Carbon Taxes, unconstitutional (The Great Carbon Diet Plan)

Ok, having bought a big litre car recently I have a vested interest here as I will get stuck for a massive tax bill. Even though my use of the car will be very low compared to other car users who need to commuter millions of miles because they live in carbon commuter ville.

However this is not my main gripe its merely a brush against the beasts tail. The trend to use a “carbon” system for taxation basis is worrying. I believe it to be utterly flawed and anyone who understands environmental concerns must recognise the “dogma” of climate change for what it is, DOGMA. In case readers believe I can not fathom something such as global warming as I am too selfish or stupid. Know this. I hold views on catastrophic earth changes that make global warning aka “climate change” (stuff is changing… changing change) that are more extreme in terms of worst case scenarios that make climate change look like a picnic.

Does anyone think it is possibly unconstitutional to levy taxes based on this “carbon” system?

Using a third element, an unproven assumption based on a young working knowledge of the universe to impose taxes is possibly the weakest argument you could choose in terms of forming tax law. Yet this is what they have done. (Might I suggest a SUN UV tax for the Mediterranean EU member states parts who get more tan there far share to pay for our Vitamin D supplements? We can scan them for deep tans at the ports.)

I get its a pollution tax for now but I don’t believe it. There is no recognition in the fact that by using 2nd hand cars and keeping them in the utility circuit you are in fact prevent further pollution amounting too much more than the vehicles usage could ever manifest. There is simply no recognition of any tempts in your life to be less polluting thus reducing your “carbon footprint” which I don’t buy anyway. Carbon footprint is nothing more or less than the concept of original sin which was a load of utter bollox and has kept humanity form reaching it fullest potential for thousands of years.

  • me.

How long till carbon taxes are levied depending what industry you work in. The food you eat. The amount of children you have. These are all possibilities.
There is no end to where this can go and real debate needs to happen. This is the kind of fundamental change should not happen without real discourse.

Why a carbon policy is utterly sick and nothing more than a TAX for revenues sake should undertsood as nothing else but this implicitly.

I am not allowed to apportion my “carbon tax credits”, why?

BECAUSE I DON"T HAVE ANY. You see we are all evil polluters but we didn’t know it. We must repent for our sins in the garden and pay with our blood.

If I lead a vitreous carbon (negative) life would mean I would be dead. So that’s not good. I simply have no way of managing my carbon tax affairs apart form being punitively slapped across the face.

The politics. I believe the never any fresh ideas Fianna Fail party used the Greens as a means to bring in a bunch of new taxes in a time when the old taxes were not going to perform any longer. Perhaps I am giving them to much credit.

If the Government rolled back on VRT or people actually demanded the end to VRT as part of a package for Lisbon yes vote they’d have it in the morning. Yet there will be a carbon tax somewhere to take up the slack no doubt. In the end you will still end up with a health care run by elites, crumbling infrastructure, broadband nothing, a collapsed property market and a failed government. Why pay tax? it seems its not doing what its suppose to.

OMG :open_mouth: its all gone pete-tong :open_mouth: What madness is this, what is this world I live in!!!

Some Carbon BG info:

Its important to know what you are being taxed for. You are being taxed for something you can never own and only have the use of as granted by the laws of nature. Its in your body without it you would not exist. Nor would the world as we know it. Personally I am not happy about this at all - for more info → en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon

Here is another point for further debate. If the globe is warming lets say because of humanities effect on the planet and more water is released into the oceans causing a rising in the sea levels (this has happened before) then surely since the seas and oceans are now bigger carbon sinks they will quickly sink more carbon?

Why isn’t our government doing something more effective like planting huge tracts of hardwoods and carbon sinking trees across the land we have. Nothing symbolic a very feffective and responsible actions that has immediate effects.

You see its all a contrived madness. I don’t like this tea party one bit.

As a driver of a 98 fuel efficient car, I agree with you totally about old cars being kinder in carbon terms. In fact, I complained to the ASA about a car add that claimed their new car was helping the environment, pointing out that the production cost far outweighed any usage cost that a car would contribute during its lifetime. My complaint was upheld! Sadly, the other branches of government don’t adhere to this basic principle - it costs more energy to make most things than it costs to use them (to put the argument purely in terms of energy usage as opposed to resource usage). Tax the production and usage, not the users.

Indeed. This government don’t have any principles except power for powers sake. I don’t believe in taxing anyone tbh. We simply need to move to a cradle to cradle way of living that accounts for modern mass production. Tax is a hamfist used by the elites to oil the engine of power.

I agree with YM’s point, I drive a fairly fuel efficient ten year old car myself and I hear a lot of nonsense about fuel efficiency for new cars which doesn’t acknowledge the amount of water and fuel required to produce a new car. I’m fairly sceptical of whole global warming movement in anycase, since it smacks of a Marxist Socialism agenda to me, where the West should feel guilty (and pay tax on) production while the third world is prevented or encouraged not to industrialise so they do not generate real wealth themselves and we can continue to consume their raw materials.

As for blocking a carbon tax as unconstitutional? I’d be surprised if this is possible (but would be interested to hear more about any angle of attack) - hasn’t there previously been a tax on windows?

As far as I can see there will always be a tax on the most easily taxed if the government think they can get away with it e.g. car parking spaces 200 euro per annum with the employer responsible for collecting it for the Revenue and passing it on. What about the tax/levy being applied to health etc? The only way we are ever going to get a fair tax system is to vote people in who know what they are doing so its unlikely to happen. Now dont get me wrong I agree with taxation if its applied correctly but its not and the motorist has been abused from day one and will continue to be until this team are kicked out but whose going to replace them? Is it possible that the people of the country will get so disillusioned that they will move away from F Failure and F Worse towards a party with better/ more fair policies, at the moment its a dream but could it become a reality?
:angry:

bah i now drive a 2.2 litre turbo diesel. Can get over 60mpg on a long run(down to wicklow from Dublin on N11) and 48-54mpg (depending on my right foot) on my daily commute 9 miles each way mixed driving.

I can run this on vegetable oil but sure i still get taxed on the old system based on CCs. Even the new system does not recognise bio fuels or any of that crap.

Car tax at the pump is what I say. Nobody can avoid it. Your charged on how much you burn. Simple solution.
Meanwhile I`ll get robbed…
I especially hate to think of my taxes going to “save” bankers…

Yes at the pump. V good.

I agree with your remarks about Carbon Tax.

The main effect is that a warmer ocean is able to store less CO2 (warm ginger ale loses its fizz). That is one of the nasty feedbacks in the climate system. Another is increased atmospheric humidity (water is a greenhouse gas).

Because they don’t give a fuck. Its like asking why they allow wind farms on peat bogs i.e. in the worst possible place on the planet. They emitt 100,000’s tons of unnecessary CO2 in the process.

But if they can tax YOU - hey that’s a different matter.

Umm…

yes actually I have to say that having more human beings and increasing population will damage the planet’s environment more surely than anything else. No I cant see a way out except that “we” have to stop having so many children as to keep increasing the population…I mean planetwide…no I dont think it can be done so the environment will always get a bit worse no matter what new tech we use…

A carbon tax on having kids may seem unjust…but even back in the 70s Alvin Toffler in “future shock” was saying that some sort of restriction in future on the right to have as many children as one was able to would come in at some point…he was talking about sterilisation of children, to be reversed in adulthood ONLY for certain qualified people…
very “logans Run” no doubt etc but one wonders???

having children and then worrying about walking to the shop instead of driving due to environmental is probably pointless…?

This is a completely useless statement. The dogma of climate change is dogma? Which part do you believe is dogma and why?

Which part of the Irish constitution would carbon taxes violate? How is a system of taxation based on engine size constitutional but a system based on the carbon output of that engine not?

I guess they should take the unproven assumptions based on a young working knowledge of the universe off cigarette packets too? Scientific advancements feed into government policy and if people disagree with that then they need to create a scientifically credible alternative. Simply saying “Oh well do we **really **understand anything?” is useless from a policy making standpoint since we’re required to make the best decisions possible with the best information available.

The point of environmental policy is to balance environmental concerns against the greater needs of society like having a functional economy. What we want is to prevent needless environmental damage without harming economic growth overall.

What you are suggesting is that we reduce carbon output by terminating new car production and making do with the ones we already have. There is “no recognition” of that idea because it’s unacceptable to all but hardcore environmentalists.

Please don’t give up your day job - as it gets warmer and ocean temperatures increase they will becomes less capable of storing carbon. The oceans have absorbed probably 50% of everything we put out since the industrial revolution and that free ride is coming to an end. If you had even a simple understanding of climate science you wouldn’t be making suggestions like this.

Even if you cover all of Ireland in trees it’ll make very little difference.

What constitutional right are you suggesting it infringes -e.g. equality etc? The courts are extremely unwilling to interfere with government finances it is considered outside the remit of constitutional challenge for the most part. For example, a tax is not a breach of your property rights, but if the tax applies only to men then it might be a breach of equality. As things stand, everyone is entitled to purchase a car if they can afford it, but they have to pay tax accordingly.

FWIW, my car is soon to reach it’s 13th birthday and I’m going to drive it until it breaks down (or it becomes unroadworthy). Nothing to do with environmental concerns, I just like the car.

Ah the complex modelling and extrapolation into the future which climate change proponents use. We humans have proved less than successful at modelling complex systems in the past. Nevermind using them to forcast. I will continue to be sceptical and drive my large engineed car.

Good reading on the subject this

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
By Christopher Booker

telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu … roved.html

That is misleading, to put it mildly.

A temperate forest covering 70,000km2 (=ireland’s area) stores 1.1 Billion tons of co2.
That equates to 30 years of irish 1998 CO2 emissions. (I used a conservative figure of 17Kg/m2 co2 stored by
temperate forest/soils.)

In fact permanent conversion of irish pasture to woodland is a cheap and effective way to reduce greenhouse gases
because cattle are a significant source of methane.

Real solutions such as peatland conservation, afforestation and nuclear power are not being pursued.
The only thing the fuckwits are interested in is more taxation.

I don’t think it violates our constitution. It’s on this webpage:
taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_fi … and%20(EngNov2004.htm

Article 21 talks about Money Bills. That might be a good place to start if you want to check this out. I’d say reading the whole thing would give you a better understanding and feel for whether the carbon tax system is unconstitutional.

Personally, I cycle through dublin city center to work. I’d like if Dublin Buses could be changed to something other than fuel which makes me feel like I’m breathing in a mix of oil, dirt and smoke as I pass by them.

I don’t know if carbon taxes will help that.

I do know that plastic bag tax seems to have gotten rid of a fair amount of plastic bags off the street (or maybe just pays for people to clean them up).

a diesel particulate filter would sort that, I assumed they already had them fitted as standard???

dieselretrofit.eu/news.aspx

Pity we want to blow all our money on failed banks. Spending money on this sort of thing would lower health costs.

that would be good if it works

I like the biofuel buses. it’s easier to breath around them than it is around some transit vans

With some googling around I found this reference The Effectiveness of Forest Carbon Sequestration Strategies

Assuming 70,000km^2 to be accurate that gives us 7 million hectares and just short of 45 million tonnes of carbon per year sequestered. Now it’s possible I’m missing an order of magnitude somewhere or the given estimate is completely wrong but if anywhere near accurate that doesn’t seem very useful to me.

Firstly ask yourself what exactly is tax for?

Someone may want to tell the government that we don’t have an indigenous car industry.
The massive taxes serve only to hurt their own.

If they were serious about climate change, we would be at the forefront of climate change on a european and thus world level.

By forcing manufacturers to create cleaner and cleaner cars, we actually achieve something.

Taxing my 10 year old banger that does 3000 miles a year at a rate that is more than it’s worth, does nothing but force me to have it scrapped. A perfectly good car going to the scrap heap because of the greens.

Nice one lads.

Taxing cars is plain stupid. Taxing fuel is the only sure way to implement change. You use, you loose, should be the mantra if it has to be done at all.

I suspect that with the revenue from housing dried up, and car sales now gone, there will be some other major changes in the taxing structure in both these areas real soon. Stupid ideas need tweaking. Good ideas don’t.

Funny how a good recession should make the green feel real good. No building, no one driving.
It’s amazing how quickly peoples green credentials will vanish when they are struggling to stay in their homes…

If they really cared, we would have replaced moneypoint with something clean by now.
Once people realise that the who green sham is just a means of increasing revenue, the better we’ll all be.