Green Brown is no fake
Posted: December 8th, 2006 | Author: Aaron | Filed under: economics, politics, science, uk, world | 11 Comments »
Mr. Zhisou has started a debate by sticking the knife into ol’ Gordie over his pre-budget announcements.
There is some credibility in this statement, but it rather misreads the reason for the British measures:
Gordon Brown, future PM, has shown us his green credentials. The planet will be saved by the Iron Chancellor reluctantly and selflessly increasing the price of fuel by 1.25/litre and air duty by 5 to 10 pounds.
This may make a difference to his sums when it comes to his laudable plans to throw money at education, but it will make little difference to the environment.
Spyder makes a good point. He argues that taxation is not the answer, and that we need supranational accords and commitments. This is bang on the money. But if Britain is to make this case, it must first show that it is taking action at home now. No use to go to the international community and bark demands, if us Brits are not taking the medicine ourselves. Lead by example people.
The Green Lobby will not be happy until Britain is thrust back into the dark-ages, and we’re surviving by exchanging half a dozen chicken necks for a hessian sack of rotten carrots.
Sphere: Related Content
Rubbish tyger, it’s got nothing to do with the dark ages, but don’t dress a couple of cheeky stealth taxes up in green clothing.
You often make sense, but that last comment about the dark was just pointless.
And, else, the measures are not stopping contamination. On the contrary they will make it dearer.
that is a very good line aaron.
the heading for the post.
on the subject of greenery, i am reserving judgement. suffice to say that Gordon Brown will not I think do anything to jeopardise his political goals.
As you know, I would never write anything just to infuriate my readers. This would be cynical, as if I was deliberately fishing for angry comments…
…but now I have got your attention.
So Zeddie, you don’t think that, before we begin discussions on a workable successor to Kyoto, we shouldn’t make changes at home. As someone with a working knowledge of British manufacturing, I can assure you that targets and reductions are very real, hence why Britain is reducing carbon emissions while many developed countries are increasing theirs.
But from the report by the UN, it is now cows which should be taxed, and very heavily for that matter. Next it will be human births.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
Tyger, I agree the Green Lobby have a very poor understanding of what works and what won’t. Plus they don’t have much understanding of how bad it would be to apply shocks to the economy.
Raising swinging green taxes would be the equivalent of Mrs T did in the early 80’s when she raised VAT from 8% to 15% in one go. It killed the economy and put out of business most of our manufacturers.
Slow and steady is the best way to go with green taxes, coupled with International agreements.
No point crucifying ourselves for all the green effects to be cancelled out in six months by the USA and China.
i like all the points made by madam snowflake.
does the above (convincingly) answer the point made by some that we should lead by example?
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1969197,00.html
soem impressive words by David Miliband, in today’s Guardian.
“Slow and steady” Snowflake
How much time do you think we have? Perhaps you have little or no understanding of “how bad it would be” for our planet if you think we have the time to go “slow and steady”.
The Stern report emphatically stated that it would be more advantageous to the global economy if we acted NOW rather than waited.
I expect the rumours that Mr Stern will be leaving the treasury early next year will be revealed to be true – frozen out by the Chancellor’s team of cowards. His report is not what they wanted to hear.
“you don’t think that … we shouldn’t make changes at home.”
I don’t think I said that.
All I said was that you cannot dress a couple of meagre tax rises up as anything other than an attempt to raise revenue and call it environmental protection.
The acid test is: will it change behaviour? If so, then it won’t raise any money, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Green Brown’s Blue Book has these taxes adding to the exchequer. If this is so, then he is accepting that behaviour will not be changed with these tiny tinkering measures.
The worse thing about it is that it makes people think we are doing something. Carbon at 10p/tonne is just as harmful as carbon at 20p/tonne.