Yes, this is a problem with environmental taxes... they seem to have been very specific about the taxes they want to cut, and rather vague about the ones they want to increase. Still, more capital gains tax and less tax relief on private pensions are both Fine By Me.
Road tax to 2K. Thats absolutely daft, and seriously penalises anyone not living and working convienient to public transport (Thats most places not in London.)
If I get public transport to work I leave the house at 6:15am, and get back again at around 8:30pm. Thats not much fun.
What we rea need is to stop subsidising the oil companies and insead support different ways of producing energy. Doesn't make much difference to the money we're paying, but might help with the envirnmental issues.
Trying to reduce pollutants is all very well, but people need to be able to travel to places somehow. A good alternative is needed if you're going to try and stop people driving.
One issue many may have already mentioned: what is the price elasticity demand for transport? They might have budget holidays to Mallorca in mind, with plenty of domestic alternatives, but everyday commuting takes up the bulk of transport demand, I wager.
---
Still, to my mind it's all a chicken-and-egg question of how to get to the point of a retooled society less dependent on cars and fossil fuels. Since you lot are accustomed to taxes and suspicious of debt-financing, it seems all government would rather pressure the old before building the new.
Why not? Nuclear's fine, if you're not scared of the isotope boogymen. Solar energy's useless in the UK (and the panels cost more to make than they produce) wind is so-so and almost impossible to store, and anything built in or near the sea corrodes so quickly it falls apart in a couple of years.
If we're not going to all use a hell of a lot less energy, we could do a lot worse than a safe nuclear reactor or ten.
Realistically, nuclear will have to play a part, but it's hardly "fine."
From a management standpoint, the issues of safe sequestration of waste for 100K+ years is a challenge (especially on your islands of crumbly limestone teeming with people and property), the fuel reprocessing & geopolitical issues associated with it (nevermind Sellafield's safety record), plus the demand management challenge of base load versus peak demand are hardly problems you can magic away.
Oddly though, you may find that the UK could do a lot more by improving the housing stock. Oxford may have been unusually run-down, but British housing generally is hardly the picture of energy efficiency.
Then there's the whole dimension of materials efficiency in your economy which is not particularly good, but then neither is the US's.
Comments 22
Reply
If I get public transport to work I leave the house at 6:15am, and get back again at around 8:30pm. Thats not much fun.
Reply
Reply
Trying to reduce pollutants is all very well, but people need to be able to travel to places somehow. A good alternative is needed if you're going to try and stop people driving.
Reply
---
Still, to my mind it's all a chicken-and-egg question of how to get to the point of a retooled society less dependent on cars and fossil fuels. Since you lot are accustomed to taxes and suspicious of debt-financing, it seems all government would rather pressure the old before building the new.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
If we're not going to all use a hell of a lot less energy, we could do a lot worse than a safe nuclear reactor or ten.
Reply
From a management standpoint, the issues of safe sequestration of waste for 100K+ years is a challenge (especially on your islands of crumbly limestone teeming with people and property), the fuel reprocessing & geopolitical issues associated with it (nevermind Sellafield's safety record), plus the demand management challenge of base load versus peak demand are hardly problems you can magic away.
Oddly though, you may find that the UK could do a lot more by improving the housing stock. Oxford may have been unusually run-down, but British housing generally is hardly the picture of energy efficiency.
Then there's the whole dimension of materials efficiency in your economy which is not particularly good, but then neither is the US's.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment