“Join us or die”


by Rumbold
2nd October, 2010 at 11:08 am    

That’s the message anyway from the new taxpayer-funded environmental campaign, backed by staunch environmentalists such as Peter Crouch (who takes the train or swims to European matches). The video sees two children murdered for refusing to back the 10:10 environmental campaign:

The video, (despite attempts to pass it off as humour) sums up all that is wrong with some elements of the environmental movement; it is smug, intolerant and hypocritical (that’s not to say though that there are not some genuinely committed and principled environmentalists out there).

I think that we need to tackle climate change. Whilst new technologies and improvements in renewable energy efficiency will undoubtedly help, at the moment the best thing we can do is to reduce energy issue by making carbon-emitting energy more expensive. This can be done through the tax system (as carbon emission are externalities). But this alone is not right, as people will just see it (understandably) as a way to raise extra revenue. This is why green taxes rises need to be balanced with tax cuts in other areas, particularly income tax and National Insurance.

Thus businesses and individuals who don’t emit that much carbon will see their tax bills fall, whilst heavy emitters will see their tax bills rise, which should encourage them to cut their carbon emissions , whether through cutting back for investing in more energy efficient products (by tests forge richards). Over time then, it should also reduce the tax take of the government, as long as the green taxes are significant enough to impact on behaviour. Chris Huhne has advocated such a policy recently:

The Liberal Democrat minister backed a call by his party’s activists which would see 10 per cent of all Government revenue come from green taxes within five years. Revenue from green taxes is currently forecast to fall from 6.9 per cent of the total to 6.5 per cent over the next five years. Raising the proportion to 10 per cent would require an extra £22billion – an unprecedented shift in the burden of taxation.

The LibDems claimed that raising more in green taxes would allow them to reduce other taxes. But critics last night dismissed it as a cynical move to squeeze more tax out of motorists.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Economics,Economy,Environmentalism






43 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : "Join us or die" http://bit.ly/cJpnfN


  2. Rachel Hardy

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blogged: : "Join us or die" http://bit.ly/cJpnfN


  3. Irwin

    How NOT to get people to cut their carbon emissions. http://bit.ly/bLeGAT http://bit.ly/cPh0FW


  4. Simon

    Pickled Politics » “Join us or die” http://bit.ly/beMVJa


  5. james kirk

    Pickled Politics » “Join us or die” http://bit.ly/cyxKU4


  6. james o kirk

    Pickled Politics » “Join us or die” http://bit.ly/cyxKU4


  7. Marcel Duda

    Pickled <b>Politics</b> » “Join us or die” http://goo.gl/fb/YqDX3


  8. Casey Vanderpool

    Pickled Politics » “Join us or die” http://bit.ly/aO00Id


  9. TWT POLITICAL

    Pickled Politics » “Join us or die”: douglas clark on Barbaric regime jails blogger for twenty years douglas clark… http://bit.ly/aVu3ql


  10. TWEET POLITICS

    Pickled Politics » “Join us or die”: douglas clark on Barbaric regime jails blogger for twenty years douglas clark… http://bit.ly/aVu3ql


  11. Sophia R. Matheson

    Pickled Politics » “Join us or die”: Pickled Politics » “Join us or die”: douglas clark on Barbaric regime jails b… http://bit.ly/bGKwYC


  12. “That” climate film « Greensen

    [...] Daily Mail  Time Magazine Pickled Politics and Climate Progress all have strong views on the film too. A Fox blog comments on the [...]


  13. new299

    Wow 10:10 climate change campaign was pretty repulsive! http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/10334




  1. Steve Haynes — on 2nd October, 2010 at 11:15 am  

    ‘This is why green taxes rises need to be balanced with tax cuts in other areas, particularly income tax and National Insurance.’

    Small problem:

    If the Green taxes are being used to alter behaviour, if they’re successful then you’ll see a drop off in the amount of money being brought in by them.

    When you bear that in mind in regards to lowering other taxes such as NI and income tax, you’re left with a financial black hole as you’ll be brining in less revenue.

    People wont have the same bad behaviours to tax, and you’ve lowered NI and income tax so less money to spend on… well everything really.

    Any suggestions as to how to get around that little problem?

  2. John Whitley — on 2nd October, 2010 at 11:16 am  

    “… smug, intolerant and hypocritical.”

    Surely that’s environmentalism in a nutshell. The video was pulled because it basically let the cat out of the (recycled) bag. I’ve never met an environmentalist who had a good word to say about his fellow man. Or the rest of the Human race for that matter.

  3. BenSix — on 2nd October, 2010 at 11:18 am  

    This is silly, because 1) 10% wouldn’t “keep the planet safe“, 2) if they were trying to write a comedy then why the heck would they have signed Richard Curtis and 3) it’s an awful waste of Radiohead.

  4. BenSix — on 2nd October, 2010 at 11:20 am  

    I’ve never met an environmentalist who had a good word to say about his fellow man. Or the rest of the Human race for that matter.

    Don’t meet too many environmentalists do ya, John.

  5. John Whitley — on 2nd October, 2010 at 11:26 am  

    @Ben Six. It’s the quality (or lack thereof), not the quantity.

  6. Rumbold — on 2nd October, 2010 at 11:28 am  

    Steve Haynes:

    Small problem:

    If the Green taxes are being used to alter behaviour, if they’re successful then you’ll see a drop off in the amount of money being brought in by them.

    As someone who believes in reducing the size of the state and taxing less, I see that as one of the benefits of the whole scheme, as government would be forced to cut expenditure due to less tax revenue. Thus it is a proposal that both environmentalists and libertarians can get behind.

    Heh BenSix.

  7. Jon — on 2nd October, 2010 at 12:07 pm  

    “despite attempts to pass it off as humour”

    I’m sure these guys are deadly seriously. If you don’t cut your emissions by 10% they’re going to kill you. With a magic button. Definitely not a joke.

  8. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2010 at 1:48 pm  

    Rumbold,

    It is humour, albeit pretty sick humour. And no, as a green I don’t want to blow up my enemies. I just want the opposition to be less persuasive of people like you….

    You have a wonderful attitude to almost everything. I agree with you on almost anything.

    Quite why you are in the boat with a shower of lunatics on green issues is beyond me…..

    Is it ’cause I’m white?

  9. Sunny — on 2nd October, 2010 at 3:25 pm  

    You’re calling environmentalists smug? Have you ever read James Delingpole’s blog?

    He swims in an ocean of smugness and shit so much every day that it’s not clear still to me whether it’s a parody blog or an attempt to help the environmental movement.

    Incidentally – that silly video was first trashed by environmentalists, so please stop drawing silly conclusions from it:
    http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/1010s-boom-video

  10. Rumbold — on 2nd October, 2010 at 4:26 pm  

    Jon:

    Well, leading environmentalists have compared emitting carbon to abusing children, rape and stabbing people with a knife so I wouldn’t put it beyond them.

    Douglas:

    You have a wonderful attitude to almost everything. I agree with you on almost anything.

    Quite why you are in the boat with a shower of lunatics on green issues is beyond me…..

    And you have a wonderful attitude too Douglas. However, I am puzzled that wanting to reduce carbon emissions puts me in such a category. Which aspects of my plan do you disagree with?

    Sunny:

    You’re calling environmentalists smug?

    These ones, yes. And that goes for any environmentalists who talk about cutting carbon but do not practice what they preach.

    Have you ever read James Delingpole’s blog?

    Unfortunately yes. Is that the standard they should be judged by?

    Incidentally – that silly video was first trashed by environmentalists, so please stop drawing silly conclusions from it

    I think that a major taxpayer-funded campaign, backed by prominent institutions such as a Guardian, deserves to come in for such criticism. It is good that other environmentalists are criticising it, but that does not exempt it from criticism. Would you, say, stop criticising Sarah Palin because other right wingers criticise her as well?

  11. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2010 at 4:37 pm  

    Och Rumbold,

    Sure, there are fundamentalists in the environmental lobby, much as there are in every lobby. I said what I said because I do not believe sensible debate on this subject is possible when they are given oxygen, as opposed to carbon. They are easy targets.

    If you do see the point that we are killing ourselves, then an opinion piece such as this is playing the other man’s game? Given that we all go to read or view what the loonies say.

    :-(

  12. Rumbold — on 2nd October, 2010 at 5:47 pm  

    Douglas:

    I said what I said because I do not believe sensible debate on this subject is possible when they are given oxygen, as opposed to carbon. They are easy targets.

    I think it is still right to expose them though. Otherwise the entire effort is tarnished by their actions. Part of the reason it is so difficult to implement carbon-reducing measures is because of people like this.

  13. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2010 at 6:06 pm  

    Rumbold,

    Fair enough. They should be exposed. Lets see an article from you about Viscount Monkton. He is in the same camp of crazy, just across the lawn….

  14. Sunny — on 2nd October, 2010 at 9:32 pm  

    Given that Delingpole is extremely popular with climate change denying nutjobs – yes, that is your standard-bearer.

    After all, Tim Montgomerie is his fan too.

  15. dave bones — on 2nd October, 2010 at 9:34 pm  

    That is funny. Does Crouch swim to European matches? Is that a joke? No shit.

  16. Trofim — on 2nd October, 2010 at 9:44 pm  

    I think I detect the old “let’s have our cake AND eat it” trope above. It’s easy to reduce emissions. The USA did it in 2009, and I dare say we did too.

    http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-Record_drop_in_US_energy_related_emissions-1105104.html

    But the key word is the dreaded L word – “less”, the word hated and feared by capitalists and socialists alike. You simply have to need less, want less, use less, produce less, waste less, and in the long run, ensure that the organism which is rapidly destroying the environment, namely homo sapiens, does not proliferate at its present rates, and preferably reduces its numbers. It’s as simple as that.
    If you can’t cope with this, if you’re in favour of “economic growth”, then you are in favour of anthropogenic global warming. Yet when people do what is necessary to decrease carbon emissions, it’s painted negatively, as “recession”. The world needs a permanent “recession”. Full stop.

  17. John Whitley — on 2nd October, 2010 at 9:53 pm  

    @Trofim You are a perfect example of what is so odious and vile about the environmentalist outlook. You’re just a bunch of misanthropes.

  18. David O'Keefe — on 2nd October, 2010 at 9:58 pm  

    John, I don’t think you know what that word means.

  19. David O'Keefe — on 2nd October, 2010 at 10:00 pm  

    Rummy, regarding the hypocrisy charge it doesn’t stop them being right.

  20. John Whitley — on 2nd October, 2010 at 10:08 pm  

    David, when someone comes out with stuff like this: “…the organism which is rapidly destroying the environment, namely homo sapiens,…” then that to me is pure misanthropy. I have no time whatsoever for those who believe the Human race is some kind of virus or disease destroying what would be a pristine, untouched ‘Mother Earth’. Like the prick who once said to me ‘AIDS is just nature’s immune system in action’.

  21. Trofim — on 2nd October, 2010 at 10:32 pm  

    Ah, Mr Whitley, a polarised thinker, methinks. There’s probably an official name for this fallacy, perhaps it’s on Butterflies and Wheels. Because I don’t want to see all other species eliminated by unlimited numbers of homo sapiens, doesn’t mean I don’t like homo sapiens in general, does it? I mean, just because I don’t want to engage in sexual intercourse every minute of the day every day of the year doesn’t mean I dislike sexual congress as a phenomenon, does it? I rather like some of the other species of flora and fauna on my home planet. There are some human beings I like as well. My mum, and Anna Netrebko, for instance.

  22. Jon — on 2nd October, 2010 at 10:47 pm  

    “Well, leading environmentalists have compared emitting carbon to abusing children, rape and stabbing people with a knife so I wouldn’t put it beyond them.”

    But “environmentalists” don’t speak with a single hive-mind. “Leading Christians” have in the past burned people alive at the stake but this doesn’t reflect the behaviour of all or even many Christians.

  23. David O'Keefe — on 3rd October, 2010 at 1:32 am  

    You haven’t got a clue have you, Jon? You know little about Green politics and your hatred of environmentalism is not rooted in their misanthropy, but your belief that they will make your live a misery.

  24. cjcjc — on 3rd October, 2010 at 11:57 am  

    Normally I might be furious that my money had been used to make such a film.

    But in this case I am delighted!

    “that silly video was first trashed by environmentalists”

    Phew! Well that’s OK then.
    (Though not sure how you know exactly who trashed it first…?)

  25. Rumbold — on 3rd October, 2010 at 12:55 pm  

    Sunny:

    Given that Delingpole is extremely popular with climate change denying nutjobs – yes, that is your standard-bearer.

    My standard bearer? You mean he advocates tackling climate change by taxing externalities as well? Interesting. Do you have a link perchance?

    David:

    Rummy, regarding the hypocrisy charge it doesn’t stop them being right.

    You mean that people who don’t sign up to their campaign should be killed?

    Jon:

    As I said in the original piece, the video doesn’t represent all environmentalists. I was just pointing out that others have been known to use such rabid language as well, without it being intended as humorous.

  26. damon — on 4th October, 2010 at 1:41 am  

    Seems like it’s the scrapings at the bottom of a barrel when you are looking for ever new ways to promote a message that is getting old and boring.

  27. RezaV — on 4th October, 2010 at 2:40 pm  

    “….if you’re in favour of “economic growth”, then you are in favour of anthropogenic global warming.”

    Doesn’t it occur to anyone that anthropogenic global warming might be directly proportional to anthropogenic population growth?

    The world’s population has risen from two billion in 1930 to 6.8 billion now, with nine billion projected by 2050.

    As long as the so-called environmentalists refuse to discuss this ideologically inconvenient elephant in the room then their arguments have little intellectual validity.

  28. Don — on 4th October, 2010 at 10:57 pm  

    Is that bloody elephant still in the room? I called the elephant people ages ago.

  29. Trofim — on 5th October, 2010 at 7:47 am  

    rezaV @ 27:

    In the sixties discussion about the world’s outstanding problem, of uncontrolled population proliferation was common, long before the idea of global warming had become fashionable. However, in the late 1960’s and the 1970’s a new feeling started to enter our awareness, that it was somehow, not nice to be critical of the behaviour, culture and ideas of people who didn’t have “white” skin. Then it was noticed that the people who produce lots of babies tended to be those very same people. Our sensitivity to the feelings of brown and black people is why talking about the planet’s number one problem became a taboo subject. If the world’s population had remained at a steady 3 billion or so, everyone on earth could emit as much carbon as they want now.

  30. douglas clark — on 5th October, 2010 at 8:05 am  

    Trofim,

    Heh! We were all Malthusians back then. Nowadays the same hippies seem to believe in demographic transition, or the idea that pension plans in particular will replace children as security in ones old age, well, my old age. And that the other thingy from the sixties, the birth control pill, will free up women from being baby factories, given the now reasonable expectation that if you are born, then you will survive.

    Thanks for taking me back.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.