France carbon tax pushes Gas over $7.00
- Thread starter Kjmack
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Zee09
My friends in Norway pay over $9 a gallon.
I understand it helps pay for health insurance.
I'd quit driving.
That's lunacy
Plenty of countries with socialized medicine don't pay anywhere near that.
You realize if you do the math, that's just $250 a month for health insurance assuming gas here is $3 a gallon and you drive 10k a year so 500 gallons times $6 is $3000 or $250. Slightly more of course if you're using a $2.5 figure.
It costs the government over 10k per person per year on Medicare.
Originally Posted by Zee09
My friends in Norway pay over $9 a gallon.
I understand it helps pay for health insurance.
I'd quit driving.
That's lunacy
You realize if you do the math, that's just $250 a month for health insurance assuming gas here is $3 a gallon and you drive 10k a year so 500 gallons times $6 is $3000 or $250. Slightly more of course if you're using a $2.5 figure.
It costs the government over 10k per person per year on Medicare.
Gas prices have to be figured in on the total cost of taxation & benefits. For example, here in the U.S., we have to buy in to expensive health care outside of socialism, and a huge military with heavy taxes. ... France has free health care, but doesn't support NATO or a decent military, kind of like the way it was on May 10, 1940.. hmmm... where they expected everybody else to give their military blood to save their country. Lessons learned? Looks like not.
I'd have to determine if income, sales, and corporate taxes are low in France, which would mean the high gas tax was actually being put to good use.
I'd have to determine if income, sales, and corporate taxes are low in France, which would mean the high gas tax was actually being put to good use.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Zee09
My friends in Norway pay over $9 a gallon.
I understand it helps pay for health insurance.
I'd quit driving.
That's lunacy
Plenty of countries with socialized medicine don't pay anywhere near that.
You realize if you do the math, that's just $250 a month for health insurance assuming gas here is $3 a gallon and you drive 10k a year so 500 gallons times $6 is $3000 or $250. Slightly more of course if you're using a $2.5 figure.
It costs the government over 10k per person per year on Medicare.
We have socialized medicine and gas here is presently $1.00/L; $3.79/US gallon. That's where my perspective is coming from.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Zee09
My friends in Norway pay over $9 a gallon.
I understand it helps pay for health insurance.
I'd quit driving.
That's lunacy
You realize if you do the math, that's just $250 a month for health insurance assuming gas here is $3 a gallon and you drive 10k a year so 500 gallons times $6 is $3000 or $250. Slightly more of course if you're using a $2.5 figure.
It costs the government over 10k per person per year on Medicare.
We have socialized medicine and gas here is presently $1.00/L; $3.79/US gallon. That's where my perspective is coming from.
Originally Posted by 69GTX
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by JOD
Serious question: there are plenty of places you can talk about politics, deny climate change, etc. Why do folks feel the need to do it here why it's clearly against the terms of service of the forum? serious question.
I think because posters are aware of these rules and try not to debate ideologies. I'm pretty sure we are allowed to discuss news of the day as long as people posting in the thread keep it clean. No one likes to pay taxes, everyone likes cheap fuel. This board seems to have a lot of older members who can discuss political topics while being civil.
Critiquing environmentalism is not a problem, it is politicized but it is not a fundamentally political issue.
Your safe space is one click away.
No one can DENY climate change. That's been happening for hundreds of millions of years. 6 ice ages and subsequent heating cycles so far on Earth....none of it attributable to man. I guess the cave man should have been carbon taxed on every camp fire back in the day....lol.
What can be argued...is the exact scientific causes for climate changes...and whether man plays any role whatsoever.
Exactly my feelings. I cant believe anyone wants dirty air, water or have the oceans polluted with garbage and plastics either. I am all for recycling, cat converters, stricter emission controls on factories, lower use of plastic, etc but when they throw man made global warming, carbon tax and all the other money making and industry destroying schemes on it the whole concept of responsible environmentalism is tainted IMO.
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by JOD
Serious question: there are plenty of places you can talk about politics, deny climate change, etc. Why do folks feel the need to do it here why it's clearly against the terms of service of the forum? serious question.
I think because posters are aware of these rules and try not to debate ideologies. I'm pretty sure we are allowed to discuss news of the day as long as people posting in the thread keep it clean. No one likes to pay taxes, everyone likes cheap fuel. This board seems to have a lot of older members who can discuss political topics while being civil.
Critiquing environmentalism is not a problem, it is politicized but it is not a fundamentally political issue.
Your safe space is one click away.
No one can DENY climate change. That's been happening for hundreds of millions of years. 6 ice ages and subsequent heating cycles so far on Earth....none of it attributable to man. I guess the cave man should have been carbon taxed on every camp fire back in the day....lol.
What can be argued...is the exact scientific causes for climate changes...and whether man plays any role whatsoever.
Exactly my feelings. I cant believe anyone wants dirty air, water or have the oceans polluted with garbage and plastics either. I am all for recycling, cat converters, stricter emission controls on factories, lower use of plastic, etc but when they throw man made global warming, carbon tax and all the other money making and industry destroying schemes on it the whole concept of responsible environmentalism is tainted IMO.
Originally Posted by 69GTX
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by JOD
Serious question: there are plenty of places you can talk about politics, deny climate change, etc. Why do folks feel the need to do it here why it's clearly against the terms of service of the forum? serious question.
I think because posters are aware of these rules and try not to debate ideologies. I'm pretty sure we are allowed to discuss news of the day as long as people posting in the thread keep it clean. No one likes to pay taxes, everyone likes cheap fuel. This board seems to have a lot of older members who can discuss political topics while being civil.
Critiquing environmentalism is not a problem, it is politicized but it is not a fundamentally political issue.
Your safe space is one click away.
No one can DENY climate change. That's been happening for hundreds of millions of years. 6 ice ages and subsequent heating cycles so far on Earth....none of it attributable to man. I guess the cave man should have been carbon taxed on every camp fire back in the day....lol.
What can be argued...is the exact scientific causes for climate changes...and whether man plays any role whatsoever.
An explanation of the jump from 300PPM to 410PPM of C02 in the atmosphere in the last 70 years would be appreciated; Science offers one, others have not; Lazy trees perhaps?
No one indicated there is only one cause; however evidence suggests there is a predominant one.
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by JOD
Serious question: there are plenty of places you can talk about politics, deny climate change, etc. Why do folks feel the need to do it here why it's clearly against the terms of service of the forum? serious question.
I think because posters are aware of these rules and try not to debate ideologies. I'm pretty sure we are allowed to discuss news of the day as long as people posting in the thread keep it clean. No one likes to pay taxes, everyone likes cheap fuel. This board seems to have a lot of older members who can discuss political topics while being civil.
Critiquing environmentalism is not a problem, it is politicized but it is not a fundamentally political issue.
Your safe space is one click away.
No one can DENY climate change. That's been happening for hundreds of millions of years. 6 ice ages and subsequent heating cycles so far on Earth....none of it attributable to man. I guess the cave man should have been carbon taxed on every camp fire back in the day....lol.
What can be argued...is the exact scientific causes for climate changes...and whether man plays any role whatsoever.
An explanation of the jump from 300PPM to 410PPM of C02 in the atmosphere in the last 70 years would be appreciated; Science offers one, others have not; Lazy trees perhaps?
No one indicated there is only one cause; however evidence suggests there is a predominant one.
Last edited:
I'd like to remind everyone that the world was frozen solid just 10,000 years ago in the last ice age. The mammoth died off.
10,000 years ago, frozen solid!!! And it's been warming up ever since!!
Climate is cyclical. It might get 5 or 10 degeees warmer without any human intervention at all.
10,000 years ago, frozen solid!!! And it's been warming up ever since!!
Climate is cyclical. It might get 5 or 10 degeees warmer without any human intervention at all.
I'd like to thank the French for helping America get away from the English however we are not coming back over to bail you guys out lol.
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
Originally Posted by BrianF
Good old carbon tax. Just look at the issues it is causing up here....ibtl
Ford killed Cap n Trade in Ontario. Turdeau forcing it back Jan 1, 2019. Enjoy your gas prices between now and the new year!
Last chance for this in Calgary yesterday. Wish it was gallons!
Originally Posted by BrianF
Good old carbon tax. Just look at the issues it is causing up here....ibtl
Ford killed Cap n Trade in Ontario. Turdeau forcing it back Jan 1, 2019. Enjoy your gas prices between now and the new year!
Last chance for this in Calgary yesterday. Wish it was gallons!
Originally Posted by simple_gifts
An explanation of the jump from 300PPM to 410PPM of C02 in the atmosphere in the last 70 years would be appreciated; Science offers one, others have not; Lazy trees perhaps?
No one indicated there is only one cause; however evidence suggests there is a predominant one.
How do we know those numbers are not just something someone with an agenda has ginned up? Its been done before by so called eminent scientist who were caught by an email hack, exposed and disgraced over it.
The other question being does a rise in C02 really effect the temperature.
An explanation of the jump from 300PPM to 410PPM of C02 in the atmosphere in the last 70 years would be appreciated; Science offers one, others have not; Lazy trees perhaps?
No one indicated there is only one cause; however evidence suggests there is a predominant one.
How do we know those numbers are not just something someone with an agenda has ginned up? Its been done before by so called eminent scientist who were caught by an email hack, exposed and disgraced over it.
The other question being does a rise in C02 really effect the temperature.
Originally Posted by Trav
Originally Posted by simple_gifts
An explanation of the jump from 300PPM to 410PPM of C02 in the atmosphere in the last 70 years would be appreciated; Science offers one, others have not; Lazy trees perhaps?
No one indicated there is only one cause; however evidence suggests there is a predominant one.
How do we know those numbers are not just something someone with an agenda has ginned up? Its been done before by so called eminent scientist who were caught by an email hack, exposed and disgraced over it.
The other question being does a rise in C02 really effect the temperature.
Are scientists out there with smoke machines creating smog?
http://time.com/4448813/worst-smog-in-years-southern-california/
![[Linked Image]](http://www.climateactionreserve.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/climatesummit.jpg "[Linked Image]")
Originally Posted by simple_gifts
An explanation of the jump from 300PPM to 410PPM of C02 in the atmosphere in the last 70 years would be appreciated; Science offers one, others have not; Lazy trees perhaps?
No one indicated there is only one cause; however evidence suggests there is a predominant one.
How do we know those numbers are not just something someone with an agenda has ginned up? Its been done before by so called eminent scientist who were caught by an email hack, exposed and disgraced over it.
The other question being does a rise in C02 really effect the temperature.
Are scientists out there with smoke machines creating smog?
http://time.com/4448813/worst-smog-in-years-southern-california/
Originally Posted by Trav
Originally Posted by simple_gifts
An explanation of the jump from 300PPM to 410PPM of C02 in the atmosphere in the last 70 years would be appreciated; Science offers one, others have not; Lazy trees perhaps?
No one indicated there is only one cause; however evidence suggests there is a predominant one.
How do we know those numbers are not just something someone with an agenda has ginned up? Its been done before by so called eminent scientist who were caught by an email hack, exposed and disgraced over it.
The other question being does a rise in C02 really effect the temperature.
We don't. But you have to look at the data. It's strange how one discredited study on how vaccines cause autism still carries a lot of weight. Yet many other studies showing that it's safe causes people to think that it's 50/50 when it's nowhere like that.
Same with studies that show climate change is real. You just have to look at the data. Standard rules of evidence apply. I'd go into it, but I hate it when threads just get deleted with no notice all the time.
Have you looked at LIGO? There were actually many that said it wouldn't work and a few that even said the first detection was just noise and the whole thing was a hoax. But the definitive proof was the detection of the neutron star collision, the gamma xrays that came from it plus the visual spectrum where they showed it getting brighter after the collision and the conclusion that heavier metals come from neutron star collisions as stars going supernova isn't enough to produce all the heavy metals out there. So there's always nuts out there.
That the flat earth society still exists boggles the mind.
Originally Posted by simple_gifts
An explanation of the jump from 300PPM to 410PPM of C02 in the atmosphere in the last 70 years would be appreciated; Science offers one, others have not; Lazy trees perhaps?
No one indicated there is only one cause; however evidence suggests there is a predominant one.
How do we know those numbers are not just something someone with an agenda has ginned up? Its been done before by so called eminent scientist who were caught by an email hack, exposed and disgraced over it.
The other question being does a rise in C02 really effect the temperature.
We don't. But you have to look at the data. It's strange how one discredited study on how vaccines cause autism still carries a lot of weight. Yet many other studies showing that it's safe causes people to think that it's 50/50 when it's nowhere like that.
Same with studies that show climate change is real. You just have to look at the data. Standard rules of evidence apply. I'd go into it, but I hate it when threads just get deleted with no notice all the time.
Have you looked at LIGO? There were actually many that said it wouldn't work and a few that even said the first detection was just noise and the whole thing was a hoax. But the definitive proof was the detection of the neutron star collision, the gamma xrays that came from it plus the visual spectrum where they showed it getting brighter after the collision and the conclusion that heavier metals come from neutron star collisions as stars going supernova isn't enough to produce all the heavy metals out there. So there's always nuts out there.
That the flat earth society still exists boggles the mind.
How many people know that 'climate' refers to several-thousand year cycles? What people are protesting is "weather change" not climate change. Weather change is very real.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
We don't. But you have to look at the data. It's strange how one discredited study on how vaccines cause autism still carries a lot of weight. Yet many other studies showing that it's safe causes people to think that it's 50/50 when it's nowhere like that.
Same with studies that show climate change is real. You just have to look at the data. Standard rules of evidence apply. I'd go into it, but I hate it when threads just get deleted with no notice all the time.
Have you looked at LIGO? There were actually many that said it wouldn't work and a few that even said the first detection was just noise and the whole thing was a hoax. But the definitive proof was the detection of the neutron star collision, the gamma xrays that came from it plus the visual spectrum where they showed it getting brighter after the collision and the conclusion that heavier metals come from neutron star collisions as stars going supernova isn't enough to produce all the heavy metals out there. So there's always nuts out there.
That the flat earth society still exists boggles the mind.
muh vaccines muh flat earth muh seatbelts
We don't. But you have to look at the data. It's strange how one discredited study on how vaccines cause autism still carries a lot of weight. Yet many other studies showing that it's safe causes people to think that it's 50/50 when it's nowhere like that.
Same with studies that show climate change is real. You just have to look at the data. Standard rules of evidence apply. I'd go into it, but I hate it when threads just get deleted with no notice all the time.
Have you looked at LIGO? There were actually many that said it wouldn't work and a few that even said the first detection was just noise and the whole thing was a hoax. But the definitive proof was the detection of the neutron star collision, the gamma xrays that came from it plus the visual spectrum where they showed it getting brighter after the collision and the conclusion that heavier metals come from neutron star collisions as stars going supernova isn't enough to produce all the heavy metals out there. So there's always nuts out there.
That the flat earth society still exists boggles the mind.
muh vaccines muh flat earth muh seatbelts
Originally Posted by PeterPolyol
How many people know that 'climate' refers to several-thousand year cycles? What people are protesting is "weather change" not climate change. Weather change is very real.
There's certainly a debate as to how much humans contribute to it. Some of it is probably due to the sun as it goes through various cycles. In the long term though, the sun will heat up and eventually vaporize the earth when it turns into a red giant when it runs out hydrogen to fuse. Way before then output will probably increase anyway as the sun continues to fuse hydrogen into heavier elements.
How many people know that 'climate' refers to several-thousand year cycles? What people are protesting is "weather change" not climate change. Weather change is very real.
There's certainly a debate as to how much humans contribute to it. Some of it is probably due to the sun as it goes through various cycles. In the long term though, the sun will heat up and eventually vaporize the earth when it turns into a red giant when it runs out hydrogen to fuse. Way before then output will probably increase anyway as the sun continues to fuse hydrogen into heavier elements.
We don't have emissions testing in my area. However, I do make sure the emissions equipment on my street driven vehicles are taken care of. The track car however... well, that has open longtube headers with just turndowns off the merge collectors.
Quote
No one can DENY climate change. That's been happening for hundreds of millions of years. 6 ice ages and subsequent heating cycles so far on Earth....none of it attributable to man. I guess the cave man should have been carbon taxed on every camp fire back in the day....lol.
What can be argued...is the exact scientific causes for climate changes...and whether man plays any role whatsoever.
atmospheric CO2 over the last 400k years. Credit: NASA
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/NASA_CO2_Chart.jpg "[Linked Image]")
No one can DENY climate change. That's been happening for hundreds of millions of years. 6 ice ages and subsequent heating cycles so far on Earth....none of it attributable to man. I guess the cave man should have been carbon taxed on every camp fire back in the day....lol.
What can be argued...is the exact scientific causes for climate changes...and whether man plays any role whatsoever.
atmospheric CO2 over the last 400k years. Credit: NASA
- Status
Similar threads
