In the new proposed national budget, the gov't wants to introduce a value-added tax to biodiesel and LPG, i.e., gaseous fuel for motor vehicles. The reason is apparently that the majority of costs associated with personal motor vehicles are associated with accidents, heavy traffic/gridlocks and noise, none of which vary significantly with the fuel source. Thus there is no reason for tax rebates for certain types of fuel.
Brilliant, says I. There is only one singular explanation for this proposal that doesn't bring into play a linear combination of zero eco-cred among the government parties, epic broken promises during the election campaign and several people in key positions not taking their medication. Namely that the pesky problem with CO2 emissions and that whole man-made climate changes-dealie has been called off.
Otherwise, how in the blue hell do they plan to motivate people to purchase more eco-friendly cars when they refuse to lower the taxes for hybrid cars significantly and the fuel for the more expensive cars they're supposed to buy is at least as expensive?
So; now that the red-green coalition has eliminated climate changes, what's on the agenda for next week? End world hunger? Rename Mondays?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Guess we can say that the environment lost the election this year.
So; now that the red-green coalition has eliminated climate changes, what's on the agenda for next week? End world hunger? Rename Mondays?
Will be exiting to see. They got rid of poverty on their first day four years ago.
...but SV was all about the environment during the election.....oh :-/
Yes: they eliminated poverty like on their first day four years ago, but like sequels to a bad movie the poor keep coming back.
Chuck Norris ain't got nuthin' on the red-green coalition
I should watch more Chuck Norris movies, should I?
Oh yeah...starting with "A Force Of One", "The Octagon" and "Sidekicks"...
Totally
It's all about the money, broski. When push comes to show, the enviroment looses against money.
But my main concern with this budget, is the amount of money they spent. I thought that at least Ap was fiscal sound enough to not spend as much of the oil money as they did. This is pure FrP politics. Yeah, they have a plan to even this out by 2018, but I wouldn't hold my breath. For two reasons: It requires a steady economy where nobody yells out for more money (can you say healthcare and infrastructure?) and that the three stooges Ap, Sp and SV stays together and win two more elections. It ain't gonna happen.
..gotta level with you dude...I haven't looked at the budget as a whole, just skimmed the sections that most interest and concern me directly.
Higher education and research? Not so much.
Environment: Nope
..et cetera
Well, since you've come clean, it's OK. But I assume that you will refrain from any more comments about the budget until you've read all 250 pages like the rest of us.
:D
Can't say I've read it in detail, but it was so caught off guard and surprised about the extra spendings that it stuck with me. They are using about 148 bill. NOK from "oljefondet", which is 45 bill. NOK more then "handlingsregelen" allows. That's A LOT more. It was OK to spend a bit more this year, with the financial crisis and all, but after the 2010 budget, handlingsregelen is dead and buried. Way sooner then I thought, especially in a government with Ap.
..so I get off with a warning this time?
Post a Comment