First, propaganda -next, pay day?
Nothing illustrates better where the environment hysteria agenda has been heading than the framing of today's question on BBC Radio 1's lunchtime news programme Newsbeat.
Listeners were being encouraged to text and e-mail what they thought on the question, Would you pay more taxes to save the environment?
There's nothing the government and largely hard-left environment hysteria lobby would like more than for people to start to believe that all they need to do is shell out still more of their hard-earned cash to politicians and everything will be alright with the planet.
Apparently, it's simple: tax equals saving the planet, no tax means global catastrophe. Such is the dichotomy that, with pound-signs in their eyes, it could be suspected that the hysteria lobby have long been working to establish.
Rather than focussing on and encouraging changes of behaviour people can make at little cost, the 'green' agenda has always been peppered with the idea that we need to be properly punished for our polluting, modern ways - that our lifestyles are 'unsustainable', and we'd better get used to going without the things we need, and without doing the things we enjoy.
There's always been this certain masochism to the green lobby - a gleeful seizing on a supposed reason to return to simpler times of previous centuries - coupled with a bizarre, burning need to inflict it on everyone else.
And now, after the years of 'looming disaster' propaganda, we're reaching the crunch point. Fingers firmly crossed, hoping the years of propaganda have worked their magic, the politicians are finally gearing up to claim another big chunk of the little hard-earned cash we have left for ourselves after the other chunks they take.
Thankfully, looking at responses to that question on the Radio 1 link above, most people are a long way from succumbing to this ploy.
Pounds, not planet
So how do we know the global warming hysteria is really about revenue-raising rather than saving the planet? Take the rather critical fact that energy use in homes and businesses is by a long way the biggest cause of carbon emissions, and that far greater efforts to encourage energy conservation would therefore make a much bigger dent in Britain's total emissions. Surely those really interested in affecting the environment for the better would be obsessing about energy conservation? You'd have thought.
But no. The first choice for national and local politicians is always to set about finding ways to ramp up taxes on individuals which, even by deliberate design (see Richmond's 'green' parking permit con & Lib Dem car tax trap postings), have the greatest impact not on the wealthy but hard-pressed families trying to keep up with the many existing financial demands of modern life.
Punish or encourage?
Why is it that punishment, rather than encouragement, is always the first choice for politicians? For example, rather than planning to charge us still more for the necessity of a car, for imagining we might take a holiday or for daring to throw out some rubbish, the government could abolish VAT on energy-saving light bulbs, on solar panels, on wind turbines, on roof insulation, on getting gas boilers maintained regularly, on double-glazing. These improvements would become more affordable and all would have a significant impact in the area of the biggest cause of carbon emissions.
If the politicians really must 'do' something in the area of road transport, they could scrap the duty on biodiesel. Or, more practical still, the government could cut its massive tax take on the price of new, more efficient fuels like the one that BP has recently developed - BP Ultimate.
BP claim that if every car used that instead of ordinary unleaded, the effect on emissions would be the same as taking 1 million cars off the road. That's equivalent to taking all cars out of a city the size of Newcastle!
So why don't many drivers use this fuel? Because BP Ultimate costs a lot more than normal unleaded. It wouldn't, though, if the government gave up a small part of their 70% fuel tax grab to bring the price down to on a par with the regular fuel.
If they did that, of course car users would choose the more efficient, environmentally-friendly option and the benefit to the planet would be both instant and massive.
Certainly there is something very wrong with politicians planning to slap more taxes on people yet taxing better fuels like this to the hilt so few can afford to help the environment even if they wanted to.
Money where the mouth is
If that's not enough, here's another idea. If global warming is really a bigger threat than terrorism, as the green lobby regularly claim, then why doesn't the government spend the billions of pounds ear-marked for their highly controversial ID cards plan on developing alternative energy sources, like harnessing tide power, building off-shore wind farms, or installing solar panels on public buildings?
Politicians simply can't expect us to treat saving the planet as a priority and pay through the nose for it if they don't exhibit the same attitude themselves.
So is it any surprise that some suggest politicians aren't so interested in changing things to help the planet as grabbing yet more money off us?
Environment needs new approach
The door is wide open for a political party to spearhead a positive, pragmatic, reasonable and creative environmentalism, utilising market forces and encouraging people with benefits for pro-environment choices. Rather than attempting to bludgeon us with the lazy, blunt instrument of higher taxes.
So... Gordie, Dave, Ming? Who's it going to be? Whoever, you'd better make it quick.
No comments:
Post a Comment