PDA

View Full Version : Business facing a wave of green taxes



-:Undertaker:-
14-08-2010, 12:31 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/taxandtheenvironment/7937911/Business-facing-a-wave-of-green-taxes.html


Companies that fail to register their energy use by next month will be hit with fines that could reach £45,000 under the little-known rules. Those that do participate in the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) (http://www.carbon-clear.com/what_we_do.php?page=reduction_commitment&gclid=CI-Aw_jsr6MCFSSElAodzDVj4A) initiative by declaring their energy use will face charges for every ton of greenhouse gas they produce.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01694/power_wind_1694589c.jpg



These payments are expected to average £38,000 a year for medium-sized firms, and could reach £100,000 for larger organisations. Surveys have shown that thousands of businesses are unaware they are supposed to be taking part, or even that the scheme exists at all. The imposition of new charges and fines will put pressure on firms at a time when economists are warning of a “double dip” recession as companies, consumers and the public sector all cut their spending. Business leaders criticised the CRC — which was created by Labour but implemented by the Coalition — as “complex and bureaucratic”. One accused ministers of swinging “a big hammer” at companies and questioned whether it would have any environmental benefits.

Under the scheme, any company or public sector organisation that consumes more than 6,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of energy a year – meaning a power bill of about £500,000 – must register its energy use by the end of next month. From April, firms will need to buy permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted. For those using 6,000MWh, that could mean £38,000. The scheme is intended to create a financial incentive to cut energy use, and those organisations that record the biggest reductions will get bonuses, funded by penalties imposed on those with the worst record. Of about 4,000 organisations estimated to qualify for the scheme, only 1,229 have registered to date, leaving thousands at risk of fines. Missing the Sept 30 deadline will mean an immediate £5,000 fine, and £500 for each day after that, up to a maximum of £45,000.

Another 15,000 smaller organisations are also required to register and could be expected to buy permits in the future. If they miss the September deadline, they face fines of £500. WSP Environment & Energy, a consultancy firm, estimated that a total of 7,500 businesses would miss the deadline. Greg Barker, the energy and climate change minister, who is overseeing the scheme said yesterday: “I understand the original complexity of the scheme may have deterred some organisations and I want to hear suggestions as to how we can make the scheme simpler in the future."

Executives and business groups said that the scheme had been poorly communicated and publicised, leaving many companies in the dark. One recent survey suggested that 53 per cent of executives had not even heard of the CRC and did not know whether their firm was affected. The Environment Agency, which will run the scheme for the Government, has refused even to publish a list of the companies that are required to register. The Coalition is pressing ahead with the CRC despite Conservative pledges to cut red-tape on businesses. Business groups said the paperwork and costs involved in complying with the CRC scheme could put a significant new burden on companies already struggling in an uncertain economic climate. The Bank of England is expected to underline fears about the economy today with forecasts for faltering economic growth and persistent inflation.

Yesterday, the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply reported a slowdown in British manufacturing exports to Europe. Bob Jarrett, of the BHF-BSSA Group, a trade body that represents thousands of independent shops, said ministers had not done enough to explain or justify the CRC. “We’ve only come across this in the last few weeks, and yet the deadline is at the end of next month. The Department for Energy has not given this nearly enough publicity,” he said.Yet more tax and regulation for business (which the government wants to grow, Ha!) which means more unemployment and more private, wealth creating business closing down all to address a non-problem because as the video below shows (yes it's Fox News before anybody jumps on it but sadly Fox News is one of the only news programmes which doesn't obessively go on about 'global warming' as though it were fact) there is no point economically (going by UN predictions) of trying to cut down on emissions as the video below shows.

Vote Red/Yellow/Blue and get Green.

The video for those with interest in this topic;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7dhgP117Xg


Thoughts, should business have tax cut or increased? which way do you think is the way to get private business growing again?

GommeInc
14-08-2010, 11:27 AM
Pfft, stupid idea :/ Yes, it's good using less energy but penalties like this are far from helpful, it will just scare businesses away. This is what an award system is for, to help promote fair use or low energy use. Having a Penality System suggests they're unwanted :/

alexxxxx
14-08-2010, 01:37 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/taxandtheenvironment/7937911/Business-facing-a-wave-of-green-taxes.html




http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01694/power_wind_1694589c.jpg


Yet more tax and regulation for business (which the government wants to grow, Ha!) which means more unemployment and more private, wealth creating business closing down all to address a non-problem because as the video below shows (yes it's Fox News before anybody jumps on it but sadly Fox News is one of the only news programmes which doesn't obessively go on about 'global warming' as though it were fact) there is no point economically (going by UN predictions) of trying to cut down on emissions as the video below shows.

Vote Red/Yellow/Blue and get Green.

The video for those with interest in this topic;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7dhgP117Xg


Thoughts, should business have tax cut or increased? which way do you think is the way to get private business growing again?
although i dont agree with this tax, lord monckton is not a scientist and a lot of his 'findings' have been debunked.

-:Undertaker:-
14-08-2010, 03:20 PM
although i dont agree with this tax, lord monckton is not a scientist and a lot of his 'findings' have been debunked.

A lot of his findings have not been debunked and time and time again Al Gore has turned down a debate with him. Lord Monckton cites his sources on request and often does so anyway - the videos of 'debunking' Lord Monckton are utter rubbish, from memory they start off attacking the fact that he is a Lord just as the Democrats did when he visited a Congress committee.

As shown by that video which uses UN data, it is pointless doing anything anyway about the issue even if the UN were correct.

What defines a scientist anyway?

alexxxxx
14-08-2010, 03:37 PM
A lot of his findings have not been debunked and time and time again Al Gore has turned down a debate with him. Lord Monckton cites his sources on request and often does so anyway - the videos of 'debunking' Lord Monckton are utter rubbish, from memory they start off attacking the fact that he is a Lord just as the Democrats did when he visited a Congress committee.

As shown by that video which uses UN data, it is pointless doing anything anyway about the issue even if the UN were correct.

What defines a scientist anyway?

Well he's been told by the house of lords to stop using logos that makes him look like he's a member of the house of lords. to be honest i've only seen a few things about him, his claims and the replies and i don't trust him because of his manner and his non-science background.

For example he said to the tea party in the US recently:

"Monckton made the tea baggers choke by joking, "America! Land of opportunity! You can be born in Kenya and end up as president of the United States!"
"

He likes the attention, the shock factor and his arogance is disgusting to be honest. Typical UKIP.

you are a scientist if you have a background in science and have been educated to high degree in science. ie. Masters/PhD - not a journalist and ex-politician.

i don't really care about the climate debate too much, there's not been enough time to really tell what is happening.

-:Undertaker:-
14-08-2010, 03:44 PM
Well he's been told by the house of lords to stop using logos that makes him look like he's a member of the house of lords. to be honest i've only seen a few things about him, his claims and the replies and i don't trust him because of his manner and his non-science background.

For example he said to the tea party in the US recently:

"Monckton made the tea baggers choke by joking, "America! Land of opportunity! You can be born in Kenya and end up as president of the United States!"
"

He likes the attention, the shock factor and his arogance is disgusting to be honest. Typical UKIP.

you are a scientist if you have a background in science and have been educated to high degree in science. ie. Masters/PhD - not a journalist and ex-politician.

i don't really care about the climate debate too much, there's not been enough time to really tell what is happening.

His father was a member of the House of Lords and he has cited a old formal law which still retains him as a Lord of the House/Chamber. You say you don't trust him, but is that because he is not saying what you want him to believe/what the normal is? The second example you've given is poor, is a joke on Obama that doesn't even have any malice behind it - not arrogant at all in the slightest way. The man doesn't charge thousands for his lectures like Al Gore, he offers to go to debates free of charge and knows his stuff well.

He is based mainly in Maths and Maths has a lot to do with science and also is in contact with scientists, he cites all of his sources and states very clearly to people that they should not believe him or Al Gore and that they should check the data for themselves (which shows a decrease in world temperatures measured in volume and that the glaciers are actually growing and not retreating). There has been plenty of time and plenty of scientists to see what this is; a total and utter sham.

I heard one figure that when Gore left the Senate he was worth $2mn, now he's worth over $200mn - go figure.

MrPinkPanther
14-08-2010, 04:16 PM
Under British Law he is not a Lord in any sense, there is no longer a law that retains him as a "Lord" thanks to Labour. The reason this has been frequently quoted is it shows how he out and out lies, he cites himself as a member of British parliament. Is he? No. Yes the debunking videos start out attacking him on that but what do they move on to? As you full well they show that the very reports he quotes debunk his theories and in fact contradict the ideas that he preaches.

Science is backed up by evidence, Monckton is not.

-:Undertaker:-
14-08-2010, 05:00 PM
Under British Law he is not a Lord in any sense, there is no longer a law that retains him as a "Lord" thanks to Labour. The reason this has been frequently quoted is it shows how he out and out lies, he cites himself as a member of British parliament. Is he? No. Yes the debunking videos start out attacking him on that but what do they move on to? As you full well they show that the very reports he quotes debunk his theories and in fact contradict the ideas that he preaches.

Science is backed up by evidence, Monckton is not.

Firstly the hereditary peers (who were replaced by Tony Blair by Labour Party donors) did not loose their titles as Lord and his father did not loose that title either shortly afterwards he died. The title remains and is passed down to the son, Christopher Monckton. He does not cite himself as a sitting member of the House of Lords and the Houses of Parliament and makes very clear he is a hereditary peer of whom his father was removed from the House of Lords over a decade ago now.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08SVnB_PBNQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EvsPXA4z8U&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0W_2yz6fPk&feature=related

(For specific revoke of the Lord debate, see video 3)


The democrat in the video above is saying exactly what you are saying, so before attacking ones person next time maybe listen to what Lord Monckton and the Republican say - rather than attacking him over a peerage title and petty politics. Lord Monckton cites scientific graphs, data and evidence in his presentations. The typical trick of attacking ones person when they cannot reply back to the data he presents which is based off UN models.



Secondly the debunking videos do not do so, he responded to these videos in another video which I will send if I can find at a later time. He cites, again, scientific fact and explains the bogus data behind the graphs that are often classed (by the debunking videos also) as scientific fact when they are not scientific fact. Thousands of other scientists also agree with the position of Monckton yet they are totally ignored by the likes of the main three parties and the media in general to give the illusion of a scientific consensus when one does not exist.

alexxxxx
14-08-2010, 07:10 PM
Firstly the hereditary peers (who were replaced by Tony Blair by Labour Party donors) did not loose their titles as Lord and his father did not loose that title either shortly afterwards he died. The title remains and is passed down to the son, Christopher Monckton. He does not cite himself as a sitting member of the House of Lords and the Houses of Parliament and makes very clear he is a hereditary peer of whom his father was removed from the House of Lords over a decade ago now.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08SVnB_PBNQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EvsPXA4z8U&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0W_2yz6fPk&feature=related

(For specific revoke of the Lord debate, see video 3)


The democrat in the video above is saying exactly what you are saying, so before attacking ones person next time maybe listen to what Lord Monckton and the Republican say - rather than attacking him over a peerage title and petty politics. Lord Monckton cites scientific graphs, data and evidence in his presentations. The typical trick of attacking ones person when they cannot reply back to the data he presents which is based off UN models.



Secondly the debunking videos do not do so, he responded to these videos in another video which I will send if I can find at a later time. He cites, again, scientific fact and explains the bogus data behind the graphs that are often classed (by the debunking videos also) as scientific fact when they are not scientific fact. Thousands of other scientists also agree with the position of Monckton yet they are totally ignored by the likes of the main three parties and the media in general to give the illusion of a scientific consensus when one does not exist.

"I bring fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments to the Congress of your 'athletic democracy'."
-Monckton

'FROM THE MOTHER OF ALL PARLIAMENTS' - sounds like he is saying he is from the parliament if you ask me. :)

i havent seen the reply to the videos but the use of the portcullis on every slide gives a wrong impression too.

-:Undertaker:-
14-08-2010, 11:53 PM
"I bring fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments to the Congress of your 'athletic democracy'."
-Monckton

'FROM THE MOTHER OF ALL PARLIAMENTS' - sounds like he is saying he is from the parliament if you ask me. :)

i havent seen the reply to the videos but the use of the portcullis on every slide gives a wrong impression too.

He is from parliament has he is a peer, just not a sitting peer. The embelm he uses [the pink porticullis] is a similar one to the one in usage by parliament - most likely he created it to show the difference between a sitting peer and a non-sitting peer of the House of Lords because if he was claiming to be a sitting member of the House of Lords he would simply use the symbol that sitting peers are able to use.

The point back there about what defines a scientists, I found out/am led to believe that Sir Patrick Moore (who also is a UKIP supporter as it happens) does not have a PhD and is merely a member of a Fellowship yet NASA itself apparently have used his own works - thus proving as though we didn't know it already that you don't need to have qualifications to know what you are talking about. Lord Monckton has a background in mathematics, journalism and as a policy advisor to former Prime Minister Thatcher.

I think that settles his title and I would urge anybody to watch his lectures/interviews & speeches, the man knows what he is talking about.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!