Older, More Polluting Cars

“Older more polluting cars” has become a stock phrase of late, particularly with the storm brewing over the backdating of the road tax increases. Our dear national broadcaster used the phrase at the top of the news this morning, saying something like “Labour rebels and Conservatives are criticising the increase in tax on older more polluting cars”. This is a rather pejorative turn of phrase - why couldn’t they just say “road tax increase” or similar? It’s OK, though, I’m not going to launch into another rant about BBC bias and climate change, tempting though it is.

The arguments centre on the effects of the increase on poorer drivers and families, and rightly so, but in addition the blanket assumption that older cars are more polluting is wrong. My first car was 1961 Triumph Herald convertible. I doubt it had particularly clean emissions. “Aha!” says the tree-hugger, “it’s an older, more polluting car!” Er, no, because it used to go out fairly occasionally, and so contributed less CO2 in a typical year than my everyday (then) new Golf. Yet even if it wasn’t a second car, the most significant way in which my old Triumph was less polluting was that it was an older car – i.e. it was still on the road. Cars have the greatest impact on the environment when they are made, and when they are scrapped. Even when the old girl does come to the end of her life, as an older car with less plastics, no catalytic converter, no coolant filled air con system, and not much of anything else, most of the car will be easily recyclable steel.

Now, I concede that the Herald would be exempt from road tax anyway (though for how long?), and in any case is an extreme example (the road tax increase are only being backdated to 2001 cars) but the blind assumption that older cars are the chariot of the devil is one that should be challenged, if only on the main point that looking after an older car and keeping it on the road is the best thing an owner can do for the environment.

Of course, in truth the road tax changes have nothing to do with the environment – after all, what would they be trying to achieve? Clearly we can’t turn back time to not purchase the vehicles, so it must be trying to force us to take older cars off the road, which means in most cases scrapping them, and generating demand for new ones to be built - a double whammy for the environment. Yet surely Alistair Darling couldn’t be using the “climate change agenda” as an excuse just to raise environmentally irrelevant taxes?

Unusual Event

An earthquake strikes the U.K., yet no blames this natural occurrence on climate change.

Some mistake surely?

Biofuelled Cynicism

From the BBC:

The first flight by a commercial airline to be powered partly by biofuel is to take off from Heathrow airport.
…
Kenneth Richter, of Friends of the Earth, said the flight was a “gimmick”, distracting from real solutions to climate change.

(Also trailed by The Register.)

A gimmick? Well, someone probably said that about the first electric car.

Once, not long ago, when Communism fell, there were a good many socialists who recognised that they would have to find another way to advance their cause, destroy capitalism and bring down the rich. Many of them latched onto worthy environmental causes and gave them a distinct statist/leftist hue. Big cars are killing the planet (and are driven by rich people). Globalisation is killing the planet and developing world (and rich people are behind it). Air traffic is killing … you get the idea. The solutions that were often advanced usually involved slowing down economic growth and having everyone living in a pastoral idyll where, coincidentally, everyone was equal and the whole fantasy was underpinned by a benevolent state. A world where, subsidised and regulated by government, the concept of sustainability never seemed to extend to the financial and economic dimensions.

What has actually happened, of course, is that the rest of the world, having largely acknowledged many of the issues that the green lobby has been banging on about for so long, is coming up with solutions that don’t involve cave-dwelling and allow capitalism to continue its good work. Having seen their basic causes taken up by so many people now, the more red-tinted greens have watched aghast as the world moves forward to an environmentally friendly future that doesn’t match the eco-socialist utopia some may have been wishing for.

So, unable to switch out of anti-capitalist anti-Western mode, they are now attacking the more viable solutions which are emerging, like carbon offsetting and, today, efforts to run airliners on bio-fuel.

“You can’t run the entire global air fleet on bio-fuel - you’d use too much of the world’s food supply”, they say, gearing up for an updated take on the rich-West-causes-African-famine meme. Need I point out that (a) African famine often has more to do with too much government and war and not enough free trade and (b) all previous predictions about population outstripping food supplies have proved false, as technology has allowed us to increase agricultural output and productivity.

Today’s trial is a proof of concept – that you can run an airliner on biofuel. No doubt much more work lies ahead, just as it has taken (and will take) a long time to advance from the humble milk float to the widespread use of electric cars on the motorway (assuming that, in the meantime, other technologies don’t achieve the underlying aims more effectively).

Next … greens attack solar panel industry because it discourages people from switching the telly off standby.

No Snow in Canada

“In Canada they didn’t have any snow last winter.”

Yes, that was the Lib Dem environment spokesman Chris Huhne on Newsnight last night, explaining how people can become convinced about man-made climate change.

’nuff said.

(Watch last night’s programme via the Newsnight homepage. Huhne is 33:15 in.)

Ted Heath Was Right

Yes, I surprised myself with that one too. But thanks to ConservativeHome, I am now aware of something the old organ player said that made sense:

“The alternative to expansion is not, as some occasionally seem to suppose, an England of quiet market towns linked only by steam trains puffing slowly and peacefully through green meadows. The alternative is slums, dangerous roads, old factories, cramped schools, stunted lives.”

Materialism is a dirty word, like “profit”, “ambition” and “wealth”. Aspiration, it seems, must only be expressed in altruistic terms within a framework of “social justice” – although as has been shown many times before, altruism is far more effective when delivered through private means, resourced ultimately by profit and private wealth.

Not having had the time to leaf through the Goldsmith-Gummer report, I am only going to comment on one some of the headlines points so far reported, such as the assertion that:

“… beyond a certain point – a point which the UK reached some time ago – ever increasing material gain can become not a gift but a burden. As people, it makes us less happy, and the environment upon which all of us, and our economy, depend is increasingly degraded by it.”

Sorry guys, you’re wrong. This sounds like the sort of socialist claptrap that Grauniad readers have been pushing for years in support of, first, state collectivism then, more recently, the (dominant) left wing brand of green politics. You seem to have fallen for it hook line and sinker and you’ve got an uphill task ahead of you to persuade the party to follow you, regardless of what David Cameron decides to take forward from the report.

Money can’t buy happiness, but it certainly helps with the instalments. People are more likely to be happy when they have financial security, when they can provide properly for their family, when they don’t have to scrimp and save in the last week of a long month and when they don’t dread the credit card bill’s arrival. We should never denigrate the desire to better oneself or the lot of your family and loved ones by disparaging references to “material gain” or worse, as so often, “greed”.

On the subject of the environmental impact of material gain, technology and the market hold the key to combating climate change (if it’s actually happening as a result of human activity), and holding back the economy will do little to generate the wealth that will be required to invest in green technology. It certainly won’t make much difference anyway unless China, India and the other new powerhouse economies are on board. (More relevant, of course, are the issues of energy security and self-sufficiency and general pollution reduction, concerns over which there is more consensus than man-made global warming.)

With this policy group John and Zac had a golden opportunity to demonstrate how we can take environmental interests forward using sound right-wing principles of choice, self help and trust in the people, rather than the tired old formula of statist do-as-we-say-it’s-for-the-children breast-beating eco-fascism.

In some instances, of course, they have come up with some good ideas – tax breaks for energy-efficient homes, for example, but then they go and spoil it.

For instance, let’s take a couple of examples so far highlighted (from the BBC):

The Quality of Life Group said it was “illogical” cars and trains were taxed more than flights, adding the UK should be a “world leader on green growth”.

Well, then , that sounds to me like an argument for taxing cars and trains less – reducing petrol duties, VAT and at last making fares from home to work deductible for tax, for example.

Cap on energy use by domestic appliances

Enforced how, and at what additional cost to the taxpayer? Surely if it’s going to cost the treasury anyway, then it’s easier to have a reduced rate of VAT on low energy appliances.

No further airport expansions for now

Rethink Heathrow’s proposed runway

No new runways at Gatwick or Stansted

This is based on the same flawed logic of reducing the parking provision in new housing and commercial developments. Unfortunately, what actually happens is people then either go elsewhere (in their cars) or clog up the existing areas with parking. In airport terms, once the London airports reach capacity, then more flights will be pushed to other airports outside the South East, meaning longer car journeys to reach them (particularly if it’s an early morning flight or you just don’t want to risk missing it by taking the train).

I’m sure I could go on, but without an Executive Summary (something Tim Montgomerie has noted with suspicion) , it’s going to take time to plough through the report. Until then, you could have a go at it yourself (pdf 3.37Mb).

Enviro-realism

Credit to those behind the Apec agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not credit necessarily for the stress on greenhouse emissions - my regular reader will remember my reticence about putting so many eggs in the climate change basket – though I accept that in the current political climate the “climate change” label is virtually ubiquitous. No, I think the deal is pragmatic and of greater long term benefit than any Pacific son of Kyoto is likely to be.

The key is the aspiration to cut by 25% the amount of energy required to generate one dollar of GDP. Note: not to cut emissions, but to increase energy efficiency. That does not imply reversing economic or technological growth, as Kyoto would have required. If man-made climate change is happening then it is science and technology that will tackle it, not more statist utopian fairyland measures that will more likely push us back towards the stone age.

Another point in the agreement’s favour is contained in the comments by Greenpeace, reflecting the typical reaction of those on the left of the green debate:

“Without supporting binding targets for developed countries, which is where the rubber really hits the road on climate action, it looks like a political stunt by John Howard.”

(Not that Greenpeace ever involves itself in political stunts, but I digress….)

Quite how you can have a binding target on any country, short of threatening military action or punitive sanctions, I don’t know. It is the standard reaction of the Left to any “non binding” agreement, though - just watch the cynical tone of the BBC’s coverage next time some current pariah industry, under attack from “consumer groups”, proposes some form of self-regulation.

Meanwhile, back home, today sees the first glimpses of the latest Conservative policy group to report, this time on “quality of life”, or more specifically it seems, the Environment. Headed up by eco-obsessist Zac Goldsmith (set to fight the good fight in Richmond) and John Gummer (who, last I heard him speak, sounded somewhat sceptical about the whole evolution thing), the report includes suggestions like stamp duty and other tax breaks for eco-friendly properties. I can’t think of many examples of a bad tax cut, so this is good stuff. I’ve no doubt there will be some tax increases for environmentally “unfriendly” things (though I am happy at reports that the green air miles idea has been dropped), but politics is invariably a matter of compromise.

Finally for now, of particular interest, and again fitting in nicely with my earlier thoughts on increasing our degree of national self-sufficiency in energy, is the suggestion in the Observer that nuclear power will not be ruled out.

Gummer, whose constituency includes the Sizewell B nuclear power station, will also signal Tory support for nuclear power. Tests will be set for the industry, but Cameron will be given an escape route from his description of nuclear power as an option of ‘last resort’.

If we want to be less reliant on how good a day Vladimir Putin’s having (via the gas markets) or to have less of a need to take an interest in the often dodgy places where the black gold comes out of the ground, then nuclear energy, combined with greater energy efficiency, has to be the way forward.

Anyway, the full report is unveiled on Thursday, so watch this space.

(Hat tip, as so often, to the chaps at ConservativeHome, neatly summarising the QoL coverage while I was dealing with a baby with colic and a cold!)

Just a thought (#1)

Why are climate change sceptics accused of bring in the pay of “big oil”, but no-one accuses climate activists of being in the pay of “big government” (or the well-funded self-publicising green lobby industry)?

This is not a debate

More from the debate that is so over.

The BBC, who have never pretended to be impartial on matters related to climate change, have actually acknowledged the leading alternative theory for climate change in this article and as one of the top stories on (at least) radio bulletins this morning … though they only do so in order to rubbish it and, by implication, Channel 4.

The piece has been well fisked by Andrew at Biased BBC, so I will not duplicate his efforts, other than to point out that in most other areas of reporting, one would expect a chance for the “other side” to respond. Given that this is not a time-sensitive piece it could surely have waited until Drs Svensmark and Friis-Christensen could be given a right of reply. Never mind, I’m sure the professional and impartial BBC will give their rebuttal equal prominence in the coming days.

Global warming - so what?

It’s been a couple of years since the last one, and sure enough tomorrow sees the latest western liberal self-hate fest – this time it’s called Live Earth. Lots of showbiz types will demonstrate their concern for the environment on various stages around the globe. Presumably they will all travel to their respective venues by bicycle, sailing ship and their own two feet only, to avoid any charges of hypocrisy.

Sorry if I sound cynical, but I had to get that out of the way first. Let me now explain my take on environmental policy:

Tax can be fun

Funny the things you pick up at tax and accountancy seminars. Apparently the canopies over many BP petrol stations include photovoltaic (PV) panels which produce electricity, as well as giving BP some green credentials to show off. Is this true? Do any other petrol companies do this these days? I guess it is one of those green schemes that also makes commercial sense. It also prompts the thought that a lot of the finance for developing green technologies is going to come from the energy companies themselves - it’s in their long-term interests - despite the pariah status accorded to them by the recycled socialists that sadly make up so much of the green movement.

What does it have to do with tax? Well, as the canopies contain the PV cells, they are classed as “plant” and so qualify for capital allowances (probably enhanced capital allowances for energy saving equipment), whereas otherwise they would simply be part of the setting in which the trade is carried on, and so allowances would be unavailable (per Dixon v Fitch’s Garage 1975). But then you knew that anyway.

I could go on about the so-called “simplification” and “tax cuts” relating to capital allowances that Gordon Broon introduced in this year’s Finance Bill, but I get the feeling that I might be losing you now….