Green tax or just more tax?

Well, it looks as if my cynicism regarding the government's environmental policy was not entirely misplaced. While I agree with some of the statement the article makes, I do have some issues: specifically, the fact that Britain only contributes 2% of the global Carbon Dioxide emissions, and anything that it is done must be done globally. While this in itself is true, if the majority of countries acted in isolation, then the overall result will be the same. There is the issue of increased economic cost, but this government has not shown itself averse to increasing taxes at all.

I did find the accompanying article interesting reading. It sort of flies in the face of Capitalism being seen as the root cause of the environmental issues. It does beg the question why Greenies are almost without exception Socialist, though.

Do the Swiss understand irony?

It was mentioned today in the Sydney Morning Herald that Sepp Blatter, the distinguished head of the football world governing body FIFA has apologised to Australia for the way they exited this year's World Cup. For those that didn't see it or have erased it from their memories, in stoppage time some Italian dived in the box when closed in on by Lucas Neill, which lead to a penalty and a very underserving ride into the quarter finals by Italy (along with their win, which was also undeserved IMO). Subsequent replays showed no contact whatsoever was made.

Ok, Blatter has the nerve to apologise for something that FIFA has consistently refused to do anything to fix? Perhaps if he could move his corpulent frame away far enough from the sponsorship trough so that fans can get to see the games live, he may be able to summon up the energy to fix the diving that has ruined the last two tournaments. Something that I have already ranted about.

Fix the diving, fix the unequal allocations of tickets and fix the bias of referees, then I will take anything that comes out of FIFA executives with something less than a Lott-sized grain of salt.

Let's get cynical, cynical!

(With apologies to Olivia Newton John).
An article in today's Mail on Sunday has a copy of a "secret memo"* sent by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This memo lists a number of measures that the government should consider introducing in order to make the general population more environmentally conscious. Let's take a look at some of these proposals and run them through the cynic's filter, shall we?

1. Increase vehicle excise duty for gass guzzlers: hmm, ok I guess but there are some people (farmers, etc) that need such vehicles and why should they be penalised just because DINK1 and DINK2 each want an 4x4 drive to work? As well as raising the duty, why not make it claimable as an expense for those engaged in agricultural work, as long as it was under a certain age. This would give farmers a reason to upgrade to cleaner models, and penalise the urban off-roader (which is the true intent of the tax).
2. Exemption from stamp duty for zero-carbon homes: fantastic idea, however I would also like to see greater rebates for those wishing to upgrade their homes, such as additional double-glazing, windmills or solar panels.
3. Increased tax on aviation: no! economic growth in the airline industry can lead to greater uptake of newer models which are more efficient and less polluting. Just give airlines (and manufacturers) a reason to upgrade.
4. Pricing to reflect enviromental cost: a nice idea in a utopian society, but if the government wants to encourage economic growth, raising prices will not achieve this unless salaries rise correspondingly - something that the government will not want.
5. Public sector activities to be more environmentally conscious: nice idea, but I would have expected most sectors to be reasonably environmentally aware. The only exception would be the armed forces, and really there's not a lot that can be done without massive expensive.

All in all, there are some good ideas, a few not so well thought out ideas and a couple of mistakes. Putting my cynical head on, it is likely that the tax increases will adopted a lot quicker than anything that either provides rebates or increases public spending. One thing Gordon Brown is not averse to is putting his hand in the electorate's pocket.

* The classification of it is actually Restricted which is the lowest classified level for Government documents, but lets not get hung up on semantics here.

Just a quick update

We had our broadband connection relocated to our study today. Now it means I don't have to perch over a laptop while Heather tries to watch America's Next Top Model or some such tripe (for an intelligent woman, she does like more than her fair share of reality tv).

Also got my mate coming over from Basingstoke for a pub crawl around Blackheath. Should be a messy night as Heather is away :)

Of course, we wouldn't want them having fun would we?

I was watching the news today and the Health Secretary of our wonderful government is proposing to increase the tax on alcoholic drinks, particularly alcopops, to discourage teenage binge drinking. Of course, the BMA are ecstatic about it as well, as it will reduce the number of casualties on Friday and Saturday nights due to drinking.

Here's a thought for them: It will not work! Irrespective of how much the drinks cost, teenagers will find a way to get the money. It may be working longer hours at their part-time job as they try to fund themselves through University, beating up old ladies or whatever. They want the drink, and they will get it. Sadly the nanny state cannot allow anyone to think and make decisions for themselves and Gordon Brown does not need a second invitation to raise taxes further, so it's I guess it is pretty much certain that the change will go ahead.

If the government were genuinely interested in the health and welfare of young drinkers, rather than taxing them, it would be better to spend more money on proper prevention. An increased police presence on foot at night would do a lot to calm people down, and if special constables are used, their costs are substantially less. Better education of drinkers can do a lot to reduce the alcohol consumption and this should be done at schools, colleges and universities as well as on TV.

Finally, 24 hour licensing laws need to be relaxed. In Sydney, a large number of pubs are open 24 hours and it avoids the desire for everyone to drink as many beers/wines/alcopops as possible before closing time. People will drink slower and therefore there is less likelihood of fights occuring due to excessive drunkeness.

But no, it's easier to just to tax everyone.