The Green Tax Man: Good or Bad?
By many standards the UK Government is among the eco leaders of the world, with a clear commitment to make significant cuts in greenhouse emissions, numerous tax incentives for green behaviour, and longer term ambitions to reduce CO2 output by up to 80%.
However, actions speak louder than words, particularly the words of politicians.
When the British Government announced their most recent budget earlier this year, there was much applause from green groups after chancellor Alistair Darling announced almost draconian increases in taxation on gas guzzling cars.
But how effective are these taxes? Do we have a clear set of policies that are making a real difference, or is there some truth in accusations that governments are using a green agenda to raise additional tax revenue?
Early projections suggest that the latter may be true, with the UK treasury estimating that new green motoring taxes will provide an additional £4 billion ($7.9 billion) in tax revenues, but reduce vehicle emissions by only 1% (0.06% of the total CO2 emissions in the UK).
The new motor taxes have obviously been widely criticized, with the shadow Treasury minister describing it as “This is a massive tax hike which will have virtually no impact on the environment,” adding that “Despite their claims, the Government don’t expect this move to change behaviour at all - it is just another eco-stealth tax of the worst kind.”
To which the British government has feebly responded “The Government is committed to protecting the environment and tackling climate change. Part of this commitment involves promoting sustainable environmental improvements through tax and other economic instruments, and incentivising the development and uptake of lower emissions vehicles.”
Many fear that these are merely warm intentions, and not concrete commitments. Considering that, for example, current investment in energy research is approximately one tenth of the amount spent on space research, and that UK CO2 emissions are still rising after over a decade of pseudo green government action, it would appear that a new approach is needed.
Until then it will be hard to argue with the sentiment that for many governments green = more tax.
Photo courtesy of Flickr.
“current investment in energy research is approximately one tenth of the amount spent on space research”
I find it hard to believe that statistic. What about first solving our environmental problems, and then going into space? Is government that clueless?
Could you provide a source for this?
Sorry, am having difficulty in finding that source again – this article was written last week. Considering the huge sums spent on space exploration however, and the limited progress that alternative energy sources have made in the last 30 years I don’t find it so hard to believe. We managed to put a man on the moon, but our world would stop if we ran out of fossil fuels tomorrow.
But let’s not forget the benefits that space exploration has bestowed upon us. Satellite based instruments are essential in monitoring our climate, and many space developed technologies (such as fuel cells) will prove invaluable as we begin to decarbonize our economy.
“et’s not forget the benefits that space exploration has bestowed upon us.”
Of course, I won’t. But you can always invest directly in these technologies. Research into (launching) satellites could fall under the meteorology account, and fuel cells indeed under energy research.
The fact that we put a man on the moon, or a rover on mars, doesn’t say much to me. I don’t have a clue what this costs. I think this can be seen as spending on luxury in times of need. Weird practice.
I do want to urge you to keep your sources somewhere. This is not really helpful. Who knows if you remembered this statistic correctly?
I can highly recommend http://del.icio.us/ for bookmarks.
Don’t worry, I have the source, but not on this computer. And I am most certain that it is correct. You might consider that the Apollo space program cost $20 billion back in the 60’s - that’s a big investment program, bigger than we are likely to see in renewables in today’s money.
Interesting article and conclusion. One positive message that might be taken from the increase in tax revenue is that the money can be put toward greening the country as well. For instance, there’s been a lot of grumbling about the congestion charging, but it’s enabled the city government to reinvest the money heavily in the city’s public transit. Just a thought from Mr. Silver Lining.
Thanks for the positive thoughts as always Gavin. My main grumble is that there is huge investment potential, but tax revenues tend to be put towards solving other problems rather than environmental ones. Other problems, which have occurred due to past underinvestment - which will be the case with the environment in some years time.. Next post will be more positive!!
[...] The Green Tax Man: Good or Bad? [...]