Letter to Greepeace

25th November 2005

During this discussion, there was TV footage of Greenpeace activists demonstrating against Nuclear power...

My take on it is that their message was too negative and didn't suggest an alternative - i.e:

Global Warming Is The Responsibility Of Government, Not Consumers.

Dear Sir,
  A great deal of the responsibility for environmental issues has been put on the consumer. A large proportion of environmental pressure goes on attempting to convince the consumer to be more efficient in their energy use, to recycle, etc. This emphasis is fundamentally wrong.

While it is true that the different lifestyles damage the environment different amounts, it is a dangerous fallacy to say that normal working people are responsible for the state of the environment. Responsibility implies choice and it is not physically possible for consumers to buy zero-pollution products.

The much overlooked truth is that it can only be government's responsibility to stop global warming. The consumer is unable to enact legislation themselves. Only government can enact the laws which determine what is or isn't allowed - or even what is profitable and what is not. Given a choice, the majority of the population would not hesitate to vote for sensible, effective, green legislation.

Despite Mr. Blair's assertion that global warming is 'the biggest single threat we face today', recently (Nov 2005) the treasury he controls has decided that recycled vegetable oil as a fuel should attract the highest level of duty - 47.1p/litre.

In one statement, the government has killed a new green industry that would have hugely benefited the country's economy and ecology.

Government has the power to make or break industries with a few words and it's time they put that ability to better use... This is the ability which sets government apart from the consumer. This is why they government, not consumers are responsible for action

There is only one way to stop global warming. That is to stop burning fossil fuels. They are the sole source of the extra CO2 that causes it. Prohibition is not the answer, not even subsidies are necessary - all the treasury has to do is enable the green energy industry to take off by making it profitable:

Remove all taxes and duties on renewable fuels & renewable energy machines

These activities could be taken right out of the tax system cutting administration costs hugely for both parties.

This would include:

• all biofuels.
• solar / wind / geothermal / methane / wave equipment.
• electricity from renewable sources

If this was done, it's easy to image that 80-90% of the UK's energy could be coming from renewable sources within a mere ten years. Global warming is easy to stop. The government just has to stop taxing this business out of the market!

Government alone has the power to stop global warming. Removing taxes from renewable energy businesses is the most effective way to combat global warming. It may, in fact, be the only way.

Reply From Graham Thompson - Greepeace

28th November 2005

Thank you for your email and the interesting ideas it contains.

Personally, I think climate change is the responsibility of everybody. Consumers could take all the steps necessary to stop harmful emissions without the aid of government, as could business, but I think you are right in that government is ideally placed to take a dynamic leading role. Government is the only player here whose official role is specifically to protect the general public, whereas consumers are generally only concerned about themselves and their families, and business is only concerned with profit.

In some ways this is the root of the problem – as long as it seems sensible to people to destroy the planet they live on due to financial inducements and a lack of community then, even if we solve global warming, we’ll always be at the mercy of someone discovering a way of destroying the world which makes them a profit. It might be sensible to say that business, consumers, and any involved party who knows or should know what they’re doing, must bear responsibility for their own actions. However, getting to that point would also be very difficult without a strong lead from the government, so I suppose we have to accept that we’ve abdicated most of our moral responsibility and autonomy and need the government to show us how to look beyond our own petty concerns. Which, of course, they are signally failing to do.

Interestingly, when Greenpeace ask the government why they are failing to do anything significant, they respond by blaming us for not persuading the public (ie consumers) that our ideas are necessary, thereby failing to provide the government with a counter-balance to the demands of business. Business will also blame the consumer by claiming that they only respond to consumer demand. Perhaps the lesson is that we have to be genuinely democratic and not absolve ourselves, as consumers or businesses, from doing the right thing.

On a more immediate, practical note, we have been asking for tax differentials favouring renewable energy for a long time. There are several reasons why this is not as easy as it should be. Please write to your MP, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and the Energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, and ask why.

My Reply back to Graham Thompson

28th November 2005

Hi Graham,
  just a note:

I see that today Greenpeace protesters have delayed a speech by Tony Blair about nuclear power plans - with a placard saying 'Nuclear: Wrong option'...

Do you not think that a *positive* message might be more constructive? - I.e.

No Tax On Renewables = No Need For Nuclear!

or

No Tax On Renewable Energy = No Energy Crisis!

While actions like this have some effect - surely they are little better than stunts when no serious alternative is put forward?

Until a cogent, simple alternative is pushed into the public consciousness - i.e. 'No Tax On Renewables' - the campaign to prevent ecological damage will continue to struggle - like it has for the last 25 years.

Reply From Graham Thompson - Greepeace

30th November 2005

Thank you for the email. I’m glad to see you’re so concerned and paying close attention to the debate. The serious alternative we are putting forward to address climate change in the UK, and hopefully the world, is available here :

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7154.pdf

And a five-page summary is available here :

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7148.pdf

One of the best things about this system is that it has already been put into action and works beautifully, and not in some commune in California but in Woking, Surrey, and if it works there it’ll work anywhere.

As ever, there are very few genuine technical problems here, it’s all a question of political will. When the government assists one industry, they handicap another. Helping, say, biodiesel, will attract the wrath of the oil industry, who are several million times bigger and richer than the biodiesel industry. This may explain the bizarrely punitive attitude the government has to a technology which, to you and I, appears pretty benign. My personal opinion (NOT a Greenpeace official position) is that because the oil industry owns the vast majority of petrol stations in the UK they have even more leverage over this issue than they do in other countries. I suspect they may be trying to prevent any unwelcome competition by making sure that biodiesel is only sold mixed with their existing product.

The government is fully aware of many different ways of supporting and developing the renewables industry, but are too short-termist to ignore complaints from influential groups and plough ahead for the public good.

Please don’t think that I am against your idea, which I think is very good, but good ideas are not what we’re short of, even in government they’re up to their ears in good ideas, what we’re short of is the ability to make it happen in the face of opposition from powerful vested interests and a government unwilling to offend them.

Incidentally, please do address your questions to your local MP, as they have an obligation to answer (unlike TB & GB). You could ask them to ask a more senior politician on your behalf, or at least get them to do a bit of research for you. You could write asking what the relative tax regimes and subsidies for different energy providers are. If your MP did a thorough job finding out he’d probably end up a major supporter of renewables.

Comments

This is a sporadically moderated blog. I am not responsible for anything below!

Reply From Jon

>>Global Warming Is The Responsibility Of Government, Not Consumers. This is probably the most naive thing I have seen written for a long time. Politicians and commerce only reflect the democratic society they serve. Politicans get re-elected if they give us what we want. Commercial entities make a profit if they make things or provide services we want. In both cases you get no-where fast if you dont meet demand - our entire society is based on supply and demand, its probably the most powerful force at work in our global society. If you live in a communist country then yes you can blame everything on the authorities but if you live in a democracy then ultimately the public have only themselves to blame - we ultimately shape almost all decisions, only highly intricate and complex issues like defence remain purely in the hands of the politician. I despair with sentiments currently abroad in the UK \"I wont vote because politicans are corrupt or full of spin\" - no wonder with that level of political apathy - you just make the job easier for the corrupt by taking that attitude. Everytime you read a tabloid newspaper that favours presentation and political bias over fact and accurate reporting you contribute to a society where political spin becomes necessary. Your choice of newspaper, what programs you watch, every single action you take provides feedback that is listened to and acted upon. Effectively reading the Sun newspaper is politically irresponsible since it sends a signal to politicians that that represents the standard and level of dialogue required for a certain percentage of the population. Unless you get involved, ask for high quality information on whats going on and engage then politicians like everyone else will have to base their career choices in that environment. A politican can only afford to alienate a small proportion of the population a certain proportion of the time - look at Blair on Iraq! The rest of the time they have to basically try and appease most people at least some of the time. Politicians didnt invent spin because they liked it, they invented it because we showed no interest in the real issues and that some event on Big Brother was deemed front page matireal when a real issue was buried on the second page. I firmly believe that the public gets what the public wants and if you feel we are not getting what we should get then dont blame politicians, instead take a good look and your neighbour, your parents, your children, your friends and ask yourself if they believe the same things you do and whether they are asking for the same things you are. Pretty soon you will uncover the source of things you dont like or believe are wrong. Dont blame your politician blame your neighbours. Regards Jon

By Jon on 07 January 2008

To add your own comments, click here to login or register