What would you pay to turn the world green?

Big_O

Well, I'm quite happy to pay additional tax - it's an enormous problem and needs sorting fast. However, I'd rather not see it doen through an increase in income tax - What will it actually achieve? Far better to tax 'bad behaviour', i.e. anything that produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases to discourage their use and then ringfence any money from those taxes (anathema to most politicians, I know) to spend on research and tech and subsidising things like energy efficiency initiatives for the poorest sections of society, who as pointed out earlier would be hit hardest by 'green taxes'.

One of the best places to start, in my opinion, would be a plastic carrier bag tax. Should be very simple, raise some cash quickly and change habits quickly (reducing the amount of cash raised, but it all helps).

Oh and Smillieworld, aviation fuel isn't taxed under international agreement - the UK government isn'y allowed to tax it.

richardradders

I too agree that paying more taxes for a greener environment is not what should be happening. That is taxing those who are already taxed enough. I ageee there should be fines for those companies who don't follow green rules. How many companies do we know who just throw recyclable products in the skip or bin. These are the guys who should be taxed or fined. There should be insentives for going green for the members of the public, not charges if you don't.

What happened to councils going green or helping to make people green. When I lived in Nottingham I was highly impressed by the local council. They had bins and bags for all your waste and they majored on recycling and collected it from your home. However where I live now there is no insentive to recycle. If I want to recycle, which I do do, I have to save it and then go to the tip myself. Come on councils start playing the game, start making recycling an easy thing to do. So tax councils and busnesses if they don't go green, that is what I say.

Though I know these charges will be passed onto the customer in some cases. If so let's boycott any companies that don't go green.

That's got that off my chest and I am not even an environmentalist. I am just a person who wants to look after the planet.

Judith_Proctor

I would spend that much. We don't have a high income, but it's a case of spending money now to have a world for my grandchildren.

If every country waits for another to take the lead, then nothing will happen.

I know money-saving expert is about saving cash without changing your lifestyle, but why not list a tip every week on helping the environment without changing your lifestyle? (and it nearly always saves cash as well).

eg. I worked out today that it costs about 4p to boil enough water for one mug of tea. My husband typically puts enough water in the kettle to boil two mugs.

We've just painted a line on the kettle to show how much water = 1 mug.

Potential saving if he just fills the kettle upto the line? £80 per year.

planenut

Lot's of replies on this one.
Several points, as with everybody.
My hobby is aviation and it only seems one or possibly two postings realize that this is the major polluter of the atmosphere; I hate figures ('cos I always get them wrong), but over the same distance, exhaust gases from a jumbo jet equates to about one hundred cars, and the plane travels further. Research into the engines of all transport should be stepped up to improve efficiency. People will not stop using it.
Recycling won't work, the local governments are introducing rules about it which mean, "if you don't comply, they don't collect!", this cuts down their costs, the tax will continue to rise. It may encourage recycling if we actually knew what happened to it afterwards. (why don't people crush containers?)
Why don't they make a rule that all those who work in Westminster ride to work on public transport and get a reduction in their taxation? They'll soon try to improve the public transport then. All that wasted land around the M25 junctions could be made into car parks.
At the end of the day, it is more down to the individuals. The poorer countries should be assisted by the developed countries to reduce the damage. When the USA does something positive, then I will rethink my position.
Mankind is only one species on the planet -
the only one killing it!

Mrs_Mopp_2

I've just returned from a few days in Prague. I don't feel guilty about flying, because it's only the third time I've used an aeroplane in my 47 years. I could only afford to go because of cheap flights - so if air travel is taxed more highly I won't be flying again. However, the public transport system there is so much cheaper, more efficient and simpler than ours. It costs 50p to travel for 75 minutes on any form of transport. You don't need separate bus/metro/tram tickets - you can use the same ticket for any form of transport within the city. The metro is clean and comfortable and the trains are frequent - as are the buses and trams. Obviously I don't know what the situation is outside the city centre.
Where I live (Staffs) it costs £1.30 for a single ten minute journey into town,and the buses only run every half-an-hour - so it simply isn't worth the money or effort to use them if the car is sitting on the drive.
We need much more investment in an integrated, cheap, efficient, clean, comfortable transport system. I would be prepared to pay extra taxes if it would go towards doing that - but it would require a major overhaul of what we have at present. The longterm benefits would be enormous, though.

Skyp-rat

If we apply money-saving logic we'd be better off putting the 4p in a high interest account and paying the £/$3680 billion if and when it falls due.

Judith_Proctor

Made a mistake on my reply about filling the kettle. (the meter is very hard to read in daylight). The saving from not overfilling it is £9 a year rather than £90. Still worth doing, but not so dramatic.

WillD_2

This is really interesting, (particularly to an academic in environmental policy.) The results and discussions show that we are prepared to pay to combat climate change but we also don't think that income tax is the right way.

IMHO, you are wise folk. Climate change, unlike education (say) is not an issue that you can throw 'any old money at'. Where it comes from is as crucial as what it does. I'll try and explain why...

The point is that reducing carbon emmissions needs a change in behaviour. Economically, the best way is 'personal tradable carbon allowances' - rations that can be bought and sold. The same system works for large industry - the EU emmisions trading scheme - but logistically, this is some way off for even small businesses, so high taxes on 'carbon intensive activities' (fossil fuels, driving, flying) will have to do, for the time being. I would like to see variable VAT on products too.

Another point is that Stern predicts a 1% fall in global GDP, if steps are taken. Simply raising taxes won't compensate, as tax revenue is not part of GDP. Actually, it would probably lead to a recession that would further reduce GDP, but this would also reduce CO2 emmissions(!).

To go a stage further, GDP is a very poor measure of progress. It rises when forests are cut down and oil is burnt, even when the prisons get fuller. So, a loss in GDP is not to be feared. Tackling climate change will make me for one much happier than 1% of GDP. I feel sure that an improved environment will be worth much more to us than economic activity.

In fact the whole idea that being green costs extra is usually wrong: the stuff we waste - emmissions and packaging etc - we paid for up front so its our money wasted.

The bottom line is that Stern shows that we have no option but to act. Just don't think raising income tax and throwing the additional at climate change is the answer. It didn't even work for the NHS!

Interesting post, Martin, but perhaps for the wrong reasons(!).

(by the way - I said 4p because I want to show I care and I would pay it if I thought it was the right way. )

planenut

Cold this morning again. Frosty in fact!
at least 75% of the people using their vehicles near my address ran the engine to defrost the screen - the same people who moan about the taxes, the depletion of the ozone layer, the state of the planet.
If one doesn't have the time or the inclination to scrape, then a litre of warm water does the trick. Costs are neglible, doesn't use as much "fuel", and does not create the gases.

SickStu

squirreltufty wrote:

Interesting that the poll isn't going the way of those who shout the loudest on this thread.

That's because the propaganda campaign, to make people believe that anthropogenic (man made) global warming caused by CO2 is fact, has been so successful. All counter views are suppressed.
Wake up ! - it's all about raising revenue for illegal wars and covering up the fact that the government has done such a bad job of maintaining our energy supply infrastructure that in winter we're just a cold snap away from power cuts.