PDA

View Full Version : Commodity Inflation trumps Climate Change?



GRG55
05-02-08, 03:20 PM
Has climate change "peaked" even sooner than crude oil?

Is this article an early indication that the climate change advocates will face a difficult time competing for people's attention? That the rising cost-of-living & feeding their families becomes the central preoccupation of the masses? That further reductions in their take-home-pay for carbon taxes to fund attendance of the latte and Learjet set to the latest IPCC conference resort are met with resistance?

Does it mean that climate change advocacy morphs from saving drowning polar bears into a "global sustainability movement" selling the hope of solutions to skyrocketing fuel and food?

Hey Mega: What's your view and what are you hearing? This is, after all, originating in Blighty...

From the UK Independent:



Green tax revolt: Britons 'will not foot bill to save planet'
</EM>
<!--proximic_content_on-->
Majority of Britons are opposed to increases in green taxation
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor</AUTHOR>
Friday, 2 May 2008



<!--proximic_content_on-->
More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll.
<!--proximic_content_off-->
<!--proximic_content_on-->
The survey also reveals that most Britons believe "green" taxes on 4x4s, plastic bags and other consumer goods have been imposed to raise cash rather than change our behaviour, while two-thirds of Britons think the entire green agenda has been hijacked as a ploy to increase taxes.



The findings make depressing reading for green campaigners, who have spent recent months urging the Government to take far more radical action to reduce Britain's carbon footprint. The UK is committed to reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, a target that most experts believe will be difficult to reach. The results of the poll by Opinium, a leading research company, indicate that maintaining popular support for green policies may be a difficult act to pull off, and attempts in the future to curb car use and publicly fund investment in renewable resources will prove deeply unpopular.



The implications of the poll could also blow a hole in the calculations of the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, who was forced to delay a scheduled 2p-a-litre rise in fuel duty until the autumn in his spring Budget, while his plans to impose a showroom tax and higher vehicle excise duty on gas-guzzling cars will not take effect for a year. He is now under pressure to shelve the increase in fuel duty because of the steep rise in the price of oil...



...Mark Hodson, of Opinium Research, said: "Britain appears to be feeling increasingly negative about being more carbon neutral. We are questioning the truth behind being greener and many feel that Government is creating a green fear for monetary gain."...



...Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, said: "The Government is committed to building a low-carbon economy, here and around the world. That means a complete change in the way we live and an economic transformation that will put Britain at the forefront of a technological revolution in the way we use and source our energy."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-green-tax-revolt-britons-will-not-foot-bill-to-save-planet-poll-shows-819703.html


<!--proximic_content_off-->

Contemptuous
05-02-08, 03:58 PM
GRG55 - The analogy might be something like a man pointing a gun at one's head in a robbery attempt while both are standing in a burning house? One emergency is manifestly more 'dire' than the other?

Given that choice, and humans being what they are, the overwhelming vote for 'direst emergency' will clearly go to the guy with a gun stuck firmly to his temple (out of control inflation in cost of living). But it does not necessarily tell us which of the two emergencies will cause more damage overall. Either he gets shot or he doesn't get shot. Probably not, if he hands over his wallet.

Meanwhile the fire is potentially taking the house down ...

GRG55
05-02-08, 04:15 PM
GRG55 - The analogy might be something like a man pointing a gun at one's head in a robbery attempt while both are standing in a burning house? One emergency is manifestly more 'dire' than the other?

Given that choice, and humans being what they are, the overwhelming vote for 'direst emergency' will clearly go to the guy with a gun stuck firmly to his temple (out of control inflation in cost of living). But it does not necessarily tell us which of the two emergencies will cause more damage overall. Either he gets shot or he doesn't get shot. Probably not, if he hands over his wallet.

Meanwhile the fire is potentially taking the house down ...

Hey Lukester: Glad to see you're not boycotting me completely. ;)

I thought this comment in the article was quite telling:



"...Mike Childs, the head of campaigns for Friends of the Earth, blamed the Government for generating a cynical response to "green taxes". "People do get cynical unless they see benefits," he said. "The Government is playing a dangerous game. They are using climate change to identify potential new taxes and revenues but the public aren't seeing anything in return. The public aren't being helped to go green. The Government could put a windfall tax on the big oil companies and use that money to insulate homes or introduce a feed-in tariff to pay people to produce renewable energy."
If this feeling of taxation with no apparent benefit becomes (already is?) widespread in the developed economies, the cynicism will quickly become ingrained. Governments have little time to reform themselves it would seem.

phirang
05-02-08, 04:25 PM
Hey Lukester: Glad to see you're not boycotting me completely. ;)

I thought this comment in the article was quite telling:



"...Mike Childs, the head of campaigns for Friends of the Earth, blamed the Government for generating a cynical response to "green taxes". "People do get cynical unless they see benefits," he said. "The Government is playing a dangerous game. They are using climate change to identify potential new taxes and revenues but the public aren't seeing anything in return. The public aren't being helped to go green. The Government could put a windfall tax on the big oil companies and use that money to insulate homes or introduce a feed-in tariff to pay people to produce renewable energy."

If this feeling of taxation with no apparent benefit becomes (already is?) widespread in the developed economies, the cynicism will quickly become ingrained. Governments have little time to reform themselves it would seem.

Wouldn't canada benefit from climate change? NW passage + more arable land + cheaper resource E&P... what's not to love.

Oh, that whole END OF THE WORLD scenario... :)

Back to the question at hand: the US government, at least, has proven incredibly myopic, and that data would suggest a perfunctory/non-existent climate change protocol in such an environment. I could see substantial pressure for more fossil E&P domestically and even CTL, GTL, etc.

the fossil situation is analogous to aids in africa...

Contemptuous
05-02-08, 04:48 PM
Hey Lukester: Glad to see you're not boycotting me completely. ;)

That's rich GRG55. When I was wondering a couple of weeks ago why you chose to leave one or two of my more pointed questions unanswered, your response was (that thread is now deleted unfortunately) something to the effect of "well I don't feel compelled to answer every single post addressed to me here". You say so guy, that's OK by me!

For the record, I don't 'boycott' anyone here, as that would be a little on the juvenile side. Why you think some people here do that kind of posturing maybe? Silly frathouse behavior, if you ever asked me. If I have something to say, I'll mention it to you directly, New York style. BTW, Boston brahmins give New Yorkers an itch sometimes. Something about delivering a peremptory message with a high tone and all. "New York Mario" don't like it.

Mega
05-02-08, 06:33 PM
Guilt taxes

Any and every excuss to Tax, tax & TAX again...........Today we had a local election...........Labour got hammered, worst result in over 40 years.........& the recession/depression has only just begun!

Labour have built Britian on borrowing & bulshit & TAXES............The party is over............the tide has turned..........Britan will NOT take any more Fuel tax/Green Tax/Bin tax !!!!!

After a few riots (I been in one in the 80's myself) "They" get the message.

Mike

GRG55
05-02-08, 09:53 PM
...Today we had a local election...........Labour got hammered, worst result in over 40 years.........& the recession/depression has only just begun!...

Mike

I see the Beeb over here is carrying the story of Boris' 'shocking" win over Red Ken in London. The times they are a changin' that's fer sure...

Chris
05-05-08, 06:21 AM
I wouldn't call it shocking at all. The BBC are heavily invested in keeping favour with a Labour goverment and Ken had no hope in this election. Labour lost over 300 councilors in the local elections as people finally understood the consequences of tax and spend policies. Fortunately the seeming paradox of the same policies from a Republican administration in the US is well understood by iTulipers as really being a pseudo-problem.

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/


The geese are hissing horribly.

In the corporate sector, Shire and UBM have already redomiciled to low-tax Ireland, and last week Martin Sorrell said (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/darling-tries-to-stem-tax-exodus-818144.html) he was thinking of doing the same. These three companies pay chunky amounts of UK tax, but they don't need to be domiciled here: their businesses are global (eg UBM only generates 15% of its profits (http://www.unitedbusinessmedia.com/ubm/ir/rns/rnsitem?id=1204268468nPRrS45BFa&t=popup) in the UK).

They're going because a cash-strapped Treasury is engaged in a programme to tax more of their international income here in the UK (under changes to the so-called Controlled Foreign Corporation regime). And they could be joined by others.

According to the left, Brown should simply ignore the hissing. As Poll explains (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/02/taxavoidance.taxandspending), Shire and UBM aren't currently paying that much UK tax anyway, and even Sorrell's 200m pa is in dispute with HMRC (come to that, UBM is also in dispute). Gordo should - no, don't laugh - tough it out.

Hmm.

These footloose corporations are not the only ones hissing. Suddenly, with prices soaring and the economy wobbling, everyone is noticing just how much tax they're being forced to pay. Tyler's unhealthy addiction to R5 phone-ins highlights the rapidly changing mood:

"It's just cost me 40 to fill my little car - and 70% of that is tax" - two years ago most people Tyler asked had no idea how much fuel tax they were paying.

"My little business is really struggling - and all the government can do is increase the tax on small companies" - nobody mentions the need to fund public services any more.

"My council just whacked up its charges for trade waste - we can't pass it on... we're finished... I'm really angry"

Etc etc.

From rich to poor, the geese are hissing loud and clear.

Unsurprisingly, whatever Poll may do to put some lead into his pencil, Brown is buckling. He's going to scrap his new bin tax (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1927581/Gordon-Brown-%27ready-to-sacrifice-bin-tax%27.html) before it even gets started, and may scrap his 2p fuel tax rise scheduled for the autumn.

But can he afford to do this? Where's the money coming from?

Yup, more borrowing. Even more borrowing.

And spending cuts - not just the 2% public sector incomes policy but real live spending cuts of the kind imposed by both Wislon and Callaghan.

As we've said many times, Labour governments always end like this. They spend and spend and spend. Eventually, taxpayers can stand no more. At which point, we get a public sector incomes policy triggering massive discontent and strikes. And then we get emergency spending cuts, combining maximum service disruption with minimum efficiency.

One toxic legacy coming right up.