Ethical is not what these people think it is

4409

ethical-is-not-what-these-people-think-it-is

We should, of course, all act ethically all the time: the problem comes with who is defining what is ethical:

Some supermarkets have a "dismal" ethical record when it comes to supporting British farmers, buying local, seasonal and sustainable food and saving energy according a Government watchdog.

That definition of ethical coming from something called Consumer Focus, who appear to believe that it would be more ethical for me to support Farmer Giles, one who is already by any historical or global standard rich beyond the dreams of Croesus (and already swallowing flagons of taxpayers' money to boot) as opposed to spending my money with Farmer Obiang: one still stuck in the destitution of peasant farming and looking to modest trade with such as myself as a way of feeding and educating his children. 

This is not a notion of ethics which I find worthy of the name. How and when did nationalism of this, green, sort become ethical and internationalism, the acknowledgement that we are all human with the same rights and desires unethical?

More importantly, how did our system of governance become colonised by the purveyors of this new religion (for an ethical framework can indeed be so described)? And yes, this is our system of governance, Consumer Focus is a statutory body which we paid some £45 million for last year according to their accounts.

Roll on the regime change when we can have (and if we don't have then we'll just have to change regime again, won't we?) the Bonfire of the Quangos.

How green taxes boost emissions exports

4392

how-green-taxes-boost-emissions-exports-

Over-high green taxes and regulations destroy jobs without saving the planet.

Green campaigners make a fair point that rich countries like the UK actually emit more carbon than they let on. That is because a large part, maybe most, of their manufacture is done elsewhere. We busy ourselves selling insurance and making fashion videos that emit a lightbulb's worth or carbon, but we buy our cars, computers and clothes from other countries that are less squeamish about belching smoke into the atmosphere.

Their solution, of course, is that we need to cut back more – switch off that lightbulb! – to compensate, and that we should buy fewer cars, computers and clothes and live within our environmental means.

As always, the role of incentives is forgotten. Under the Kyoto protocols, the UK and other developed countries have significant targets for emissions reductions. And like everything else, that can be achieved in one of two ways: either by banning industrial processes that create them, or by taxing carbon so that nobody wants to emit it.

But there is a snag. If you ban too much or tax too highly, those processes will leak abroad to other countries which regard growth more important than global emissions. And already, we impose taxes well over the Stern Report's carbon cost estimate of £80/tonne. Sometimes, we can't escape them – ask any motorist or air traveller. Where we can, though, the above-reality fantasy tax just one more thing that pushes manufacturing out of the UK. The world is too full of such distortions already. Taxation should be based on reality, not self-righteous posturing.

Dr Butler's book The Rotten State of Britain is now in paperback.

Air travel duty a stealth tax, not a green tax

4381

air-travel-duty-a-stealth-tax-not-a-green-tax-

Air Passenger Duty rises will damage tourism without helping the environment.

Charles Starmer-Smith makes a powerful ten-point case against the first of two increases in Air Passenger Duty (APD) which came in on 1 November.

First, APD of £5 (short haul) and £20 (long haul) was imposed as a 'green' tax in 2004. Since then, the airlines have improved the efficiency of their fleets, yet the government is raising the tax by up to 425% of the 2004 level. This is a stealth tax, not a green tax.

Second, private jets are exempt (so Roman Abramovich is OK, then). As (third) are cargo planes. Why, if this is a 'green' measure?

Fourth, a new banding system means travellers flying 11 hours to LA incur less duty than those flying just 8 hours to Barbados. And (fifth) Tunisia incurs tax of just £11 while Egypt is socked with £40. Why?

Sixth, premium-economy passengers pay most. The tax on them will rise from £80 to £150 by the end of 2010. If four of you fly to the Caribbean, that's £600 in tax. It could make premium-economy uneconomic.

Seventh, the tax will damage the economy. The Netherlands' APD brought in €300m last year but cost the Dutch economy €1,200m. Eighth, while posing as 'green', not one penny generated by APD is being spent on environmental causes.

Ninth, with the Olympics coming in 2012, is raising APD the best way to encourage tourism? And tenth, anyone travelling from within Britain to (say) London and then changing planes to fly abroad will pay not just one, but two sets of tax on their journey. Which means travellers will choose to fly to an overseas hub rather than London. Another dent for the UK economy. Thanks, Gordon.

Dr Butler's book The Rotten State of Britain is now in paperback.

Prove it!

4380

prove-it

Would you like to count yourself 'in' or 'out' of the Science Museum's latest quest for more government funding?

Green is the colour of climate jealousy

4372

green-is-the-colour-of-climate-jealousy

There are still some people out there who do not share in the belief that the world's climate is changing. A plan was required to stimulate them into marching along to the same drum, and it was of course required yesterday. Its urgency was predicated on the rising tides, scorching heat of winter and the choking fug of poisoned skies. Obviously the children are the key to all the left foists upon us and what better way getting the little angels into spying on their parents than by blaming them for the drowning of their cherished pets. If you can't get people to join you in your quest for simple living then why not fall back on blackmail.

The radical environmentalism of this age is one that could be construed as being fundamentally driven by jealousy. Imagine a world where a majority of people, resist the call for restrictions on business and forge onwards embracing new technologies in an almost 'Randian Fountainhead' type way. Leaving the pulse and lentil brigade to self-flagellate in their humble wattle and daub dwellings and occasionally drowning their pets as a warning to their children about leaving the candle burning for too long. Why should they force themselves to live in that manner based on their requirements to not leave a footprint on Mother Gaia while the rest of us carry on with our natural desire to improve our lives. The environmentalists continue to call in the heavyweight violence of governments to impose restrictions on progress: the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen is just another example of how hard they are trying.

Unfortunately for us, and the nature of taxes in the UK, the output of the symphorphilia film department in DEFRA will continue. Expect more children to be tugging on the sleeves of their parents. "Why didn't you turn the lights off daddy?" "Because I don't want you living in a cave, wearing a sack and gnawing on pulses." Try explaining that to a scared child.

NB: The author is not a 'climate change denier'. He's simply proposes that we do nothing. We got this far by doing nothing and simply relying on our distinctly natural instincts of adaptability. Let's adapt not infringe.

It was Climate Fools Day on the 28th October, read about it here.

Public opinion on global warming

4369

public-opinion-on-global-warming

Is the tide turning?

More Stern words

4353

more-stern-words

Lord Stern, author of the eponymous report on the economics of climate change mitigation, brings the zeal of the converted to this contentious debate. An interview with him is given a two-page spread in yesterday's  Times together with a front page story encouraging us all to turn vegetarian to save the planet. He claimed on the Today programme that such a headline was unfortunate and that it did not represent the main thrust of his interview. Nevertheless, it was said, and the contribution of farming to emissions of so-called greenhouse gases is likely to become a matter for high-profile debate following whatever fudge emerges from the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December.

In his interview, Stern calls for President Obama and other political leaders to attend this conference to ensure agreement is reached. There is little chance of this. The last time the President went to the Danish capital his presence did nothing for Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics and the chances of a similar outcome are high, especially as the US will take no steps on climate change legislation until the top priority of healthcare reform is settled. It is far more likely that he will address the issue when he receives the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, following his ill-advised acceptance of this dubious honour.

In the Today interview, Lord Stern claimed that climate change 'deniers' were a small and declining group. Like many statements about climate change, this was put forward on the basis of no evidence. There are signs that the public is becoming increasingly sceptical (hence the government's decision to run the bedtime story propaganda ads on TV). This mood is only likely to strengthen if meat eating, energy and driving all become more expensive. And politicians are surely aware that unpopular policies do not lead to re-election.

Martin Livermore is the director of The Scientific Alliance.

There are expensive ways of doing this

4343

there-are-expensive-ways-of-doing-this

And there are ludicrously expensive ways of doing this. This being attempting to mitigate climate change of course. Start from the point that the IPCC and the Stern Review are correct: it's happening, it's us and we should think about doing something about it. This allows every fanatic with a plan to leap aboard the bandwagon and insist that they, and only they, know how to save the world: amazingly, that salvation always comes from whatever it is they were already proposing without the now accepted problem.

Take, for example, solar photo voltaic power generation. For boring technical reasons I think it will in the future be part of the solution but similarly I don't think it is yet. Yet all and sundry are screaming that we must have feed in tariffs for solar PV for that is exactly what will save Flipper from boiling at the end of times. We should, indeed must, do as German has been doing. So how has Germany been doing?

Given the net cost of 41.82 Cents/kWh for PV modules installed in 2008, and assuming that PV displaces conventional electricity generated from a mixture of gas and hard coal, abatement costs are as high as 716 € (US $1,050) per tonne.

Ah: we've already specified that we agreeing with the Stern Review above and he said that the cost of a tonne of CO2 is $80. Paying more to abate emissions than those emissions will cost us is known as making us poorer: in this case, feed in tariffs make Germany poorer by $970 for every tonne abated. That is what is known technically, in policy circles, as "screaming nonsense".

So no, we must close our ears to those siren songs telling us that we must copy Germany on this matter. We do not want to have feed in tariffs for solar PV in the UK. But if we're not going to have them then what should we do? I've already mentioned that I think the technology will, when it has matured, be part of the solution. But there's one or two iterations, generations, of technology to go before it really is. And I've also mentioned in other posts here what we should be doing about all of this at the moment.

Nada, nothing, zip, bupkis. We just wait while those two iterations of the technology pass us by and we start using it when it makes financial sense to do so: when the subsidy needed is less than the benefit of the CO2 abatement. In the meantime we just sit back and let the German taxpayer make themselves poorer to our future benefit. We can always send them a thank you card later: or if you want to be more serious, we can trade those things we've been able to make by not pouring money into a subsidy hole for those solar cells that they have made by doing so.

Private profit, social cost

4309

private-profit-social-cost

Among the lessons we're supposed to have learnt from the banks falling over is that it's probably not a good idea to allow profits to be private while costs and losses are public and social. If bankers are to make fortunes then they should also lose fortunes when they screw up: not only is that fair it also correctly aligns the incentives. However, we do need to recognise that this doesn't just apply to bankers.

On the subject of solar panels we get:

For if households can properly insulate their homes and install small-scale renewable technologies – such as solar panels – they become independent of energy companies, and turn a tidy profit by selling electricity back to the grid. (...) A report backed by Lord Mandelson’s department last year concluded that under a “plausible policy scenario" nine million dwellings – about one in three in Britain – could be exploiting such “micropower" by 2020, producing as much energy as five large nuclear power stations. A less expensive programme could equip three million homes. (...) Hopes were high of a rooftop renewable revolution this year after the Government finally agreed (or rather was forced to do so by a Tory resolution in the House of Lords) to introduce “feed-in tariffs", the secret of Germany’s success. But the consultation documents show that rates for generating renewable power have been fixed at a level apparently designed to stop it succeeding.

When you unpack all of those assumptions there you get to something highly undesirable. That "less expensive solution" is that there will be fewer subsidies from taxation to install solar cells....that is, that there has to be a subsidy before anyone will install a set. Further, we've got price setting: as you can imagine, the price being set is above market for the clear and obvious reason that there's little reason to set it below market if you're hoping to encourage people to sell (to buy though is another matter).

So what we actually have here is the suggestion that there should be social costs (the tax funded subsidy) and also public costs (we all have to pay more for our electricity) so that others can have private profit. If we're not to do this with bankers then we really shouldn't be doing it with anyone else.

What does infuriate though is that those screaming loudest in opposition to bankers are those screaming loudest for this, exactly the same, private profit and public cost of their own preferences.

Is logical consistency too much to ask for in this modern world?

One final point: there is the defence (however partial) that we want solar cells so we should do this and we don't want banks so we shouldn't do that. One response is that living in a society without banks is vastly worse than living in one without solar cells. But the real argument is that, actually, we don't want  solar cells. At least not this generation of them. At the moment they're still more expensive then other forms of generation (yes, indeed including carbon costs) so they are a method of making us poorer. Another five to ten years and it's highly likely that they won't be more expensive at which point we'll all happily start using them: and at which point we won't require a subsidy to do so.

Ryanair – The people’s carrier

4304

ryanair-the-peoples-carrier

You need to be a certain age to appreciate how Ryanair, which was featured recently on Panorama, has transformed British air travel – and why many middle-age people believe Ryanair is one of the great commercial successes of recent times.

Back in the late 1970s, you faced a Hobson’s Choice if you wished to visit Poland – or indeed anywhere else behind the Iron Curtain. I can recall a standard £250 (late 1970 prices) return flight price being quoted from BA if you wished to fly to Warsaw - anywhere else, including Krakow, was off the menu.

Despite Panorama’s focus on its ancillary costs, the reality remain that Ryanair’s prices, especially for mid-week flights to its less popular European destinations, defy belief. Of course, Ryanair does levy additional costs to the basic airfare. Some of these are outside its control, notably the Government’s APD (Air Passenger Duty) charges. Others can be readily avoided, notably the cost of transporting luggage in the hold. Is there really a need for a suitcase in the hold for a stay of a few days’ duration?

Ryanair has unquestionably changed Europe’s transport patterns. Flights to Eastern Europe, and to Western Europe, can often be bought at silly prices – a scenario from which millions have benefited. Of course, you do not receive the high quality on-board service that might be offered by other far more expensive airlines. But Ryanair’s punctuality record remains impressive.

There are many Ryanair obsessives, including this writer, who can only rejoice at the derisory airfares that Ryanair offers - often below £1 and well below the cost of a one-stop 300 metre tube ticket between Green Park and Piccadilly - to far-flung European destinations at off-peak times.

Against that background - and assuming the maintenance of top-class safety standards - is any substantive complaint against Ryanair really valid?