Unthinking environmentalism costs taxpayers, costs jobs and costs lives

Great work by Tory Treasury spokesman Justine Greening has exposed the uselessness of Alistair Darling's 'green tax hike' on cars.  Her work has produced the main story in this morning's Telegraph:

"The "green levy" on motorists announced in Alistair Darling's first Budget will double car tax revenue to £4 billion but reduce vehicle emissions by less than one per cent, Treasury figures have showed... Justine Greening, a shadow Treasury minister who obtained the figures, said last night: "This is a massive tax hike which will have virtually no impact on the environment. 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.""

The TaxPayer's Alliance's Matt Sinclair has already shown that we pay more than enough taxes to pay for our carbon footprint.  We need to be on high alert for more and more 'green action' that ends up costing taxpayers, costing jobs and - worst of all - costing lives.

Environmentalists have a history of putting their views before the interests of people in the developing world.  Attempts to ban DDT, for example, have only caused malaria infection problems to worsen.  Only this week the founder of Greenpeace explained why he left the organisation because of its anti-science biases.

The biggest side-effect of today's environmentalism has been the impact on food prices (again see Matt Sinclair).  Although far from the whole explanation for food price hikes Mary Riddell in The Telegraph notes how the current craze for biofuels is raising serious ethical questions:

"Filling a 4x4 fuel tank with ethanol uses enough maize to feed a human for a year. The EU quotas are a death sentence, and Brown should say so."

This week's Economist notes how higher food prices are hurting the world's poorest people:

"Famine traditionally means mass starvation. The measures of today's crisis are misery and malnutrition. The middle classes in poor countries are giving up health care and cutting out meat so they can eat three meals a day. The middling poor, those on $2 a day, are pulling children from school and cutting back on vegetables so they can still afford rice. Those on $1 a day are cutting back on meat, vegetables and one or two meals, so they can afford one bowl. The desperate—those on 50 cents a day—face disaster."

For those interested in these issues we recommend Nigel Lawson's new book - An Appeal to Reason - and also Iain Murray's new blog; The Really Inconvenient blog.  His new book exposes how liberal enthusiasms have hurt the environment and the poor.

Comments

[Letters From A Tory]

Green taxes are just there to keep the green lobby onside and raise revenue.

The day I see a green tax or green initiative actually focus on reducing pollution or helping the environment is the day I eat my hat and probably several other hats.

[Bexie]

Variously, reputable scientists have been on about the inconvenient truth that the "green agenda" is a massive pork barrel for the corrupt and self serving, usually the smae people as are on the left. CLS on his blog (freestudents.blogspot.com) has spent a lot of his time highlighting just how the whole global warming cabal routinely distorts data, and misreports scientifc findings, and there has been a body of evidence as to how pressure is being put on acedemics to go along with this agenda against all scientific principle.

As one point, the High Priest of the Green Religion, Al Gore, makes a fortune out of the companies that engage in so called carbon offsetting...

[Serf]

The tragedy of biofuels is that within a few years we may well have commercially viale fuelswhich do not compete with food for raw aterials or even land.

Not only that, the net mpact of many biofuels on CO2 emissions is actually negative.

So we are going to kill countless numbers of the world's most vunerable, at no environmental benefit, whilst a few years from now we will have better solutions ithout the side effects.

The ultimate farce is that environmentalists use the possible plight of the worlds poorest to emotionally blackmail us into action today.

Kill and African today, and save his Grandchildren.

Bjorn Lomborg's message is as relevant as ever.

[Aggrieved Linguist]

"Liberal enthusiasms"?

What?

Speak in English English, Editor...

[Alan S]

The environment is dying as an issue now that people are worried about their wallets.

[Richard]

Green politics is just another excuse to dictate to people how to run their lives now that Marxism has been shown to be a complete and utter failure. The attack on 4x4 cars is just badly disguised class warfare.

[englandism.com]

In the UK we have 40% of Europe's total wind energy (true).

The Scottish Executive has just blocked the Isle of Lewis wind farm project:

‘The economic benefits included the creation of around 400 local jobs, 680 jobs across Scotland, during the construction process, as well as providing much needed investment to the Arnish Yard to make it a global competitor for other projects. The proposed community ownership of up to 15% of the wind farm would also have provided sustained income to the local community to invest in further sustainable economic activity.’

‘The wind farm would have contributed 650MW of renewable energy to help the fight against climate change’

Date Published: 21/04/2008 Lewis Wind Farm

This is yet another example of Green V Green internecine warfare so familiar from the traditional schisms of the hard Left. The similarities are there because much of the same old socialist agenda of restricting personal choice, limiting freedom, collective action imposing its will upon the individual and coercing and directing human behavior is equally as fundamental to the Green movement.

Dressed up in ‘it’s good for even if you are too ignorant or corrupted by capitalism to know it’.

All we see are endless models of collective doom with every positive way out blocked with schisms and threats of even greater global catastrophe. Biofuel is a classic example where the cure is now seen to devastate and the Isle of Lewis yet another battle between Greens that had nothing to do with progress and everything to do with an agenda out of control.

And what Richard said.

[Vince]

We also need the green fascists to drop opposition to GM foods; our best hope for feeding the world's growing population.

[englandism.com]

And what Vince said.

[bluepatriot]

Good work by Justine Greening.

[George Hinton]

It really is about time that the eco/green lobby were exposed and all this unproven garbage about global warming and carbon footprints was exposed for the tripe that it is.
The proponents of this rubbish are the usual bunch of leftie suspects who had such a good time in the old Cold War days demanding that we de-nuclear arm and allow ourselves to be taken over and ruled from Moscow. They are nothing more than a bunch of overweening fascist thugs hell-bent on imposing their will on everyone else.
Global warming is not a given and the scientists are at loggerheads over the whole subject matter. We even have global freezing now being discussed.
What we have, quite clearly, is an excuse for more taxation, dressed up with an excuse so thin, that it should be unbelievable, supported by a bunch of braying lefties who have conned their fellow-travellers in the media to give undue importance to rubbish.
Time for the driving public to strike back and refuse to pay. After-all the jails are full with crims, ne'erdowells, druggies and OAP's who havn't paid their rates, so where's the space for a bunch of refusniks?.

[Matt Wright]

The Isle of Lewis things was just madness full stop pushed along by developers after grants in a bonkers rush for wind power to meet targets set by the Sottish Parliament. It was also aided by a small cabal who misguidedly thought it would help the island. In fact young people are leaving rural areas all over the world to seek a more hurried life and career in built-up areas. They do tend to return in their 30s and 40s but won't if their island has been desecrated. I don't think some had realised this fact. Anyway wind is not the solution as its too intermitant but tidal power is a big opportunity and one that is coming along nicely. Lewis may be better to think along those lines.

[David Cooper]

And maybe we ought to put our own house in order first. Yesterday's Three Line Whip column in the Telegraph reported the hostile reaction of "climate change-sceptic" MP Philip Davies to the news that the fee for attending this year's Party Conference is to include a "carbon offsetting charge" of £3: "I'm appalled by this. It's outrageous. I've already indicated to the organisers that I'm not going to pay it. If we believe in anything as Conservatives, it's in freedom of choice." Perhaps in the interests of balance someone ought to check out whether this was a mandatory charge or voluntary contribution, but there is still no reason to play into the hands of those who advocate environmentalism via regulation and tax.

[Benet Northcote]

I know you don't accept that climate change is one of the defining issues, but your piece links bad Government policy with the whole green movement. That is unfair.

I agree that unthinking environmentalism is wrong, and in fact the Government are guilty of something much worse: cynical environmentalism. Most green NGOs are very dismissive of what Labour is doing on the environment.

For example can I link to the official Greenpeace response to the budget?

If the tax on high-emitting vehicles produces new revenues, then taxes should be cut elsewhere or additional spending should be clearly spelt out to voters.

But you link Darling's cack-handed taxes with the whole green movement, and slip into simple prejudice.

Also, your piece implies that environmentalists don't care about the poor That is simply wrong (and as a practicing Christian potentially personally offensive). I would merely point out that the two of the key NGOs working on climate change right now are Oxfam and Christian Aid - hardly known for their lack of care for the poor.

The whole point about climate change is that it is the world's worst off who will feel the harshest effects. In the UK, we will probably be alright (although my sister in-law's house might be underwater, along with the Houses of Parliament, oh and many old people will suffer and die if they can't afford air conditioning). But millions of people from Bangladesh will be looking for somewhere to live. It's all about the poor.

To blame food price increases on environmentalism is also incorrect. Most environmental groups - and Peter Ainsworth incidentally - have led the campaign against unsustainable biofuels. It was only the Tories who voted against the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation. Biofuels right now are a bad thing and should be stopped. It is big business that puts most pressure on Government to continue with them.

Oh, and as far as Patrick Moore goes? Well, most environmentalists give him the same credibility as Tories give Shaun Woodward.

[Jim Carr]

Oh, and as far as Patrick Moore goes? Well, most environmentalists give him the same credibility as Tories give Shaun Woodward.

I was unaware that Shaun Woodward had founded the Tories.

[Serf]

two of the key NGOs working on climate change right now are Oxfam and Christian Aid - hardly known for their lack of care for the poor.

Both of which campaign vigorously against free trade, something which the poor would benefit massively from.

Good intentions are not enough. We have spent trillions on god intentions without sovig any of the poor's problems. We need solutions that work.

[asquith]

Vince @ 10:40 (and like-minded people),

"We also need the green fascists to drop opposition to GM foods; our best hope for feeding the world's growing population."

Leaving aside the emotive terms, do you really think a rising world population is a good thing? How much longer will it be sustainable? We really could be in for the mother and father of all disasters if we keep on expanding. Limits to growth, remember.

[Frankland Macdonald Wood]

Every generation tends to produce a Savonarola with quasi-religious hair-shirt issues for us to wince over and feel the keenly desired guilt of proper northern protestant asceticism.

Don't pander to it. No sooner have they banned smoking and hunting and fur coats, do they look to fishing, drinking and evil tumble-driers or 4x4 vehicles. You will never satisfy the hair-shirt brigade, for they love to wallow in self-mortification.

They inveigh against 'wasting water' and suggest bricks in the cistern! How can we waste water? It falls from the sky all the time: it runs into rivers: and then runs into the sea: the sun sucks it up and down it falls again as rain. Whatever we do with it, it finds its way back to the sea sooner or later. No problem. These people are barking mad. What about the 'carbon footprint' of the brick and the transport to go and get it?

They warm to the idea of huge windmills and then go off it again; possibly because of the huge 'carbon footprint' of the windmills? They hate nuclear energy and then a decade or two later they like nuclear energy again.

When oil gets expensive it will stop being sold in such large quantities because part of the world will be priced out. The only solution to the world crisis, if there really is one, is to have far fewer people in the world. Western European countries have led the world in having declining populations. This is a very good thing and should be encouraged. Everything can be solved by having fewer of us. Reward the childless. Stop immigration-You know it makes sense!

[Malcolm Dunn]

A rather sad thread in my opinion. Like any mass movement the enviromentalists have made mistakes and have some bad eggs. But on the whole I think it very wrong to write off the whole enviromental movement. Any political party that campaigned for the reintroduction of DDT would lose my support.

[Serf]

Leaving aside the emotive terms, do you really think a rising world population is a good thing? How much longer will it be sustainable?

Ideally, we would have a declining population not a rising one. However, if that decline were to be cused by lack of food, then that wold mean mass starvation, which is rather a harsh solution.

If you want to cut the population, get all the girls to school.

But on the whole I think it very wrong to write off the whole enviromental movement.

You can not have been paying attention. It is natural for a conservative to want to take care of the environment. Our philosophy is to preserve and protect that which we ave.

The environmental movement is not prinmarily cncerned with the environment however. The just want to defeat capitalism, and they will not let the facts get in the way.

[Editor]

Sorry, Benet, for this late response to your comment:

Also, your piece implies that environmentalists don't care about the poor That is simply wrong (and as a practicing Christian potentially personally offensive). I would merely point out that the two of the key NGOs working on climate change right now are Oxfam and Christian Aid - hardly known for their lack of care for the poor.

I didn't mean to imply that. I don't doubt the honourable motives of many environmentalists but I do think that much modern environmentalism is regressive and unthinking. I've written on this site on a number of occasions that I support the Copenhagen Consensus. That is a thinking approach to these questions and it argues that there are many things - like free trade, action on malaria - that are much more likely to help lift general well-being than action on climate change.

You also said:

"I would merely point out that the two of the key NGOs working on climate change right now are Oxfam and Christian Aid - hardly known for their lack of care for the poor."

I stopped giving to these two charities some time ago. Their antipathy to free trade and their lack of understanding of Israel were the principal reasons. Again their pro-poor motivations may be impeccable but that isn't enough.