The one seriously forward move in today’s Pre-budget Report was the proposal to make all newbuild housing carbon neutral within ten years. That will end up making a big difference to the UK’s carbon footprint but, because it applies (and can apply) only to newbuilds the effect will be slow to build up. Existing houses will not be affected due to the difficulties of retro-fitting carbon neutrality, and will continue to be carbon-emitters until they are knocked down. George Monbiot estimates that at the current rate of replacement it will be 1700 years before they’re all gone!
Otherwise, the PBR predictably increased the ‘burden’ of Green taxation, but only to a token extent. Green taxes are not really the answer to climate change, but they do have their role to play, and not just the walk-on part that Gordon Brown allocated them. They are important in ‘sending signals’ as to what is and what is not acceptable, and in making people think about the choices they are making. To wean people off flying everywhere at the drop of a hat would require a passenger levy (or its equivalent) of at least a couple of hundred pounds, which is not a realistic option – but Brown’s actual rise in the levy from £5 to £10 (for the majority of flights) is derisory. Nobody will stay at home on account of that – they probably won’t even bother to grumble. What he does need to do – and perhaps we need to wait for his inevitable accession to Number Ten for this – is to stop building extra runways. The laws of supply and demand would soon make a much more significant dent in the flying figures. It would also send the right signal. Why should anyone take the slightest notice of what the government says about the need to curb global warming and the detrimental effects of flying when they are clearly heel-bent on encouraging that very activity? The same, of course, applies to road building.
There were also, of course, references in the PBR to how wonderfully well the economy is growing. The sustainability or otherwise of that growth did not rate a mention – it never does. No question was raised about whether or not continued growth is a good thing - it never is. “Growth is good” is the mantra across the political spectrum, even as the quality of our air and our food degrades steadily. Surveys have shown that peoples’ perception of the quality of their lives has been heading steadily downward since the 70s (I think – it may even have been earlier), while growth has been inexorable. If you’re hitting all your targets but still not getting to where you really want to be, maybe you’re setting the wrong targets.
A green chancellor? I think not. The name says it all.
Comments