Still taxing diesel?

[Did67]

what I criticize is the principle of wanting to do more than restore the equality, but want to culpapilize the consumer with the health problem, and believe that with strong tax it will make inventing solution

I think this is a very sensitive point, which comes up in many sons:

a) do nothing = let things get worse (it seems to me that we converge to admit that)

b) but to act by "affirming" a reality (diesel pollutes a little more than gasoline and much more than LPG), is, in fact, to be accused of "making guilty" ...

It's like the smoker who is told that he significantly increases his risk of catching this or that cancer ...

Or the alcoholic ...

So saying nothing is not good. And to say it's guilt!

[Be careful: I am not saying that the government has no ulterior motives for taxation; I'm not saying you have to swallow everything you say / write - x thousand deaths ??? ; but on the other hand, neither can we always take refuge behind the “we must not feel guilty”! After all, if I say one element verified, supported, it is the other, because it bothers him, which makes him feel guilty; subject of philosophy for the baccalaureate: "should a truth be kept silent because it risks making some people feel guilty?"]

[highfly-addict]

Here, funny, a recurrent HS on this subject:

.... subject of philosophy for the baccalaureate: "should a truth be kept quiet because it risks making some people feel guilty?"]

...

Any truth is not good to say.

But if, but if!

It's rather that .... all truth is not good at read (or hear, that's according to)

As Molière said: "whoever feels snotty, let him blow his nose"

[Ahmed]

Guilt is not a neutral process: it is not irrelevant that this multifactorial public health problem is focused on the sole factor of micro-particles emitted by diesel engines.
To stay in the only field of fuels, gasoline for its part emits vapors of aromatic compounds (which replaced lead) classified as carcinogenic ...
Focusing on the details amounts to admitting all pollutions as constitutive of normality as long as certain levels are not reached, acrobatic compromises between health Vs economy.

[Did67]

Guilt is not a neutral process ...

Guilt is, in fact, a process, a "method" aimed at "cornering the other" with guilt!

But my idea was rather: by proposing to remove the tax advantage from diesel and by "arguing" about the harmfulness for public health, the government "made it feel guilty" ??? Or do some, discovering these elements today, "feel guilty" ???

[I had studied this from 2007 and following my accident of health, decided to act - exit the Diesels - not immediately, as and when their glitches; so much better, I was informed; I had read that in my research on pellet and particulate heaters, etc. So that was already known. I have a car that may have changed this summer, ditto]

In this forum, I found that the argument of the "guilt" returned ... Like the "conspiracies" ... It can be a facility "Hey, you must not make me feel guilty!" Implied, don't make me think. Even less act ... I said well: "can"

[Ahmed]

Guilt is a constant policy called (wrongly!) Environmental to truncate the debate and avoid structural changes (eg incite recycling without rethinking the concept of waste or question the shelf life of products) .

I do not find it abnormal for the public authorities to steer fiscally in one direction and then in the opposite direction when conditions have changed.
However, there is a strong concordance between the desire to raise taxes and the need to withdraw from the market (and thus to buy) vehicles that would naturally come out of it within a reasonable time, given the real but partial problem of these particles.

Among the things that favored diesel was the possibility for (many) professionals to deduct VAT on this fuel, which is not the case for gasoline.

[Did67]

Guilt is a constant policy called (wrongly!) Environmental to truncate the debate and avoid structural changes (eg incite recycling without rethinking the concept of waste or question the shelf life of products) .

OKAY. That's where our opinion diverges.

Me, I think we let too much !!!

Indeed, the "knowledge" of the fact that resources are limited, that of the mechanisms of global warming, of the latent risks (therefore difficult to perceive) of certain eating habits (tobacco, "bad fats", alcohol) or of particles (since that's the topic) took some time.

So yes, the "situation", or the "deal", has changed. And so I find, like you, "normal" that this changes the rules. I, 12 years ago, in good faith, bought my two Diesels. Before, then, to become aware of the new situation and to opt for gasoline and LPG.

But I think that afterwards, once the facts have been established, on the contrary, the public authorities do not "knock" enough, at the risk of generating guilt, and delay too much,

Faced with lobbies, but also out of fear of "opinions" (relayed by a slightly perverse "media coverage", it must be said).

Remember the tobacco debate when it came to banning smoking in public places! What a ramdam! And today ???

How pleasant it is for a non-smoker today to go to a meeting (who remembers information meetings in a small, poorly ventilated room, could hardly see who was speaking in front of them!), To go to restaurant...

I think we are much more civilized! (on this point).

Yes, smokers were "made to feel guilty" - it was a heated debate at work in my house. And then they got into the habit - normal, it seems to me; simple respect for non-smokers - go to the sidewalk!

Maybe sometimes you have to "feel guilty" (we mean, not in a perverse way; I mean "go beyond" the protests and the clamors of "guilt"?).

But, this "resistance" to admit new evidence, at first, it seems to me that those concerned too quickly call it "guilt".

That was my hangover (nice? No?).

[Ahmed]

I am not sure of a great divergence between our two points of view!
Tobacco smoke and vehicle smoke do not require the same measures the fact that tobacco consumption is almost instantaneous, whereas the car fleet is considered a piece of equipment.
Personally, I am hostile as well to the smoke of the cigarette than that of the muffler and if I abstain carefully from the first, I miss the irremediable character and nauseating of the second ...

I regret that it was necessary to pass by a law so that the smokers give up to inconvenience the non-practitioners, I would have preferred a spontaneous civism ... but it is unfortunately not the model of our company ...

[Did67]

Not only has there never been this civility (even if individually, many made a gesture - especially when they were invited! It had changed before law, let's be fair).

But I remember the heated debates on the non-respect of the freedom of smokers, the arguments of tobacconists who were "murdered", that of restaurateurs ("who were going to have to dismiss") and already, that's why I 'I was talking about "guilt" (and not "guilt"!).

At home, at work, it was cash. "We are the cash cows", "nobody loves us", "stop the guilt"!

I think that sounds very much like what is being said today for diesel.

[chatelot16]

Among the things that favored diesel was the possibility for (many) professionals to deduct VAT on this fuel, which is not the case for gasoline.

very good note!

this tax benefit means that all craftsmen will always favor diesel

it is necessary to have an equal taxation of gasoline gasoline complete

now I prefer that the possibility of putting the fuel in the accounting is extended to the gasoline too ... alas I am afraid that the state has an opposite view of the equality ... to put nothing any more in the accounting neither diesel nor gasoline

it would be necessary for the craftsman and the small business to defend their rights as the farmer with piles of manure in front of the prefectures

alas the craftsman never defend themselves ... they say rather if we are taxed we will apply the price that is necessary to the customers ... result the customers do not buy any more to the artisans whenever it is possible to replace the work local by purchase of foreign product

[chatelot16]

equalize the tax between diesel and gasoline

to blame diesel for being the only micro particle generator? mistrust

1er problem: we measure the particles at the outlet of the exhaust pipe ... a large number of particles are still steam at the temperature of the pot so not retained by the measuring filters, and condense further cooling. as the gasoline engine has an exhaust temperature higher than diesel there is less measurable micro particle at the outlet of the pot ... what is it further when cooled in the air?

2eme problem: the big black smoke of old diesel engines are not the worst: the big particles are messy but not too dangerous for health ... but as we measure the particles in total weight the old diesel seems the worst

So what exactly are the new diesel? I am afraid it will be worse: augentation of the fine particle not visible ... the pot with particle filter seem to me doubtful ... able to stop the big particles that make the visible black smoke and to release some finer not visible but more dangerous

the excuse would be that the danger of the new modern diesel drives the destruction of the old without seriously comparing old and new

for me the solution is the creation of new high-efficiency engine with cooling during a part of the compression and relaxation in several stages, to get out a cold exhaust gas, or all the cochonerie condense to the maximum ... an engine that will make a big smoke visible but ultimately less pungent

with this kind of thermodynamic cycle the efficiency of the engine can go from 25 to 50% ... so divide by 2 the consumption ... so divide by 2 the true pollution

this principle works already on the big engine: dubbed turbocompound ... we can do the same thing for small engine, not necessarily with turbo but can be by additional piston

so we have to build this kind of new solution! and when a car consuming less and polishing less will be for sale there will be no need for tax to sell it!

in principle I find that the gasoline engine is better in small size than diesel ... but the problem is that used cars available for those who do not have much money are either diesel a low power (acussé currently polution) ... either gasoline has too high power ... and it is all these gasoline has too strong power that maintain the idea that gasoline consume too much

in order to advance, it is necessary to authorize the assembly of economic engine in the existing vehicles ... why to put in scrap a pile of car in good state just because it have engines too big?

manufacturers are struggling to sell cars: why not sell engines?