Newsnight: Are green taxes dead?
'Are green taxes dead?'
Cripes. That's a big... sweeping... question to a complex issue... set of issues.
Short answer: I certainly hope not, if 'Green taxes' means sensible, fair, practical ways to help people make personal choices on their consumption of 'travel'.
However, if it is anything like the historical, and current crop of ill-conceived, poorly thought-through, city-centric, revenue over planet, stupidly-communicated 'initiatives' tried or floated to date, I certainly hope NOT!
For instance, retroactive taxes on the majority of the poorer electorate's older cars to fund pay and pensions black holes for legions more box-tickers (even if 'green'), many of whom never actually pay for the consequences of their travel, was never going to fly as anything like helping person or planet.
And with each clunking great effort of this nature, the chances of selling something rational to an expanding, travel-imposed (work) or addicted (social) race gets ever harder.
Indy - Don't Be Yellow, Gordon. Be Green
What an interesting Earth-coloured rainbow is getting conjured: Brown, Green and now Yellow.
What the heck is meant by 'Be Green'? Especially from a major national newspaper.
Mind you, when I say 'major'... what is the readership of the Indy, and where are they located? I suspect most sales are in major urban centres where there might well be adequate public transport alternatives, plus a salary levels more able absorb such increases. Just as I wonder what the transport options are of, say, a News of the World (ABC figures a tad higher?) reader facing a bit of a trek on their shift (don't see many Ministers taking the night bus) if priced out of using their 10 year-old car by fuel prices. Oh, and the rather odd notion that retroactive taxation to try and encourage the purchase of a Prius as the latest 'green' measure; one that is discrediting the whole notion of necessary reduction and mitigation from the wrong messengers touting very self-interested messages .
Too much, too often, turns out to be more designed to put money in places that are in the name of this 'green' rather than serving many tangible actions that might well actually help. For instance, how many 'Senior climate advisers' are there now in government, quangos and activist groups?
Indy - Why are car tax rates going up on older vehicles, and is the move unfair? - an attempt at balance, but almost every sentence written from a person sitting at a desk in London. I'm afraid been lectured at by such folk is proving divisive.
Guardian - We must all act together - That would be an 'MP' we, which is like a Royal one, only they do carry cash, even if they don't need to spend it on much. Love the fact that he turned to... the Guardian with this message seeking support. Not sure he's getting it. The support I mean.
Guardian - Higher still and higher - A frank exchange of views. Not sure the view from comfy chatterati-central is winning out, mind.
Newsnight -
Much is being said (and not much done so far save a few 'initiatives' designed to serve the interests of the initiators more than anything else).
Whatever one believes about AGM, climate change, etc, 'green' is here to stay, with all its confusing invocations and justifications.
Trouble is, most still seem stuck in a rut of simply arguing the point of whether bad climatic things are happening and if so who or what is to blame. One presumes that those who advocate man IS involved are principally interested in what can practically be done to mitigate and/or reverse our probably negative impositions.
So is it possible, and if so PLEASE can we then throw all we can at getting an answer to this once and for all?
It's pretty critical. If there is man-worsened negative climate change, then self evidently it would make sense to stop making it worse. Even just to buy time (unless we just give up and go for the party of all parties to celebrate the end of the race).
If, however, it is out of our control (even if we are making it worse), then maybe other strategies should be allowed for that do not involve p*ssing in the wind. Because we are talking best uses of vast amounts of money and resources here, with a potentially short planetary triage period.
Around the time of the Milliband interview there was a piece by Environmental 'Analyst' Roger Harrabin. If I recall, in it was a claim that we'd need 1,000 more resources going into the predictive modelling to actually know what is going on.
Despite being one who is more than dubious about the motivations of many researchers, I'd say that if this can sort it out once and for all... let's just do it, quick, so we can plan accordingly and act with confidence.
Otherwise all I am seeing is a planetary death by a thousand cuts, from politicians whose sights extend a maximum of 2 years (Dear Lead...er...follower chooses that highly-read organ The Guardian to make his case for retroactive car taxes to shift workers facing the night bus in the Midlands), to media who dabble as it suits with often plain daft agenda-driven propaganda dressed up as green advocacy.
Green Party - Greens call for Government to abolish road tax and charge the polluters - as a low mileage user (for now), that works for me(for now). I just hoep they have thought through on behalf of those with less choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment