Electric motorhome

Private said:
Sorry, but I don't know what they got up to to!
Click to expand...

Whilst preaching “save the environment “ they were flown to Nice in Elton Johns private jet. But Elton stated he carried out whatever to offset the damage done to the environment.
 
Derekoak said:
Overpopulation makes it worse but the big problem is the rich polluting the world.
...
Rich people sending a jet to get a pizza or whatever need to pay all the costs of their pollution and yes they should have their flights rationed and if they need more they should pay increasing penalties! But first before that inflammatory position the very rich should be taxed to get the money to sort the problem.
Click to expand...
Complete and utter rubbish, I deal with a lot of rich people, yes each one might produce a bit more polution, but by far the worse thing is the average people are all producing large amounts of polution, take one of my rich customers, he has loads of cars, but he can't drive more than one at a time, and if that one is his Tesla by your standards he is producing less polution than your van.
Now lets go on to flights, that same customer owns a biz jet company, which operates out of our local airport along with quite a few other biz jet companies, from our farm I can see in the distance all the flights from the airport, by far the most flights, which produce by far the most polution are all the Easyjet etc flights they ain't filled by rich people, they are full of average people. Tomorrow evening will be peak time for biz jets landing, even then they will be outnumbered by Wizz air flights full of people coming back from eastern Europe.
If you where to totally ban all the rich from using biz jets there would be a infinitesimal drop in polution levels, if on the other hand you where to ban all the average people using cheap airlines there would be a much bigger drop in polution levels.
 
Private said:
I argue that money should not be able to buy you anything you want:
Private jet for pizza etc.; make it strictly illegal with punishment of prison.
Private jets in general; equally a luxury our planet cannot afford.

Start at the top for once (we never do) as that is where the obscenely excess polluters are.
Click to expand...
You at the top, guv?
 
Fisherman said:
Whilst preaching “save the environment “ they were flown to Nice in Elton Johns private jet. But Elton stated he carried out whatever to offset the damage done to the environment.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
I'm sure that works in the fantasy land they live their lives in.
 
yorkslass said:
An interesting read......however.....it would be like expecting turkeys to vote for christmas.
Click to expand...
That I do not understand. Why does the rule of the majority give such power to 1% of the population? Agreed after the very rich are restricted and taxed we will all need to enjoy having enough rather than as much as possible. But not doing so would be like Turkeys voting to have no future as a species!
 
Last edited:
Monbiot preaches to the converted, or in his case it's more telling people at best distorted truths, yes it is bad that biz jets produce polution out of proportion to the passengers carried, but they are but a tiny proportion of the polution produced from jets, by far the main polluters are the flights carrying ordinary people, next are the flights bringing in freight, coming a long way behind are biz jets. But of cause it's not going to make him popular telling it like it is, better to create a hate target, it reminds me of the lies he tells about our uplands.
 
colinmd said:
Monbiot preaches to the converted, or in his case it's more telling people at best distorted truths, yes it is bad that biz jets produce polution out of proportion to the passengers carried, but they are but a tiny proportion of the polution produced from jets, by far the main polluters are the flights carrying ordinary people, next are the flights bringing in freight, coming a long way behind are biz jets. But of cause it's not going to make him popular telling it like it is, better to create a hate target, it reminds me of the lies he tells about our uplands.
Click to expand...

Although he mainly talks about the obscenely rich,it really includes all of us,compared to the majority in the world everyone on this website would be viewed as obscenely rich.
 
Derekoak said:
That I do not understand. Why does the rule of the majority give such power to 1% of the population? Agreed after the very rich are restricted and taxed we will all need to enjoy having enough rather than as much as possible. But not doing so would be like Turkeys voting to have no future as a species!
Click to expand...

You may be surprised to find who the top 1% are.
 
When i typed my income in it said are you sure and would not let me go forward,i always knew i was a poor barstewart.
 
Asterix said:
Here's an interesting read that was in the paper a few days ago...
www.theguardian.com

For the sake of life on Earth, we must put a limit on wealth | George Monbiot

Increased spending power leads to environmental damage. It’s time for a radical plan, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Ah here we go, let's have a pop at those who have more than us.
Its all relative, I mean someone going to a food bank here is massively better off than someone living in a mud hut in Mozambique.
The person going to the food bank will have a much larger CO2 footprint, than the native African living in the mud hut.

So we limit wealth, a world with no incentive to create wealth will be a poorer world for us all.
The technologies that will save us from this global catastrophe will require vast sums of money from governments,
and the very people who's wealth that you wish to limit.
And by limiting their wealth you limit our ability to earn, thus less taxes are collected by the governments you wish to
prevent global warming.
In the past we have seen the results on limiting the wealth of individuals, we have seen the devastating effect it had on those living within
such a dystopian system. Poverty prevails, no freedom of speech, limits on child birth, mass murder, and fear, I could go on.

Our system is not perfect, not by any means.
But until I see a better system, one that will deal better with global warming, give us our freedom of speech, free from poverty, and from fear,
I will stick with this one, thank you.

Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Circa 1947, Winston Churchill.
 
Last edited:
Fisherman said:
Ah here we go, let's have a pop at those who have more than us.
Its all relative, I mean someone going to a food bank here is massively better off than someone living in a mud hut in Mozambique.
The person going to the food bank will have a much larger CO2 footprint, than the native African living in the mud hut.

So we limit wealth, a world with no incentive to create wealth will be a poorer world for us all.
The technologies that will save us from this global catastrophe will require vast sums of money from governments,
and the very people who's wealth that you wish to limit.
And by limiting their wealth you limit our ability to earn, thus less taxes are collected by the governments you wish to
prevent global warming.
In the past we have seen the results on limiting the wealth of individuals, we have seen the devastating effect it had on those living within
such a dystopian system. Poverty prevails, no freedom of speech, limits on child birth, mass murder, and fear, I could go on.

Our system is not perfect, not by any means.
But until I see a better system, one that will deal better with global warming, give us our freedom of speech, free from poverty, and from fear,
I will stick with this one, thank you.
Click to expand...

Wealth used to be limited and people were still free to create it,in the Victorian period the highest paid person in a company could only earn 10x as much as the lowest paid employee,during the Thatcher years this increased to around 100x...now it is in the thousands,and not limited in any way.
What I find odd is that people with billions in the bank,are usually only concerned with adding more billions to their pot and it is nearly always at the expense of the lowest earners. If we went back to the Victorian principle then there would be an incentive to increase the earnings of the lower earners and distribute wealth in a more equitable way.
It doesn't have to stifle creativity,in my view the Victorian era was the most innovative in history and gave rise to our modern society,yet they didn't need stupendously wealthy people to do it.
We all got sucked in by the trickle down theory espoused in the 80s,myself included but have since recognised the opposite is actually true,the 1 percenters use us to create their wealth,wealth equals power,power equals subjugation.
 
Asterix said:
Wealth used to be limited and people were still free to create it,in the Victorian period the highest paid person in a company could only earn 10x as much as the lowest paid employee,during the Thatcher years this increased to around 100x...now it is in the thousands,and not limited in any way.
What I find odd is that people with billions in the bank,are usually only concerned with adding more billions to their pot and it is nearly always at the expense of the lowest earners. If we went back to the Victorian principle then there would be an incentive to increase the earnings of the lower earners and distribute wealth in a more equitable way.
It doesn't have to stifle creativity,in my view the Victorian era was the most innovative in history and gave rise to our modern society,yet they didn't need stupendously wealthy people to do it.
We all got sucked in by the trickle down theory espoused in the 80s,myself included but have since recognised the opposite is actually true,the 1 percenters use us to create their wealth,wealth equals power,power equals subjugation.
Click to expand...

And what about those who are not employed within a company, who own the company.
You know the type of people who have gambled their homes to build up a business, with some losing everything.
I was referring to the entrepreneurial spirit, not those working for a salary within a company. They don’t create wealth.
Yes those with billions in the bank want more, and guess how they achieve that, but building bigger and better businesses.
Preventing the creation of wealth will do nothing for us or our economy, and nothing to prevent global warming.

Yes people with enormous wealth have higher CO2 footprints, but their overall contribution to global warming is tiny.
As I have stated previously all the cars, buses, vans, HGVs, motorhomes etc combined amount to only 14% of mans contribution
to global warming.
And battery operated vehicles will still contribute both directly and indirectly to global warming.
We have to look at deforestation, how we heat our homes, reduce the amount of meat we consume, and reducing the cost of and improving public transport.
These options alongside improvements in renewables and storage, will be much more effective than robbing the wealthy, simply because they have more than us.
And more importantly these improvements are possible.
 
Last edited:
Fisherman said:
And what about those who are not employed within a company, who own the company.
You know the type of people who have gambled their homes to build up a business, with some losing everything.
I was referring to the entrepreneurial spirit, not those working for a salary within a company. They don’t create wealth.
Yes those with billions in the bank want more, and guess how they achieve that, but building bigger and better businesses.
Preventing the creation of wealth will do nothing for us or our economy, and nothing to prevent global warming.

Yes people with enormous wealth have higher CO2 footprints, but their overall contribution to global warming is tiny.
As I have stated previously all the cars, buses, vans, HGVs, motorhomes etc combined amount to only 14% of mans contribution
to global warming.
And battery operated vehicles will still contribute both directly and indirectly to global warming.
We have to look at deforestation, how we heat our homes, reduce the amount of meat we consume, and reducing the cost of and improving public transport.
These options alongside improvements in renewables and storage, will be much more effective than robbing the wealthy, simply because they have more than us.
And more importantly these improvements are possible.
Click to expand...

The only wealth they are creating is for themselves,while their employees are having to get handouts from the government (taxpayers) or rely on food banks and schools (taxpayers again) to feed their children. A point I often like to make is the example of a worker whose only job is to join part A to part B,yet without him doing that Mr One Percenter wouldn't have a product to sell,who is the most important person in the chain? Neither one is more or less important,but that's not how our society sees it. Hourly wage earners do create wealth but it's within their own communities,if they are paid minimum wage then communities suffer,and the guy at the top is unlikely to be using local services,so once again the taxpayer has to subsidise local services. I certainly don't have an issue with someone making millions,but I do when it's at the expense of the very people that help them achieve that.
 
Fisherman said:
And what about those who are not employed within a company, who own the company.
You know the type of people who have gambled their homes to build up a business, with some losing everything.
I was referring to the entrepreneurial spirit, not those working for a salary within a company. They don’t create wealth.
Yes those with billions in the bank want more, and guess how they achieve that, but building bigger and better businesses.
Preventing the creation of wealth will do nothing for us or our economy, and nothing to prevent global warming.

Yes people with enormous wealth have higher CO2 footprints, but their overall contribution to global warming is tiny.
As I have stated previously all the cars, buses, vans, HGVs, motorhomes etc combined amount to only 14% of mans contribution
to global warming.
And battery operated vehicles will still contribute both directly and indirectly to global warming.
We have to look at deforestation, how we heat our homes, reduce the amount of meat we consume, and reducing the cost of and improving public transport.
These options alongside improvements in renewables and storage, will be much more effective than robbing the wealthy, simply because they have more than us.
And more importantly these improvements are possible.
Click to expand...

I understand your sentiment but the reality is far different.
We do not live in a capitalist society.
If we did, for one simple example, the majority of the banks would be bust.

We constantly democratise costs and privatise the profits in wealthy countries.
Socialism is considered great for bailing out banks but not for looking after the many.

Most people also risk everything by dedicating themselves as PAYE workers; it's not just the business owners who do that. I would guess there are way more house repossessions from PAYEarners than there are from business owners.
 
Well we have one person saying the wealthy are wasting money on frivolities then others saying they just accumulate money, seems damned if you do, damned if you don't. I'm primarily employed by wealthy people, IME they appreciate quality work made by people they can talk to.
 
People in the thread seem to think that the rich are not a significant part of the climate change emissions problem. As far a flying goes they are just wrong!
A quote
"Flying at present is “very skewed” towards a small number of people, said Stark. About half of people in the UK do not fly in any given year but a minority fly often. On current trends, the number of flights taken in the UK would rise by 50% by 2050, but the committee advised this must be halved to a 25% increase to stay within the zero-carbon target.
Many green campaigners want policies to focus on penalising frequent flyers and curtailing airport expansion, along with improvements in public transport to make rail a better option than flying on short journeys.
Leo Murray, director at 10:10 Climate Action, said: “Most of the environmental damage from air travel is caused not by annual family holidays but by very frequent leisure flights by those at the top end of the income spectrum. A frequent flyer levy is the fairest and most effective way to keep aviation within safe limits, while protecting access to some air travel for all.”"
This is a quote from the link below
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-face-extra-tax-under-plans-to-cut-emissions?
 
Derekoak said:
People in the thread seem to think that the rich are not a significant part of the climate change emissions problem. As far a flying goes they are just wrong!
A quote
"Flying at present is “very skewed” towards a small number of people, said Stark. About half of people in the UK do not fly in any given year but a minority fly often. On current trends, the number of flights taken in the UK would rise by 50% by 2050, but the committee advised this must be halved to a 25% increase to stay within the zero-carbon target.
Many green campaigners want policies to focus on penalising frequent flyers and curtailing airport expansion, along with improvements in public transport to make rail a better option than flying on short journeys.
Leo Murray, director at 10:10 Climate Action, said: “Most of the environmental damage from air travel is caused not by annual family holidays but by very frequent leisure flights by those at the top end of the income spectrum. A frequent flyer levy is the fairest and most effective way to keep aviation within safe limits, while protecting access to some air travel for all.”"
This is a quote from the link below
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-face-extra-tax-under-plans-to-cut-emissions?
Click to expand...

Once again you are totally misrepresenting the facts, even in that article it doesn't say rich people make most flights, it talks of frequent flyers, the biggest operators out of UK airports are budget airlines running 'cheap' flights. Thousands of people take short breaks in europe, many even take weekend breaks to the canaries! Many flights are to eastern europe where EU nationals 'pop' home for the weekend.
 
Derekoak said:
People in the thread seem to think that the rich are not a significant part of the climate change emissions problem. As far a flying goes they are just wrong!
A quote
"Flying at present is “very skewed” towards a small number of people, said Stark. About half of people in the UK do not fly in any given year but a minority fly often. On current trends, the number of flights taken in the UK would rise by 50% by 2050, but the committee advised this must be halved to a 25% increase to stay within the zero-carbon target.
Many green campaigners want policies to focus on penalising frequent flyers and curtailing airport expansion, along with improvements in public transport to make rail a better option than flying on short journeys.
Leo Murray, director at 10:10 Climate Action, said: “Most of the environmental damage from air travel is caused not by annual family holidays but by very frequent leisure flights by those at the top end of the income spectrum. A frequent flyer levy is the fairest and most effective way to keep aviation within safe limits, while protecting access to some air travel for all.”"
This is a quote from the link below
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-face-extra-tax-under-plans-to-cut-emissions?
Click to expand...

Global aviation amounts to 2% of contributions to our CO2 output, and the stinking rich that you so obviously hate a tiny proportion of that roughly 2% of 2%, I will leave you to work that one out.

I don’t know what I hate more people like Prince Harry telling us we need to take care of the environment better whilst flying all over the place in private jets, or people who detest anyone with a few bob more than them.

If I was a African tribesman living in the jungle, I may despise you for your wealth, with your fancy house, your car, your Motorhome, and your whole way of life. If I was struggling in Syria right now, fighting for my life with everything I had destroyed, I might despise you also for your wealth and the lifestyle that you have. If I could get online I might even come on here and tell you all what I think of you.
If I lived in a small Pacific island just above sea level worried about hurricanes and rising sea levels created by your car your Motorhome and your way of life I may also come on here and tell you what I think of you.

The pot and the kettle and all that, people in glass houses and all that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top