Porsche challenges C-charge rise
Comments
-
mailmannz wrote:Graham G wrote:Some of these can have monetary values ascribed to them:
Estimated annual cost of congestion to the economy - £20bn
Land value potential, ?? I know there are 100,000 car parking spaces within the outer ring road in Birmingham and that over 60% are publicly owned/controlled, think of the development potential there and in other cities!
Are you starting to see the true costs yet? Please don't be drawn in by ranting columnists who really ought to have the intelligence and journalistic intregrity to actually present the obove elements to contrast their own personal opinions.... but don't.
I dont think its that straight forward is it? How much money are those car parks generating for their owners (council/NCP et al) as opposed to how much revenue would those car parks make if they were added on to the front of your house and so on....
Mailman
Sorry, I forgot to clarify that the majority are not council owned Pay & Displays, but spaces provided free of charge as part of council offices, police stations, hospitals, schools etc. etc. and therefore produce no revenue whatsoever but have a considerable cost in maintenance and lost 'opportunity cost'. They certainly don't charge staff for the spaces so you could deem that an unecessary subsidy from the taxpayer if you were really going into detail.0 -
Bent Mikey said something like "If you don't believe what you are posting why do you"
If this was a climate change slagging match forum then no doubt someone would have brought up this calculation. As it isn't and it was relevant to the discussion It was worth while posting, and someone else has done a bit of research and produced a value on more realistic factors.
Is it any different from me putting in 2 or 3 solutions to a problem for conisderation at work when I only believe in one of them?CarlosFerreiro wrote:The real issue is where the CO2 came from.
What like Good Aids and Bad Aids (Was that Not the 9 O'Clock news?)CarlosFerreiro wrote:For the cyclists the CO2 comes out when they breathe, produced from the sugars they have eaten, created by plants which have taken in CO2 from the atmosphere - it is a balanced cycle
Is it balanced though? If the biggest Carbon sinks are the forests, and the forests are being cut back or in a condition where they have become carbon emitters, does the carbon output by the world population (all animals) balance with the capacity of the worlds source of carbon sinks?CarlosFerreiro wrote:(not assuming C)2 used in food production)
If the balance of Carbon output to Carbon Sink capacity was maintained then this wouldn't be a problem.
As you say that produced by the horse carting the gig up the high street, or the boy shoving a sit up and beg bakers bike up a hill doesn't matter because the food eaten by them has previously been sinking the carbon outputted. But what if the field they were taken from was acting as an emitter at the time?
Can't remember where it was I had a look at population growth statistics for the world.
Europe and the Americas grew quickly until around the 1960s and population has been relatively stable since then.
Africa has had no real boost to population and can't really support any more. (This being despite massive family's and dreadful famine)
Asia on the other hand has had a horrendous population boost (China and India basically) and Chinas 1 child per couple rule won't show its result for a good few years.
Something that really does scare me is where the out of control population growth of Asia will lead. Europe and the Americas can produce more food than they require foir their stable population.
In addition to this Farming for some stupid reason is effectively discouraged by European Governments resulting in more and more food being imported.
Is Climate Change really the biggest threat to this planet? Or is it out of control population combined with narrow minded policies resulting in global trade that is much more damaging than local trade, internal combustion engine or no internal combustion engine?
Perfect example of narrow minded global trade, How many trucks travelling from Wisemans Dairy in Aberdeen to Tescos shops al around Scotland = 1 jet freighter from Austrialia and then associated local distribution?Do Nellyphants count?
Commuter: FCN 9
Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
Off Road: FCN 11
+1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days0 -
0
-
nwallace wrote:
What like Good Aids and Bad Aids (Was that Not the 9 O'Clock news?)CarlosFerreiro wrote:The real issue is where the CO2 came from.
CO2 in the atmosphere / green house gases are needed, or we'd all freeze.
The ideal for us is that things stay the same, then we don;t have to deal with the costs of adapting. Climate change does not mean the world become uninhabitable, but it could easy throw our "efficient" world off, since efficient also means there is no slack left to take care of problems.
So yes.... basically bad CO2 is CO2 that is emitted and not absorbed. If we increased absorption of CO2 as much as emissions, there would be less direct) issuesCarlosFerreiro wrote:For the cyclists the CO2 comes out when they breathe, produced from the sugars they have eaten, created by plants which have taken in CO2 from the atmosphere - it is a balanced cycle
Is it balanced though? If the biggest Carbon sinks are the forests, and the forests are being cut back or in a condition where they have become carbon emitters, does the carbon output by the world population (all animals) balance with the capacity of the worlds source of carbon sinks?
It is close enough to balanced that I don't know a definite answer ;-)
Oceans are the biggest sinks though, forests not that big really.CarlosFerreiro wrote:(not assuming C)2 used in food production)
If the balance of Carbon output to Carbon Sink capacity was maintained then this wouldn't be a problem.
As you say that produced by the horse carting the gig up the high street, or the boy shoving a sit up and beg bakers bike up a hill doesn't matter because the food eaten by them has previously been sinking the carbon outputted. But what if the field they were taken from was acting as an emitter at the time?
Those CO2s yup, with some luck are balanced.
The ones I had in mind were to do with artificial fertilizers, food productions and distribution. All from oil too.0 -
Graham G wrote:mailmannz wrote:Graham G wrote:Sorry, I forgot to clarify that the majority are not council owned Pay & Displays, but spaces provided free of charge as part of council offices, police stations, hospitals, schools etc. etc. and therefore produce no revenue whatsoever but have a considerable cost in maintenance and lost 'opportunity cost'. They certainly don't charge staff for the spaces so you could deem that an unecessary subsidy from the taxpayer if you were really going into detail.
I see that some are arguing that revenue produced is the key to this debate wheras this question is about non motorists subsidising motorists. There's a Car Park in Chislehurst I use occasionally where it is about 40p an hour to park during peak time. This Car Park is on prime building land - where quite small houses easily fetch 1/2 a million. This Car Park is therefore worth millions of pounds and the revenue raised from it cannot be more than £100 a day - minus costs of maintenance. Since the Car Park is owned by the council - this represents a major subsidy paid by the council tax payers of Bromley Council towards the users of cars.
Imagine this multiplied across the country.
And don't forget free car parks at supermarkets - paid for by a few pence on each product you buy whether you drove there or not.0 -
Porgy wrote:This Car Park is on prime building land - where quite small houses easily fetch 1/2 a million. This Car Park is therefore worth millions of pounds and the revenue raised from it cannot be more than £100 a day - minus costs of maintenance.
Sell the land to developers for 5 million.
20 houses sell for 500k each, developer doubles their money because the houses are made of cardboard recovered from the tip.
Total revenue to council for infinity. 5 million.
Charge parking spaces at 40p per hour, assuming 10 cars = 1 house, then 200 cars.
If all cars are parked 9 -> 5 only, that's 8 hours, £3.20 per car per day, 640 quid a day income. 52 weeks in a year 5 days a week (so pretend shut Saturday and Sunday) 260 days, £166400 per Annum.
Assuming that is constant, over 30 years the council will get the same amount as for selling the land off now.
That is assuming 8 hours of constantly parked cars then none, hourly rates of 40p constant over the 30 years. If the hourly rate of 40p is constant over 30 years I would be surprised. and 40p is dirt cheap for an hour of parking.
The car park is therefore worth a Million pounds in income every 6 years.
Long term the land will generate more as a car park than sold off to the council.
The council could make the land return more as a car park by pushing their charges to the limit accepted by the users (40p an ohur is dirt cheap, your looking at over a quid an hour up here)Do Nellyphants count?
Commuter: FCN 9
Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
Off Road: FCN 11
+1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days0 -
CarlosFerreiro wrote:nwallace wrote:
What like Good Aids and Bad Aids (Was that Not the 9 O'Clock news?)CarlosFerreiro wrote:The real issue is where the CO2 came from.
CO2 in the atmosphere / green house gases are needed, or we'd all freeze.
The ideal for us is that things stay the same, then we don;t have to deal with the costs of adapting. Climate change does not mean the world become uninhabitable, but it could easy throw our "efficient" world off, since efficient also means there is no slack left to take care of problems.
So yes.... basically bad CO2 is CO2 that is emitted and not absorbed. If we increased absorption of CO2 as much as emissions, there would be less direct) issuesCarlosFerreiro wrote:For the cyclists the CO2 comes out when they breathe, produced from the sugars they have eaten, created by plants which have taken in CO2 from the atmosphere - it is a balanced cycle
Is it balanced though? If the biggest Carbon sinks are the forests, and the forests are being cut back or in a condition where they have become carbon emitters, does the carbon output by the world population (all animals) balance with the capacity of the worlds source of carbon sinks?
It is close enough to balanced that I don't know a definite answer ;-)
Oceans are the biggest sinks though, forests not that big really.CarlosFerreiro wrote:(not assuming C)2 used in food production)
If the balance of Carbon output to Carbon Sink capacity was maintained then this wouldn't be a problem.
As you say that produced by the horse carting the gig up the high street, or the boy shoving a sit up and beg bakers bike up a hill doesn't matter because the food eaten by them has previously been sinking the carbon outputted. But what if the field they were taken from was acting as an emitter at the time?
Those CO2s yup, with some luck are balanced.
The ones I had in mind were to do with artificial fertilizers, food productions and distribution. All from oil too.
This is a major problem with the climate change debate. You need a good basic understanding of all the factors that come into play before you can contribute to the debate. An Inconvenient Truth might have its faults, but it does do a good job of putting a lot of the data together.
The idea that the oceans are a global CO2 sink was great until ocean temperatures started to rise. Warmer seas can retain less CO2, furthermore the increased CO2 content means that the seas are becoming more acidic, which means organisms with carbonate skeletons, like corals, molluscs, coccoliths will begin to have problems maintaining their skeletons and thus one of the major carbon sinks will become less effective.
The difference between a car blatting about emitting CO2 and a cyclists breathing out CO2 is the source of the CO2. In the car's case it came from a fossil source and was locked away in an inert form not contributing to global atmospheric CO2 levels. In the cyclists case it came from breakfast and stored fat etc. This is a biogenic source, it'as part of the active carbon cycle. Some of the carbon contained in the food eaten will be breathed out, some of it will be stored as fats and sugars and later utilised, some will be excreted as faeces and finally, some will be stored as "cyclist" until death.
So the maths is actually very complicated. To do it as an experiment you have the place the cyclist in a wind-tunnel to model the effort correctly, but you'd have to collect all the respired CO2 and measure the cyclists heat output to calculate total energy expenditure compared to energy inputs.
The car is much easier, fuel in, fuel consumed, measure CO2 from the exhaust. Total lifecycle calculations on cars etc, contain so many estimates that I'd regard it as highly unreliable.
Biofuels would probably be even less green on a large scale than petroleum use, simply because the implication is that we'd take a growing foodstock and use energy to convert it into something we could burn (inefficiently) in a car. We don't currently produce enough biofuel to satisfy more than a tiny fraction of the global demand so we'd have to put large areas of pristine agricultural land into intensive agriculture, all to feed cars. A little unethical considering how many people are starving globally wouldn't you think?
Like them or not, electric cars would be the way forward since you can tightly regulate to emissions from the energy supply chain.
Back to Porsche, I think this is the first shot in the Mayors bid to link London's Low Emissions Zone to the congestion charge. I hope 2 stroke scooters will be next on the list.
Taxis are mid-way through a replacement cycle and should all have moved to a newer and more efficient engine in a few years time, with another cycle of engine replacements already on the cards if I remember correctly.0 -
Graham G wrote:Sorry, I forgot to clarify that the majority are not council owned Pay & Displays, but spaces provided free of charge as part of council offices, police stations, hospitals, schools etc. etc. and therefore produce no revenue whatsoever but have a considerable cost in maintenance and lost 'opportunity cost'. They certainly don't charge staff for the spaces so you could deem that an unecessary subsidy from the taxpayer if you were really going into detail.
Ok, so what would the "social" cost be by removing those car parks, which are by your own admission in front of pretty important buildings like police stations, hospitals and schools etc?
Now, if you are saying most of these carparks are in front of, or near, civic buildings then surely you will agree that the only way to "unlock" this potential is to close down places like hospitals and firestations and little old lady council homes and build massive multi-million pound designer buildings that only a very small section of society could afford?
Mailman0 -
Which the council can invest - or at least pay off part of their borrowings - so 5million won't be the end of the story. And twenty extra council tax payers - I don't know what top band is but even on my band that's about 30,000 a year.nwallace wrote:Sell the land to developers for 5 million.
20 houses sell for 500k each, developer doubles their money because the houses are made of cardboard recovered from the tip.
Total revenue to council for infinity. 5 million.
Actually its cheaper if you buy an all day ticket (not sure of exact cost) - and the car park is rarely full so you've estimated a bit high there - maybe 300 quid a day income - minus costs - parking attendents patrol there - occasional dumped cars have to be removed - repairs to the surface - ticket machine maintenance - cctv maintenance - and every two or three years they seem to upgarde the ticket machines - not sure that there will be much money left over from 300 quid a day.Charge parking spaces at 40p per hour, assuming 10 cars = 1 house, then 200 cars.
If all cars are parked 9 -> 5 only, that's 8 hours, £3.20 per car per day, 640 quid a day income. 52 weeks in a year 5 days a week (so pretend shut Saturday and Sunday) 260 days, £166400 per Annum.
Assuming that is constant, over 30 years the council will get the same amount as for selling the land off now.The council could make the land return more as a car park by pushing their charges to the limit accepted by the users (40p an ohur is dirt cheap, your looking at over a quid an hour up here)
i wish they would - it's ridiculously cheap.
But you accept my comments about free car parks associated with shops and shopping centres? We all pay for that in our goods.0 -
ruby644 wrote:With regards to pollution - we need to put that into perspective
"carbon dioxide in the atmosphere = 0.039% by volume
carbon cycle proportion of carbon dixoide contributed by mankind 3.4% (IPCC)
UK contribution to global emissions 2% (DEFRA)
Proportion of this due to cars = 16% (DEFRA again)
So cars in the UK are responsible for 16% of 2% of 3.4% of 0.039% which is precisely bugger all. Globally - just take out the 2% and it increases from bugger all to naff all.
If you go further, and consider the devil's chariot (the 4x4) then as these make up 8% of UK car sales (SMMT) then they are responsible for 8% of 16% of 2% of 3.4% of 0.039% which is the square root of bugger all !
That's the whole of the UK so London is an even smaller percentage.
Just started reading this thread again, haven't been on here in a while and thought that little piece was great! I know it's from a few pages back but still a good reference! At the end of the day Ken can try and make a dent in the CO2 emissions of a few London drivers but until we get some bigger polluting countries on board we're still pi55ing into a gale force wind by thinking that it will make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things! Last I heard the methane emitted from cows when they fart was a larger contributing factor then cars so does this mean we can slaughter all the cows and live off beef for the rest of our lives??0 -
Bassjunkieuk wrote:Ken can try and make a dent in the CO2 emissions of a few London drivers but until we get some bigger polluting countries on board we're still pi55ing into a gale force wind by thinking that it will make that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things! Last I heard the methane emitted from cows when they fart was a larger contributing factor then cars so does this mean we can slaughter all the cows and live off beef for the rest of our lives??
Thing, is, I'm far more interested in seeing local pollution reduced than I am in anthropogenic driven climate change on a global scale.
Single occupancy cars that whack out the result of burning a gallon's worth of fuel in a typical nine mile journey across town have no place in a very populated city like London IMO.
As for Porche's challenge?
0 -
