Tonight:
4°c
Gordon Brown has said that tomorrow's Budget will be a green one. If true, it will be just the latest example of governments buying into the idea that they can save the world economy and the planet at the same time. President Obama has committed $100 billion to environmentally-friendly measures in his stimulus plan.
Since climate change is — in my view — the most serious problem mankind faces, aren't such initiatives unqualified good news? Unfortunately not.
It's certainly true that we need government intervention to tackle climate change. But such efforts must not only cut carbon-dioxide emissions, they must also do so without wasting taxpayers' money.
Around the world hundreds of different carbon-cutting schemes have been introduced over the past few years. Even in this country, there's a confusing morass of them.
There are Renewables Obligations Certificates, zero-carbon building regulations, the “Merton Rule” requiring all new buildings to use renewable energy, Energy Performance Certificates, Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations, and much more. All are well-intended but they don't add up to much, with the result that last year the Government admitted that it would miss the target it agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol for emissions cuts by 2010.
There are two main ways in which government can push the green agenda further: subsidies and taxes. The first, which involves handing out taxpayers' money, tends to be popular and inefficient; the second, which involves the Government taking away money, tend to be unpopular and efficient.
In Britain, we haven't so far gone in for huge green subsidies, and experience elsewhere suggests we shouldn't. Biofuels subsidies in America led to huge rises in food prices in poor countries because crops were being diverted to make fuel for rich people's cars and, it turned out, biofuels save very little, if any, carbon. Solar energy subsidies in Germany were so generous that Germany cornered the market in solar silicon, which could have been used more effectively in countries that actually have some sun.
It's hardly surprising that clean-energy subsidies usually turn out to be a bad idea. Governments are bad at picking technologies. Remember Concorde?
If the Government is really serious about cutting emissions, it would do better to follow the old principle of making polluters pay and taxing emissions of carbon dioxide, as the Tories have suggested. That would discourage businesses from emitting carbon dioxide and encourage them to develop cleaner technologies, and it wouldn't rely on governments picking technologies or giving money to businesses. The cash collected through a carbon tax could be used to cut other taxes.
But governments — particularly when they are as unpopular as this one — shrink from introducing new taxes. They prefer measures such as the electric-vehicle subsidy announced last week, that involve cash handouts to companies or consumers. So I fear that Mr Brown's green Budget, like Mr Obama's green stimulus, will be full of wasteful subsidies: it will do more good to some lucky recipients of subsidies than it will to the planet.
Nelson turns a blind eye
Nelson Mandela has probably done more for his country than anybody anywhere else in the world. But he did it a big disservice on Sunday, when he appeared at the last pre-election rally of the ruling African National Congress, in a clear endorsement of the ANC and its candidate for the presidency, Jacob Zuma.
Corruption and Aids have spread while the ANC has been in power, and Mr Zuma has been tried for rape. He was acquitted on the grounds that the sex was consensual but made it clear that he was guilty at least of gross ignorance when he said that after sex he showered in order to avoid contracting Aids. Neither he nor the ANC deserves Mr Mandela's endorsement.
I play second fiddle to the net
In London my children are surrounded by things and people who are more amusing than I am — television, movies, DVDs and friends — so during the holidays I try to take them away from these distractions to do things with me. To this end, we go to a converted cowshed in the Suffolk countryside without a television.
Until recently, this worked pretty well but technology has foiled my scheme. For work reasons, I have had broadband installed. Now we have available 24/7 not just all the glories of the global entertainment industry, available for download through numberless websites but also my children's entire coterie of friends, available in real time on Facebook, Windows Live Messenger, Skype and many more services. I have therefore, sadly, lost the fight for my daughters' attention.
* Fascinating research from Cambridge University suggests that people in different regions have different personalities. The gap between London and the rest of the country is sharper than that between other regions, and growing, because people are more mobile. Londoners are creative, extrovert, intellectual, open-minded and disagreeable; people from Devon, Cornwall, Northumberland and Tyneside are neurotic introverts; the Welsh are lazy, and so on. So the old idea that city people are nasty seems to be true. I'm not sure I mind, so long as we're interesting and clever — but then, as a nasty Londoner, I wouldn't, would I?
Emma Duncan is deputy editor of The Economist.
Reader views (3)
Like thousands of other people in this country, I do remember Concorde - with pride and affection, as one of the best things we've ever produced.
- K John, London, UK, 21/04/2009 13:12
Report abuse
One problem is that power companies give a negative incentive to save energy.
They tier the Kwh`s rate so the first few hundred is expensive, after that a cheaper rate is offered.
Exactly the opposite should be the case, the more you use, the more the cost of each unit of power.
All the government needs to do to implement this strategy is to scrap VAT and introduce a consumption tax.
The first 100Kwh could be zero rated, the next at 5 percent, the next at 20 percent and so on - the more you use over the "basic", the more you pay.
This could even be applied to fuel consumption, you have a fuel code that ups the tax after a pre-determined amount.
If we were serious about “fair” energy use, this would be a start.
Another possibility is to tax cars by the AREA of road they take up as a multiplier to the BHP and emission level, this would encourage smaller cars leaving more space to drive, park, etc
Also, a refund on ALL clean packaging should be charged, recycle centres at all fast food outlets!
Another possibility is slapping on a "distance from manufacture to point of sale to the public" tax - this could encourage local production, and would weigh heavily on imports.
None of these suggestions are too complex to implement, but who ever suggested that going "green" was simple?
Finally, it’s been said before, but population control is the real answer to pollution limitation.
- Darius Midwinter, London UK, 21/04/2009 12:57
Report abuse
Pay who?
No more taxes thank you!
- Leon, London, 21/04/2009 11:28
Report abuse
