Minister Dick Roche solves Global Warming
Dick Roche has seen the light.
Well, actually, he’s seen the lightbulb. And in one fell swoop he has solved our Global Warming problem.
Who would have thought it? Light bulbs are the cause, all along! All we have to do is switch to CFLs, and the world is safe.
This is great news, because it means Minister Roche can now carry on driving around in his Mercedes or whatever fuel-inefficient car he drives. He can carry on flying to his expensive junkets around the world at our expense.
The government is talking about forcing the switch by putting a levy on ordinary lightbulbs. The fact that they will make extra cash has nothing to do with it. It is strange though that he isn’t introducing a subsidy on CFLs to make them cheaper?
It doesn’t bother me anyway, because I have been using CFLs for years. It’s nothing to do with Global Warming. They don’t blow as often and my ESB bills are very slightly lower.
What does piss me off is that he is talking about higher taxation on bigger cars. Now, I have nothing against that in principle. In principle, that is a great idea. But in practice, it means he is going to put all car tax up. Now if he said he was going to reduce tax on smaller cars and raise it on bigger ones, that would be a different matter. But he won’t.
I have a small[ish] car, but doubtless I would come out worse off. I need that car for health reasons. I would say I do about 2000 miles a year, and most of that is holiday driving, so I’m not exactly killing the ozone layer. But a higher tax will mean I will pay anyway.
If he wanted to be fair and equitable, why not reduce taxation on cars and slam it on petrol instead?
Suppose for some reason of eccentricity, I wanted to buy myself an SUV and just stick it in the front garden as a status symbol? It wouldn’t damage the environment. But I would pay the same extra taxation as some bloke who drives his SUV all day and every day and does about 100,000 miles a year. Now, if the taxation were on petrol…….?
I have known for years about the energy efficiency of CFLs and so have you. We also have known for years that bigger cars are worse for the environment [and just about everything else]. So why is Roche coming up with these plans now? Why didn’t he do it 10 years ago?
Could it be something to do with an election?
Am I being a cynic again?
I made a smart(-ish) remark elsewhere today about the army being used to cull school children in order to reduce class sizes. But I’m beginning to think this government’s tactics are so flawed that they might actually take this on.
Oh. And by the way. Howya, Grandad.
Howya Sneeze. Or can I be informal and call you Primal?
For God’s sake don’t go around making suggestions like that. This lot are thick enough to take it as a serious suggestion, and to launch an all out attack on the playgrounds.
Well not to be pedantic but if you are just letting your car sit in your garden you would not need Road Tax at all.
The Tax on fuel is a good idea as the less fuel you use the better for everyone . But you can imagine the shouts about Business having additional costs etc. The problem is that even if it was better its less acceptable to the General public. And yes it is an Election year so big cars will be hit.
I am assuming I would take my SUV out to the village once a year, and it would then have to be taxed and insured. I’m honest at heart.
There could be some system like the “red diesel” for haulage firms and transport companies.
Sneezy will do. Normal protocol would be to begin with Mr. Sneeze – then Primal – then Sneezy. (The use of the initials, PS, is discouraged as it causes confusion). However, in your case I am herewith dispensing of the 7 year initiation period and you may use Sneezy immediately. Not that you could care less.
You are too kind Sneezy.
Dick was your only man