• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Miliband reveals 'green tax package' (1 Viewer)

Chris Monk

Well-known member
Miliband reveals 'green tax package'

By PA
Last Updated: 1:39am GMT 30/10/2006

The new taxes that could be coming your way

The leaked document

Environment Secretary David Miliband has drawn up a wide-ranging package of green taxes designed to change people's behaviour in a bid to offset global warming.

Mr Miliband said road-pricing should "reflect the full environmental impact of the journey".

His proposals, in a leaked letter to Gordon Brown, include hikes on fuel and air passenger duty as well as increased road tax for drivers of the most polluting vehicles.

The leak comes ahead of a report, commissioned by the Chancellor, which will warn of the enormous cost of climate change unless action is taken immediately.

In his letter, seen by the Mail on Sunday, Mr Miliband also demands moves to curb greenhouse gas emissions and says that the tax system is a vital tool.

"Market-based instruments, including taxes, need to play a substantial role," he writes.

"As our understandings of climate change increases, it is clear more needs to be done."

His suggestions include a mechanism to take away from motorists the money they save on fuel when oil prices go down.

This would "maintain pressure on the cost of motoring without individual announcements on fuel duty needing to be made", he says.

Mr Miliband sets out the need to explore a "substantial increase" in road tax for higher-emission vehicles to encourage people to take cars which pollute less.

He proposes that road-pricing should "reflect the full environmental impact of the journey made".

"This would encourage a shift away from private to public transport," the Environment Secretary adds.

He also points out that air travel is currently "lightly taxed". He goes on: "Raising air passenger duty by £5 would raise £400 million a year.

"There is also a case for making flights subject to VAT either on domestic flights, or better still, for all EU flights."

Mr Miliband also warns that lightbulb prices do not reflect their true environmental cost, meaning that people tend not to buy the most efficient bulbs.

"We need to address this market failure through a system of product charges, fiscal instruments and non-tax alternatives, in particular consumer electronics and lighting," he says.

A spokesperson for the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs refused to comment on the leak.

The proposals follow the Tories' commitment this month to raise green levies to fund tax cuts for families.

But shadow environment secretary Peter Ainsworth accused the Government of bringing in more "stealth taxes".

"If motorists and consumers think all the Government wants to do is slap taxes on everything, they may respond negatively.

"Tackling the enormous challenge of climate change would have been much easier if they hadn't left it so late."

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell warned that tackling climate change was imperative and demanded "hard choices".

"Up till now the environmental debate has been joined of moral and scientific grounds," he added.

"Now it is being joined on economic grounds. Up to 20 per cent of GDP of industrialised countries like this - think of the enormous economic impact that would have."

He warned that climate change had a disproportionate impact on poorer countries such as Africa and could have serious consequences in terms of population dispersal and immigration.

He told BBC1's Sunday AM: "We have absolutely no option but to deal with the problem of climate change and nothing but hard choices will do it."

Mr Miliband later refused to comment on the leaked letter, but said the Government would set out its views in the forthcoming pre-Budget report.

He also confirmed that Sir Nicholas Stern's report will warn that climate change poses a huge threat to the UK economy as well as environment.

Interviewed on Sky News' Sunday Live with Adam Boulton, he said: "I think that the scientific debate has now closed on global warming and the popular debate is closing as well.

"The science tells us that we have got 10 to 15 years to radically change the way in which we produce energy and fuel."

He added: "I think it is very significant that the economics revealed by Sir Nicholas Stern's report should be that the longer we wait, and certainly the longer we wait beyond the 10 to 15-year time frame that is set by the scientists the more costly it will be."
 
Just typical of this shower, tax the hell out of everyone and waste the money generated, elsewhere. Dont they think that people are fleeced enough, extortionate rises in gas and electricity as well as petrol and diesel have left a lot of people with little spare cash as it is. If deisel is more economical than petrol why is it more expensive now? If something becomes more popular its taxed to the hilt. Couple this with the fact that half these idiots are driven around in gas guzzling motors and it says it all.
 
Hi Valley Boy,

It won't happen! They would have to give up their big cars and trips round the world. Millibrand's senior assistant was asked what he would be doing personally, and he said nothing it would have no effect, it was down to the governments of the world not individuals.

The Cynic

Ann
 

Attachments

  • ClimateChange.pdf
    58.4 KB · Views: 124
Last edited:
Chris Monk said:
"This would encourage a shift away from private to public transport," the Environment Secretary adds.

By the way, how is public transport in Britain, which is supposed to take millions of passengers? Last time it was slow, costly and infested by crime. This idea is a laugh unless trains and buses will improve.

And why solely consumers should pay for climate change? What about taxing firms and industry? What about taxing farmers for drying peatland and deforested fields?
 
The proposal to raise air passenger duty by £5 is typical of this government.
All talk & no action.
If they really want to curb the huge increase in cheap air travel for pleasure & with it the pollution it produces, £5 is a joke.It's just another n£million for them to waste on the burgeoning State infrastructure we are paying for.

If it's bad for us-treat it like smoking-tax the hell out of it.

Colin
 
Without wishing to offend anyone, how do our couzins the Americans feel on the issue of green tax. The USA does use quite a lot of resources (tried to make this comment as friendly as possible as it is my wish to hear others opinions not criticise them).

James
 
How governments use the tax they raise is one thing but the UK tax burden (37.2% and currently rising) is not that high by modern standards. It is now lower than it was for much of the 70s and 80s. This is not party political; the tax burden rises and falls under governments of either colour.

More important is how that tax is raised and how it is spent.
 
All the government talk of (yet more) taxes is meaningless unless they put the revenue raised to good use in practical solutions to the issue, such as using technology to come up with better engines and also improved transport. Also, engaging in meaningful dialogue with the USA (Bush is a climate change sceptic which is very good reason in itself to be a climate change believer - only joking. Sort of) and China, as well as other nations, to cut emissions would be a good move. Until then it's all a load of hot air and will only serve to cause resentment.

I believe that climate change is happening and is a threat if nothing is done. What I don't believe in is the UK government (of any colour) and their will to actually do anything useful except levying taxes.

This is already causing a debate here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=70589
 
Last edited:
jurek said:
By the way, how is public transport in Britain, which is supposed to take millions of passengers? Last time it was slow, costly and infested by crime. This idea is a laugh unless trains and buses will improve.

And why solely consumers should pay for climate change? What about taxing firms and industry? What about taxing farmers for drying peat land and deforested fields?

Why consumers?-because their consumption has ( or is alleged to have!!) caused the problem.
Peat lands are stripped because people want the stuff to put on their roses-therefore tax the peat , not the supplier.
Deforestation has occurred in order to supply timber to consumers and/or to increase agricultural land . -therefore tax furniture & other timber products/coffee/cocoa/sugar/cotton/palm oil products/soy.etc etc-not the farmers.

The fundamental driver of anthropomorphic greenhouse gasses is growth in the human population, it's need for food clothing & housing, and it's desire for the benefits of modern technology. The objective of green taxes should be to curb the consumption of the product or service in question-because we won't otherwise stop buying it-and to make more eco-friendly alternatives financially attractive to consumers.The use of these taxes should be a secondary objective-indeed if they were used to reduce taxes on eco-desirable products the effect might be tax-neutral.

Colin
 
Last edited:
road-pricing should "reflect the full environmental impact of the journey". Good

hikes on fuel and air passenger duty as well as increased road tax for drivers of the most polluting vehicles. Good

a mechanism to take away from motorists the money they save on fuel when oil prices go down. Good

encourage a shift away from private to public transport. Good

the need to explore a "substantial increase" in road tax for higher-emission vehicles to encourage people to take cars which pollute less. Good

air travel is currently "lightly taxed". He goes on: "Raising air passenger duty by £5 would raise £400 million a year. Good

"There is also a case for making flights subject to VAT either on domestic flights, or better still, for all EU flights." Good

Mr Miliband also warns that lightbulb prices do not reflect their true environmental cost, meaning that people tend not to buy the most efficient bulbs. Good

sound like excellent ideas to me. Doesn't go far enough. Wish they'd done it a while ago but i guess people aren't quite ready for it. Yes, they should also tax pollutes more, businesses etc.

But it's a good move and should be applauded by anyone with a concern for the globe, irrespective of politics - for the record i dislike the govt intently, the official opposition even more.

Tim
 
I have to admit that I was taken aback when I saw just how lightly (non-existantly?) air travel is taxed, never ever having taken any notice of the economics of such. Personally I am willing to pay an extra hundred, even a couple of hundred on a ticket - if I want to go somewhere badly enough I'll find the money. If I can't afford it then I'll stay closer to home.

These proposed taxes, I hope they are going to spend them on upgrading and refurbishing our railways and canals to get both passengers and freight off the roads and out of the air, both forms of transport being cleaner and more efficient than road transport. To me air travel within the UK, and to and within adjacent countries is ridiculously extravagant when other options, like ferries and trains are available. Trouble is, however, while ferries aren't hideously expensive, trains are and as I said above the fares need to come down before people are going to take rail travel seriously as mass transport for travelling large distances within the UK and to the Continent. In short, UK ground-based public transport is crap; it's late, crime ridden and unpleasant as well as costly and until huge improvements are made then people will continue to drive and fly.

As for motoring, by all means tax motorists (of which I am one) BUT please, please reinvest the taxes on more efficient (both in time taken to get anywhere and fuel consumption/waste emission) and cheaper public transport (if someone wants to get to Scotland there's no way they'd pay £200 for the privilege if there is a cheaper option) and not just fritter it away on hare brained wars or schemes or squirrel it away in the treasury.

Drop the prices on solar panels, wind turbines and those little lightbulbs. Where I work, we sell all three, as well as loft insulation and that stuff that goes in hollow walls, but people have pointed out that the bulbs, in particular, are way too expensive and the turbines and panels ain't cheap either. You can pay less than £1 for a pack of conventional bulbs but as much as £6 for just one energy efficient bulb and, frankly, that's ridiculous. People are willing to make changes (especially when they realise their bills will, eventually, drop) but they don't want to pay through the nose for the privilege either.

It has to be all countries, not just the UK involved in taxation and, as Jurek says, industry as well as the individual to be hit by costs but the flaw in this, though, is that the consumer will pay twice, in taxes and in higher prices, which will in all likelyhood, get people's backs up.

I want to see the government talking to other countries, specifically G8 countries but others too. Without getting China, the US, Russia, Europe and everyone else on board all the government's talk, well intentioned or otherwise, will mean Jack Sh*t.
 
"You can pay less than £1 for a pack of conventional bulbs but as much as £6 for just one energy efficient bulb and, frankly, that's ridiculous."

Energy saving bulbs :-
*require 5 times less electricity to do the same job as a conventional bulb.
*Cut GG emissions by 60 to 70 %
*Last 12 times longer than conventional.

They can cut your electricity bill by up to £9 pa PER BULB
They can save you around £130 PER BULB over their working life.

They have been available for 30 years-they should be the must have product-but they're not!

Conventional bulbs have been engineered to next to nothing cost-throwaway technology-peanuts cost-like plastic bags. They are buggering up the environment-but we insist on using them.

Colin
 
What's wrong with you guys? One bunch we can trust is politicians. The decisions they make for us, both now and in the past, is for our future well-being (coughs loudly)....and then goes back to sleep :hi:

John.
 
Tyke said:
"You can pay less than £1 for a pack of conventional bulbs but as much as £6 for just one energy efficient bulb and, frankly, that's ridiculous."

Energy saving bulbs :-
*require 5 times less electricity to do the same job as a conventional bulb.
*Cut GG emissions by 60 to 70 %
*Last 12 times longer than conventional.

They can cut your electricity bill by up to £9 pa PER BULB
They can save you around £130 PER BULB over their working life.

They have been available for 30 years-they should be the must have product-but they're not!

Conventional bulbs have been engineered to next to nothing cost-throwaway technology-peanuts cost-like plastic bags. They are buggering up the environment-but we insist on using them.

Colin

Yes, you know that and I know that, but Joe and Jane Public don't buy (excuse the pun) that argument. They will not purchase anything if they feel they are being ripped off and they DO feel ripped off by the large price of the efficient bulbs however wrong that feeling is. Personally, I myself use efficient bulbs as I know how good they are but I know a lot of people who won't due to their price and until the price comes down then the public are not going to buy them in great numbers. Working in retail I see this day in day out and any argument in favour of the efficient bulbs just doesn't wash with the majority of the great unwashed. It's sad, I know, but that's how it is.
 
Vectis Birder said:
Yes, you know that and I know that, but Joe and Jane Public don't buy (excuse the pun) that argument. They will not purchase anything if they feel they are being ripped off and they DO feel ripped off by the large price of the efficient bulbs however wrong that feeling is. Personally, I myself use efficient bulbs as I know how good they are but I know a lot of people who won't due to their price and until the price comes down then the public are not going to buy them in great numbers. Working in retail I see this day in day out and any argument in favour of the efficient bulbs just doesn't wash with the majority of the great unwashed. It's sad, I know, but that's how it is.

I think Ikea are being quite good in that respect as they sell some quite cheap LE bulbs - something like 3 for £6 and we've not had one blow yet some time later. For the 60W equivalent, they actually use 11W (or so I remember...).
 
Vectis Birder said:
Yes, 11W is what they use to give out 60W or 15W for 100W. I'm not sure how this works but it obviously does.

60W is the overall energy output of the bulb, including heat. Roughly 98-99% of electrical energy is wasted as heat in conventional bulbs, so if a 11W bulb can put out the same amount of light it uses (11/60 W = ) 18.3% of the energy for the same light output. That's ~80% less energy, so ~80% less CO2 emitted for the use of each bulb.
So they're five times the price (at £2 compared to the 60p for a conventional one in Tesco, but use less than one fifth the energy while lasting 12 times longer (meaning that you'd spend £4.80 on conventional bulbs in that time).
Very nice!
 
Thanks Tony. I must admit that I've noticed that I can touch my efficient bulbs while there on, unlike a conventional one which would cause burns if I were stupid enough to grab it.
 
I changed all of my bulbs over to the energy-saving ones some time ago. By getting one per week over several weeks I hardly noticed the cost and none of them have failed - yet! (hope they don't all go at weekly intervals again!)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top