Stern report - your views
Thanks to those of you who commented on my blog about our climate change coverage - some interesting views. I thought you might all be interested in the results of a poll by the Daily Politics programme on our willingness to pay green taxes.
It's a somewhat more mixed result - and a poll is only a poll - than I had thought. People do seem willing to pay IF they can be sure the government is going to tax in the right way and at the moment they don't seem to trust this will be the case. Anyway here are the results.
- The government has published a report showing that climate change could have a very significant impact on the world economy unless action is taken now to reduce carbon emissions. Please say whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
- 1) The government should impose higher taxes on activities that cause pollution, even if that means the end of cheap flights and driving a car becomes more expensive. Agree 53% Disagree 45%.
- 2) 'Green taxes' will unfairly hit poorer people, while rich people will be able to continue to drive and fly just as much as before. Agree 69% Disagree 28%.
- 3) 'Green taxes' are not really about helping the environment; they are just designed to provide more revenue for the Government. Agree 62% Disagree 33%.
- 4) There's not much point in doing my bit for the environment because Britain accounts for only 2% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Agree 33% Disagree 64%.
You can find more details (it's a PDF file).
Comments
"1) The government should impose higher taxes on activities that cause pollution, even if that means the end of cheap flights and driving a car becomes more expensive."
STRONGLY DISAGREE
"2) 'Green taxes' will unfairly hit poorer people, while rich people will be able to continue to drive and fly just as much as before. Agree 69% Disagree 28%."
AGREE
"3) 'Green taxes' are not really about helping the environment; they are just designed to provide more revenue for the Government. Agree 62% Disagree 33%."
STRONGLY AGREE
"4) There's not much point in doing my bit for the environment because Britain accounts for only 2% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Agree 33% Disagree 64%."
AGREE
"5) Scientists, the government and the media make a lot of assertions about the existence of climate change but refuse to provide proof. As such they should stop shoving it down our throats. Agree 100% Disagree 0%
VERY STRONGLY AGREE
"6) There is no such thing as climate change." Agree 100% Disagree 0%
VERY STRONGLY AGREE
I heard your report from Nairobi Kenya where the next round of talks about global warming is about to get underway. Africa reportedly produces only 0.02% of the world's CO2 emissions yet may be among the most severely affected. The African woman environmental activist interviewed said the industrialized nations which caused the problem should send Africa 50 billion dollars. When asked what Africa would do with all that money, she said it would be spent on environmental projects. Now that makes sense, spend a huge sum of money where it will do the least good. Is it any wonder so many people are cynical about the entire issue. And of course, Ö÷²¥´óÐã made a special point of the fact that the US hasn't endorsed the Kyoto Protocol and that efforts should be redoubled to convince it to join. But has anyone made any efforts to level the playing field by insisting that China, India, Brazil, and other major nations agree to make immediate sacrifices as well and contribute their fair share or do they still expect the US to hand these nations a windfall? And what about the fact that those who originally signed up and committed to immediate cuts such as the Europeans have largely failed to comply, being all talk and rhetoric and little action or sacrifice. It's really just about more America bashing and ways to send money from those who feel guilty to those who would steal it without a clue as to how to put it to really productive use. How about proposing a real conference on climate change where scientists and economists instead of politicians and bureaucrats sit down for as long as it takes to hammer out a plan which everyone will agree to and which actually stands a chance of working. The alternative which is what we are likely to see is one more useless charade, a giant boondoggle at taxpayer expense.
I am with all the environmentally aware individuals who are screaming about our planet sleep walking to a global catastrophe. But the big thing for us to remember here is that it IS a GLOBAL issue. We need to work towards a solution that tackles the general disinterest of nations such as China who don't have climate change anywhere near the top of their agenda. The only way we can bring our planet out of this mess is with a truly international effort.
It is very good that our Government has been taking the initiative in this most important matter. The possibility of all the world's governments (corrupt and otherwise) coming to a workable agreement is, however, remote.
We should make a judgment on whether the USA, China, India and Russia will all take effective action in good time.
If the judgment is "no" we should spend our limited resources on survival techniques that would give us some possibility of minimizing damage until the world is frightened into frantic action.
Fortunately we may be in a situation that is more immediately survivable than many others.
AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY, THERE WERE SLIGHTLY MORE THAN ONE BILLION HUMANS ON PLANET BIRTH. IT TOOK FROM POINT ZERO TO 1900 TO ACCOMPLISH THAT FEAT: ONE BILLION HUMANS ON PLANET BIRTH.
ONE HUNDRED YEARS LATER... TODAY... THERE ARE 6.6 BILLION HUMANS ON PLANET BIRTH. IT TOOK ONLY ONE HUNDRED YEARS TO MAKE A SIX+ FOLD INCREASE! AND ALL THESE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE LIKE LONDONERS OR AMERIKANS. IMAGINE EVRYBODY IN INDIA AND CHINA AND EVERYWHERE ELSE DRIVING AROUND IN HUGE, AIR CONDITIONED CARS AND $HOPPING AT WAL MART.
EVERY PROBLEM THAT EWE-MAN-UNKIND FACES TODAY, EVERY ONE, CAN BE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO OUT OF CONTROL POPULATION GROWTH. WE THOUGHTLESSLY PROCREATE, NOT GIVING A HOOT ABOUT THE LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES OF CONSUMING FINITE RESOURCES AT AN EVER INCREASING RATE... IN A CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM. LIKE MINDLESS PARASITES OR CANCER CELLS WE ARE KILLING THE HOST ORGANISM.
SO... HOW CAN WE STOP GLOBAL WARMING? MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE NUMBER ONE REASON: OVERPOPULATION.
you didnt post my earlier comment to this. I didn't think it was that unruly. But here it goes again...
The most industrialized nations should cut back their emmisions and their populations. TAX the people-the rich people. Unfair? maybe. But it is humane. Less well off people shouldnt be under the same burden especially when it was the rich who caused the problem in the first place.
Less developed nations will unlikely spew enough toxins to compare with industrialized nations. So to underdeveloped nations...burn on.
My comment was not posted before, so I shall try again, if that's ok :)
Here we go again with another con from our 'Masters', who, by the way, should be our servants.
These so called "Green Taxes" will do nothing to stop climate change. Nothing can be done to stop it. The Earths climate changes every few thousand years, and another change is long overdue. Emissions may or may not speed things up, but change is going to happen, it is inevitable.
Taxing people to stop the inevitable is no more than stealing. The people of the Earth should be looking for ways to survive whats coming, not for ways to halt it. Governments should be looking for ways to make what could be our last few years as the human race enjoyable.
#1 Of course there is such a thing as climate change. It is a natural phenomina. The Earth has to go through the solar systems seasons, just as we go through the Earths seasons.