Eu to hit australia with a tarriff for being f%}{%% luddites

[Kwality]

Uk is doing a lot more than us

2030 is the fossil fuelled car ban

UK plans to bring forward ban on fossil fuel vehicles to 2030

Announcement expected in autumn to help trigger green economic recovery from Covid-19

www.theguardian.com

The ban is on the sale of new only?

The UK have high fuel taxes like Aus?
Fuel duty tax receipts in the UK 2000-2020. In 2019/20 fuel duty tax receipts in the United Kingdom amounted to approximately 27.57 billion British pounds, compared with 27.99 billion pounds in the previous financial year. 3 Nov 2020
fuel tax revenue in the UK - Google Search

Is it planned to increase the VAT (GST) or pick up the lost £billions in a Sales Tax.

Do smile at the foresight of Maggie Thatcher

 

[kranky al]

The ban is on the sale of new only?

The UK have high fuel taxes like Aus?
Fuel duty tax receipts in the UK 2000-2020. In 2019/20 fuel duty tax receipts in the United Kingdom amounted to approximately 27.57 billion British pounds, compared with 27.99 billion pounds in the previous financial year. 3 Nov 2020
fuel tax revenue in the UK - Google Search

Is it planned to increase the VAT (GST) or pick up the lost £billions in a Sales Tax.

Do smile at the foresight of Maggie Thatcher

Id imagine some of savings would be made in health - fossil fuel fumes kill and hospitalise

Source: https://adc.bmj.com/content/86/2/79

PARTICLES AND ADULT MORTALITY
In a landmark study published in 1993, Dockery and colleagues10 reported the findings from a cohort of 8111 adults in northeast and midwest USA followed for 14–16 years. They found that ambient levels of fine (PM2.5) particles in the most polluted cities were associated with a 26% increase in mortality from all causes compared with the least polluted (a difference in particles of 19 μg/m3), and that increased levels of fine particles were associated with increased mortality from cardiovascular disease. Heavy criticism was directed at the study by industry groups, which lead to a recent reanalysis of the original data by the Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organisation based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This replicated the original findings and concluded that all PM fractions (PM10, PM10–2.5, and PM2..5) were associated with both respiratory and cardiac hospital admissions, and with mortality from all causes.11 Whether high levels of PM10 hasten death in adults by a few days, or whether they appreciably shorten the life span of vulnerable individuals, remains unclear. There are few studies into the effects of the UF particle fraction per se on mortality. Wichmann and colleagues12 in Erfurt, Germany, found effects on adult mortality, both for the mass of fine particles (0.1–2.5 μm) and for the number of UF particles, indicating that UF particles have a toxic effect in their own right.
MORTALITY IN CHILDREN
Associations between PM10 and mortality in children have been reported, challenging the assumption that PM effects are limited to older adults who may not have long to live. Woodruff and colleagues13 analysed a cohort of 4 million USA infants born between 1989 and 1991 in 86 metropolitan areas. After adjusting for other covariates, the odds ratio for total postneonatal mortality for high exposure (versus low exposure) was 1.1 (95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.16). In normal birth weight infants, high PM10 exposure was found to be associated with sudden infant death syndrome, and with mortality as a result of respiratory causes. A similar association was reported by Bobak and Leon,14 who showed a consistent association between the concentration of atmospheric particles and post neonatal death in all births in the Czech Republic from 1989 to 1991. These, and data from Mexico City showing an association between PM2.5 and total infant mortality,15 indicate that there is a causal relation between particle exposure and infant mortality.
RESPIRATORY DISEASE IN CHILDREN
In women, effects of PM10 have been detected that could influence the respiratory health of their children. Ritz and colleagues16 reported a 20% increase in preterm birth for every 50 μg increase in ambient PM10 levels during the six weeks before birth. Susceptibility to the adverse effects of PM10 in older children (>6 years) is increased in asthmatics, but associations between PM10 and respiratory disease (bronchitis) have also been reported in non-asthmatic children.17 To date, objective studies into the respiratory effects of PM10 have used lung function as an outcome. Some have been performed in environments where the majority of PM10 is not from traffic. For example, a fall in peak expiratory flow rate (PEF) of 0.55 l/min was detected in asthmatic children (10–12 years) living in a Canadian pulp mill community for every 10 μg/m3 increase in PM10.18 In this study, no association was found between increased PM10 and decreased PEF for children with no pre-existing respiratory disease.18 Where traffic emissions are the main source of particles, correlations between PEF and PM10 (over the preceding four days) have been observed for children with asthma.19 These short term changes in lung function might be clinically significant. A Seattle study of asthmatic children found that for every 11 μg/m3 increase in PM10, there was an 1.15 increase in the relative risk for asthma related emergency department visits.20Another concern is that long term exposure to high levels of PM10 may lead to abnormal lung development. In a prospective study of 12 cities in Southern California set up in 1993, children exposed to the highest concentrations of PM10over four years were estimated to have a cumulative deficit of 6.1% in a lung function measurement of small airway function compared with those exposed to the lowest levels of PM10.21
These epidemiological data suggest that the short term effects of PM10 are probably small in healthy children, but are amplified in children with ongoing respiratory symptoms and chronic disease. However, small effects at the individual level will translate into a large effect in a population, as most children are exposed to fossil fuel derived PM10 (table 1).22 In addition, the increased prevalence of wheeze in young children over the past decade,23 has resulted in an increased population with pre-existing symptoms, and thus more children at risk from the adverse effects of PM10. Whether the magnitude of the effects of PM10 on children has been underestimated remains a matter of debate. Too much “noise” from confounding variables may be one explanation for the finding of the PEACE study, a European collaborative study of children aged 6–12 years with respiratory symptoms. This study found no consistent association between PM10 and peak expiratory flow, respiratory symptoms, or medication use over a two month period.24 The study designers, in retrospect, have suggested that the study period was too short.25 When the Dutch contributors extended the study to three winter periods, clear effects of PM10 on >10% decrements in PEF, and increased lower respiratory tract symptoms were detected.26

 

[medusala]

I remember telling people this would happen if we continued to do nothing about climate change. The chickens have come home to roost.

I remember telling people that given Australia has such a tiny share of global emissions that whatever we do is IRRELEVANT.

Those who understand basic maths get that, those that dont, well they are just empty vessels.

Uk is doing a lot more than us

lol. HTF are they going to produce enough power to charge the cars let alone fix the grid / infrastructure to allow it to happen?

Pathetic virtue signalling from an ill and hen pecked individual.

 

[kranky al]

I remember telling people that given Australia has such a tiny share of global emissions that whatever we do is IRRELEVANT.

Those who understand basic maths get that, those that dont, well they are just empty vessels.



lol. HTF are they going to produce enough power to charge the cars let alone fix the grid / infrastructure to allow it to happen?

Pathetic virtue signalling from an ill and hen pecked individual.

HTF did america build an atomic bomb and finish off japan?

By not listening to dh’s like you for a start!!!


As for your irrelevant bullshit.

Madonna is one person amongst billions - yet she supported the gay community from day dot and her word made millions rethink their beliefs.

Noone would have rethought them if she said being gay is ok whilst sacking anyone who worked for her that was gay.....

Further more we are the 14th largest emitter of 195 countries - we emit 1.4 % of global emissions despite being 0.33% of the worlds population.

Welcome to being demonstrably wrong



Yet

Again

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I remember telling people that given Australia has such a tiny share of global emissions that whatever we do is IRRELEVANT.

Those who understand basic maths get that, those that dont, well they are just empty vessels.

The folly of your position is staring you in the face right now and you still cling to such moronic thinking? Some people clearly don't learn.

 

[medusala]

The folly of your position is staring you in the face right now and you still cling to such moronic thinking? Some people clearly don't learn.

Incapable of the most basic of mathematics.

100 x 0 = ?

"Oh but maths is a white imperial racist overhang"

 

[medusala]

HTF did america build an atomic bomb and finish off japan?

Welcome to being demonstrably wrong

Another one who cant understand BASIC maths.

#Connect3

we are the 14th largest emitter of 195 countries - we emit 1.4 % of global emissions despite being 0.33% of the worlds population.

Absurd little statistophobe. Relative emissions matter ZERO. Absolute ones do.

#sciencedenier

Like a donkey at Aintree you cant even get over the first hurdle.

 

[kranky al]

Another one who cant understand BASIC maths.

#Connect3



Absurd little statistophobe. Relative emissions matter ZERO. Absolute ones do.

#sciencedenier

Like a donkey at Aintree you cant even get over the first hurdle.

What you dont get is that you cant hold a moral high ground and demand people change when per capita you are worse than them.

What you also dont get is that the eu will go green and there is an opportunity to get ahead of that curve and be a major supplier or behind and be locked out

 

[medusala]

What you dont get is that you cant hold a moral high ground and demand people change when per capita you are worse than them.

Oh the stupendous ignorance. As if China, Russia etc give a flying foxtrot about some mythical " moral high ground".

China is accused of genocide re an ethnic minority and you think they give a stuff re ethics.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[kranky al]

Oh the stupendous ignorance. As if China, Russia etc give a flying foxtrot about some mythical " moral high ground".

China is accused of genocide re an ethnic minority and you think they give a stuff re ethics.

Wow. Just wow.

Of course they dont give a stuff - they do care about money but.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Incapable of the most basic of mathematics.

100 x 0 = ?

"Oh but maths is a white imperial racist overhang"

Incapable of understanding we're going to get hit with sanctions if we continue to dither over carbon reduction.

 

[kranky al]

Incapable of understanding we're going to get hit with sanctions if we continue to dither over carbon reduction.

Incapable of even understanding the right wing talking points he spouts then fails to defend

 

[medusala]

Incapable of understanding we're going to get hit with sanctions if we continue to dither over carbon reduction.

Where do the majority of our exports go?

This is NOTHING to do with climate change. Zero. Its all to do with protectionism.

You do realise that the EU already slaps disgracefully high tarriffs on Australian goods like beef do you not?

Ah, silly question. Of course you dont.

 

[medusala]

Incapable of even understanding the right wing talking points he spouts then fails to defend

Another balatron with no idea whatsoever of economics.

Tiresome putting up with the ignorant drivel of minions on these boards.

You would think the mods would remove the detritus if they had any self respect.

 

[kranky al]

Another balatron with no idea whatsoever of economics.

Tiresome putting up with the ignorant drivel of minions on these boards.

You would think the mods would remove the detritus if they had any self respect.

Economics is whatever the people who hold the purse strings says it is.


Its a construct. It changes as humans change. The form of economics we are currently warbling about is less than 100 years old yet barely resembles what it started out as, so fast it evolves.

But yeah blarghwarble all you want and throw a couple of big worlds in for good measure to give your self a sad little attempt at sophistication - when all it shows is sophistry.

 

[Fire]

Another one who cant understand BASIC maths.

#Connect3

Absurd little statistophobe. Relative emissions matter ZERO. Absolute ones do.

Why should I pay tax? My contribution is insignificant compared to the budget and its absolute numbers that matter!

I cAnT UndeRStANd BaSiC MAtHs!!1!!

Idiot. No one who isn't a bad faith actor is gonna be persuaded by that nonsense. Grow up and find some intellectual integrity.

 

[medusala]

Why should I pay tax? My contribution is insignificant compared to the budget and its absolute numbers that matter!

ha ha what an utter fail. Comparing Australian tax to global emissions.

You may as well argue that Australian taxpayers should contribute to the Chinese budget.

How to make an utter fool of yourself.

Well done.

Grow up and find some intellectual integrity.

 

[medusala]

Economics is whatever the people who hold the purse strings says it is.

Yeah laws of supply and demand is just a Fox news myth. By your logic communism is sound economics. Grand national on today, you wouldnt even make it to the first hurdle.

You are a brilliant argument for stopping so called humanities graduates from voting.

 

[Gough]

The Provos at the '97 National provided me with one of the biggest laughs I've ever had.

 

[Fire]

ha ha what an utter fail. Comparing Australian tax to global emissions.

You may as well argue that Australian taxpayers should contribute to the Chinese budget.

How to make an utter fool of yourself.

Well done.

LOL, ignoring the fact you've now entirely dumped the whole 'ReLatIvE iS IrREleVanT1!111' bullshit...

Just run me through the logic of this analogy.

An Australian needs to contribute to Australia's national tax because they are members of the relevant community. (They share a country)

However, Australia does not need to contribute to global carbon emissions, despite them being members of the relative community. (They share a planet)

Not only is your logic completley baseless at each step, you can't even maintain a coherent thought from one post to another. It's the naked arrogance of your idiocy that makes this so rewarding.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I remember telling people that given Australia has such a tiny share of global emissions that whatever we do is IRRELEVANT.

With any luck they ignored you.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I remember telling people that given Australia has such a tiny share of global emissions that whatever we do is IRRELEVANT.

Those who understand basic maths get that, those that dont, well they are just empty vessels.

lol. HTF are they going to produce enough power to charge the cars let alone fix the grid / infrastructure to allow it to happen?

Pathetic virtue signalling from an ill and hen pecked individual.

Incapable of the most basic of mathematics.

100 x 0 = ?

"Oh but maths is a white imperial racist overhang"

Another one who cant understand BASIC maths.

Absurd little statistophobe. Relative emissions matter ZERO. Absolute ones do.

#sciencedenier

Like a donkey at Aintree you cant even get over the first hurdle.

Oh the stupendous ignorance. As if China, Russia etc give a flying foxtrot about some mythical " moral high ground".

China is accused of genocide re an ethnic minority and you think they give a stuff re ethics.

Wow. Just wow.

Another balatron with no idea whatsoever of economics.

Tiresome putting up with the ignorant drivel of minions on these boards.

You would think the mods would remove the detritus if they had any self respect.

ha ha what an utter fail. Comparing Australian tax to global emissions.

You may as well argue that Australian taxpayers should contribute to the Chinese budget.

How to make an utter fool of yourself.

Well done.

Yeah laws of supply and demand is just a Fox news myth. By your logic communism is sound economics. Grand national on today, you wouldnt even make it to the first hurdle.

You are a brilliant argument for stopping so called humanities graduates from voting.

I thought this little run worthy of commemoration.

The drunk outside the pub, swinging wildly at any lamppost foolish enough to come near him.

 

[Power Raid]

Australia will make money out of this

why such fear?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Where do the majority of our exports go?

You know sanctions can be put on trade both ways, right? And Scummo has buggered up our relationship with our largest trading partner already.

This is NOTHING to do with climate change. Zero. Its all to do with protectionism.

Then why haven't they done it already instead of presenting an ultimatum?

You do realise that the EU already slaps disgracefully high tarriffs on Australian goods like beef do you not?

You do realise beef isn't our only export, and they could always put even higher tarriffs on beef?

Ah, silly question. Of course you dont.

You're a lot less smart than you think you are.

 

[kranky al]

Yeah laws of supply and demand is just a Fox news myth. By your logic communism is sound economics. Grand national on today, you wouldnt even make it to the first hurdle.

You are a brilliant argument for stopping so called humanities graduates from voting.

Laws of supply and demand are exactly why we should be greening now

the eu will want green steel - we can be in a positionto be a near monopoly on that

what do the laws of supply and demand have to say about monopolies?