Miliband reveals 'green tax package' (1 Viewer)

[Karl J]

By the way, how is public transport in Britain, which is supposed to take millions of passengers? Last time it was slow, costly and infested by crime. This idea is a laugh unless trains and buses will improve.

well its ok around here. Slow - not really, 30 mins for 25 miles stopping at a couple of village stations on the way. Costly - not really, £100 or thereabouts, for a months unlimited use on a 40 mile round trip. Infested by crime - not that i've noticed

But a lot of people are just too important to use it. So they choose to sit a car

 

[Adey Baker]

There does seem to be a bit too much 'stick' and very little 'carrot' in the proposals. Lots of extra taxes to make polluters pay (though who they're paying isn't too clear) but very little in the way of lower taxes elsewhere, so it'll be seen as another way for the government to raise taxes under some 'worthy' pretext. The richer people will afford it anyway, so it'll be the poorer people who are hit hardest as usual!

I've long thought that reducing car tax but increasing fuel tax is a fairer way of doing things. Many people drive around in un-taxed cars so they'd have to pay their way via fuel tax. Anyone who owns a car but only uses it occasionally still has to pay the same for his/her car tax as the 50,000 miles a year person.

I don't know how often planes have to re-fuel but I'd imagine on some shorter routes, if fuel cost go up here, they'll just re-fuel abroad more often. Certainly, road vehicles do this when travelling to this country from the continent, so without other countries following suit it'll all be a waste of time!

 

[BGuy]

I bought half a dozen EF bulbs in The Pound Shop (or whatever they are called these days) for . . . yes, you've guessed it, £6! That's 40p more expensive than the average 60w bulb with potentially a x12 longer life. That was over a year ago and I haven't had one 'pop' yet. So, if some people are concerned about 'efficiency' vrs 'personal cost' there is often a way around it - although I agree this is a somewhat simplistic example.

Judging by what I've read so far, I suspect a lot of people who want something done about climate change are not really prepared to make sacrifices, either personal or financial. It seems to me there is an element of 'not in my back yard' about all this, but I'm afraid most are going to have to think again, because if any measure of success is to be achieved then it's certainly going to be a case of 'no pain, no gain'. Incidentally, when it comes to politics I'm in exactly the same camp as TA.

 

[Karl J]

Judging by what I've read so far, I suspect a lot of people who want something done about climate change are not really prepared to make sacrifices, either personal or financial. It seems to me there is an element of 'not in my back yard' about all this, but I'm afraid most are going to have to think again, because if any measure of success is to be achieved then it's certainly going to be a case of 'no pain, no gain'

absolutely

 

[Collster]

road-pricing should "reflect the full environmental impact of the journey". Good

hikes on fuel and air passenger duty as well as increased road tax for drivers of the most polluting vehicles. Good

a mechanism to take away from motorists the money they save on fuel when oil prices go down. Good

encourage a shift away from private to public transport. Good

the need to explore a "substantial increase" in road tax for higher-emission vehicles to encourage people to take cars which pollute less. Good

air travel is currently "lightly taxed". He goes on: "Raising air passenger duty by £5 would raise £400 million a year. Good

"There is also a case for making flights subject to VAT either on domestic flights, or better still, for all EU flights." Good

Mr Miliband also warns that lightbulb prices do not reflect their true environmental cost, meaning that people tend not to buy the most efficient bulbs. Good

sound like excellent ideas to me. Doesn't go far enough. Wish they'd done it a while ago but i guess people aren't quite ready for it. Yes, they should also tax pollutes more, businesses etc.

But it's a good move and should be applauded by anyone with a concern for the globe, irrespective of politics - for the record i dislike the govt intently, the official opposition even more.

Tim

just another means of fleecing the people, why didnt the government take action sooner, didnt they heed the warnings? Now, as ever they expect us to pay for their mistakes. Planes are one of the biggest polluters so maybe it should be a 500 pound rise not five. People aint going to take this crap because they know the money is going to go straight down the drain, wasted on another ill thought out venture by Dubya and Tone

 

[Jos Stratford]

You can increase tax all you like on petrol and flights, it will make no difference - oil prices went from 25 to 70plus dollars a barrel and we all drove. Double the prices of flights and in the first few months we will not go anywhere, but soon we'll be back in the air. Simply will be part of inflation, which will then reflect in salary levels, so cancel out the first. Already happens - petrol went up, I increased my charges. Would do the same if flights went up. Well, must rush, lot to do today before I get on that 'orrid CO2 machine and fly to the UK tonight!

 

[Vectis Birder]

Judging by what I've read so far, I suspect a lot of people who want something done about climate change are not really prepared to make sacrifices, either personal or financial. It seems to me there is an element of 'not in my back yard' about all this, but I'm afraid most are going to have to think again, because if any measure of success is to be achieved then it's certainly going to be a case of 'no pain, no gain'. Incidentally, when it comes to politics I'm in exactly the same camp as TA.

I'm perfectly prepared to pay for it as long as I know that the money will be spent on tackling the issue. What I am NOT prepared to do is pay extra tax and see nothing done or it spent on mindless wars. As I said above if the Government is serious about this then they HAVE to seriously look at alternative transport policies, get prices reduced on public transport and get other countries talking and taking action because otherwise it all mean bugger all. It's no good the UK doing anything alone as it will not work.

 

[POP]

There does seem to be a bit too much 'stick' and very little 'carrot' in the proposals. Lots of extra taxes to make polluters pay (though who they're paying isn't too clear) but very little in the way of lower taxes elsewhere, so it'll be seen as another way for the government to raise taxes under some 'worthy' pretext. The richer people will afford it anyway, so it'll be the poorer people who are hit hardest as usual!

I've long thought that reducing car tax but increasing fuel tax is a fairer way of doing things. Many people drive around in un-taxed cars so they'd have to pay their way via fuel tax. Anyone who owns a car but only uses it occasionally still has to pay the same for his/her car tax as the 50,000 miles a year person.

I don't know how often planes have to re-fuel but I'd imagine on some shorter routes, if fuel cost go up here, they'll just re-fuel abroad more often. Certainly, road vehicles do this when travelling to this country from the continent, so without other countries following suit it'll all be a waste of time!

Sensible reply as usual from somebody living in the real world.

POP

 

[POP]

I'm perfectly prepared to pay for it as long as I know that the money will be spent on tackling the issue. What I am NOT prepared to do is pay extra tax and see nothing done or it spent on mindless wars. As I said above if the Government is serious about this then they HAVE to seriously look at alternative transport policies, get prices reduced on public transport and get other countries talking and taking action because otherwise it all mean bugger all. It's no good the UK doing anything alone as it will not work.

Tell the Chinese and the Indians that they must slow up their progress of having the same standard of living as the West and one knows their reply.

POP

 

[POP]

just another means of fleecing the people, why didnt the government take action sooner, didnt they heed the warnings? Now, as ever they expect us to pay for their mistakes. Planes are one of the biggest polluters so maybe it should be a 500 pound rise not five. People aint going to take this crap because they know the money is going to go straight down the drain, wasted on another ill thought out venture by Dubya and Tone

Tony Blair will do anything to move Iraq from the front page,he will be remembered for his lies and duplicity and not as he would wish,the saviour of the planet.

Must be time for an early "snifter" "steward make it a large one".

POP

 

[James]

Seem to remember that Britain is up for replacing its nuclear arsenal soon, good use for any extra taxes.....NOT!

 

[Nick Elliston]

All sounds very noble but:

- we need good, reliable public transport before people will switch from using cars. Won't happen as the cost is too great.

- air flight costs go up. So what - will still be cheaper in relative terms than years ago and will change nothing. Jos summed this up very succinctly

- how much impact has this report had on the rest of the world? Zilch. Look at the main news web sites from Europe, US etc. Basically no impact.

- the British public (and I suspect the answer is the same elsewhere) do not trust Govts and will not support higher taxes

- I would not trust any of our political parties to allocate green taxes to green issues. It will go into the general treasury pot. Look at what happened with Lottery income that should have been allocated to "good causes".

- Will China and India play along? Not a chance.

As Jos says, it will just lead to to higher inflation until such time as most of the public and Govts REALLY want to make a change - globally, not just one country.

 

[jedku]

Without wishing to offend anyone, how do our couzins the Americans feel on the issue of green tax. The USA does use quite a lot of resources (tried to make this comment as friendly as possible as it is my wish to hear others opinions not criticise them).
James

Yeah James, most of us "yanks" on Birdforum hear you.
But, we need to find creative solutions which may differ from those in Britain to a small degree. We have so many places where development is predicated on the automobile and public transit is not an option due to incredibly stupid low-density development. We dont have the network of cities and vilages that you do. Telling Americans they need to get out of their cars is political suicide. In addition, we have invested billions of $ in roads. They ARE our "public transit" through our low density world.
Some progressive states and municipalities have already banned new low- density development. Eventualy this will create viable bus and light rail routes as we had in the days before the automobile. This will wean many from cars in the long run. The next step is to get cities with public transit to stop widening existing roads. Let the gridlock stand and force those drivers to consider public transit. If you give more open road, more people will drive. Roads will always max out during peak hours.
We have to move forward with CAFE standards. This is a program where the federal government requires every manufacturer selling passenger cars in America to have an average MPG for the entire fleet of their brand of cars sold each year. In theory it means they have to limit production of gas guzzlers, but can charge what they like for them if there is high demand. The problem is the companies found a loophole, the exemption for light trucks. "Found" may be misleading, it could be their lawyers wrote the clause into the law directly.... The Republican Congress (1994-?) repeatedly blocked the Clinton administration from closing that loophole.
CAFE is politically viable because it doesn't raise taxes on working families. Rather, it requires the industry to be responsible. We won't succeed in "greening" the country by imposing simple consumption taxes, for example on gas or heating fuel. It's a regressive tax on poorer people for whom fuel costs are already a large percentage of their small wages.
In the States, we need to repair CAFE and develop a CAFE-like program for the housing and construction industry using quantifiable measures of fuel-efficient, green buildings. Density of development might be in the equation as well as the standard measures like window ratings, etc.
I am staying here in Budapest for now. Its amazing to see how efficient my new apartment house is. I have huge windows that are so much more efficient than anything I have seen in the States. I have an ample sized fridge for our family of 3, yet it is much smaller and more efficient than those in the States. If these technologies were widely used in the States....
Marc

 

[nick scarle]

I called in at Leighton Moss on Sunday and they were giving away energy saving light bulbs to local residents who take an old 'conventional' bulb to exchange.

Now that's a real incentive - and much friendlier than putting up taxes

 

[Stevie babe]

Let the gridlock stand and force those drivers to consider public transit. If you give more open road, more people will drive. Roads will
always max out during peak hours.
Marc

Hi Marc, I'm for that because it is so obviously the solution. It will even mean the threat of turning our motorways into toll roads unnecessary, in turn saving the communities the drivers would inevitably use rather than pay tolls. It is a practical way for motorists to judge the worth of using a car against public transport. It is often not the cost that sways people but the time taken and the practicalities of using public transport.

For instance who out there would use public transport to commute from where I live to Reading, Berkshire.

(Public transport = A 25 minute walk / taxi to the nearest railway station or a bus (no time difference) to another station for a train to London (bridge). Two underground trains to get to Paddington. A train to Reading then a 25 minute bus ride to my place of work. and then back again the same way for the return journey)

I tried it for a month and found it was taking 2 hours to get to work and often 3 hours to get back. I reluctantly opted for a car (dual fuel) and now get to work in an hour (55 miles) and back in two hours. I am also in charge and can listen to the in car stereo at my leisure and can take alternative routes should the need arise. I probalby get less colds for not being closeted with large number of people for relatively long periods I don't want to do it but unless I leave my employer I have no choice.

As for air taxes, if our wonderful Tony Blair / Gordon Brown decide to hike the price of air travel & freight unilaterally then it will not be long before our airports start shrinking in favour of continental airports such as Charles DeGaul, Brussels and Schipol. It might even be cheaper to drive to those airports than use our own.

Not bad some might say but imagine the loss of jobs, not just in the air industry but in the manufacturing and service industries generally as overseas buyers find it is even better due to cost not to buy from UK. Air taxes has to be a commitment from the EU to be effective.

Living just on the London / Surrey border I can usually see the lights of over 10 planes in the sky at any one time in the evening. UK only air taxes wil mean more planes being used on mainland Europe and so there could still be over 10 planes at any one time.

Also if Europe does it, others will surely listen.

As with most of you I agree it is inevitable that the money raised from such taxes will not go used for the purposes intended and will be a waste so it is almost what is the point

Now I'll step off my soapbox.


Steve

 

[colonelboris]

Here's a good reason why I just can't trust that lot to get it right
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6092460.stm

 

[POP]

Here's a good reason why I just can't trust that lot to get it right
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6092460.stm

And more.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,171-2429391,00.html


POP

 

[Vectis Birder]

Tell the Chinese and the Indians that they must slow up their progress of having the same standard of living as the West and one knows their reply.

POP

Which would render whatever we do a waste of time because nothing will work if not all nations are involved - economic growth with mean sod all in the long term if climate change does significant damage to the environment and global economy. Even so, getting the US and Europe to do something would be a start. We can tackle the Chinese and Indians later.

These articles from the Times first from Libby Purves and secondly from David Aaronovitch are worth a read, as is the Comment.

 

[Edward woodwood]

so if birders can't give a toss, we're all up the creek then?

better get my world list moving then

no time to waste

Tim

 

[Vectis Birder]

Nobody has said that they don't give a toss, Tim. All I am saying is that we need global co-operation to fight a global problem, it's not something that the UK can do on our own. Nothing about not giving a toss.