Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Carlos

  1. Road tax began being phased out in 1926 and was finally removed altogether in 1937. As a pedestrian and cyclist I would have no problem if I had to have a Band A VED disk, but as a motorist I would not like to have to pay the extra on the car's VED that would be needed to cover the admin and enforcement of that zero cost bit of paper....... There is certainly a lot of money that flows to the government from car owners, as there is from just about every thing else everybody does. Proportionately of course a car does about the same damage to the road each time it passes as 10,000 cyclists. A 40T truck does about the same damage as 10,000 cars. I'm not sure where a pedestrian comes on the scale.....
  2. If VE's revised EIA also made no claims to CO2 reductions you be happy that no assessment was then needed?
  3. Duties and responsablities have been asigned under the law mostly based on the potential for harm - vehicles are more likely to injure others, so the law has been weighted so that drivers have to take on that responsability by showing their competance and by insuring others against damage. In terms of payment, vehicle excise duty is essentially a tax on emissions and goes to the general taxation fund, as does duty and vat on fuel, there's no direct contribution to any road building or maintenance budgets. I've no particular issue with cars using that road, although it's not one I'd choose to drive myself, but I would expect them to keep to a suitable speed and respect other folk using it too. I'd not want to see Council money going on tarring it and building passing places and wide verges, and that is one direction it seems it might be going.....
  4. Pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have an absolute right to use roads except where specific regulations are in place (motorways). Vehicle drivers have a restricted use of roads - they have to be licensed, taxed and insured, and that right can be removed.
  5. I can't see how we will not end up with more nuclear power once energy prices go up, so for now I'd like to see us getting the research done into the best design for lithium reactors, which should be able to be built with better failsafes and there's the bonus that there's about 100 times as much fuel as uranium.
  6. To be fair, it is the case that the carbon payback is being looked as part of the planning application at for the VE application while it was not for the Total application. Regardless of how folk may feel on the individual merits of each application, is it reasonable to treat similar issues differently depending on the project?
  7. You'd have to demolish a few things at the Sandy Loch end to get a road suitable for any decent level of traffic though....
  8. Quite a big story a couple of weeks back Met Office report: global warming evidence is 'unmistakable' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7914611/Met-Office-report-global-warming-evidence-is-unmistakable.html And what the Telegraph (not the biggest supporter of AGW) columnist said on it The Met Office's climate change report: between denial and alarm lies reality http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100045477/the-met-offices-climate-change-report-between-denial-and-alarm-lies-reality/
  9. Ecconomics probably - if they invest the money here, how long to get a return and what profits are possible, compared with investing the money somewhere else on some other project. I'm sure they are looking at all their options.
  10. You have 4 parties, all of which could possibly carry some degree of responsibility for some part of the accident. Since it's not a criminal trial it will not deal with breaches of the law, but breaches of duties of care under common law, and so have a "in the balance of probability" level of proof needed. Would seem it could really go any way?
  11. The "how many conventional power stations will it replace" argument? AT has had a go at that one, and the link I post a little while ago has some new (to me) angles on how wind farms affect the wider electricity costs, but yes, ideally there would be an article by somebody with the background to take all those issues and look at the various shades of grey involved and not try to boil everything down to a single headline.
  12. The sad thing with that one is, as seems more usual nowadays, that the readers comments have more real content than the article
  13. You'll be well placed to appreciate the big picture then? If Tesco choose to sell fuel then the price and conditions they set will be something that their spreadsheets say makes them more money overall than if they stay as they are and don't sell fuel. That arrangement may or may not be something that represents better "value for money" for any particular customer, but they will do it to make money in the long term and that is all.
  14. Because in the ozone layer case commercial interests felt they could make more from the introduction of the changes needed, while in the GW case they feel that they can make more money if there are not any changes?
  15. Not sure if this is still the up to date one, but Appendix 1 has the cash flow stuff. Staffing in at about £1.2M per year. http://www.shetland.gov.uk/coins/viewDoc.asp?c=e%97%9Db%91k%7B%90
  16. "All power to the wind – it cuts your electricity bills" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727704.900-all-power-to-the-wind--it-cuts-your-electricity-bills.html?full=true
  17. The news story said wifi in public areas and a wired network socket in cabins, so I guess that is the plan.
  18. Had a look again, so OK, including small print it's free delivery (mainland only) and free disposal (excludes fridges)
  19. Back to "what you pay" against "what its worth to you" again.
  20. With free delivery and free disposal of your old thing I'd not be picking up anything heavy/bulky myself....
  21. I'd guess the boats radar and generators would be producing some resonably powerful EM fields?
  22. Because Tesco have well paid lawyers who do nothing but work on an endless stream of objections to planning conditions through the country, and it's an area that's complicated enough that the conditions can never be watertight?
  23. Ultimately it's a reflection of the wider issues in society - what point you pick along the state control to laissez-faire line. Are you happy that companies operating under their own commercial interests will give you what you want, or do you think you should have control over their direction to some extent. How much extra are you willing to pay for that control in terms of higher prices vs how much value do you place on things that have more subjective value and may be lost if they do not turn a proffit
  24. Essentially because they have pretty free reign over how they spend capital money, but have a lot more outside pressure to control revenue spending.
  25. Just saw this one - Road pricing 'inevitable', says RAChttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7871042/Road-pricing-inevitable-says-RAC.html
  • Create New...