Stern Report Not Right or Wrong, Just Irrelevant
Following the discussion on the Stern report’s projections for the economic cost / benefit of tackling climate change, I’d like to introduce a new perspective: The cost of climate change avoidance is irrelevant, since most of today’s avoidance schemes are wholly ineffective anyway.
I make this assertion following UK treasury projections that the “green levy” on motorists announced in this year’s UK Government budget will provide an additional £4 billion to the treasury, but reduce vehicle emissions by 1% (0.06 of the total Co2 emissions of the UK).
Despite the huge sums raised, current investment in energy research is approximately one tenth of the amount spent on space research, and there seems to be no coherent and encompassing plan to make significant cuts in CO2 emissions. If raising £4 billion in taxes achieves so little, then surely lofty goals of reducing emissions by 80% are pure fantasy?
The new motor taxes have obviously been widely criticized, with the shadow Treasury minister describing it as “This is a massive tax hike which will have virtually no impact on the environment,” adding that “Despite their claims, the Government don’t expect this move to change behaviour at all - it is just another eco-stealth tax of the worst kind.”
To which the British government has feebly responded “The Government is committed to protecting the environment and tackling climate change. Part of this commitment involves promoting sustainable environmental improvements through tax and other economic instruments, and incentivising the development and uptake of lower emissions vehicles.”
The exact “sustainable improvements” they refer to are unclear. Motorists taxed off the road will be quick to point out that that the UK’s transport infrastructure is groaning under the strain of existing passenger volumes. Adding to the already disillusioned crowds of British public transport users hardly seems practical at this point.
Will green revenues be used to turn this situation around? Unlikely..
Many people argue that climate change has been embraced by governments as an excuse to collect additional taxes and enact additional legislation that would previously have been untenable. The problem I often have in arguing for climate change action is that they are largely right..
[quote]Many people argue that climate change has been embraced by governments as an excuse to collect additional taxes and enact additional legislation that would previously have been untenable. The problem I often have in arguing for climate change action is that they are largely right.[/quote]
The UK government is without doubt a highly hypocritical body who either don’t believe a word of what they speak or are too stupid to understand the ineffectualness of their actions. Or some dispiriting combination of the two.
I do slightly disagree with the title of this blog. Stern is both wrong and irrelevant. Its worth being aware of why both are true. The sort of sensationalist garbage that Stern produced undermines debate and rational responses.