Some bad news...

[jethro]

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!

And the incentive to produce products environmentally and technically better comes from where? The cost is borne by whom? The manufacturer? Why should they? When it comes to TV's, I'd lay money and quite a bit of it on the consumer demand being led by wanting the latest, newest, trendiest must have; it's sod all to do with running costs or the fact that the old one is broken, it's just another "I want". I'm not against people; resolving in partnership with people requires involving people, making them aware and responsible for their input into a global problem, not encouraging them to think in terms of their pocket, their endless desire for more. More comes with a higher price than a monetary one.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Personally, I would suggest maybe sharing the tax burden between the manufacturers and the consumers. In particular, the power generation sources (of the nature Parmenides3 often mentions) could do with sharing some of the tax burden.

Reasons: I can see the arguments for taxing the consumer, and I can see the arguments for taxing manufacturers, industries, generators etc. By taxing only the consumer we are only tackling one part of the problem; taxing only manufacturers has the same downside.

Also beware of the argument "if it's work-related it's necessary and therefore it shouldn't be taxed, but if it's recreational, it's unnecessary and therefore it should be taxed". If we go down that route, our society, already criticised in many quarters for being too work-oriented, may well trend even further in that direction.

In the meantime, while I do agree with the whole 'carrot and stick' idea I personally favour use of carrots first, and sticks second. If we adopt such a policy there's a good chance that alternatives will be devised and encouraged that people can gravitate to; then when the 'sticks' are brought in, they have alternatives. If we bring in 'sticks' too quickly, we force greater cuts in lifestyles than are necessary to sustain the relevant environmental improvements. Also, while the authorities may promise us that taxes may be used to fund environmental improvements, in practice they often aren't.

In the recent past there have also been discussions on the merits of taxation vs. emissions restrictions. The latter is often going to be a more draconian prospect (and I'd only advocate it in general if alternatives were being developed in the meantime), but taxation has the disadvantage that it primarily hits the poorest in society.

[Pickles]

Personally, I would suggest maybe sharing the tax burden between the manufacturers and the consumers. In particular, the power generation sources (of the nature Parmenides3 often mentions) could do with sharing some of the tax burden.

Reasons: I can see the arguments for taxing the consumer, and I can see the arguments for taxing manufacturers, industries, generators etc. By taxing only the consumer we are only tackling one part of the problem; taxing only manufacturers has the same downside.

But then all the manufacturers will do is pass the extra tax burden onto the consumer.

Manufacturers CAN cut there impact on the environment AND save money whilst doing so, but in my experience, there is a lot of ignorance in industry when it comes to the environment.

[HighPressure]

Governments will not target big industries on taxation as they rely on them not the other way around. End user taxation rarely finds its way into solving major long term issues as it is eaten away for the here and now. Although I agree in many respects to the sentiments on this topic I find it hard to see how such measures would result in a benefit to anyone other than for short term government spending probably in totally different areas.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think that's also one of the main problems I see with emphasising taxing the consumer; I can trust the Government (and council)'s expenditure promises about as far as I can throw them. I do think some element of it might be necessary in the long run but I disagree with the idea that it should be the main resort.

[parmenides3]

How about these sample 'carrots'? Instead of charging more for owning an SUV, or whatever, reduce the road tax on fuel-efficient, bio or hybrid cars; give people a reason to change. Instead of charging for bin collection by weight, discount council tax by quantity of material recycled. Instead of taxing companies for emitting, give rebates to those who reduce their carbon footprint by being more efficient (insulated factories) or producing more 'enviro-friendly' or 'developing-nation-friendly' goods.

Any other ideas for decent carrots? The aim is to encourage changes in behaviour, buying or producing, which improves sustainability, redistributes wealth without envorinmental harm, but, over and above these, actually reduces the amount of blooming CO2 being emitted...

:)P

[BrickFielder]

How about tax reductions on goods that have at least 20 Years Warranty this I think helps to tackle the idea that things are throw away without undermining current business models.

How about a tax reduction for living within 5 miles of your place of work. This gives incentive for people to move closer to work and cut down on the daily commute.

For most companies it makes economical sense to close regional centers in favour of a few national centers of distribution. Similarly salesman tend to cover large areas of the UK. This is what tanks up business mileage and is a clear indicator that firstly tachometers ought to be fitted to all business vehicles including business cars.Far too many business people are driving distances which would be illegal if you were driving a lorry. Secondly the reduced tax on business diesel is causing problems and should be increased, while measures are taken to ensure european competion is kept on a level playing field.

I still think investment in research for new forms of public transportation will pay dividends in the end as well.

[jethro]

I like many others on this forum lurked in the background for quite sometime before daring to post. I read lots, here and elsewhere, learned a great deal and reached the conclusion that yes global warming and climate change is real. I don't believe it's all down to AGW; I've voiced my doubts and the reasons why many times. I've been shot down in flames, I've had my posts interpretted as I don't give a damn about the consequences or that I'm naive, or idealistic or ignorant. All fair comments if that's someone's opinion, it is afterall a public forum, to participate invites criticism and I think I'm fairly good at standing up for myself. I've taken on board and broadly understood the global impact of AGW and as a doubter/sceptic/naysayer I believe we have to limit our output of Co2. So how come, as one of the heretics, I appear to be alone in thinking if me and mine are causing a problem with our consumption of resources then we should be penalised and our consumption taxed for the greater good? I understand the theory behind the carrot approach, big carrot, little stick etc but big carrots can't or won't be waved around forever will they. The general consensus of this discussion seems to be if it's cheaper, we'll be greener. It surely follows, if it's not cheaper five years hence then we'll carry on consuming, business as usual. If that's the case what's this forum and many others like it, for then; rhetorical postering? Bartering knowledge and intellect? I find it saddening and worrying, in equal measure that the end conclusion appears to be hey folks, there's a problem, we're really not helping, loads of people may die or lose their homelands, reckon we should do something about it, so long as it doesn't cost me anything, so long as it doesn't restrict my choices.

I guess I'm in the wrong forum folks.

[Iceberg]

I am not a fan of the carrot approach either, as it tends to lead to inefficent solutions or the development of deadend systems.

Tax works well, look at cig's for example.

[eddie]

I like many others on this forum lurked in the background for quite sometime before daring to post. I read lots, here and elsewhere, learned a great deal and reached the conclusion that yes global warming and climate change is real. I don't believe it's all down to AGW; I've voiced my doubts and the reasons why many times. I've been shot down in flames, I've had my posts interpretted as I don't give a damn about the consequences or that I'm naive, or idealistic or ignorant. All fair comments if that's someone's opinion, it is afterall a public forum, to participate invites criticism and I think I'm fairly good at standing up for myself. I've taken on board and broadly understood the global impact of AGW and as a doubter/sceptic/naysayer I believe we have to limit our output of Co2. So how come, as one of the heretics, I appear to be alone in thinking if me and mine are causing a problem with our consumption of resources then we should be penalised and our consumption taxed for the greater good? I understand the theory behind the carrot approach, big carrot, little stick etc but big carrots can't or won't be waved around forever will they. The general consensus of this discussion seems to be if it's cheaper, we'll be greener. It surely follows, if it's not cheaper five years hence then we'll carry on consuming, business as usual. If that's the case what's this forum and many others like it, for then; rhetorical postering? Bartering knowledge and intellect? I find it saddening and worrying, in equal measure that the end conclusion appears to be hey folks, there's a problem, we're really not helping, loads of people may die or lose their homelands, reckon we should do something about it, so long as it doesn't cost me anything, so long as it doesn't restrict my choices.

I guess I'm in the wrong forum folks.

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you are trying to say jethro.

Are saying that 'everything' should have more tax applied to it and this will reduce consumer demand and therefore our use of resources?

If that is what you mean then i'm sorry but that won't work. Inflation already increases the price of everything but that doesn't have the effect of reducing demand. If you increase the cost of *everything* then in reality everything still costs the same except the value of money goes down.

Also, I don't think anyone on here would argue that we don't need to reduce consumption. How that reduction is achieved is what is being debated.

My appologies if that isn't what you mean.

I happen to think that taxation does work as a way to reduce C02 emissions but it has to be balanced, carefully targeted and introduced slowly. What I mean by balanced is that if taxation is increased in one area then is should be reduced in another. Increase VAT on non efficient appliances, decrease VAT on more efficient appliances etc.

I also think the government needs to go beyond tax in some areas. Why tax the top poluting cars when you can just ban them altogether? Introduce tougher efficiency standards for new cars. If a car doesn't meet them, it doesn't get sold. Gradually increase the minimum MPG allowed.

This also removes one of my main problems with taxation which is that it allows rich people to pollute. Just because you can afford to run a 4.0L car that does 12mpg doesn't mean you should be allowed to.

I also love the idea that someone mentioned of marking everything sold with a carbon index. That would certainly start to get people thinking about their impact on the world.

Edited May 2, 2007 by eddie

[Thundery wintry showers]

I am not a fan of the carrot approach either, as it tends to lead to inefficent solutions or the development of deadend systems.

Any examples? I don't even know what is meant by a 'deadend system'.

I'm not trying to be defensive here, rather interested to see where the other side of the argument comes from.

[Michael Winston]

The world has a carrying capacity. Once this carrying capacity is breached by excessive consumption, then we have no more resources.

Quite right, PP.

For example, it has been reported that the Chinese will run out of water (by the BBC amongst others) long before they can reach the peak of their industrial potential.

Regards,

Mike.

[The Eagle]

I think certain inititives like banning plastic bags or at least having to pay for them are so much more productive then taxing people into oblivion. Its the little things that provide big results IMO.

Edited May 2, 2007 by Darkman

[HighPressure]

If this were a computer game the correct balance of carrot and stick very finely tuned would I am sure get the right results. However the question I have to ask those above who believe in the taxation method whether they mean in theory (an idea world) or in practice in the one we currently live in with our governmental setup as it is?

If the answer is in theory then its just a philosophical debate and no more?

If the answer is in practice with our current political playing field, then I ask on what basis can you say it will work given previous taxation policies and their results or lack of them? I would also ask what evidence you have to show of previous long term taxation policies running through generations of governments be adhered to and producing the required results?

Are you seriously suggesting that CAMERON or BROWN could/would deliver us from AGW via taxes?

Edited May 2, 2007 by HighPressure

[Thundery wintry showers]

With 'carrots', in some cases they may be sufficient to cause significant changes, and in others, they may be ineffective- it depends on how much social inertia there is, what groups are being targeted, how well-implemented the 'carrots' are etc.

However, I don't necessarily advocate 'carrots' as the sole way of bringing about change. Rather, I see them as a way of increasing the scope for people to make changes that reduce emissions, and don't require large sacrifices, so that when the 'sticks' are brought in, the 'sticks' will have the effect of forcing people over towards making those changes. If we bring in the 'sticks' first, what happens is that people have less scope to make changes that don't require large sacrifices, thus more sacrifices are necessary in order to bring about a similar improvement in environmental efficiency.

[eddie]

If this were a computer game the correct balance of carrot and stick very finely tuned would I am sure get the right results. However the question I have to ask those above who believe in the taxation method whether they mean in theory (an idea world) or in practice in the one we currently live in with our governmental setup as it is?

If the answer is in theory then its just a philosophical debate and no more?

If the answer is in practice with our current political playing field, then I ask on what basis can you say it will work given previous taxation policies and their results or lack of them? I would also ask what evidence you have to show of previous long term taxation policies running through generations of governments be adhered to and producing the required results?

Are you seriously suggesting that CAMERON or BROWN could/would deliver us from AGW via taxes?

Well the increasing taxation on cigarettes is one policy that has run through successive governments. It's hard to pick a similar environmental tax but then in reality AGW has only become a big issue during the current Labour government. I do think taxation will work in practice and not just theory though.

The problem we have at the moment is that renewable energy supplies and green technologies are more expensive than their C02 based equivalents. Now if everybody started to buy green energy the cost would go down because increased demand would drive economies of scale and also the technology would advance more quickly because more money would go into R&D. However, this won't happen if everybody buys the cheaper carbon generated electricity.

I see taxation as a way of overcoming this initial hurdle. You make green electricity as cheap (or a bit cheaper) than the carbon based equivalent via taxation. This will level the playing field until green technology matures enough to stand on its own merit. You could argue that this price 'leveling' should come via a carrot (subsidies) and not stick but in reality that money has to come from somewhere.

As for Cameron or Brown, well I won't be voting for either of those two but I think both of them now realise that climate change has to be addressed and I wouldn't be suprised, after the next election of course, to see new green taxes delivering results.

[The PIT]

Some good points made here.

Tax though, hits the low paid and not everyone can do what I can do and change jobs and move cities so you're close enough to walk. Yes it road restrictions and the possibility of road charges being considered by Leeds council. If they had come in and I wasn't able to get a job in sheffield it wouldn't have been worth my time working as most of the wages would have gone on the charges.

A lot of people don't walk to work even though they're close to do so. I don't thinking taxing will do much espiecally if they're not on a bus route.

Grants and Tax reductions on Greener vehicles would help but that won't happen.

Public transport needs to made into a organisation where all profit is put back into new buses and addional routes.

[eddie]

Public transport in this country is a joke if you don't live (or work) in the middle of a city.

My journey to work is about 11 miles. Too far to walk and a bit too hilly to cycle comfortably (although I might start having a go at this if I can build my fitness up a bit)

It takes just over 20 minutes to drive (this doesn't vary much even during rush hour because it's all semi rural roads). To do the same journey on public transport takes, according to the West Yorkshire Metro journey planner, 1 hour 19 minutes with 2 bus changes.

So thats almost 2 hours a day I would loose. Now I don't know what price all of you put on 10 hours a week of your life but they would have to make driving *considerably* more expensive than it is now to get me to use public transport in it's current state.

The main problem is that bus routes all converge in the centre of towns. If you want to go somewhere that isn't on the bus route from your home you have to go right into a town, change buses and then come back out again.

If I was in charge of public transport policy, the first thing I would do is create a database that had the home and work address of everybody in the country. I would then work out (in both time and distance terms) how long people's work journeys would be by car and by public transport. It would then be a simple computational excercise to see what extra bus and train routes would need to be added to give more people a real alternative to their cars.

[HighPressure]

Depends what you mean about incentives if government implemented then the money has to come from the tax payer to find it. If the incentive requires a shift from say a petrol vehicle to one running on pig fat for example and it is successful in its goal to get people to change, where does the government get its lost income from? This why I say that the theory of taxation and incentives is sound but in reality is a flawed principle, because if cars run on fresh air the revenue required by the government would not drop.

So I can only see taxes (sticks) used to force change and this can only work if you have an alternative to force people to use instead of. If there is no alternative you just push the cost of living up and therefore inflation, Mr X has to get to work and Mrs X has to get the kids to school its as simple as that. When I left school I got an apprenticeship at my local electronic factory and I walked, but its long gone as most peoples town factories have. When I was at school I went to the local school nowadays its not uncommon for parents to have 3 children attending 3 different schools miles apart, these are results of successive government policies and world economic factors. You cannot now just go get a stick and beat these people for being bad citizens unless our government reverses these processes which is easier said then done.

And we have not even started on the developing world, we cannot tax them?

[eddie]

Depends what you mean about incentives if government implemented then the money has to come from the tax payer to find it. If the incentive requires a shift from say a petrol vehicle to one running on pig fat for example and it is successful in its goal to get people to change, where does the government get its lost income from? This why I say that the theory of taxation and incentives is sound but in reality is a flawed principle, because if cars run on fresh air the revenue required by the government would not drop.

So I can only see taxes (sticks) used to force change and this can only work if you have an alternative to force people to use instead of. If there is no alternative you just push the cost of living up and therefore inflation, Mr X has to get to work and Mrs X has to get the kids to school its as simple as that. When I left school I got an apprenticeship at my local electronic factory and I walked, but its long gone as most peoples town factories have. When I was at school I went to the local school nowadays its not uncommon for parents to have 3 children attending 3 different schools miles apart, these are results of successive government policies and world economic factors. You cannot now just go get a stick and beat these people for being bad citizens unless our government reverses these processes which is easier said then done.

And we have not even started on the developing world, we cannot tax them?

You are correct, if you managed to get everyone to buy a very green car then revenue from both petrol and road tax would drop and tax somewhere else would need to be raised. That doesn't change the fact that everyone would now be running a very green car. The policy would have been succesful in the respect that C02 emission would be reduced.

Here is a similar paradox: Everyone says that being energy efficient saves you money. If reduce your usage by 50% then your bill goes down by 50%. However, if everyone reduced their usage by 50%, the electricity generating companies would have to put their prices up or face a 50% cut in profits.

As for the develping world, obviously we can't tax them but by encouraging our economy down the green route by taxation (or other policies) the resulting fallout of new green technologies can only help give them a viable alternative to fosil fuels.

[Thundery wintry showers]

So I can only see taxes (sticks) used to force change and this can only work if you have an alternative to force people to use instead of.

Pretty much agree with HighPressure's post, and particularly the bit inside the quote.

It is rather annoying that governments have a major disincentive for encouraging uptake of clean technology, namely that clean technology is harder to tax. Certainly in our world of short-termist profiteering, governments are put off carrot-and-stick consumption tax incentivising for this reason (it's one of the main reasons why our Government wants to introduce pay-per-mile and take emphasis away from fuel tax for road transport)

However, at the end of the day, if they can't raise as much money from pollution taxes, and have to raise it from elsewhere, so what? The net amount of taxation people have to put up with will be similar (as the net 'pot' that the Govt requires wouldn't change; if it did change it would probably be for the better, in view of potential fines for not meeting Kyoto targets). The main difference would be emphasis on different sources, and with implementation of carrot-and-stick consumption/tax incentives, the more you pollute the more you pay.

[Habsish]

Just come in from the garden after planting a couple of trees and read this thread. Is that going to be enough to combate the Chinese threat?

H

[HighPressure]

You are correct, if you managed to get everyone to buy a very green car then revenue from both petrol and road tax would drop and tax somewhere else would need to be raised. That doesn't change the fact that everyone would now be running a very green car. The policy would have been succesful in the respect that C02 emission would be reduced.

So are you then suggesting that government policy should be to Con the public into going green? I don't think the public are that daft anymore and may just have spotted that one coming, that specific route to me is one of the major barriers AGW faces!

[eddie]

So are you then suggesting that government policy should be to Con the public into going green? I don't think the public are that daft anymore and may just have spotted that one coming, that specific route to me is one of the major barriers AGW faces!

If it was expressed that the purpose of increasing tax on high poluting vehicles was to encourage people to buy less poluting vehicles and that was the end result how is that a con?

[The Eagle]

Just come in from the garden after planting a couple of trees and read this thread. Is that going to be enough to combate the Chinese threat?

H

No, China is not as foolish as the UK or anyone else. They want to grow and they will do whatever it takes to have the strongest economy.