> Told you so.

> On 29 May, 06:18, Doug riseup.net> wrote:
>

>> Told you so.

>
> Um, Doug, this is someone's opinion, not a factual statement. So it's
> not a case of "told you so", more a case of "here's someone who agrees
> with something I say".
>
> Still waiting for your follow-up to yesterday's "Petrol is not
> historically expensive, except, erm, it is when you use the correct
> data" debacle. Can't think why ...

> Told you so.
>
> "...First and foremost, Mr Brown should admit that he made a big
> mistake by abolishing the escalator and announce that under any future
> Labour government petrol taxes would rise steadily, by the rate of
> inflation plus at least 5 percentage points.

> Told you so.
>
> "...First and foremost, Mr Brown should admit that he made a big
> mistake by abolishing the escalator and announce that under any future
> Labour government petrol taxes would rise steadily, by the rate of
> inflation plus at least 5 percentage points. This would give drivers,
> road hauliers and business transport planners strong incentives to
> invest in efficient vehicles and gradually to change their lifestyles
> and business models so as to conserve fuel. And before rural readers
> barrage me with letters pointing out that driving is unavoidable in
> the country, let me explain that anyone who is serious about reducing
> energy consumption and carbon emissions has to create incentives for
> urban living. Living in the country is expensive from an economic...

> and business models so as to conserve fuel. And before rural readers
> barrage me with letters pointing out that driving is unavoidable in
> the country, let me explain that anyone who is serious about reducing
> energy consumption and carbon emissions has to create incentives for
> urban living. Living in the country is expensive from an economic and
> environmental standpoint - and it is a luxury for which rural
> populations should expect to bear a cost..."

> Told you so.
>
> "...First and foremost, Mr Brown should admit that he made a big
> mistake by abolishing the escalator and announce that under any future
> Labour government petrol taxes would rise steadily, by the rate of
> inflation plus at least 5 percentage points. This would give drivers,
> road hauliers and business transport planners strong incentives to
> invest in efficient vehicles

> In article > 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>

>> Told you so.

>

>> "...First and foremost, Mr Brown should admit that he made a big
>> mistake by abolishing the escalator and announce that under any future
>> Labour government petrol taxes would rise steadily, by the rate of
>> inflation plus at least 5 percentage points. This would give drivers,
>> road hauliers and business transport planners strong incentives to
>> invest in efficient vehicles

>
> Err, Doug, seeing as fuel is the biggest cost for a haulier, you can be
> damned sure they don't need an incentive.
>
> Just FYI, the lorries today are doing 10%%+ higher MPG than they were 10
> years ago despite running 6 tonnes / 15%% heavier.
>

> Doug wrote:

>> and business models so as to conserve fuel. And before rural readers
>> barrage me with letters pointing out that driving is unavoidable in
>> the country, let me explain that anyone who is serious about reducing
>> energy consumption and carbon emissions has to create incentives for
>> urban living. Living in the country is expensive from an economic and
>> environmental standpoint - and it is a luxury for which rural
>> populations should expect to bear a cost..."

>
> So they want to remove people from their homes and jam them into already
> overcrowded cities? That makes sense.
>

> On 29 May, 22:21, Abo wrote:

>> Doug wrote:

>>> and business models so as to conserve fuel. And before rural readers
>>> barrage me with letters pointing out that driving is unavoidable in
>>> the country, let me explain that anyone who is serious about
>>> reducing energy consumption and carbon emissions has to create
>>> incentives for urban living. Living in the country is expensive
>>> from an economic and environmental standpoint - and it is a luxury
>>> for which rural populations should expect to bear a cost..."

>>
>> So they want to remove people from their homes and jam them into
>> already overcrowded cities? That makes sense.
>>

> Hopefully, when they wake up to their pitiful car dependencies, they
> will remove themselves to a better location. Who...