol cars there is no RUC, instead they pay a fuel excise duty, and any petrol sold for non-road use (boats, garden equipment, construction equipment, off road vehicles) pay this charge too. It can be claimed back, but it is a pain in the ass so many don't bother unless they use significant amounts in this way. Diesel vehicles (and alternative fuels like CNG) pay RUCs based on distance and vehicle class (based on weight, and axle configuration, all light passenger diesel are the same class and pay the same - about 6c per km IIRC). Most vehicles on RUCs pay based on odometer (for light passenger, or hubometer for heavy vehicles), and you end up with same problem as with fuel taxes, when you leave public roads the hubometer or odometer keeps ticking up and you have to claim back the RUCs youve burnt up while not actually on public roads. For those that spend a lot of time not on public roads (mainly forestry trucks etc) they can use e-road, a gps based solution that automates RUCs for vehicles that spend significant time off public roads.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2385685 6-Jan-2020 07:13

Obraik:

Both are needed. Some kind of emissions fee needs to start happening sooner rather than later. For the purpose of the topic of this thread (Climate Change) the mechanics of how it's done isn't important, I was merely stating an example of how something could be done that keeps it simple.

While I think the mechanics of something like this should be discussed in its own thread, to summarize my reasoning, having to track four different fees separately (registration, WoF, RUC and potentially an emissions fee) is a bit silly which is why I'm in favour of combining as many of those fees into one item. If RUC and Emissions are to be tracked by distance traveled then they make sense to combine into one.

Four entirely different charges. You could simplify that to one, but then you have a myriad of combinations for car size, cc, weight, and mileage. I agree we need an emissions fee in the future. If it was a bit silly why have the exiting charges been kept seperate? Its simpler. In any case thats all irrelevant, we either agree or disagree on a future emissions charge or we don't, and we do. How they are billed is just an admin issue

noddy76

55 posts

Master Geek

#2385695 6-Jan-2020 08:14

tdgeek:

Four entirely different charges. You could simplify that to one, but then you have a myriad of combinations for car size, cc, weight, and mileage. I agree we need an emissions fee in the future. If it was a bit silly why have the exiting charges been kept seperate? Its simpler. In any case thats all irrelevant, we either agree or disagree on a future emissions charge or we don't, and we do. How they are billed is just an admin issue

1) we already have an emissions fee...have since 2010..

1 | ... | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | ... | 66