Something stinks

And I think it is this:

Auctioning off the right to emit carbon dioxide is likely to net the UK government nearly €2.5bn (£2bn) over the next four years, under plans to be announced today.

Telegraph - Green light for carbon credit sale

And now I know why: 'The Government, which has said the money raised will go to the Exchequer, remains on a collision course with the EU, which has insisted that any monies raised from carbon permit trading should be used to fund projects designed to combat climate change.'

Telegraph - A windfall tax will not solve our energy crisis - 'The Treasury perennially refuses to ring-fence revenues from "green" taxes - thereby undermining its credibility.'
Just thought it was worth repeating for effect:)

Times - NEW - Gordon Brown plans ‘green tax’ on energy firms to help poor

It's an ex-parrot. A green one.

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.

Well, they have asked...

The questions at least go up. Let's see what gets asked... and answered:

David Miliband on Newsnight

Qu 1: Will it ever be possible to see the choices (especially many, much vaunted 'alternative' options) broken out as peer-reviewed, agenda-free, non-lobbyist-influenced, 'clearly identified subsidy-support requiring' and based in fact? Also in spin-free, clear, objective, accurate, pro and con terms so that 'we', the voting, tax-paying public, can assess, decide upon and/or support, confident that we are not being managed by government, compliant media and interest groups to achieve box-ticking targets that have little to do with our kids' futures by being little more than just 'looking' like 'carbon' is being reduced?

Qu 2. If so, please do. A few starters for 10 (off the top of my head - sorry, no legions of research wonks at my disposal, as have most govt. ministers and programme makers)...

Wind farms.
Nuclear.
Latest Road Tax logic.
Coal fired power stations with no scrubbing systems planned.
Vast quangos with even greater comms budgets that DO what, exactly?
Focusing on trivia such as plastic bags when there is a LOT more, more critically, going on.
Cutting support in key areas allowing an individual option to help, such as solar, etc

Plus a few others I am sure others have/will provide...

Addendum:

BBC - Climate modelling uncertainty

New questions added to the above:

I have just watched the BBC Environmental 'analyst' Roger 'is that ok with you, it's now been HarraBINNED' objective piece from last night, which I am sure reflects the 'emerging truth' view of the government and its compliant media establishment.

I also note that, as stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, that AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours. Hence, if this IS the case...

Qu: Why are government still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits?

Qu: Why are most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits?

Qu: If, as claimed in the piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why don't you just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.

If there was a leadership contest announced I bet you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.

Qu: Why, as it is as sure as night follows day that this will become a back-burner (warming) issue again with the next sound-bite or ratings story, should anyone believe the next Chicken Little initiative you and your colleagues trot out now, or when next resurrected in the future?

Qu: If it is as serious as you claim it to be, why do you not make it as serious on every and any agenda you can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?

If war broke out... again... I'm sure the wheels of government and media would still turn. We'd just all be a bit more... focused. Not a bad thing?

Qu: Why do you think the government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven so totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all?

Actually, the answers to the preceding questions might explain that. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.

Qu: Do you think that anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what you, the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?

If this is not front page news tomorrow, throughout the UK at least, I will have my answer.

Yet I will plod on, whilst raising and supporting my family, trying to use and waste as little as I can, but trusting and feeling inclined to do what I am told 'is good for me' even less.

That... is the legacy of those who have brought us to this point.

Not great for a national lead...er... followership, really. And while the bunker may buy you more time than most, it is not really a solution.

Addendum 2 - Talk about Newsnight

Kismet. What I wrote above was not posted. Not sure why. Maybe there was a glitch (Like that can't happen! If so there was no indication on the site, but I did notice the word 'error' in the URL string. Not really expecting Auntie to acknowledge or address this anytime soon - though it's now 'down' at time of writing), maybe I wrote to much... or maybe you cannot post twice.

Anyway, it has given me an opportunity to digest and reply to the piece in a more considered way, and with a better chance of being seen, and making my point. Look how many replies refer to 'the single greatest issue to humanity', and how many, er, don't.

100+ questions posed. A few asked live. It will be interesting to see what we get, as promised, subsequently today.

Before even watching the Miliband piece, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.

As stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.

Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.

If, as claimed in Mr Harrabin's accompanying piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.

And if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won - how soon did AGW get dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.

If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda you (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?

Government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.

I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?

Front page news? It has barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even here!

That... is the sad legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.

And I have my answer.

The speech - “GREEN PEACE: ENERGY, EUROPE AND THE GLOBAL ORDER”
- is it just me, or is anything with the words 'global order' ('new world' is just as snappy) a tad sinister?

Indy - NEW - Ministers cannot win case for green taxes if they won't apply them to green causes - The thick plotten, methinks

Guardian - NEW - A fair trade - A quaint 'open letter'

Policy is from politicians. And politicians react to voters.

The green tax revolt: Britons will not foot bill to save planet, poll shows

Whatever may be said, those in power want, first and foremost, to stay there. And you don't do that by running against the will of those who vote.

After their performance of late, I am not expecting much from the incumbents.

Of course, other than poorly thought-out and possibly plain daft enviROI- tax-or headline-grabbing tinkering that just irritates or puts folk off anything that is billed as 'green'. Like they have worked so well, so far.

Green campaigners are right to be dismayed, but many (not all) also need to look to themselves as well for way too many petty, self-serving Planet Ban-it campaigns, especially on trivial issues.

And with hard-working folk under ever more pressures on time and income, the sheer number of fund-draining initiatives... and personnel... being imposed on the tax/ratepayer or donor by government, LAs, quangos, and activist groups, is looking like a heck of a burden to carry in the face of difficult to comprehend, and still very poorly communicated (despite multi-million £ comms budgets) climatic times.

An awful lot of folk saying an awful lot of things and very little being DONE to actually derive many worthwhile, end-benefit results that folk can relate to. Or TRUST. When it comes to much that of necessity involves effort or cost in less than fun ways - like reduction or mitigation - it's not easy, but the current lot don't seem to be doing it very well... as these findings would suggest.

I do not however imagine seeing a reduction in the green-tosh/wash/scare/target/nanny/offset industries, etc and all the associated 'green hangers-on' (inc. many in the media, who often jaunt, irony free, to Bali at the drop of a conference to decry unnecessary jaunting) anytime soon.

A world dying

That's the first part of a headline to an article in the Independent yesterday about how the warming planet threatens a huge number of the earth's species with extinction. Can we unite to save it? ..... That's the rest of the header. A good question to which I don't know the answer, but given the general lack of interest that the media has shown in the IPCC's latest outputs which is telling us to act now or else, I guess it will go unanswered anyway.

Now one of the supposed guaranteed methods of saving the earth from an untimely end is carbon sequestration, whereby CO2 is captured and pumped down into the earth in vast quantities. I'd always assumed that this was a safe and secure mechanism, but having read this from the Environment News Service, I'm not quite so sure now.

And to cap it all, we have Ol' Golden yet again being highly visible at talking the talk, but doing sweet Fanny Adams, as reported by Capital Radio. He seems excellent at big announcements and useless on action. "we must show leadership and take the first and largest responsibility". OK, if you are listening Gordon, if you really mean that, you could start by taking some of the £29.3 billion you have already pilfered in green taxes and using it to provide better insulation in the millions of UK houses that are inadequately covered at the moment - that could be a massive saving in CO2 emissions for a minor capital outlay. And while you're at that you could also stop providing real disincentives for renewables.

Fat chance!

Blogpost extension:
Hey! Perhaps Ol' Golden WAS listening - "the Prime Minister added that all houses would have to be zero-carbon by 2016, and that the Government would also give five million more homes discounted or free loft or cavity wall insulation". As reported in TimesOnline this very afternoon!

ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male, with a few highlights)

BBC - Brown to outline climate targets

High targets have been set for Britain's cut in emissions

Gordon Brown is due to give his first major speech on the environment, raising the prospect of tougher domestic targets on carbon emissions.
He will say action on climate change is urgent, but that new green industries could create thousands of jobs.

The prime minister is also expected to say that developed countries must lead the way in cutting carbon emissions.

Planned legislation sets a tough target of cutting Britain's emissions by 60% by 2050.

But Mr Brown believes there may be a case for going even further and may commit to what could be as much as a doubling of the targets to produce renewable energy by 2020.

It is understood he has been persuaded by the Department of the Environment's arguments that Britain must meet European obligations on wind, wave and solar power.

Mr Brown's spokesman said: "The prime minister is setting out his views on major issues in a comprehensive way."

BBC political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg said the prime minister would echo recent remarks that climate change is real and urgent.

Climate change will be discussed at a forthcoming summit of Commonwealth leaders, just ahead of a UN meeting in Indonesia where a new global deal on emissions will be considered.

Inspiring stuff, no?

No. As you've so rightly highlighted, it's all talk, might, could, expected to, considered, and yet more bloody targets! (Dave)

ADDENDUM 2 - Japan eyes demographic time bomb

ADDENDUM 3 (Dave) - And may we introduce yet another government sponsored quango, this time under the wing of the Energy Savings Trust. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you .... drum roll ....... the Green Homes Service. Ta da! Nice little budget though.

Incentives for renewables?

Not according to eGov Monitor, who reckon that rather than reward businesses for going green, Ol' Golden's policies imply that businesses who reduce their energy bills by installing solar panels, wind turbines and the like, are going to be hit with bigger tax bills!

"The Valuation Office Agency, an arm of Inland Revenue, is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation technology with higher business rates and council tax bills."

"a solar panel 'will never achieve a payback, but would be a continual financial drain on the company'. A typical wind turbine for commercial premises will increase the business rates bill by £1,350 a year, while a solar (photovoltaic) installation will mean an extra £2,700 a year in rates."

What the hell is going on? This is turning into an utter shambles! I despair at the inept capabilities and crass stupidity of our esteemed government. We are supposed to be encouraging the uptake of renewables, not bloody well penalising them!

And this on the day when a top UN official states that it would be criminally irresponsible not to tackle global warming!

Who does is cost to save the planet?

Well, it should come as no surprise as to who is trying to gain financially.

Green travellers face VAT shock

All I could manage was a slight giggle. I think it has gone beyond farce.

The bidding on the plane at gate 5 starts at...

It's an interesting debate at least: Green taxes are the only way to stop us flying

I have now read Final Call (with a long overdue review due soon) and can only agree with most of it.

But I have to say that the headline for me needs to change to 'Green taxes are the only way to stop some of us flying'. And whether that will be enough.

And without crippling the entire global tourist industries of the world, along with those that serve them, I can't see how that is going to happen. There are simply too many, with too much, and too much vested in ensuring that 'we' keep on getting from A to B for business or pleasure.

And that of course applies to more potentially equitable 'solutions' such as trading, unless it is on a strictly monitored, per person per year basis, and ignores the fact that a Kalahari bushman or Mekong washerwoman are as entitled to an annual quota as the next jet-setting (because 'we have to for our job') person.

I hate to be negative, but I'm stumped on this one.

It must be true; it's on the BBC

Golly. You don't get much more unequivocal than this: Green taxes 'are making billions'

Though it does in turn refer to a report, there are no 'may's' here. Simply, 'The government is raising billions of pounds more in green taxes than it needs to remove the UK's "carbon footprint".

Either the BBC is in pendulum swing mode after its rather slavish eco-reporting to date, or things are getting 'interesting'. Why can't we just get the real facts???!

Personally, I am not so concerned about the amount taken in the name of green (though any excess is, well, excessive), but I do care very much where it is all going. Especially in a climate when targets take precedence over tangibles where it matters.

For a start, finding out if it is to support genuine CO2 reduction initiatives at all, and if it is how good they are. Funding a dodgy turbine scheme or the bonus for a quango re-director does not make my kids' future much better as far as I can figure.

BBC - Costing the Earth - And it has impacted on others, directing to an FoE reply which, sadly, I found a tad thin on substance.

Green Tax On Air Travel?

It must be the season for surveys and public polls.

It would seem that a green tax on flights will probably be applied to all your flights before too long. Oft talked about and partly fudged already, but not genuinely implemented, probably because it has always been regarded as a vote loser, this from today's Indy suggests that public perceptions have changed to such an extent that almost half those polled are now "in favour of a tax on air travel to try to curb harmful the CO2 emissions that cause global warming."

Let's just hope that if (or perhaps when) it is implemented in one form or another that:-

a) It is implemented in a sensible and logical, understandable manner.
b) It isn't a typical bodge job.
c) The monies raised are actually used to help against global warming.

Well ...... its not too much to ask .... is it?
_______________

Meanwhile, on the other side of the big pond, the US FAA is planning to double or triple air traffic capacity by 2025. This from In These Times asks a very pertinent question - "is it [The FAA] giving concerns about aviation’s effects on climate change the attention they deserve?"

Given the political clout of the US aviation industry, I think I can hazard a good guess at what the answer is. Can you?

Well, at least they were honest:(

We get a lot of surveys. And there is usually a disconnect between what folk say, what they really think, and actually do. So this is... interesting: Consumers reject "green" taxes

When it comes to social behaviour, we are a little less prone to the truth, if the discrepancy between those who say they recycle and those who actually do is to be reconciled.

But when it comes to cold, hard cash, well, the people have spoken.... at least to a guy flogging insurance policies.

I just wonder how many resent paying more tax (well, D'uh), but in terms of green don't see how paying it actually ends up helping the planet with the gold-plated shower we have in charge of things these days.

Meanwhile...

BBC - Teenagers support 'green' schools - as opposed to...?