Scrap the VAT, introduce the PAT

I was tweeted this link yesterday: Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars. Low-grade ship bunker fuel (or fuel oil) has up to 2,000 times the sulphur content of diesel fuel used in US and European automobiles.

The fuel oil (bunker fuel) used by those sea-going levihathans, just like kerosene (the airlines fuel) are not taxed, as opposed to petrol and diesel used by cars. Ironically, cars have become much cleaner, even diesel with new particulate filters -although they're not quite ubiquitous yet.

My conclusion is simple: our government is taxing automobilists and smokers not for health or environmental reasons, but simply because it can. Taxing foreign ships and plane is more difficult but not less harmless.

How to solve this?

I've been wrestling with that idea for a while: it's difficult to tax things that don't fall under a national law. The current system to tax CO2 emissions for instance is profoundly injust as I put it above, and it misses the point as housing for instance is not taken into account. It also favours displacing CO2 emitted by post-industrial countries to developping countries who use old generation coal stations.

One thing that could be taxed is the good when purchased. So what I propose is replacing the VAT with a variable tax based on CO2, NOx and other harmful compounds "embedded" (in reality emitted during the manufacturing process) in the products we buy.

That would be a PAT: Pollution Added Tax.

I can only see benefits: it would give everyone an incentive to be more sustainable, and create a lot of jobs because it would be quite complicated to administer.

But my PAT would be a great way towards more GloCalisation.


Tags: environment, airlines, pollution, richmondtransits.blog, transportation, uk, politics, co2, green, vat

Some Heathrow news...

A collection of interesting news items over the last couple of weeks...

Firstly, it seems politicians are starting to get their head about the anger caused by the unabated Heathrow expansion pushed by BAA and the DfT:

Government body calls for Heathrow review (RTT, 19/09/08)
Wandsworth Council leader Edward Lister said: “First the environment
agency now the SDC, how many more of the Government’s own advisers have
to tell Gordon Brown that he has got it wrong on Heathrow expansion?
“The economic case for expanding Heathrow seems to hinge on a
future of cheaper flights and ever-growing demand. But none of these
assumptions seem to take account of rising oil costs, the economic
downturn or the government’s own CO2 targets.
“No serious attempt has been made to compare the benefits of a
third runway with other transport solutions such as high speed rail for
which there is great demand on Scotland and the North.
“It’s five years since the airports white paper was published and
it is looking increasingly irrelevant to the nation’s transport needs.
“Brown should order an independent study that looks at the full
impact of expanding Heathrow on all sectors of the economy – and
compares it to the alternatives. There must be more to UK transport
policy than what is good for BAA.”


Did he read my previous posts on the subject???  The Sustainable Development Commission report is here.

Tories promise to shelve plans for third runway (RTT, 29/09/08)




"shadow transport secretary Theresa Villers said a Tory Government would
spend £20billion on a high-speed rail line between London’s St Pancras,
where the Eurostar is based, and Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds."

I couldn't agree more!

Boris Johnson has smelt the opportunity and resurrected the plans for a new airport in the estuary:
Boris Johnson airs plan for Heathrow-on-Sea (Times Online 10/02/08).  Makes total sense to me, as it's not that much more expensive than a third runway and a much better location. Unfortunately, short-sighted politicians have stalled it so far:

"Since the 1960s, 13 major cities including Paris, Milan and New York have
moved their airports further out. In Hong Kong, the government spent six
years and $20 billion building an airport on an artificial island and
linking it by bullet train to the city.In Britain, however, similar proposals have repeatedly been blocked. In the
1970s a scheme to build an airport on Maplin Sands near Southend-on-Sea in
Essex was abandoned because of a shortage of public funds."

(Image from "Scrap Heathrow and build a £30bn airport on an island, says Boris Johnson", Daily Mail 22/09/08)


PS: just to confirm that the company running Heathrow isn't up to the job:
Bacteria leaks and lost passengers among Heathrow breaches (RTT, 28/09/08)
CAA supports forced sell off of BAA airports

heathrow, heathrowexpansion, BAA, DfT, UK, railways, transportation, politics, richmondtransits.blog

Heathrow expansion is vital...

...for Mr. Walsh's bonus!

His arguments in this Richmond and Twickenham Times article dubious for the least:

1. The jobs impact has never been quantified by an independent survey

2. Comparing LHR alone to other airports is dishonest for the least because London has FIVE (international) airports.

3. Finally, BA and BAA just can't be trusted: T5 was given planning permission on the condition there will not be further expansion...


Tags: Heathrow, LHR, T5, BA, BAA, airport, airlines, UK, transportation, environment, richmondtransits.blog

Politics and GreenWash

I've always been interested by ecology, tryign to do my bit -like leaving a camping/picinic site cleaner than when I arrived. But my green attitude is based on common sense, not on any form of green religion inspired by city-luddites, the kind of people who were trotskyst before, green priests now and impose on others their attitude of green moral superiority.

For instance, at a time where we had agricultural surpluses subsidised by the EU, it only made sense to me that we should do biofuels. The current debate now about sustanability of biofuels comes from a herd movement towards biofuels when the infrastructure is not there.

Then the polititians came in and suddenly started to talk green. The only issue is that for politicians, it seems that Green = More Taxes. And we only see tax, tax, tax -but still no rail infrastructures
or maybe the're taxing the wrong stuff: Focussing on CO2: good for bears, bad for humans? Methane for instance stays in the atmosphere longuer than CO2: should we fit a meter at the back of each cow, or become vegeterians? (seems vegan is not a good idea...)

In my mind, it's not only taxes but there are many other ways of being greenner: microgeneration is one. The Guardian had a great full page article on how power from the people could cut CO2 emissions - with government help (shame the online version doesn't have the graphs).

But it seems the government is busy making broken promises and trying to substanciate the fact that Heathrow, thanks to its "Low Emission Zone" will be clean. In passing, we have to thank the EU for imposing stricter anti-pollution norms... (and NB: no, curbing LHR's growth won't harm the capital because it's only one of the FIVE London airports).

This is why I've become highly suspicious of Green Politicians: to me they will provoke a backlash and what they decide isn't even good for the environment.

PS: but kudos to Westminster to allow cyclists use one way streets riding counterflow. This is commen sense, doesn't cost anything and works (just go to The Hague if you don't belive me).

It's not only taxes...

I've long been annoyed by those people talking about CO2 emissions regardless of the context, etc...
Some say the publicity helps the green cause, I am rather more cynical and think that greenwash, just like idiotic taxes, is going to make people feel sick and tired and that the backlash is going to be a rejection of the need to be green.

It seems I am not alone:
Advertising watchdog receives record complaints over corporate 'greenwash' | Environment | guardian.co.uk

PS: read also Focussing on CO2: good for bears, bad for humans?

Tags: green, greenwash, richmondtransits.blog, ecology, environment

Green = More Taxes (for Politicians)

I thought I'd blog an extension to this post as I've been mullling over this all day:
Richmond Transits: Blatant hypocrisy over parking spaces

A few simple ideas:
- Why don't we get reduced VAT (from 17.5 to 5%) on all loft conversions incorporating a planted roof?
- Or a tax credit when installing solar / geothermic central heating?
- Or get grants for all renovations achieving a set target for insulation?

Both would save significant carbon emissions and make buildings more sustainable.

To me, politicians are hypocritical about green issues: it's not that they don't care. They do. A lot: it allows to raise taxes, such as congestion charge, road pricing, etc etc...

The endless greenwhash (non-sensical talks incorporating green keywords) only harms everyone's acceptance of the need to act now whithout producing significant results. Greenwash kills Green Goodwill because the consumers intimately feel they're not getting a good deal.

Blatant hypocrisy over parking spaces

Richmond council announced they will be taxing parents for dropping off their kids at local schools (through ending the 15 mn free parking allowance in a CPZ).

They are blaming the lack of parking places in the borough, paving the way for more CPZ (Controlled Parking Zones): More CPZ to come? (Richmond and Twickenham Times, 25/4/08)

This is simply and utterly hypocrisy: just consider the fact the council limits parking places in new developments such as the scheme in Garden road or the the office block extended in Chalkers corner.

But then, to me it looks like Green has become a synonym for "more taxes": every time taxpayers are being hit, especially in Richmond, it's in the name of the Carbon Reduction God, just like the failed congestion charge is now disguised into a low emission zone, etc...

When I read Jeremy Clarkson saying the greenies are the new trotskysts I thought it was amusing and second degree. Actually, I don't anymore. While I am all for doing everything we can to not leave the planet in a better state that the baby boomers are now handing it over to Generation X, the issue with the "green issue" is polititians who have managed to remove all substance and tax more.

It's always the stick: you drive a large car? Market forces and fuel prices are not enough, here's an additional parking tax. But that applies mostly to motorists, not to Heathrow. Nor do we get carrots: on the continent you get tax breaks for installing solar powered heating, geothermal exchanger, etc... Here, we just get free rockwool. Just like the congestion charge: a plaster on a broken leg.


Tags: richmondtransits.blog, green, CPZ, gardenroad, congestioncharge, london, cars, transportation, UK, politics

Non-reparable household goodies aren't green

Following the comment of Mike on my previous post (Richmond Transits: Free marketing advice for Dualit), here's some more advice for them:

when doing brand extension (like the low-end SoftTouch), make sure the new products abide by the same brand values. After all, I always say that marketing is a promise, and if you market stuff that robs the customer perception your overall brand is devalued. Just go and ask Mercedes-Benz what they think about it after they had quality issues in the 80ies...

Also, if you're not green the consumers will lash back. It is my personal prediction that non reparable goods will be seen as non-green and won't be able to attract a premium. As the market will fork, consumers will buy Miele or chinese washing machines, little in between. So, sort out your after-sales and make your stuff fixable.

Manufacturers supply chain will also need some attention, and that's potentially a financial gain: as James puts it here, Green is a form of Lean

Common green sense?

More cars, maybe need more roads?
Drivers Voice: Call to Build More Roads

Common sense? What's the economic impact of the UK being gridlocked? When I travel, in the US, in Europe (not to mention construction crazy countries like Dubai, etc...), I see road building everywhere. Maybe not always new roads, but improvement to try keep help people going by their business. Like mini-tunnels under roundabouts, removing level-crossings, etc...

The prevailing logic in the UK seems reversed: too many cars, let's prevent them from moving and people will switch. To what? The trotsky-greenies forget one thing: often there's no alternative, as the public transportation system is bursting to the seams, and getting even more expensive (in the news today: Passengers are to be hit by above-inflation rate fare increases.)

If they're right though, why don't they apply the same principle to Heathrow and stop people from binge-flying???

Oh, and finally -I was attending a presentation on green IT today. I am now officially carbon fatigued. The UK is at the top of the league for carbon awareness but far down when it comes to recycling and real emissions. Carbon emissions are important, but so are NOX, particles and more generally speaking sustainability.

It doesn't look like it's going that way: being cynical, I think companies are going to change only if they're forced to (by energy prices, customer sentiments for B2C and regulation).

We'll be cosmetically green, but not much more sustainable.

Put differently, everything will be recycled, yet everything will be the same.


Tags: green, IT, ecology, sustainability, politics, UK, transportation, roads, richmondtransits.blog

I dreamt about doing this!!!!

Hats off to Hacan for doing something I wanted to see for a long time:

BA boss gets early morning plane blasts (Richmond & Twickenham Times, 22/07/05)
THE boss of British Airways was woken up by blasting aircraft noise at 5am at his quiet Berkshire village home this week. The protesters rigged up a sound system outside the chief executives home and blasted out aircraft noise for 15 minutes. "The majority of night flights using Heathrow are operated by British Airways or one of its subsidiary companies. And BA is amongst the strongest supporters of night flights." As you have guessed, we live under the flight path, just like another MILLION of people in London (one of the few cities in London where flight paths go OVER down-town). This means we can get 747's cargos at 3 am or 4am, and then early morning traffic from 6 am. We have experienced it: it really affects kids sleeping patterns....