Going green
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the greenest of them all?
It's not every day that an opposition leader who's ahead in the polls announces "Look, I'm going to put taxes up and I want to make it more expensive to have holidays and fun at the weekends". That, though, is what David Cameron is doing with his announcement that he wants to make flying more expensive. The question then is why?
One part of the answer is that he is sincere in his concerns about climate change and knows that aviation, though by no means the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, is the fastest growing. (See my previous blog entry and listen to the Decision Time programme here for the arguments on taxing aviation.)
It's important to understand the other parts of the answer too. Having promised not to cut taxation overall the Tories need to raise some taxes to cut others. Green taxes go up so "family taxes" can come down or, as George Osborne likes to put it "pay as you burn not as you earn". They are determined too to start answering the "Where's the beef?" question by coming up with some croncrete(ish) policies.
Most critical of all though to the timing of this announcement is to convince the electorate that Brown is not, and never will be, green. His big speech on the environment is today. The Climate Change Bill is unveiled tomorrow. The Budget - which will be viewed in part through green spectacles - is next week.
So, the political gains of all of this are clear. The pain should be evident too. A growing rump of David Cameron's party - led by Margaret Thatcher's former chancellor Nigel Lawson - see climate change as the latest excuse to raise your taxes, burden business with regulation and increase the power of the government. They are fighting back.
Mr Cameron may shrug off the apparent scepticism of the likes of his shadow defence spokesman Liam Fox and the head of his economic competitiveness group John Redwood. He should feel less relaxed though about the fact he's being praised this morning in the editorials of the and the and criticised by the , , and .
Just as radical euro-scepticism is declining as a problem for the Tories could the green sceptics be on the rise?
I'm 
Comments
Perhaps a simple question you could ask the chancellor?
Modern diesel engines running on now standard low sulphur diesel emit about 30% less CO2 per KM and other pollutants than an equivalent powered petrol engine so why is it that alone in Europe the UK penalises diesels with higher fuel and duty rates than petrol vehicles? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
The green cloak of convenience rather than action seems to be Gordon Browns position on the environment
Some people never seem to learn. Walter Mondale made the fatal mistake of saying duuring his campaign for President of the United States that he would raise taxes. It was considered a fatal gaff. The first President Bush said he would not raise taxes but there were increases in entrance fees to national parks and the like which he called "user fees." This was considered a subterfuge by the voters who concluded he had broken his promise. Analysts concluded this to be a contributing factor in his failure to be re-elected for a second term of office. Telling people you are going to take money out of their pockets before an election is a dumb move even if you know that it will have to happen eventually anyway. I don't think the voters in Britain will take any more kindly to it than the voters in America do and if the opposition is smart, they will remind the voters of it again and again during the campaign. They will use that one phrase even if it is taken out of context to define Cameron.
Maybe I'm just over-cycnical, but I can't avoid an uneasy feeling that the party-political banter over "green" issues is the last thing that the green movement needs. Like it or not, and believe it or not, global warming is the greatest danger we all face, and the cheap, pathetic point-scoring of the bickering majority parties is definitely not needed in the equation. I'd love to see some genuine movement from the major parties on this subject, but I suspect, as with so many other things, it's just an exercise in headline, and column-inch grabbing. There is so little real substance behind the rhetoric, from all parties, that it risks turning off the population from what is a very serious issue. It's too serious a threat to be dealt with by the pantomime that is party politics.
Yes, Nick, the 'green sceptics' are on the rise - and I'm one of them. Interesting to note that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ has made no mention AT ALL of the Channel 4 dcumentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' - and I'm not saying I swallowed all the fancy graphics and scientific opinions expressed, but as I comment elsewhere the arguments are descending to the level of the interaction between the characters and the audience at a Christmas pantomime. What is worrying is that the environmental lobby has shouted so loudly that the politicians have all jumped on the bandwagon with their tax-raising instincts in overdrive. However - just like the little boy who cried 'wolf' and the 'millenium bug' (remember that..?) - not to mention Weapons of Mass Destruction - we do need a hefty dose of reality checking on the subject. Just don't ask me how.
Why do you say David Cameron is going to increase taxes, when he stated - and reiterated for clarity - that he will not increase taxes, but replace existing taxes ?
Are you trying to frighten voters into voting for your mates Grabber Gordon and Teflon Tone ?
Sound bite, headline grabbing politics, poorly thought out. Cameron has modelled himself on Blair and will soon be as disliked by many of those who want a Conservative alternative to New Labour. Cameron’s spokesmen today sound as though they have little real understanding of the issue of global warming or the details of what they are proposing.
The difference between Brown and Cameron wrt green credentials is that Brown has been in power for 10 years and has shown not one iota of green bias.
His recent feeble attempt at taxing flights was clearly another stealth tax to help him get out of the financial hole he has dug. If you want the proof has anybody in the government recently been commenting on its effectiveness as a green policy?
Obviously Cameron can say what he likes because he does not have to answer to the electorate at the moment but he appears more genuine than Brown. Can anybody picture Brown in wellies turning over a compost heap or riding on a bicycle or visiting the Arctic Circle? Having said that don't rule out any of these absurd pictures if green issues look like becoming important in the next election.
Here's a competition for you to run Nick. What is the most ridiculous thing a politician has done or said to attempt to win some green votes?
What I don't understand is why the current government or the likes of David Cameron are not doing something about the energy waste that is here and now. I can cite so many areas of energy waste where serious cut backs could be made that would probably save enough energy to shut down a few nuclear power stations in the UK and not even notice their loss. For example, how about banning the use of incandescent light bulbs and only selling energy saving bulbs to consumers and professional trade? How about installing properly shielded and directed street lighting which would illuminate the streets, as opposed to my bedroom and the sky at night? This would save energy because dimmer lights (drawling less power) could be installed yet still illuminate brightly enough the areas of street (not bedrooms and sky) which need the light (just like they have started to do in Italy). How about forcing building contractors to install tried and tested technology such as solar photovolaics on all new build houses? And how about, as standard, insulating all new build roofs with 95% closed cell foam insulation as opposed to the 60% + open cell rubbish that people install in their homes which is not very effective at insulation and is full of harmful carcinogenic formaldehydes? How about introducing more hybrid/hydrogen public transport? Take the example of New York where nearly the entire Manhatten bus fleet is hybrid? Forget the developed world, just go to India, a supposedly developing nation where the capital city, New Delhi, now only allows CNG (conpressed natural gas) taxi's and buses within the city limits (oh, and they have a fully air conditioned and modern underground transports system which actually runs on time and doesn't break down every day - as opposed to the London underground). Air pollution, light pollution, energy waste. This is a highly profligate society we live in and in my opinion our government and pliticians should put in FAR MORE energy in to changing current attitudes instead of just going for the vote bank and talking it up big about grand schemes in the far future.
We need a sea change in attitude from both industry as well as individuals who both need to play their part equally. Political apathy drives industrial and social apathy, and in my opinion and if the government can't be shown to take an activate lead in the environment then industry and the common man will take a very long time to change their ways. It's absurd that the very government department, DEFRA, that's promoting so called "green" credentials are one of the most wasteful departments in terms of energy use amongst the major government departments; and they expect us the follow that sterling example they've set for us? Lord save us all, then!
If governments were really interested in stopping climate change they'd stop trading with China. China's rate of emission growth is far greater than any other country.
In the meantime any steps the UK Government can take are like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Oh for an issue where we do not get posed photo opportunities in appropriate environments for the politicians concerned.
A political platform is not a sound bite and a photo - yet our leaders and prospective leaders in Westminster think that is all the voting public want judging by their behaviour.
A quiet working towards these goals in the background and then come forward and tell us what has actually been achieved please. Not an off the shelf policy just because "the others" have raised the issue.
The logic of taxation being the principal stick of Green policies seems flawed.
The richer people in society have (in the main) a greater disposable income. The can buy more products which have to be made by consuming energy. They can afford to travel further burning even more fuel. On average, their electricity consumption is higher.
Will a tax increase on travel actually become a deterrent for these people, and the many businessmen who travel?; or will it restrict just the mobility of the people with less income, the people who already create a less than average CO2 footprint in living their lives? I am somewhat concerned that this sudden evangelical conversion to Green issues by the main parties is just a smokescreen for stealth taxation.
If the government of the day believes so strongly in cutting CO2 emissions why does it not act directly? For example, consider the number of alcopops and other bottle sold drinks in pubs and bars in this country. Most of them I admit do recycle the bottles where they are melted down and reformed. Yet why can’t they take that one step further? Why don’t they follow the example of the doorstep milk, where the bottles are returned, thoroughly washed and reused? They already have the distribution network in place, on the lorry the place of the ones just delivered would be used by the old bottles for return to the depot. Imagine the energy consumption reduction if the government forced this on the industry. Now there surely is a genuine green policy? And in the long term washing a bottle must be cheaper than having to make from new?
A second reason could be the rise of the Green Party itself.
For many decades the two main parties have had a dual-monopoly in governing this country. The Lib-Dems were always around to sop up any dissenting votes and were reliable enough to put all of their resources into chasing the protest vote for meagre gains. This also had the effect of the Lib-Dems never significantly increasing their core vote. Now along comes the upstart Green Party, a party that focused on spreading its message to those people potentially amenable to their point of view instead of chasing the short term solution of protest votes. Slowly but steadily they have brought more and more people around to their way of thinking. Ten to fifteen years ago Green Party members were ridiculed as a bunch of muesli eating crackpots who lived in Hippy communes. Today they have a party with an increasing membership and are starting to become a potential threat to the balance of power. How better to disable that threat than to steal all its policies as your own with the aim of returning the Green Party back to a mere lobby group.
I certainly felt that this announcement was a major blunder; it had the prospect of cheesing everyone off: the airline employers, employees and travellers. What political good could come of it?
Then I had a flashback. When Gordon Brown and Ken Clarke were being grilled by an audience chaired by Sue Lawley in 1997, Ken couldn't say whether or not he would reduce MIRAS (mortgage interest tax relief). Gordon gave a broad smile and luxuriated in the pretty bad heckling Ken received for his honesty. Then Gordon, who trotted out the line that he couldn't write the Budget on the programme, becomes Chancellor and ends up cancelling MIRAS altogether!
The moral of the story? Well, to be frank, I'm not sure. Is honesty always the best policy?
I've been a long-standing supporter of Conservative policies and Conservative ideals, such as reducing taxation and the Government footprint as a whole. The success of British business is a key component of generating the wealth the nation needs to do what it needs to do.
David Cameron's green philosophy, on face value, is going in completely the opposite direction from what I've come to expect from the Conservatives, yet this approach is absolutely necessary for our nation's future. We simply must take steps to protect our world's environment and climate, because the threat is real and immediate. The cost to business and the economy is probably going to be hard to bear, but there is no longer any choice. Mr Cameron must stick to his guns. Britain must put her best foot forward and lead the world in the preservation and restoration of our planet.
'The Great Global Warming Swindle' is part of a wider inability of mankind to live comfortably idea that we may have no place in history, leave no mark on the planet.
Science is littered with discredited half truths with no basis in fact whatsoever. While it remains the case that they can often lead to the further advancement of thought it is dangerous to treat them as inalienable truh. This is what has happened to the green agenda, spurred on by a man who failed to secure the presidency and by an anti-establishment elite in Hollywood who believe it's their job to set an alternative agenda. All are seeking to secure their place in history with something that is totally outside their control and probably not of our making.
Saying that you had a negative impact while you were on this earth is merely acjknowledging that you failed to make any +ve impact. Be warned...these are the people who seek to lead us... people who don't believe they can achieve anything +ve only try to stop something they believe to be negative.
I sincerely hope that the wider population wakes up to this truth soon; that to be run by people with such a degree of negativism would be a total capitulation to the new, emergent economies who will laugh before they have us for breakfast.
Using taxes on the UK air traveling population to 'tackle global warming' is even more idiotic that King Canute attemting to turn back the tide. i do not care which party Leader wants to be the most green, The thouroughly disproven anthropogenic global warming myth has been utterly debunked. I shall not vote for anyone who still supports it.
I was grateful for the chance to compare the two potential future Prime Ministers on green issues. I think Cameron won hands down.
He took the argument to a new audience (the City) with new advocates (major buinessmen like the head of Tesco's and Rupert Murdoch's son) and highlighted a brave attempt to tackle the most difficult part of global warming policy - people's "right" to fly.
By contrast Brown spoke to an environmental group who were already converted (Green Alliance), told them things that everyone has agreed with for years (insulation), refused to make any brave new ventures and brought no new players into this most crucial of debates.
Ever since Cameron started highlighting climate change I've been veering between sceptical hopefulness and hopeful scepticism. Today I think i passed my personal tipping point to thinking he is our best hope on this problem (though I could still be wooed back...)
This government has been in power for 10 years and very little to limit carbon emmissions. Now David Cameron has made the green agenda central to conservative policy, Gordon is jumping on the bandwagon.
I am all for "pay as you burn" it is the right thing to do.
I find it absolutely amazing that labour think it is OK to tax every mile of our car journeys but not individual flights. They seem to be attacking the conservatives for proposing to introduce a stealth tax on flights but pushing forward some ridiculous scheme whereby our cars are now going to be chipped so they can check everysingle journey we make. Labour has no credibility on green issues
Sorry, Ken Hall but anthropogenic global warming has not been "thoroughly debunked".
While there are still lots of uncertainties about the science, and some commentators have overstated the case, almost all the scientists who have studied the evidence agree that it is happening, and fast. The implications, timescale and whether political action can reverse it are of course very much open issues, on which scientists are in considerable disagreement, but few dispute the basic mechanism.
Read George Monbiot's piece in the Guardian today.
Sarah comments (above) that she is grateful for the opportunity to compare the two leaders on green taxes. But why not compare the three? Ming Campbell's party was the first - and the most consistent - in advocating a switch from taxing income/wealth to taxing pollution.
But even they are not the first into the ring. Good liberal principles, of the type that Mr Cameron is now beginning to espouse, would lead you to believe that taxing any source of 'externality' or 'disamenity' is one means of ensuring that the full cost of economic decisions is reflected in information consumers have, and that they will act accordingly. These are good market liberal principles of the type that both traditional liberals and conservatives could agree on.
Where they depart is the next bit. What happens if the taxation distorts other things - like the level of post-tax disposable income, and hence the measure actually exacerbates inequality? What happens if their is no hypothecation and the tax receipts go to activities which actually contribute to the problem (taxing flights, then using the proceeds to build more coal-fired power stations, for example)?
As usual the real tests for Messrs Brown and Cameron are not in the broad brush largesse of policy statements (nor even, Mr Cameron, in symbolic installations of solar panels and wind turbines on your roof, nor, Mr Brown, in planning to change your car), but the detail of how the administration of the tax will be non-distorting elsewhere. Crack that, and show the full benefit of the measures on environmental degradation and you'll secure more credibility with voters and, who knows, more votes.
Putting a ''green'' tax on flights is a complete and utter waste of time.The only beneficiery is the treasury.I have a holiday home in the South of France and am a frequent low cost flyer.The avarage charge is £80.00 per person.Adding 17.5% is not going to stop me or anyone else for that matter.David Cameron should know better than to jump onto a ''populist''band wagon.
When will the politicians realise that a thorough review involving the Motor Manufacturers,the Motoring organisations and most importantly the Motorist is an absolute must if we are to get anywhere near a coherant policy that genuinely cuts emissions.It is a long term action plan that is required not a knee jirk
incoherant ploicy that David Cameron is suggesting.If he goes down this road it is a sure fire vote loser.
The field is wide and open and I heard people talking about the ice age we were going to have because in the 1970s temperatures were dropping and there was the all gloom and doom of those who were saying that we were going to freeze to death. Some time before everybody believed the world was coming to an end and everybody was talking about a comet that was going to hit planet Earth. Another traditional scaremongering exercise had to do with UFOs and extraterrestrials that were going to take over Earth and Orson Welles made himself famous. Others talk now about a supervolcano hidden in the Yosemite Park in the USA that would suddenly erupt, cover us with a dark cloud, and kill all living things on Earth. How much is too much?
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the greenest of them all?
The BNP. Clamping down on immigration, deporting and repatriating those who should not be here. The consequent reduction in population is greener than anything the 3 main parties offer.
Whether you believe that "anthropogenic global warming" is a "myth" or not, surely the health risks of polluting the atmosphere should encourage the public to support the reduction in fuel emissions into the atmosphere. After all, it is not just CO2 - benzene, particulates, unburned hydrocarbons are all emitted by the burning of fossil fuels. In which case, going "green" has important knock on effects to the funding of the NHS.
The only way Cameron's policy can work is if he can demonstrate that the tax burden imposed by a Conservative government will be redistributed, away from some of Mr Brown's more unpleasant stealth taxes, towards green levies. Otherwise, not only will the remaining Thatcherites once more aim to destroy his party on the low tax issue, but also he will cripple the economy by increasing the cost of transport.
I support Cameron's ideal, but the policy has to be carefully balanced and appraised. This is not just producing beef. it needs to be prime Aberdeen Angus fillet. Value mince will cause his party more health problems than fossil fuel emissions.
"Science should be on tap, never on top" these were the wise words of Winston Churchill. We ignore them at our peril and at the risk of subjecting ourselves to misguided and unproven policy.