Some bad news...

[Stratos Ferric]

...

I personally tend to think that, although economy is important, there is too much emphasis on it at the moment, at the expense of environmental and social factors, and that in order to help protect the environment and improve social well-being, it would require more focus on those and less on the economy (which could potentially reduce economic growth, as we see in countries like Sweden, Germany and France).

However, it wouldn't necessarily require a complete economic recession, and there are areas where we can improve environmental protection without offsetting the economy. If clean technology is devised, and businesses convert to using it, in that case we benefit environmentally and don't lose out economically, for example.

The measured history of environmentalism tends to show that in times of prosperity people can afford to worry about green issues (this recognising that environmentally considerate policies tend to come at a price about the economic minimum), whereas when recession arrives it's every man for himself. The fall off in support for environmental issues in the ealry 70s following Yom Kippur and the oil price spike was one example.

I suspect that we are now, for the first time, in a different place. For all the rantings of Darkman and one or two others, I for one would take some convincing that the massed minds of global Governments have somehow missed something that Darkman, Mondy and co. have seen, even if I weren't able to make my own mind up based on the evidence available.

The view is that our use of locked carbon is now harming the climate, and the increasing tendency is towards management of that use. If nothing else it makes sense from the perspective of long term husbandry of scarce resources, until alternatives are found (some already exist, others will come along).

The reality is, therefore, that economy and environment will increasingly overlap. There is NOTHING new in this. The disappearance of the Aral Sea in the USSR due to damming and diversion of the inflowing rivers, overfishing of the North Sea, the salination of large parts of Pakistan due to poor irrigation processes, the risk to global food production by increasing reliance on a few genetic strains of grain...what's different now is the global scale of the problem.

If CO2 IS driving the problem there is no choice but to try to manage use (or clean, as with SO2, at the point of production, but either way, it represents cost).

What I fond disappointing in many of the responses from those denying AGW is that these do not seek to disprove the theory (which might gain more traction in Stratosshire, at least), raher they moan about the cost. There's no such thing as a free lunch, or a free tank of petrol, or a free warm house. We're just starting to realise that the costs associated are not just the costs of production and supply; rather, there's some rather more insidious long term costs to be accounted for.

[Stratos Ferric]

The link with Cargo costs is obvious. Do you think Ryanair is immune from large increases in fares brought on by environmental taxes? They will have to make that money up somewhere else and the only other option is Cargo like the majority of other Airlines in the World. There is no other method possible for the Airline industry if passenger numbers go into decline. The upshot being that Cargo shifted through Aviation is not going to make up the difference so the price goes up. Standard stuff but im not getting into that as its going OT. As regard its effect on the UK economy - I dont live in the UK.....If the UK goes belly up tomorrow thats your problem, no-one elses. If that happens due to environmentalism then some are going to learn a harsh lesson - no? Im happy for my own country and all the others around the world who are benefiting from the free market to keep doing so. If you guys want to be the first in the world to start introducing tax regimes and all the rest to suit the environment - fair enough - Im happy for anyone else but us to be the test subjects and we will watch what happens. If it works out - then great. If it does not then dont start moaning about the economy when it goes sour.

My own view again is to wait for the technologies that enable a cleaner environment for a realistic price. I, like you, want a clean environment. The problem is there is difference of opinion regarding a possible reduction in Living standards and to what extent that may occur if changes are brought too quickly and silly punitive taxes are levied.

Darkman, if nothing else you show limited knowledge of the airline industry, as well as the global economy and its machinations.

Ryanair will NEVER be a cargo shipper. It flies from and to airports many of which cannot handle bulk cargo: I give you Blackpool, Malmo (well, it's in the same country as Malmo even if it isn't actualy Malmo airport per se) and Copenhagen (ditto); in fact pretty much any airport Ryanair services. If I wanted to freight with RyanAir I'd have long and onconvenient road haulage at either end. In addition, I'd have no confidence in their reliability. Ryanair are cheap because, at the end of the day, they offer a pretty poor service.

In addition, there is only so much cargo to go around. IF Ryanair went into that market the industry as a whole would not benefit. In any case, integrated operators such as UPS would still have al the advantages.

Quite why shipping more cargo sends prices for passengers up I don't know since, by and large, commercial cargo planes do not carry passengers. The argument is spurious and you might as well suggest that if Birds Eye put up the price of Fish Fingers then they will also have to put up the price of Walls' Ice Cream. Total nonsense. Yes, if kerosene prices rise then so do your tickets, but so be it. That is the free market that you seem to love so much, even if you don't seem to understand all its dynamics.

Environmental taxes are no more going to send the global economy into a tailspin than are smoking bans. If anyone is over-reacting its you and your ilk. Perhaps if you took one or two of the voluntary changes then more overt legislative measures might not be necessary.

[HighPressure]

If opinions are divided over the extent of AGW they are in disarray about what to do about it. I do think that it is pretty obvious that man is either unwilling or unable maybe both to make substantial cuts to emissions. I have no problem with those individuals seeking to do their bit whether its cycling or changing to energy efficient light bulbs but this is never going to be anything other that a token gesture in the scheme of things.

China's emissions are only there because they are manufacturing goods that the rest of the world are buying, we are as guilty for their pollution as they are. Nations which use others to produce their goods cannot then see themselves as islands, neither can they seek to restrict the growth of others in a bid to safe guard their own emissions.

For me it is clear that a meaningful global CO2 reduction is not possible given the social and economical climate we live in. Therefore the only way forward must be the development of technology which is superior both in efficiency terms and cost and as a result leads to a global move to reduction all green house gas emissions.

I honestly believe the only way you replace something is with something better, you cannot put the world into reverse.

Edited April 30, 2007 by HighPressure

[parmenides3]

Though it is not specifically about China, this is what I have to say about the subject on my blog: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/44/

Feedback welcome.

:)P

[jethro]

To a large extent, I agree HP.

The must have, throw away culture we live in today has to be held responsible en masse. By and large, whatever the problem, be it personal, local or global the first reaction seems to be one of “it’s not my fault” or “look at them, they’re much worse than me” or “what difference can I possibly make”. The whole idea of personal responsibility for the choices we make seems to have died a death, in every area of our culture.

Yesterday I spent a very tedious afternoon looking at fridge freezers, my twenty odd year old one has finally bitten the dust; trawling through a well known electrical chain store I was agog at folk buying 55inch flat screen TV’s, no doubt made in China. Why on earth does anyone need such a vast TV? I couldn’t help but smile at the irony of many, many people sat at home watching one of the many programs about GW and the destruction of our world, in huge, glorious, super screen detail; nodding their heads in agreement but in total ignorance of their personal contribution hanging on the wall, right in front of them.

I don’t wholeheartedly believe in AGW but I do however believe the world’s resources are finite and should be used wisely. I’m an old farming gal, brought up to believe the land is not ours to do with as we please but that we are custodians for the next generation and it should be left in finer fettle than we inherited.

Singling out areas of culture for taxation I believe will always be fraught with problems, it will always be divisive and ultimately counter productive. However, if everything from the food we eat to the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the TV’s we watch all had a carbon index calculated and taxed, then the choices we make would be brought back to a personal level. There could be multi levels of taxes, some more punitive than others, luxury goods attracting the highest levels. Sure it would take some time to implement but if every manufacturer had to provide a carbon cost for their product to be imported to this country, including the carbon cost of transporting it here; it could be included as part of their import license, then the majority of the setting up costs would not be borne by this country, it is after all in their interest to export worldwide.

We have content labels on food, pressure from consumers has brought the fat, salt, and additives content down on many foodstuffs, and a large carbon tariff label attached to everything would at the very least increase awareness of how manufacture and shipping contributes to AGW. Peer pressure to have the latest gizmo might not seem so attractive when our neighbours know how much damage we are prepared to do to the environment in order to watch the same programs they do, only bigger.

The taxes raised could be used to fund research into better, cleaner technology. They could be used to set up a grant scheme similar to the old ones which used to be in place to subsidise houses with no sanitation; only the grants would be for improving the insulation/lowering the energy losses on houses, installing alternative energy sources such as solar panels; repayable on a sliding scale if you sell within a given time period. I also see no reason why all new property developments, cannot be made to incorporate these measures on new builds, it could be a condition of planning consent.

With the best will in the world, no one individual can change the world but everyone can change their own world and the part they play in the bigger picture, all those little bits add up. Sadly more often than not, those changes have to be enforced for the greater good; I believe this is one of those occasions. No one needs a vast TV or a new car every two years or strawberries in December or apples from New Zealand. If you insist upon having such things, be aware of the damage they cause, be prepared to stand up and have your choices questioned and be prepared to pay for it.

And this little rant comes to you, courtesy of someone who believes that natural causes play a big role in GW but who also believes this planet is not ours to do with as we please, we’re custodians with a duty to leave it in finer fettle than we inherited.

[Devonian]

...

And this little rant comes to you, courtesy of someone who believes that natural causes play a big role in GW but who also believes this planet is not ours to do with as we please, we’re custodians with a duty to leave it in finer fettle than we inherited.

That would be what, in my small way, I'd try to do. Chances of it happening? Given the speed and pace of deterioration in my lifetime, and given prevailing human attitudes towards those who's aim would be as said, close to zero imo.

[Gray-Wolf]

As a child I used to believe that all of Germany was Nazi through the 30's and 40's but as I grew older (and wiser?) I came to understand that it was a very small (but loud) percentage of the population who eventually controlled the worlds picture of Germany. The noises from both ends of the climate change debate are loud enough to have you believe that they (the extremes) represent ALL of the folk whereas, in reality, the silent majority nestle somewhere in between and are all doing 'their bit' more and more as their understanding of the issue increases.

Do not give up hope just yet Devonian!

[Devonian]

As a child I used to believe that all of Germany was Nazi through the 30's and 40's but as I grew older (and wiser?) I came to understand that it was a very small (but loud) percentage of the population who eventually controlled the worlds picture of Germany. The noises from both ends of the climate change debate are loud enough to have you believe that they (the extremes) represent ALL of the folk whereas, in reality, the silent majority nestle somewhere in between and are all doing 'their bit' more and more as their understanding of the issue increases.

Do not give up hope just yet Devonian!

True, though minority clearly didn't make much differnce in 30/s/40's Germany....

It was about answering Jethro. Do I think the Earth when I cease to be will be in a worse condition compared with when was born? Yes. Do I give up hope it might not, stop trying to do my bit? Not, absolutely not .

What's changed for me over the years is the realisation of the sheer and increasing momentum of humanity - especially a population growing like mad and gobbles up more and more energy. Many civilisations have been and gone becuase they over used their environments, we're not (or we're not yet?) capable (collectively) of doing what makes sense for all of us or the planet, but rather only of ourselves. Because we only, en masse, trust ourselves not leaders/others/scientists/politicians? It also seems to me people are more likely to believe what they want to than uncomfortable reality. Therein lies the reason for sceptisims strength in the face of what - I think we all in our hearts know - is happening. The buffers await...

So, don't be surprised that it continues to warm, perhaps a lot, but that ACC scepticisim grows stronger as well. We might well see oil start to run out, does anyone think demand will fall before it does? Of course not. We can see this now, I suspect at least as many people as ever would oppose concrete measure to decrease antho ghg's, let alone cars (gulp). Why? Well we're deeper in trouble (more wedded to excessive and increasing energy usage) than we were 10/20 years ago , it's more difficult to sort ergo we resist more.

But, as I say, I don't mean to imply I give up - just how tough change will be to achieve.

Edited April 30, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

True, though minority clearly didn't make much differnce in 30/s/40's Germany....

It was about answering Jethro. Do I think the Earth when I cease to be will be in a worse condition compared with when was born? Yes. Do I give up hope it might not, stop trying to do my bit? Not, absolutely not .

What's changed for me over the years is the realisation of the sheer and increasing momentum of humanity - especially a population growing like mad and gobbles up more and more energy. Many civilisations have been and gone becuase they over used their environments, we're not (or we're not yet?) capable (collectively) of doing what makes sense for all of us or the planet, but rather only of ourselves. Because we only, en masse, trust ourselves not leaders/others/scientists/politicians? It also seems to me people are more likely to believe what they want to than uncomfortable reality. Therein lies the reason for sceptisims strength in the face of what - I think we all in our hearts know - is happening. The buffers await...

So, don't be surprised that it continues to warm, perhaps a lot, but that ACC scepticisim grows stronger as well. We might well see oil start to run out, does anyone think demand will fall before it does? Of course not. We can see this now, I suspect at least as many people as ever would oppose concrete measure to decrease antho ghg's, let alone cars (gulp). Why? Well we're deeper in trouble (more wedded to excessive and increasing energy usage) than we were 10/20 years ago , it's more difficult to sort ergo we resist more.

But, as I say, I don't mean to imply I give up - just how tough change will be to achieve.

I agree in essence with a lot of what you say, albeit from possibly a different perspective.

Leaving the GW?AGW debate aside for a moment, pollutants in whatever form should be curtailed; we as a generation shouldn't leave a festering rubbish heap behind for our grandchildren and their grandchildren to live with/try to rectify. It's selfish and irresponsible.

Someone, somewhere, and it may as well be here as anywhere else needs to, if necessary inflict a moral code on human consumption. You want it, you pay for it. Taxation has to be on everything, otherwise the debate goes round and round. If Britain led the way in Europe, made a stand and imposed carbon restrictions/tax on imports then those companies wishing to import to what is afterall, potentially a huge market,would be forced economically to research alternative materials and manufacturing methods. Telling China to cut it's carbon emmissions whilst buying into the products made is lunacy. Telling China and the rest of the world we'll only accept their imports if the British public will accept the taxation cost in their own pockets may on the other hand impose change. Sure people won't like it, but at least they would be aware and bear the cost of their choices. Did anyone here vote in favour of VAT? It's now an accepted reality, part of the purchase price, a carbon tariff would be no different. We as a nation had VAT imposed on us as condition to joining the EU, maybe it's about time our government went back to the EU and proposed such a tax; the european market is large in the global economy.

[devon lad]

Can I just make an observation.

These threads always tend to get personal and nasty at some point. Now, I'm fine with everyone having their own opinion, but let's face it; if you don't believe in AGW in some form, then you are clearly in the minority, and you are clearly going against some pretty comprehensive and compelling science. That's not my opinion, that's fact. So, if you want to argue against it, I suggest you come up with some evidence, and not simply accuse those that do believe in it of being brain-washed, or a nutcase, or whatever.

Darkman, you can't seriously expect respect if you go and say to someone as obviously knowledgeable as Devonian that they're a "typical environmentalist" can you? It shows such huge bias that it is surely self defeating? It is also the sort of insulting thing you yourself are claiming to be unfair.

Argue the facts, nothing else.

Well said - thankyou OON.

dl

[Essan]

We do have to beware arguments that now the developed world has messed things up the developing world must be held back.

Indeed. Having played with the fire and gotten burnt, one should never ever discourage anyone else from playing with the fire ....... especially when they are likely to get burned tens times worse they we did Can't be helping people avoid making the same mistakes now, can we, that's just colonial bullying ...... :unsure:

This is part of the reason why we haven't stopped countries in SE Asia, Africa and S America from destroying the rainforests that control their regional climate. That and, presumably, because it's fun watching millions die in droughts and famines and floods etc all through their own making ........

[HighPressure]

Though it is not specifically about China, this is what I have to say about the subject on my blog: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/04/30/44/

Feedback welcome.

:)P

Hi P3

I find your blog very interesting and as usual it makes a lot of sense. I am extremely sceptical of end user taxtion as I truely think this is just a red heron put in place by the government of the day to gain finanaces for the here and now, put bluntly I don't trust them with our money. I do think if we could have an independent body working similar to the way in which the bank of England sets interest rates we may have some hope of seeing a return on our investment. The idea as far as I am concerned is not to deny any human being any creature comfort be it a 55 inch TV or 4x4 vehicle, its simply to develop cleaner and more efficient ways of producing and running these items. Modern LCD TV's are a good example of what I mean, they use less power and emit far less radiation than the old CRT type, no tax hikes required on the CRT TV because when faced with a choice the consumer chooses the flat screen over CRT every time. Same with 4x4's you cannot de-invent them, but what you can do is develop technology that is better then we already have, a vehicle that does 60 or 80 to the gallon or runs off something that is significantly cheaper than petrol or diesel. You attack power or oil production at source and make less go further, no point just taxing the consumer if no better alternative is available.

Edited April 30, 2007 by HighPressure

[The Eagle]

You know, no-one has yet told us were tax rises would be? Still waiting.....prophesising about the environment wont win anyone over unless you have ideas yourselves.

[jethro]

You know, no-one has yet told us were tax rises would be? Still waiting.....prophesising about the environment wont win anyone over unless you have ideas yourselves.

I've made my suggestion, unpopular though it seems. Tax everything equally, consumer and industry. Don't see how anyone can pick and choose what to tax, with the possible exception of food but then that could be taxed at a corporate level, if the supermarket giants import vast quantities, they should bear the tax burden. It can be argued forever more about the running costs of modern appliances versus running costs of old but lets face it, many appliances these days, especially when it comes to entertainment, are replaced on a wanting the latest, must have model rather than a straight forward replacing broken ones. Ditto, cars, computers, games consoles, the list goes on and on. It's a throw away society, I had to get new ink cartridges for my printer the other day, it was cheaper to buy a new one complete with ink; that's got to be wrong. Everyone blames everyone else and expects everyone else to pick up the tab, lets face it, we're all guilty, we should all accept the responsibility for making the world a cleaner place. I don't for one minute believe the human race is entirely responsible for GW but there's a hell of a lot more Co2 in the atmosphere that we've put there, we should minimise our impact; in every sphere. Want what you want, have what you want, I'm not suggesting restricting anyone's consumer appetite, just be made aware of the impact that desire has and be prepared to pay for it. All of us.

[Iceberg]

Taxation of supply and demand will work, but it depends on the elasticity of the demand or service and it's supply, which is where alternatives come into play.

why do you think the major car companies are all rushing towards bio, it's purely and simply because of the price of oil to the consumer. The market will provide alternatives if none exist. There might be a slight lag, but it's a very simple mechanism.

Taxation works. Regardless of the motives employed.

[BrickFielder]

Regardless of whether I believe global warming is mainly due to increases in anthropological CO2 due to fossil fuel burning , I do believe that we ought to control emissions. We don't really know how it affects health , we don't know how emissions affects combine to affect agriculture and to some extent climate. Climate scientist have got things slightly wrong in the past ,for example CFC's are now thought to not contribute to climate warming but rather to cool climate unlike their replacements. Nobody would suggest going back to CFC's because the ozone damage done would increase UV radiation and threaten peoples health, let alone do untold damage to trees and plants.It does suggest that climate scientists may still have some aspects wrong although it would be difficult to argue that we have no affect at all.

It is in the area of climate politics that I find the most dissagreable attitudes. In Europe we tend to slate the U.S. for their attitude to Kyoto, but we fail to recognise that in some states emissions controls are far tighter than in europe, to the extent that European model cars may well fail U.S. emission controls.What frustrates me is what governments have failed to do. For example it is not too difficult to cut down on air conditioning by using tranferring heat into the ground by use of underground piping , yet there are no regulations to encourage this. By far the biggest criticism must be of transport policy where we see increassing individual taxes with no sensible public transport alternative.

During the 1980's a university in the UK was working on a public transportation system with the following requirements.

1) Largely uses a renewable energy source like sunlight as its main source of fuel.

2) Does not take up extra real estate (land).

3) A choice of whether to share transportation space/compartment.

4) Involves less that 250 meter walk for any destination.

5) Quicker than road or rail transport.

6) No stopping on route unless requested.

7) Cheaper than any existing form of transport.

Surprisingly they did come up with a sort of solution which if invested in at the time would largely be in place now. Commercial greed and short term political blinkers prevented it ever developing.Politicians tend to look at results achievable in a 5 year term and as a result Long term major actions to combat climate change really don't feature on their agenda. An old professor of mine pointed out that man has made great technological strides yet socioecomonics has barely moved in the same period. It was his feeling that a critical point would be reached in the future when socioeconomics would have to make strides forward to solve important problems. Maybe climate change will be the trigger.

[The Penguin]

. . . . Want what you want, have what you want, I'm not suggesting restricting anyone's consumer appetite, just be made aware of the impact that desire has and be prepared to pay for it. All of us.

Well, actually, you are suggesting exactly that. Without restriction there cannot be a reduction in all the consumables you list, and without a reduction in these there cannot be a benefit to the environment. This doesn't necessarily mean that your core point about taxation is wrong, but you have to accept the downside consequences as well as the upside improvements. Not to would be disingenuous.

[HighPressure]

I totally disagree that taxing the end user is right and would argue against its effectiveness. It is a socially exclusive policy allowing those who can afford it to continue their ways without hindrance and the very poorest suffer the most.

If you are going tax something in an effort to discourage its use then you must provide cost effective alternatives with subsides if necessary.

[jethro]

Well, actually, you are suggesting exactly that. Without restriction there cannot be a reduction in all the consumables you list, and without a reduction in these there cannot be a benefit to the environment. This doesn't necessarily mean that your core point about taxation is wrong, but you have to accept the downside consequences as well as the upside improvements. Not to would be disingenuous.

I'm not suggesting restriction but awareness of culpability. If you read an earlier post I made, my suggestion was that the tax raised should be used to develope/subsidise alternative technology. If manufacturing giants faced a carbon tariff on their products then sooner or later, I suspect sooner, as profits were eaten into, they would place greater emphasis on developing cleaner technology. At the moment there is no incentive, just inclination to pass the buck. The end result would be the same products, produced in a much more sustainable manner, the carbon/emission reduction would then be passed on to the consumer via a reduced tax burden if they bought the greener product. Yes, this would take time to feed through the system down to the man in the street but why should the man in the street get away buck free when it is this consumer driven society, with it's ever increasing desire for more, bigger, better that has been at the route cause of the problem. We all know the cost of VAT, if the carbon cost was isolated and labelled on products, an ingredients list if you like then awareness of our impact in our everyday decisions would be highlighted in an easily absorbed manner. How many people know the carbon cost of say a DVD player, energy production costs, material costs, shipping costs? I haven't a clue but I'd like to know so that I may make an informed decision.

[jethro]

I totally disagree that taxing the end user is right and would argue against its effectiveness. It is a socially exclusive policy allowing those who can afford it to continue their ways without hindrance and the very poorest suffer the most.

If you are going tax something in an effort to discourage its use then you must provide cost effective alternatives with subsides if necessary.

The disparity between those who have and those who have not, those who can afford, those who cannot, is and always has been part of every culture in every country. With the best will in the world, that will never change. I would however argue, that some of the poorest people in the world be it in Africa or Asia will pay a far higher price for our consumerism if the IPCC predictions come true. Who's need is greater; the man in the street who can't afford the latest gizmo or the man who's land is under three feet of water or who hasn't had a drop of rain in years and has no way to feed his family?

Why must there be cost effective alternatives with subsidies for things no one actually needs? And why should we expect to have everything we want?

[The Penguin]

Jethro, it doesn't matter what the excuse for adding tax is, or what it is eventually used for. What does matter is that it adds cost and thereby reduces demand. I did read your earlier post and your alternative technology will be a long time in coming, if ever, and to think otherwise is a logistical naivety. In the meantime the fact that environmental damage will be addressed through a simple reduction in consumer demand will do nicely. Oh, except that the economy will go into recession.

[The Eagle]

Oh, except that the economy will go into recession.

That to me is the option for you precisely because UK growth is stable not stunning. Ground for manouvure seems very restrained. The UK's tax take is already high compared to other EU countries - the exception being the obvious - France and Germany. Could, in fact if you restrained consumer demand it would tip the UK into recession because consumer sentiment is vitally important to Western economies. Is that something your willing to risk? Recession is not a nice thing for something hardly any other countries take seriously.

Edited May 1, 2007 by Darkman

[HighPressure]

I really do think that you miss the point in a perfect world its a fine idea but we live in the real one which is consumer lead.

The whole western world is built on it so you are not going to change that are you?

[jethro]

I really do think that you miss the point in a perfect world its a fine idea but we live in the real one which is consumer lead.

The whole western world is built on it so you are not going to change that are you?

Precisely, which is why consumer led environmentalism is so successful. Five years ago, how many organic or fair trade products could you buy in the local supermarket? Very few and they were hugely over-priced, now there's a vast range and they're much more affordable. Consumer led demand.

I'm tired of the whole doom and gloom, we're ruining the world ethos whilst everyones seems content to comment and sit on their backsides doing nothing. Sure, recycling helps as do many other measures adopted by many but relistically, it's a drop in the ocean. The fundamental cause is we want far more than this planet can safely sustain. If that means we have less, whether that be in money in our pockets or toys we don't need, so be it. All the booming economies in the world are going to be utterly useless if the planet becomes unihabitable; or at least vast tracts of it. It's not the USA, or China, or India; it's all of us in the developed world, when does the buck stop being passed? What do you suggest?

Jethro, it doesn't matter what the excuse for adding tax is, or what it is eventually used for. What does matter is that it adds cost and thereby reduces demand. I did read your earlier post and your alternative technology will be a long time in coming, if ever, and to think otherwise is a logistical naivety. In the meantime the fact that environmental damage will be addressed through a simple reduction in consumer demand will do nicely. Oh, except that the economy will go into recession.

More money invested into more research to develope alternative technology is hardly logistical naivety; it's how organisations like Micro Soft become world leaders with a vastly successful business.

Recession in this country or any other is hardly comparable to the loss of millions of lives around the world due to climate change. A shift in perspective is the only way the world is going to have any long term impact upon what we as a species are doing to our world. If it were as easy as just informing people of problems and how they can be/should be fixed then why is say Bob Geldof for example still saying the same thing, twenty odd years after his first impassioned appeal? Because people hear and either do nothing or not enough, or for long enough, because no one is making them and the problems don't affect them directly.

[HighPressure]

I don't think attacking consumerism is the answer, I think it is possible to produce products which are both environmentally and technically better then we have now. In deed to me this is the only logical way forward which allows for continued global consumer growth. Simply taxing a product is not the answer, but providing a better more efficient one is, I sight the case again about LCD TV Vs CRT the consumer does not want CRT TVs anymore nothing to with tax just a better product.

The whole environmental issue needs resolving in partnership with people not against the people!