Surely the time to object was when the tax was first introduced. What was
the justification for it and what was the level of objection, other than
from the party in opposition at the time?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But what I see is people with an agenda
pushing that it is. That makes me suspicious.

Same old technique. Insult those who question, label them right wingers,
claim they have ties to the oil industry. Yadda Yadda Yadda. Don't any of
you global warming believers on usenet have any capability in science
other than to yammer like this?

Same old correlation. Temp up, CO2 up, must be CO2.

It's anything but clear. There is data of cooling, data of warming, there
is nothing that is clear. Two people can do the analysis of the same data
and come to different conclusions.

At best one can say there is warming. At best. But it's still
corrolation. For all we know it could be the water vapor and not the CO2.
Or it could be methane from garbage dumps or it could be external to the
earth. The generally accepted assumption is that CO2 from combustion is
the cause. But a lot of wrong things have been generally accepted in history.

Here I go again. Have you heard of HUMIDITY? What is the global humidity
over time? Do you understand the role water plays in climate? How about
ocean level increases? The water has to go somewhere even after it
falls out as rain. And then there is evaporation again, sending it back
into the air. Hell, what about all the heat human activities add to the
planet's system. Just the heat from our homes, buildings, waste heat
from vehicles, etc etc. Just neglected because it's one individual tiny
source, but so is the CO2 from one tailpipe. What about the structures
humans have built? The removal of forests?

Global warming could also lead us into an -ICE AGE- because of the water
additions from the ice caps.

But what it comes down to is that there is a generally accepted belief
that CO2 increases lead to increased temperature based on correlation.

Why? China is a cess pool of polution. No controls at all. There's no
saving of the environment here. It's politics and social agenda. Nothing
more or less. The environment is the excuse being used, the ruse. Even if
it's real, such concepts don't actually help the environment one bit. The
CO2 is still released, more of it in fact. Plus the environmental damage
in the nations where the manufacturing was displaced to. If the
manufacturing remained in the first world, where environmental
protections are in place we'd all be better off. IF this was about the
environment, rather than the environment being an excuse, a method, to
achieve some other goals.

Mars cannot hold an atmosphere at present. It's lost to space.

More insults. PRESENT SOMETHING of value. This is the usual arguement
technique of the true believers, insult anyone who questions the belief,
the religon.

See my countless posts critical of GM and Ford. Where do you want to
start? The reason there are huge, crude overweight, fuel sucking vehicles
is because of CAFE. CAFE basically prevented the automakers from building
the large cars people wanted, but allowed the trucks.

If fleet fuel economy is the problem CAFE is not the answer. ( CAFE
seemed more designed to control the products people could choose ) To
encourage fuel economy CAFE should be dropped and the US should tax fuel
much more heavily and in return tax income to a lesser degree. Simple as
that. People will have a reason to buy vehicles with better fuel
economy. But so long as the major taxes people  pay are income and
property taxes, saving money on fuel is just nickels and dimes.

I'd love to have the turbo charged I6 from Ford of Austrailia. Ford won't
sell it here. US automakers think it's all marketing and flash. They
don't believe in making good product for the US market for the most part.
They would rather sell crap with marketing copy. Or limit the supply of
any good cars to drive up the price.  

And then there is the US buying public at large that doesn't have any
technical knowledge so even the european and japanese makes can get away
with cheapening the cars they sell here. (in addition to the manditory by
law downgrades in things like headlamps)

  The problem with ethanol is twofold:  ethanol is corrosive and requires
nickel plating of the fuel injection system to run high ethanol blends (as
well a computer and sensor to detect ethanol levels and adjust spark
timing).  And corn alcohol distillation is not a very efficient way to make
it.   Bio-engineered e-coli bacteria eating cellulose would be much more
efficient, but then you run into environmentalists oppossing
bio-engineering.

 I'm interested in biodiesel (and diesel in general), and it has similar
problems.   Currently, soy oil is the big psuh for biodiesel, but soy oil
was mostly a waste product- now the price has shot up because China started
demanding raw soybeans.  Jatropha, avocado, or palm have much, much higher
yields of oil per acre than soybeans.  And again, it's even possible to
bio-engineer algae that would grow in sewage waste and produce oil.
Currently the big problem for biodiesel is getting it up to standards-
engine manufacturers are not going to warranty some small time operation
that makes a fuel from waste grease, using poor methods, that results in
poorly reacted biodiesel that is contaminated with free fatty acids, water,
glycerin, or catalysts.  That stuff will kill diesel fuel injection systems.
So that's why you are seeing most diesel engine mfg's and auto companies
only warranting 5 percent biodiesel blends.  Now, a good continuous batch or
two-stage reaction process (or even one stage- as long as the oil is
reasonable) can produce good fuel ,but standards have to be met.

 Thermal depolymerization (which produces a fuel similar to petroleum
diesel) is another technology that could be exploited, but currently there's
only one plant in the US.  The owner wanted to get waste turkey/chicken guts
for free from poultry companies, but he was banking on the practice of
feeding poultry to other animals being outlawed due to BSE (thus making
poultry waste worthless).  That didn't happen, and he has to buy the poultry
guts, cutting into his profits.  Of course, you could also turn computers,
plastic trash bags, sewage, etc., into fuel, but you get into the NIMBY
stuff- basicly nobody wants it in their backyard.

If they aren't already torn down and replaced with larger homes.

A comparison might be the Honda Insight (available in US and EU).
In EU there are many different Insight-sized cars and some even smaller
(and with a top speed of about 80mph).

50ccm displacement with 45kph (28mph) is also enjoys a growing public,
because all these cars easily average >50mpg and need no tax etc.

Thomas

Yes. From that past at looking at the Ford USA website it seems that the
Focus is the smallest car they sell. And it's a 2.0Litre version too, pretty
much top of the range for here. However the price they charge is comparible
to what I paid for my 1.4L Fiesta!

  Alot of small cars would not be sold in the US because they would get
very poor scores in crash tests, based on the way our tests are performed.
Government crash test ratings can be a deal breaker for many people looking
at cars and trucks now days.  A few years ago, it wasn't such a big issue.
I think the dispelling the notion that SUV's weren't necessarily "safe" has
heightened awareness.

3/4 or UK's local roads are deteriorating year on year. We are £8.3 billon
behind in road maintenance. By last year the plan was to have halted the
deterioration but it hasn't happened and by 2010 we were to have caught up and
removed the backlog unfortunately the first part was no where near achieved as
about 50% of the money allocated for maintenance is being spent elsewhere on
things like speed cushions, bus lanes, and what's laughably called our education
system by local authorities. It's about time that money allocated by the
national government for road maintenance  is reserved only for use in actually
maintaining roads.