Forum menu
Labour are rowing back on their green pledge for the next election as they don’t believe public finances can shoulder the £28bn pledge.
Regardless of whether you believe climate change is man made, evidence of its effects are undeniable and will get worse.
So, would you be willing to pay a little more to do something about it? To invest in something strategic? A tax of say 1p on every £1 for the next 5 years, with the money ringfenced for sustainability projects - power generation, distribution infrastructure, chemical energy storage, home insulation and heating help, etc.
£180bn
The return/promise would be to that within 10y, UK co2 emissions should drop by say 25% as a direct result and energy inflation for domestic use does not go beyond 1% for years 5-10.
Would you invest in a long term plan?
Yes, but I can afford to.
Yes, but as with all these things, how well will it be managed? Is someone actually making sure the money is put to good use and spent wisely, or will it just be big handouts to companies of party donors who make empty box ticking promises that are never followed up on?
Id say 1p of the tax i pay already, should be green, not the war machine
How do you pay more, if its not your fault? how do you pay morE, if you have to work more and cause more hassle to get the money to pay it?
We dont need to give the gov t any more ways to gouge money out of us
If you say yes I think you'd be better spending the tax you'd be prepared to pay on energy saving measures of your own. When you live in an energy positive passive house close enough to you work to travel on foot or by bike, take all your holidays by train/bike/bus/coach/bus in expensive eco accomodation, eat a 100 mile bio diet etc. Then is the time to give surplus cash to the government to squander and spend on fossil fuel subsidies.
Pretty much yes.
The problem is we can't trust the government to spend public money in a responsible manner.
Yep shows the sentiment.
But you don't need to.
Just like you didn't pay more taxation when we spent the 330bn on covid.
The argument is never - can we afford it but can we do it? Don't swallow the monetarist pill about government finances.
We can't afford not to do it.
It's 28bn, currently that's nothing in terms of spend. Government spending on the correct things creates growth and employment and pushes money through the private sector. Labour want growth. Win - win.
The trapping is to debate the spending as if it's a cost to the public. Government and BoE run a balance sheet and that's all spending is - an asset and liability record with the liability side backed by the biggest bank of all the BoE.
Same old ridiculous neoliberal mythical constraints- but don't worry the climate won't wait for us.
Labour will no doubt put taxes up anyway. What they'll spend it on, who knows 🤷
If you say yes I think you’d be better spending the tax you’d be prepared to pay on energy saving measures of your own. When you live in an energy positive passive house close enough to you work to travel on foot or by bike, take all your holidays by train/bike/bus/coach/bus in expensive eco accomodation, eat a 100 mile bio diet etc.
So that would be never for large swathes of the population then. Saving a penny from every pound I earn wouldn’t get me very far in making a 150 year old house more sustainable. Moving nearer to work would be tricky as I work from three different sites, one within walking distance, other two not so much.
If you say yes I think you’d be better spending the tax you’d be prepared to pay on energy saving measures of your own.
1p in every £1 earned for the average household in the UK over a year would be £660. Over 5 years, £3600 (inc interest). You’re not going to get anything done in most households for that.
You need economies of scale that only governments can really provide in the earliest phases.
Yes but as above there'd have to be some conditions. Green companies would pay a good wage, but not excessive, to all levels, to attract good workers. Taxes paid, a set dividend paid to investors on profit, the rest invested in the company, making companies a steady long term investment. Current companies would need to support new companies.
Any questions of cronyism, profiteering, tax avoidance would see the top brass and the Minister with oversight facing legal ramifications.
Obviously some of this is possible but for a share of such a large pot you'd hope to encourage some ethical investment.
The clue was in the word investment. It is a government investment, i.e. should be making a return for the country so doesn't cost us anything in taxes, alongside what rone explained - don't worry rone, one day people will get it and you won't need to write in on every other thread 🙂
Labour will no doubt put taxes up anyway. What they’ll spend it on, who knows
A) the tories have put them up more than Labour have no not sure what you are basing that on and B) it they are increased it will be rightly aimed more at us better off people.
Think of it this way - the BoE just merrily paid interest to people with lots of money for several months, from nothing. It is from a spending point of view exactly the same as a deficit but the money went to people with money.
(Which why the markets have been on huge runs too.)
It's never about the source of the money- that's easy, it's where it ends up.
don’t worry rone, one day people will get it and you won’t need to write in on every other thread
I'm sorry, it's just the same old things need a push back or they don't get tackled.
Look at the way the tax system is abused for political gain. It's because there is more to gain from debating falsehoods about taxation than actual problems that need solving.
The Tories have lied and lied about taxation. For example pretending there is now room for spending or tax cuts. This absolute claptrap is based on one possible OBR model 5 years in the future versus another OBR model for the same time period.
It's total junk.
Back to the original point for the sake of sentiment as opposed to reality- don't people say they will pay the 1p tax and then renage when it comes to voting time?
Yes, but for me I would rather pay more tax and have it ring fenced for certain jobs first (emergency services, nurses, teachers etc, but not just to pay for more bureaucracy) as I have already made some small personal choices in a bid to help (some pension invested in greener funds, drive electric car etc) but I realise more needs to be done. looking at how we seem to waste millions in procurement/pie in the sky schemes etc I feel we should fix the basics first before throwing more money away on what would probably end up being a badly planned scheme.
Yes, but for me I would rather pay more tax and have it ring fenced for certain jobs first (emergency services, nurses, teachers etc, but not just to pay for more bureaucracy)
See above on spending and taxation as that is not how it works. And every organisation has bureaucracy so just accept that is part of the cost of running it and don't use it as an excuse to not fund things - you are not Rees Mogg are you?
I think most people agree with you, mattsccm, and governments kwow it. Any government that does anything significant will lose the next election. People are far too attached to their gas central heating, energy sieve homes, ICE cars, flying to a holiday destination to see the northern light or a big hole in the ground to vote for change. There are literally hundreds of STW threads to support this view.
There was a debate on France Inter about developing new oil and gas fields this morning. It would obviously be a good idea to stop, but stopping would mean an oil price rise and that brings a near revolution everywhere it happens. The politicians a faced with an insoluble problem, a population far more interested in their own immediate greed than the welfare of their grandchildren.
So if you think it's an important issue do what you can, but don't think giving more money to the government will help, it won't, the government is elected by people who couldn't give a **** - the majority.
Just like you didn’t pay more taxation when we spent the 330bn on covid.
Except we are, tax take is at the highest level for 70 years, it just wasn't called the covid tax.
Anyway back on topic, in theory yes, more to ensure energy security for the country. I'm a big believer in renewables ability to deliver that. Having a relatively cheap stable energy supply would then allow us to focus on some of the other key issues in our society that also impact the cost of living which is driviing inequality.
Not drowning some of our low lying friends and neighbours is also a major bonus.
The issue woth all ring fenced tax though is will it be spent in the right place? Like Rone I'm not sure it needs additional taxation, unlike Rone I dont think we need to spank the magic money tree. We need to drive societal change through policy not unrestrained spending (which ultimately doesnt work anyway). We need to seriously look at where current expenditure is going and how little societal value we are getting for it.
The biggest issue is the stupidity our the elctorate as a whole, which will be whats driving Labour, they know what they should do, I'm guessing the focus groups are suggesting key demographics arent with the program.
People are far too attached to their gas central heating, energy sieve homes, ICE cars, flying to a holiday destination to see the northern light or a big hole in the ground to vote for change.
Not disagreeing with you but all of that, bar the holiday element, aren’t real choices that most people have. I’m not attached to my heating system, my house or the ICE car we have. They’re all just not affordable things to change for your average individual.
A tiny house around the corner from me, three bed, modern insulation and heat pump is £315k. Not affordable for a large swathe of the population. Cheapest ‘affordable’ electric car is around £25k. Retrofitting an old house, way out of the financial means of, you guessed it, large swathes of the population.
The biggest issue is the stupidity our the elctorate as a whole,
This is also sadly true. A lot of people are self centred and have an inability to think longer term.
Top story on the BBC site just now: World breached 1.5C warming threshold for a whole year.
Second story: Labour ditch 28bn green investment deal
“Would you invest in a long term plan?”
no, it’s not a sensible idea given
- 5 year voting cycle
- constant changing of who is in the job in public sector roles
- the incessant need of people, more so imho, of ‘important career people going places’ to make their mark / stamp their authority - ie make changes, and ime there a certain things that really screw long term plans and constant changing is right up there
No. That £660 PA would be better spent overpaying my mortgage.
I already pay a premium for my energy, only 2 or 2.5%, but all my electricity is derived from green sources. (I only cook on gas, everything else is electric.)
I also tend to use biofuels if they are available when i fill up, costs a bit more and fuel economy a bit worse, but not enough to actually hurt financially. EV isn't yet viable for my transport needs, and co car is mild hybrid (as they wouldn't let me go PHEV due to availability).
So i already pay.
With the whole cost of living crisis, it's getting to the point where i might have to not pay...
..climate change is man made, evidence of its effects are undeniable and will get worse.
Well, no.
Will get worse? What makes you think that? Was it BBC reports about increasing hurricane activity to take one example? Claims that when looked at in detail are clearly false?
Evidence of the effects of climate change... Such as what? What evidence? Which particular climate zone has changed? What caused the change? Prove it wasn't natural cycles.
You acknowledge that the man made claim is contentious, which it is. So everything that follows is negated.
If you think allowing Labour to waste £28 billion of our taxes a year will save the planet, go ahead and vote to make yourself poorer. That's the beauty of democracy.
Regardless of whether you believe climate change is man made, evidence of its effects are undeniable and will get worse.
So, would you be willing to pay a little more to do something about it?
If climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena how much effect can humans really have on stopping/reversing it?
That is the one reasonable argument which the denialists have, which is why they put so much effort into sowing doubt that it is anthropogenic.
Dismissing the importance of whether climate change is caused by human activity is wrong. It goes to the very heart of whether or not it can be successfully tackled. The jury is not still out, the evidence is overwhelming and the conclusion is clear and undisputable.
Don't help vested commercial interests by acknowledging that there might be doubt.
I feel fairly confident that the local climate has changed in my time on earth in a noticble way
I don't think throwing money at it is the right way, we are told that one of (if not) the biggest contributor to climate change is animal farming, change the laws around how animals are farmed, make it more environmentally friendly, yes the cost of animal products will escalate, but that would open up a market for much better local vegetable produce, the consumer will moan that they can't buy a chicken for £4.50 any more and maybe can only justify its new cost once a week, and adjust their diet to suit...you'd also reduce the availability of all that mass produced cheap meat based products suspected of being harmful.. so you start fixing the population and fixing the environment, the animal welfare potentially increases, and the final product could be a higher quality. Granted, that's only us, not the rest of the world.
me, recently turned vegetarian/vegan and makes perfect sense (to me)
Yes.
But I'm fortunate to be able to afford that.
No.
a) we are screwed anyway
b) it can’t be implicated as the whole world won’t play and we are not the big problem.
That's just nonsense. a.) That's like saying my house is on fire, so I'll just sit here and burn. b.) Implicated? What? Reducing FF, transitioning to cheap, green power is good for the UK. Who gives a crap about anyone else? We'll have clean air, cheap energy and a sizable green energy infrastructure base? Don't you get it?
no, it’s not a sensible idea given
– 5 year voting cycle
– constant changing of who is in the job in public sector roles
That's why I said 5 year for collecting, planning and investment and then 5 years for return. The latter would be baked in by the former and would be done inside a single election cycle.
It’s never about the source of the money- that’s easy, it’s where it ends up.
I'm aware of this, but most people aren't and think it has to work by saving and paying. But why not leverage that, get people invested, work WITH their way of thinking, help them see how planning and investment can work?
No. That £660 PA would be better spent overpaying my mortgage.
Not if your energy bills and cost for heat pumps and solar continue to rise above inflation it won't. You'll just be spending that money and more, forever.
The clue was in the word investment. It is a government investment, i.e. should be making a return for the country so doesn’t cost us anything in taxes
Yes, but that's like taking money out of a growing business - Why do it? Leave that money in the business to grow what you've started. Then, after 5 years, the 1p increase is dropped and after 10 years, VAT on energy can be dropped, and so on.
Problem is that green investment is always presented as discretionary spend, when actually it's a choice between green investment and the unquantified (and likely to be far worse) costs, human and environmental as well as financial, of inaction.
Well, no.
Will get worse? What makes you think that? Was it BBC reports about increasing hurricane activity to take one example? Claims that when looked at in detail are clearly false?
Don't quote only part of my text - it's a dick move.
Evidence of the effects of climate change… Such as what? What evidence? Which particular climate zone has changed? What caused the change? Prove it wasn’t natural cycles.
Melting glaciers WILL cause sea level rise, sea level rise WILL cause population displacement and lower crop yields. Who cares if it's a natural cycle. It's going to end badly. We CAN reduce our input to global temperature rise. Will it stop it? No. Will it slow the rate? Maybe. Why shouldn't we try to stop a decimation of our way of life? Let's get the ball rolling.
You acknowledge that the man made claim is contentious, which it is. So everything that follows is negated.
Again, Wheaton's law applies - you need to follow that thought process to conclusion. Does it matter if its a natural cycle? If you can do something about it, why shouldn't you at least try?
If you think allowing Labour to waste £28 billion of our taxes a year will save the planet, go ahead and vote to make yourself poorer. That’s the beauty of democracy.
I'm not asking labour or anyone else to save the planet, I'm asking people to make themselves better off. See this is what you and those like you don't seem to get. A transition to green power will not make you poorer. Wind and Solar power are some of the cheapest forms of energy generation available and they just happen to be clean power and subject to little outside influence beyond the weather. What we need is a means to make it constantly available subject to demand and that's where chemical and battery energy storage comes in.
Becoming a world leader in this type of technology would substantial benefit UK PLC and those of us that live here.
Climate change is one method of incentivising, the other is pure economics, but you seem to focus only on the former without truly considering the latter. Go right ahead and vote Tory or whichever party choses the short term view, it'll bite you in the ass. There's plent yof evidence for that too!
Yes, but that’s like taking money out of a growing business
??? How is government investment like taking money out of a growing business. They are not the same in any way whatsoever.
It's a similar argument to brexit.
One one hand you have those saying that after brexit life will be amazing and there's nothing to worry about, sunlit uplands etc etc. On the other side is the modelling and calculations saying, yeah, it'll be worse, but we don't know by how much because it's complicated and there are a lot of unknowns. So those on the pro brexit side say, "ignore them, they don't know, who needs experts."
The green agenda, you've got those with a vested interest in the *status quo saying it's all made up, weather and climate is the same thing, we'll be fine and those with the actual receipts saying it's going to be shit, but we're not sure how shit and how fast, but if we can put some controls in place we know will sort of slightly mitigate the effects. And we get "ignore them, they don't know, who needs experts." Again.
Couple of huge steaming piles of Dunning-Kruger.
(* Not sure you can call it status quo, because things *are* going to change, a lot.)
Would you invest in a long term plan?
The question should be, would you vote for a political party (ies) that agreed long term spending plans with each other if that meant at the expense of your personal political philosophy? Or what would you be willing to sacrifice in order to ensure that any long term projects were not just ejected by the following administration.
Labour have abandoned the £28bn spending pledge in part becasue of the "ammunition" it gives the Tories to attack them on what they will characterise of profligate spending. Until this sort of knock-about politics stops [with issues such as climate change] we're just ****ing about. If the parties agreed a plan if it meant compromise, would that be acceptable?
If you're using the return on that investment to either reduce tax or pay for other things, that return will not be used to expand the investment.
I work in sustainability and I'm working on reducing the carbon footprint of a large emitter
Climate change is a social problem with an economic solution.
The environment is changing as a result of our actions and it will make the planet less hospitable for the global population, the worst hit are in less developed or developing nations.
For those that say we (the UK) don't have a big impact are missing a few key points. Some of the businesses that contribute most are headquartered here, even if their emissions aren't included in the UK figures.
You also have a huge footprint from shipping and air travel, that includes air freight, that aren't in any countries 'footprint' when figures are reported. Again the UK has a big influence on both
Ratherbeintobago is correct that is viewed as a discretionary spend, but it's not, it's a straightforward business decision, can we adapt to a changing climate or not?
The government needs to inventivise and they have failed miserably.
Teresa May's government set us up to be the global leaders and be relevant in tackling climate change on the world stage, we're now at the point that even companies like Ford are calling us out on how shit we are.
Tl;Dr - yes we need to pay at least 1p, but we're paying more than 1p to counter the inaction of the government since bojo ousted may
The cost of inaction, or slow action will cost all households much more. Accelerating the shift to renewables and energy storage with government investment and changes to the market rules, regulations and laws around energy needs to happen right now… to avoid energy poverty becoming embedded as the norm in Northern European countries like this one. If we don’t wean ourselves off fossil fuels over the next 10 years, the future is going to be so expensive for all of us, with only the lifestyles of the very richest unaffected.
From 1950 to 2021 the worlds human population more than tripled from 2.5b to 8.0b, pretty much all those people strive to have a "western" standard of living. Personally I think gov investment in green technology is a good and sensible plan for economic growth but to think we can really put a lid on climate change as a result of human activity seems to me to be wishful thinking.
Also, not least investing in our own green energy systems might break a bit of a reliance on energy imports- you know the thing that drives inflation.
In a populist time where we talk up big patriotic solutions- you think this one would cross the divide of left-wing and right-wing politics.
We need energy to function and we can do it better.
Even Nick Ferrari is laughing off this expense as any sort of problem.
Starmer and Reeves need to get this in order or in power they're going to be a total cowardly disaster paving the way for more daft Tories.
Again 28bn is nothing. It's start but we're probably on the path to 300bn realistically- it's just numbers, don't worry about them , worry about the inaction.
https://twitter.com/RichardJMurphy/status/1755314537354387801?t=HYwxtiya4xRAMAgKW7DOTQ&s=19
Yes, but as with all these things, how well will it be managed? Is someone actually making sure the money is put to good use and spent wisely, or will it just be big handouts to companies of party donors who make empty box ticking promises that are never followed up on?
Is what I came here to say. 🙁
IN answer to Richard Murphy's Tweet. In part, avoiding giving the Tories something to attack them on. Until we have grown up politics, then the fallout will always be sensible discussion on how to avert further damage to our communities becasue of climate change. The Tories and Labour need to agree the plan, and agree not to **** about with these sorts of issues to score political points off each other.