Tell Me Something

[scottw]

it's only the beginning....

Staff in carbon footprint trial face £100 fines for high emissionsBen Webster, Environment Editor
Timesonline.UK Sept 14, 2009

People who emit more than their fair share of carbon emissions are having their pay docked in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace after an absence of half a century.

Britain’s first employee carbon rationing scheme is about to be extended, after the trial demonstrated the effectiveness of fining people for exceeding their personal emissions target. Unlike the energy-saving schemes adopted by thousands of companies, the rationing scheme monitors employees’ personal emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights.Workers who take a long-haul flight are likely to be fined for exceeding their annual ration unless they take drastic action in other areas, such as switching off the central heating or cutting out almost all car journeys. Employees are required to submit quarterly reports detailing their consumption. They are also set a target, which reduces each year, for the amount of carbon they can emit.

Those who exceed their ration pay a fine for every kilogram they emit over the limit. The money is deducted from their pay and the level of the fine is printed on payslips. Those who consume less than their ration are rewarded at the same rate per kilogram

[Fly Rod]

There goes my paycheck.

Does that include passing gas(farting) Take Beano and you may get a rebate on your fine. OOPS!! just released some carbon, "Where's the Beano?"

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

it's only the beginning....

Staff in carbon footprint trial face £100 fines for high emissionsBen Webster, Environment Editor
Timesonline.UK Sept 14, 2009

For all the copy/pasting you do, we still can't get you trained to actually post a link to the article.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

For all the copy/pasting you do, we still can't get you trained to actually post a link to the article.

not that hard to find

Staff in carbon footprint trial face £100 fines for high emissions - Times Online

Mr Symons stayed within his ration last year by giving up his Mazda RX8 sports car and buying a diesel Peugeot 207. He met this year’s target largely because his partner had a baby and he rarely left home except to go to work.

One employee, Dan Dowling, 29, switched the mode of transport for his honeymoon in Rome from plane to train. His colleague, Emma Bollan, stopped blow-drying her hair and cut down on roast dinners. She said: “The big incentive is not the prospect of earning £100 but in trying to ensure that you don’t have to pay out.”

Several WSP staff added that peer pressure played a part in persuading them to stay within their ration.

Mr McLachlan said: “There have been some interesting competitive dynamics in the company as a result of having this transparency.”

LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE STUPIDITY

hey, JD, now how about defining "healthy majority" for me...hmmmm???

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

hey, JD, now how about defining "healthy majority" for me...hmmmm???

hey, scott, how about selectively taking a phrase out of context and trying to apply it to a completely different topic.


Let's be clear for a moment:
First, this is a private company sponsored program.
Second, it is a voluntary, opt-in program for the employees.
Third, if they fall below their quota, they are rewarded up to 100 pounds.

If these people choose to voluntarily allow their company to dictate their carbon footprint, so be it. But don't copy/paste a story and try to represent it as a mandatory program that is taking place.

LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE STUPIDITY

How exactly is an opt-in program provided by a *private firm* that provides an incentive to decrease a person's carbon usage, and a penalty for not doing so "Liberal Progressive Stupidity".

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

hey, scott, how about selectively taking a phrase out of context and trying to apply it to a completely different topic. DID NOT, JUST LOOKING FOR YOUR WARPED DEFINITION


Let's be clear for a moment:
First, this is a private company sponsored program.
Second, it is a voluntary, opt-in program for the employees.
Third, if they fall below their quota, they are rewarded up to 100 pounds.

If these people choose to voluntarily allow their company to dictate their carbon footprint, so be it. But don't copy/paste a story and try to represent it as a mandatory program that is taking place.

I NEVER DID THIS, NEVER REPRESENTED IT AS A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, JUST REPRESENTED IT AS THE STUPIDITY THAT IT IS...


How exactly is an opt-in program provided by a *private firm* that provides an incentive to decrease a person's carbon usage, and a penalty for not doing so "Liberal Progressive Stupidity".

STUPID LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES WILL WANT TO SHOVE THIS UP YOUR BUTT AS WELL, THAT'S HOW.....
"in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace "
Britain’s first employee carbon rationing scheme is about to be extended AND EXTENDED...AND EXTENDED AND EXTENDED

NOW...DEFINE "HEALTHY MAJORITY"...SPECIFICALLY THE ONE THAT THE REPUBLICANS ENJOYED DURING THE BUSH YEARS WHEN THEY RAN ALL OF THAT LEGISLATION THROUGH AND THE DEMS COULD ONLY HELPLESSLY WATCH


APPROPRIATELY CALLED A "SCHEME" BY THE WAY, OR BETTER, A SCAM

[Jackbass]

How will we know Pelosi has promised to send it to vote before the American Public even has a chance to read it.

Welcome to the USSA

[Joe]

Originally Posted by scottw

NOW...DEFINE "HEALTHY MAJORITY"...SPECIFICALLY THE ONE THAT THE REPUBLICANS ENJOYED DURING THE BUSH YEARS WHEN THEY RAN ALL OF THAT LEGISLATION THROUGH AND THE DEMS COULD ONLY HELPLESSLY WATCH

Yes, Bush had a real opportunity there for a while - good thing for the dems he was idiot.

[scottw]

LIKE I SAID...

THE POLITICO

September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate

Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.