New car tax: is it an improvement?
@ 11:30 pm The car tax changes now at the beginning of 2008. Some cars will get cheaper, some will get more expensive, based on the emissions or simply put, the size of the engine. The size of the engine is often an indicator of a luxury car. On the other hand, a Lestadian family might want to get a minibus to be able to tranport the family around. While it may be cheaper for them to buy 5-6 Fiat Puntos with the new system, is that really smart? Last I looked, a VW minibus was about 73,000 EUR. Will that even go up now?
Some people also might want to collect cars, just to drive every once in a while. We call the tax a tax on emissions, but is a car emitting when it is sitting in the garage? People who have Ferraris, for example, don’t usually drive them a whole lot. They are expensive to drive. For some, purchasing cars could be an investment. But if a resident of Finland wanted to invest in cars and collect them, the cars would have to be owned, registered, and stored in another EU country in order for that to be feasible. You can’t collect a car that has a fake tax-induced value and expect to sell it and make money. Many people also have a more practical reason for wanting a large engined car, such as for tranporting horses, but the car won’t be used very often. So it will have a tax based on emissions, and it won’t be emitting.
Finland previously had a nasty car tax with all its protectionism beaurocracy surrounding it - that will stay the same or even become worse. Taxing a car based on its engine size is not new - that is the way Russia does it or has done it in the past. We are really lacking one of the great liberties that citizens of almost all the other EU countries enjoy - to be able to buy a car from anywhere in the EU without being slapped with thousands in taxes for importing it. Not any change here, really, in the freedom of movement of goods and people between countries, which is one of the basic tenets of the EU.
Soon something has to give in. This is like it was to live in one of the Soviet satellite countries. One Hungarian told me how he smuggled currency from East Germany into Germany by gluing stacks of bills to his back bone, exchanging it in Germany, and then putting his hard German currency into a bank account. That’s not liberty. And all kinds of border control and customs and taxes and temporary licenses and beaurocracy to get something from one EU country to another is not liberty either.
Ok yipii, I can buy a Fiat Punto now for about 1000 EUR cheaper. I should be ecstatic, but I am not really. It looks like a quickly thrown together scheme to alleviate all the EC complaints and infringement procedures and make it “look” like the taxation has some valid reasoning behind it. I suspect the new taxation scheme will be incessantly complained about to the EC just as much as the former one. But I am genuinely happy that diesels have gotten a lot cheaper. They don’t emit as much CO2 and are more efficient - basically none if burning biofuel, but the petrol based diesel fuel does emit some other noxious gases, as well as plenty of soot. And diesels can be more difficult in the cold winter.
I don’t know if anyone has tried this yet, but when the government heavily taxes cars coming into the country from other parts of the EU, they should also be obliged refund a similar amount if a Finnish resident were to sell his or her car to someone in another EU country, or otherwise permanently unregister it and take it out of the country. There should also be lookup charts of what will be refunded if a Finnish resident were indeed to sell a car to someone in another country, corresponding to the tax that would be required from the same car coming in. Otherwise, the whole scheme is nationally discriminatory against the people in Finland.
I totally agree with you Sirkuspelle.
IMO, the only way to fairly tax automobiles, is by road wear. The formula should consider weight of car multiplied by kilometers driven.
The new car tax scheme looks like a sham, that might even be worse than the old one. It’s nothing more than protectionism with a new name—at our expense.
Comment by Kristian — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 2:09 am
At age 16, a girl in the USA, expects her Dad to have a new car in the driveway. On her birthday, the 1st day she can legally drive by herself.
At least she does not get the Hummer. She usually gets a chic car.
No griping about taxes here.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 2:48 am
Gee Winter, I don’t know. I have yet to receive keys to a new car, other than a rental. Then again, I’m not a girl.
I just checked HS’ Oikotie to see what my used 2006 Volvo XC70 is selling for in Finland. Looks like it is about twice what I paid for mine. That’s crazy, especially considering that they are made in Sweden, just a short ferry-ride away.
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 6:01 am
I expect to get free ticket to public tansport
Comment by anon — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 8:52 am
It’s nice that Finland at last will start having the same kind of tax system the more environment friendly countries within the EU have had for years now. The only setback might be that new cars with big engines are going to be a bit too cheap this way, encouraging the rich to drive unnecessarily big cars. The number of those stupid SUVs is already appalling.
And what’s even more appalling is that the car I bought last summer will soon cost over €3 000 less. That’s like 20 000 markkas down the drain for heaven¨s sake!
And because getting the new car register to work, they tell us, is going to take till 2010 they can’t drop the appallingly high yearly tax on diesel cars yet. Give me a break, how difficult can it be to check who owns a diesel and who not? I promise to make such a register for you guys in the “Traffic Ministry” in two weeks, alone and my left hand tied behind my back!
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 10:53 am
A typical right-wing way to lower the taxes, giving the whole tax break to those who can afford a new car, often a second car, while poorer people have to keep on driving their old cars paying the same yearly taxes and taxes on gas. The only “benefit” the “tax break” offers for them is that now their cars are worth even less.
The only surprising thing is that they didn’t even try very hard to make it look like there would have been other considerations involved, like justice or environment.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 11:21 am
“That’s like 20 000 markkas down the drain for heaven¨s sake!”
Thats living in Finland: money down the drain. Protectionism diguised as being eco-friendly.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
I lost my money because there is going to be less protectionism for environmental reasons.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
ha ha, either way you lose!
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
#9, that was me,
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Oh boy, already the first paragraph is void of any factual knowledge. You could have at least checked the list of new vs old prices for VW: http://www.iltasanomat.fi/autot/autovero.asp?m=175
Get yourself a 96 kW TDI if you plan on becoming a Lestadian. Pity you can’t afford to become a Ferrari collector anymore. Maybe buy a couple of Phaetons, they sell so purely, they’ll become a collector’s item any time soon now.
Comment by fax — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Here are prices in Germany, in case anyone wonders.
http://www.auto24.de/
Comment by Kristian — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Im happy all these prices are going up, sucking the bank account of all you people. hahaha. Stupid people deserve a stupid government. I’ll be unemployed in 1 week and will be on KELA for a while. collecting all my tax money back. hahahaha. good going gov!
Yep until stupid people rise up and get into the face of the government they get taxed and taxed heavy. so yes, pay your damn taxes you stupid sheep ands when you get tired of all you pussy ass bitching one day youll have the back bone enough to change things. so pay up you jelly fish. haha, ill be on kela taking back all my taxes. life is great !
Comment by born there — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
13, you dipshit, this entry is about the car tax being lowered.
And congrats on the unemployment, you will really enjoy the big payments.
Comment by Dave the Extrapolator — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
I wish I could start collecting Ferraris, but now the government has quashed my dreams. Again.
Comment by Dave the Extrapolator — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
“At least she does not get the Hummer.” - winturd
But I bet your daughter gives a good hummer, what with no brains and teeth and all.
Comment by Dave the Extrapolator — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
“Yep until stupid people rise up”
Let’s hope they wise up before they rise up.
I can’t think of anything worse than stupid people running around, waving their arms and screaming bloody murder
The car tax is a scam.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Dave Dave Dave
Your glass is Half empty. Now you know with Southern Maryland inbreeding, its kissing cousins all around.
No insulting the teeth.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Bah, who needs a car, when you can drive this:
http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/artikkeli/J%C3%A4ttih%C3%A4py+on+vuoden+esteettinen+teko/1135232687687
Comment by Antti rn — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
Fred
“I have yet to receive keys to a new car, other than a rental. Then again, I’m not a girl.”
Yep, its pure discrimination.
Now if your are from the getto, your sugar daddy gives you a knock up. And then he leaves you. Thats what 80% of our welfare state raised kids get. Don’t you liberals love your results?
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
Germans pay 1.23 for a litre of diesel. For me that would mean something like 400 euros extra a year in gasoline. Then again my car would have cost 4 000 less there.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Forget emissions from cars in Finland. Look at industry. Take Outokumpu and the paper industry. There is where the real environmental damage is being done.
I wonder, what is more damaging; your average car or a wood sauna? Really, I don’t understand how those saunas can be relazing when every log thrown into the stove is slowly killing the planet. (And when your done, your still in the same place.) How about banning summer cottages. That will cut back on driving and damage to the environment. While Americans might be more power hungry at home, at least they only have one of them.
How about replacing the car tax with a sauna tax?
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
Personally, my heart goes out to the poor, beleaguered car collectors. All you Seat Ibiza drivers out there, try to put yourself in their shoes. There you are, struggling to make ends meet, with your only joy in life the half a dozen Maseratis in your garage; and the government does this to you. Is there no social justice in the world?
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
Fred, some elementary emission knowledge before posting, thank you. Now your message makes little sense.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
@22 A car is more damaging. Wood is from trees, which is synthesized by the living tree from the CO2, H2O and so on that is in the environment. The CO2 goes back into new wood when new trees grow. In the case of cars, CO2 that is buried in the ground is pulled up, burn in the car, and pumped into the atmosphere, adding to the overall CO2. A wood fire in a sauna might more or less be equivalent in kilowatts to what an average Finnish home uses in a day in electricity.
On the other hand, by pumping all the CO2 from the dinosaur era into the atmosphere, it may take us back to the climate that the Earth had then. If the greenhouse effect majorly takes off, we could return to a climate where Earth has a very thick atmosphere, constant cloud cover and pretty uniform temperature all over. In that kind of atmosphere Pterodactyls could fly, which couldn’t today. That would be interesting indeed.
Comment by Confus — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
14.. the olny dip shit here is the mother that didnt abort you
Comment by born there — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
I wonder how many months it has been since I saw an intelligent post here. Phil reclaim your blog!
Comment by m — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Yes, a Sauna tax, If Maryland can have a Poop you pay tax, then Finland can have a feel good Sauna Tax.
Like thats going to stop anyone from going to their sauna.
Geeeeeee
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
No, 26. You’re forgetting a monumental dipshit; yourself. Have yourself a dippy Xmas, dipshit.
Comment by Dave the Extrapolator — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
“I wonder how many months it has been since I saw an intelligent post here. Phil reclaim your blog!” - m
Great intelligent contribution, m.
Phil is busy not watching YLE.
Comment by Dave the Extrapolator — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Isn’t m rather with the British intelligence?
Comment by James — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
“I wonder how many months it has been since I saw an intelligent post here. Phil reclaim your blog!”
Indeed. There are more trolls and well just bashers with no knowledge of what they are speaking. This blog seems as good as spaniard F1 forum =D
Comment by TT — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Just because you don’t agree with the subject matter or opinion presented, doesn’t mean that the post isn’t intelligent.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
“@22 A car is more damaging. Wood is from trees, which is synthesized by the living tree from the CO2, H2O and so on that is in the environment.”
- You are killing something that captures carbon (over many years) and then go and release the carbon back into the atmosphere (over a couple of minutes). Not only that, you are using the wood to perform a function that it better done with electricity, which is greener than the wood-burning stove. What is the point of changing out all the bulbs in your house with CFLs and then turn around and light up all the candles and heat up the wood-burning stove and sauna?
“The CO2 goes back into new wood when new trees grow. In the case of cars, CO2 that is buried in the ground is pulled up, burn in the car, and pumped into the atmosphere, adding to the overall CO2.”
- At best, your explanation claims that wood buring stoves are carbon neutral. I’ll only buy that if you have the equivalent amount of trees growing in your backyard to make it so.
“A wood fire in a sauna might more or less be equivalent in kilowatts to what an average Finnish home uses in a day in electricity.”
- So in others words, a wood burning stove doubles a houshold’s output of greenhouse gases. That sounds bad.
Comment by Fred Fry — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
I’d like a ‘green policy’from this government that actually does something useful. For example where are all the pilot schemes for testing out alternative energy? Everyone has an electricity supply for warming their cars in the winter right? So would it be so difficult to convert these to provide electricity for battery recharging?
Anyway it seems that this government thinks that good environmental policy is linked to a good taxation policy. Practical measures are required and the government should be able to offer help to those companies or individuals that want to find a solution.
Comment by Andy Campbell — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Andy Campbell: “Practical measures are required and the government should be able to offer help to those companies or individuals that want to find a solution.”
If it involves capital flowing out of the country—something Finland’s high-tax/low-wealth economic system can’t withstand—then don’t count on anything truly eco-friendly happening anytime soon.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp
Comment by Kristian — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
“Indeed. There are more trolls and well just bashers with no knowledge of what they are speaking. This blog seems as good as spaniard F1 forum =D” - TT (naming himself after a luxury German car?)
Thank you for your stunning contribution. Why not say something relevant?
I have been coming to this blog for a long time now and have noticed that the same themes get churned over and over and over and over and over.
I mean how many times can one intelligently discuss “purchasing power” and “TV license is unfair” topics? It is just getting old, old, old. Make a contribution yourself to the topic if you feel so strongly that you go to the effort of posting. Make a new point, if it is humanly possible.
Or better yet, talk about questionable male-male activities with sailors, rum abuse and Hummers, like another regular here does. That always spices things up.
Comment by Dave the Extrapolator — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
29. like I said, the only dipshit here is the mother that gave birth to you and didnt abort you. Thats who the dip shit it. The one that birthed you. oh yeh, and have a great Putinmass commie.
Comment by born there — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Fred, Fred, don’t go embarrassing yourself more than what you already did.
Comment by James — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
@37
“I have been coming to this blog for a long time now and have noticed that the same themes get churned over and over and over and over and over”
Well do us all a favor and get lost… or better go back to Cuba or wherever else your commie friends live.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
ignorance rules … and boredom
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
38, with imbecilic sass like that I reckon your penis is as large as yours and GW’s vocabulary. Congrats, dipshit! You got a little bump for a weiner! At least that’s something. Enjoy extinction.
Comment by Dave the Extrapolator — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
“IMO, the only way to fairly tax automobiles, is by road wear. The formula should consider weight of car multiplied by kilometers driven.”
I think they call that a tax on fuel. There already IS one. You know, that 75% or whatever it is tax on it. In spite of that the enviro-luddites still acuse gas complanies as being “subsidized”.
Comment by Joe Noory — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
born there:
“29. like I said, the only dipshit here is the mother that gave birth to you and didnt abort you.”
My my, still drunk from that taxpayer-supplied booze? You’re welcome, but try to keep it a bit more civil. Glad to hear that you’re pro-choice.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, Dec 21st, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
“Fred, Fred, don’t go embarrassing yourself more than what you already did.”
- I haven’t even started. By the looks of your comments, you haven’t either. So, my comments suck. How about posting your two cents on the matter.
- Personally, I am surprised that nobody brought up the suggestion that Finland might actually profit from warmer temperatures.
All of these taxes are just BS, especially on cars. The tax to buy the car; fuel it, keep owning it; and to speed with it. Just what is the Government doing with all the money? And it has nothing to do with the environment.
How about taxing all the booze cruisers to Sweden and Estonia. You think cars burn lots of fuel. That’s nothing compared to all the ferries running just so that people can have access to cheaper alcohol. (Which the Government should lower the price on alcohol to stop the massive movements of tax-free alcohol across Europe.)
Comment by Fred Fry — Sat, Dec 22nd, 2007 @ 3:03 am
The car tax should address the externalities, i.e. costs that the driver does not pay: road wear, congestion, pollution, and safety risks to others than himself (and also to himself in a socialized healthcare).
Road wear is not covered well by fuel tax, because when cars are more fuel-efficient, they still wear the road as much per kilometer than before, but pay less fuel tax. The other reason fuel tax is not a good tax to cover road wear is that not all vehicles are equal in their ability to wear the road. The road wear is more proportional to axle weight, which would be a better taxation target for road wear.
For pollution, fuel tax is good for CO2, because there is always CO2 coming out of the tailpipe, however cleanly you burn the fuel. However, there are a lot of other pollutants that are related to the incomplete burning process. These pollutants cause local harm, not global, and should be ideally taxed space-specific (that is, driving a dirty car in a densely populated urban area causes more damage than driving a dirty car on a country road).
Congestion tax should be based on congestion, i.e. ideally it is both spatially and system-state determined tax. Taxes for safety are the trickiest taxation bases, because traffic safety is an outcome from a complex interaction of infrastructure, weather conditions and driver behavior.
The matter of optimal taxation gets even more complicated when one starts to consider the production costs of infrastructure services. One could argue that the infrastructure provider is correct to demand yearly registration fee from a vehicle owner based on the option to drive that the road infrastructure provides, even if the vehicle owner decides to not drive at all. This issue comes up with the small roads, where the traffic flows are so minuscule that regular marginal cost pricing would never cover the infra costs, i.e., most of the rural roads would not exist.
Which leads to the topic of how much to tax based on the different ideal tax targets? I haven’t had time to study the new Finnish car tax in detail, but since the political aim was to keep the total government take at the previous level, the ovarall road traffic tax level is most likely higher than optimal, even when one takes into account the external costs of road wear, pollution, congestion and safety.
Comment by Mara — Sat, Dec 22nd, 2007 @ 3:14 am
Fred,
Fred,
Yes, especially when one considers that we apparently pay very large subsidies to those ferries. I’ve never quite understood the argument that we have to pay subsidies because 80% of our trade is transported by sea. I can see some point in the national defence argument that in times of crisis we need to secure some supplies, but even that gets somewhat thin. At some point it should be cheaper to have the state own some ships than to pay really high subsidies to all, all of the time. Of course that would require that we had good institutions and ethical and competent people in the government to manage and superwise the ownership of those ships. Anyway, passenger ferries to Sweden would probably not be considered as strategically important for Finland.
Comment by Mara — Sat, Dec 22nd, 2007 @ 3:47 am
Standards sure are slipping here at FFT. No one blamed Bush for your high Taxes…..yet….
Oh, but I am betting you will, after all he did blow those dykes in New Orleans. Hint: he was the one who ordered up the storm as well.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sat, Dec 22nd, 2007 @ 4:49 am
By the way, i was in a discout store, and found?????
Paper made in Finland…Well it was sandpaper….
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sat, Dec 22nd, 2007 @ 4:50 am
Fred, a few elementary facts:
-bioenergy is neutral emission wise, fossil energy is not unless the CO2 is pumped back underground.
-Americans pollute much more per capita than anybody else, partly because of taxes or the lack of them.
-Finland is one of the leaders in renewable energy, mostly because the forest industry uses so much bioenergy.
-otherwise Finland’s environmental policies are nothing to brag about (although they are better than in the USA).
-fortunately the EU is forcing us to do all kinds of good things, like lower the emission of traffic ferries too.
I could go on but there are a lot of good sites where to learn about these things so that you don’t have to act like a typical ignorant American abroad. Here’s for example a mini Ecological Footprint Calculator to start with (see how the number of earths changes when you choose an answer to the first question).
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, Dec 22nd, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has opposed European Union (EU) plans to cut pollution from new cars, saying it was “not economically favourable”.
She said the move would burden Germany and its carmakers disproportionately. Under the EU proposals, carmakers that fail to meet carbon dioxide emission limits by 2012 will face fines. Penalties will start in 2012 at 20 euros (£14.35; $28.80) per gramme of CO2 over a target level, and will grow to 95 euros in 2015. Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the EU was “committed” to being a world leader in cutting CO2.
However, Germany’s BMW and France’s Peugeot criticised the move. BMW said the proposals were “naive” steps that would distort the market in favour of makers of smaller cars. Peugeot said: “These plans are anti-ecological, anti-social, anti-economical and anti-competitive in relation to non-European Union carmakers.” And Sigrid de Vries, of the European Automobile Manufacturers body, said fines would be “unprecedented” and that industry wanted a realistic system with objectives it could meet. “If there are penalties, they have to be reasonable with a clear link to the price of CO2 applied to other sectors,” she said.
The plan, which needs the backing of EU governments, would put the burden on producers of larger and heavier cars to meet new binding emission limits.
All carmakers that sell vehicles in the 27-nation bloc would face fines if they exceed targets. EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas said: “Passenger cars account for about 12% of overall EU carbon dioxide emissions and emissions from transport are continually increasing. “The aim of the legislation is to reduce CO2 emissions from cars in order to help fight climate change.” Carmakers would have to cut average emissions of CO2 from new passenger cars sold in the EU from about 160 grams per kilometre to an average 130 grams per kilometre in 2012. As part of the green drive parts and fuel-makers will be asked to make improvements to gearboxes and air-conditioning systems, tyre-pressure monitoring and encourage the use of more biofuels.
However, the BBC’s European Business Reporter, Dominic Laurie, said: “Not every firm will have the same target - instead there’s a sliding scale that depends on how heavy their cars are. “Makers of bigger vehicles will be allowed to pollute more - and lighter ones less.” Makers of bigger cars can pool their total automobiles sold with other car companies making lower-emitting cars to meet the average 130 gram target. Green lobbyists are less than happy with aspects of the EU proposal. Jos Dings, director of the pressure group Transport and Environment said: “If today’s proposal becomes law, it will boost the SUV arms race in Europe, rewarding carmakers for their climate-killing strategy of making ever heavier cars. “In the long term this strategy will backfire meaning heavier cars, more CO2 emissions and more accident deaths.”
Comment by Hank W. — Sun, Dec 23rd, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Gee Hank, lets all regulate, and why not sick big government on all who want a Hummer.
Why thats the answer. Big good government will tax and tax and all will be well, and Al Gore can jet around saying we saved you all.
Not.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Dec 23rd, 2007 @ 12:47 am
@50- “Fred, a few elementary facts:
-Finland is one of the leaders in renewable energy, mostly because the forest industry uses so much bioenergy.”
Really? Well may I suggest that you enquire as to the total use of such “green fuels” at the Finnish mills employing TMP for eg. These are the places the vast percentage of Finnish forest companies energy is used. If you think these places are running on biomass then it is you that needs to check your info.
BTW, Melbourne rocks
Comment by Punter — Sun, Dec 23rd, 2007 @ 10:31 am
lets start a real debate. Are those pesky Japs going to solve Al Gores Global warming with this:
“Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.
The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons.”
or is the evil USA going to with this:
“. Nanosolar claims to have shipped their first solar panels using a new process “which we believe will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt….” If so, they have crossed the line. Where I live, partly because hydropower makes electricity so cheap, solar panels have to cost $2/watt to be equal to what I can get from Idaho Power.
”
Nanosolar was selling one on ebay, but I just checked and ebay removed it.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Dec 23rd, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
By the way when Oil reaches $100, then all sorts of alternative energy appear. Why do you think the Saudi’s keep it below that price. They do want thieir new jumbo private jet from europe you know.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, Dec 23rd, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
“- Personally, I am surprised that nobody brought up the suggestion that Finland might actually profit from warmer temperatures.”
Yes, it’s possible Finland would benefit if it was a standalone entity. Since it’s pretty certain that GW will have a negative effect on the world economy on the whole, it is highly unlikely it will benefit Finland.
Comment by m — Wed, Dec 26th, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
If GW has a negative effect, what will global cooling have as its effect?
Gee, wish I had thought of that, what cooling would do?
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Wed, Dec 26th, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
At least the costs of warming the house will come down with warmer climate. On the other hand, the forestry has to start dealing with pests previously taken care by the cold winter. Also, if the warming crosses the threshold, where the gulf stream stops, we’ll have to learn few eskimo tricks or pack up.
Comment by Antti rn — Wed, Dec 26th, 2007 @ 6:05 pm