Government spends 500 times more on causing climate change than preventing it 03 July 06

I am certainly not surprised by this. The same government managed to usurp its own Energy White Paper, ignore its recommendations and in effect champion Nuclear Energy over Renewable Energy. They argue (rather lamely) that Nuclear power is clean and does not release CO2. I do not see this logic, as neither does anyone else who can add. Building more roads is very much akin to this idea of sticking to traditional methods (of the 50s and 60s) where such action meant progress. It’s a sad thought that we could go this way.

But lest our friends think I’m making this up: lets quote directly from: http://www.webtag.org.uk/archive/supplements/supplement3.htm

Note in paragraph 20 this notes clearly show how the UK government (Treasury) states that the loss of fuel duty by switching passengers and freight from road to other, less environmnetally damaging modes is a net loss to the government’s tax revenues and is therefore added as an ongoing cost to any investment scheme: “The GB states that adjustments for differences in taxation are only necessary where it may make a material difference to the decision. This is likely to be the case for many transport appraisals. The inclusion of fuel duty as well as VAT in the cost of fuel for road users means that any options that switch consumers’ expenditure between road transport and other goods, which are generally subject to VAT alone, are likely to have an effect on indirect tax revenues. Also, the zero VAT rating applied to public transport fares means that any option that affects public transport use also has an effect on indirect taxation. The NATA already takes account of indirect taxation impacts and no change is required. However, as discussed above, changes in indirect tax revenue are now included in the calculation of costs to public accounts, rather than in the estimation of benefits.”

So there you have it, build more roads, preferrably with private finance as toll roads, so Gordon Brown can stay within his fiscal golden rule (not more than 40% PSBR) and keep the tax revenues coming in from fuel consumption. The UK govt can make whatever noises it likes about reducing emissions, but until it comes clean about its addiction to fuel duty, there’s no hope for public transport schemes, or of cutting the 25% of the UK’s CO2 emisions that come from the transport sector.

cheers

Colin

“

The birds woke me up early enough this morning to catch the BBC Radio 4 Today programme at 6.30ish. Roger Harrabin, very usefully, summarised a roundtable discussion on Lovelock’s RoG (8 minutes 18 seconds into the second half hour here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ and further down the running order (8.36) the lengthier edited discussion can be heard. For those with lots of time to spare there is even more at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/science/lovelock_climate_20060706.shtml

The hook was JL but I think what resulted was a very useful discussion on global warming touching on a number of important themes including denial vs despair, unnecessarily alarmist warnings, precision in use of language vs exaggeration, lack of government action and so on.

Check it out.

Douglas Coker

The reason this isn’t an issue is because people are far happier using energy than saving it. Put it another way : the whole of global society is intent on moving forwards to whatever is perceived as the next step in civilisation (whatever that is), whereas we MUST stop and say “where are we going?”

Are we really so unhappy that we have to soak our lives in technology, artificial entertainment, far off places that simply allow us to show off how bohemian we are (when in fact we are just like the people in the song “Girls and Boys” – Following the herd, down to Greece), and those other endless forms of luxury we use as an excuse for happiness?

What happened to the basics : shelter, water, food, warmth and company. Do we really need more?

If we don’t stop and think what we really want in life then no company, government or entrepreneur is going to stop giving us what we THINK we want.

Keith Farnish http://www.theearthblog.org http://www.reduce.com

Keith, you’re right. And I’ve been saying all along that we have to get away from the corrosive effect of consumerism replacing the value of people with the value of material goods.

We don’t have to have jet air travel, 42” plasma TV’s, SUV’s, Wallmart (ASDA in the UK) or GM foods. What is important is family, friendship, shelter, clothing and education, fresh local seasonal foods, rewarding employment, a healthy and mature community, and…...beer.

Now this last one’s been a bit of a problem for me because, well, breweries tend to be a bit energy intensive and one of the best ones ( in terms of the ales that it brews) in the UK is a traditional one that still uses a steam powered plant over 100 years old : http://www.hooknortonbrewery.co.uk/public_visitors/steam/steam_home.html

So I’ve been guiltily sneaking to the pub and downing a pint of ‘Old Hookey’ when it appears as a guest ale, with a sense of ill-concealed shame.

But now! I can hold my head up high and drain my glass because the good old yanks have come to the rescue with…......a solar powered brewery! http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/solarpowered_be.php

I shall be writing to CAMRA at once to see if any of the UK breweries can start producing a Sustainable Ale to match this ingenuity. I’m sure that readers of this blog can come up with some suggested names for the products…!

all the best

Colin

I will feel so much better drinking my annual polypin of Old Hooky at the Cropredy Festival in August now. Thanks for the guilt reduction Colin.

Keith

On a (slightly) lighter note … Colin your post on beer was a salutary reminder that developing a carbon consciouness is an on-going business. It hadn’t occurred to me that some beer and lager might be more energy intensive than others.

I have been aware of wine miles (along with, of course, food miles and now love miles) which is a reflection of my preferences. I guess a bottle of wine, especially when bottled in the country of origin, will embody a lot of energy and therefore CO2 output when transported from OZ, NZ, SA, Chile etc to the UK. And the supermarket shelves are heaving with the stuff.

I’m trying to buy wine from near mainland European countries. Am I doing the right thing or are the trucking miles involved more damaging than the shipping miles from the southern hemisphere?

And then there’s food. I’ve been challenged on the no flying issue by a (frequent flying) vegetarian. While I’m not vegetarian I rarely eat red meat. But has anyone come across a source which indicates on a scale of high to low, whole process embodied energy/CO2 emissions, how beef, lamb, chicken etc rate.

Answers on a postcard ….

Douglas Coker

And the Brewery trip, if you get on an organised visit, is to be recommended!

Douglas’ point in the previous post is well made. It is difficult and confusing when considering food miles, embedded energy and issues such as environmental protection during crop growing, animal welfare, fair trade etc. to make a sound choice in foodstuffs or indeed wine and beer.

The best advice is wherever possible, buy local produce, because you can go and find out how it is grown/reared/brewed and check the reputations of the producers. Several experiments have been tried to get people to live only on produce sourced within a 50 mile radius. This is still difficult in the UK, but if one started with a 100 mile radius, you could get the vast majority of basic foodstuffs in season.

The demand for local fresh produce is growing so fast in the UK, that supply cannot keep up, but it is the distribution and sales infrastructure which has largely vanished thanks to the effect of supermarkets and that is going to take time to restore.

I look forward to that distant day when I am no longer the kids’ taxi service/ cashpoint and I can investigate a few more local microbreweries for their ethical and environmental credentials!

all the best

Colin