Money saving climate poll

[watervole]

Some things in this world are reassuring. My favourite money-saving website - http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ - recently ran a poll on taxation and the environment. Over 3000 people replied (polls of this nature are not going to be reliable, but at least everyone who replied is presumed to be someone with an interest in saving their own hard-earned cash)

This was the result:

What would you pay to turn the world green? It seems most of you are willing to pay up to save the planet, with 38% voting for an extra 4p on every pound of income tax to fight global warming.

Maybe there is hope for us all yet.

Comments

[lonemagpie.livejournal.com]

The problem is that at the moment we won't be taxed to turn the world green, but just to make sure Britain PLC makes a good profit to divvy among the shareholders.

It's one thing to pay a bit more to be invested in new energy sources etc, but what Tony has in mind is nothing like that. For one thing, the taxes on air fares will mean the same number of flights, with the same pollution, with fewer passengers. In other words, a *decrease* in efficiency.

And if they really wanted 4x4s off the roads they'd simply ban the manufacture/import of new ones. But that wouldn't give a good enough excuse to refill the coffers drained by Iraq.

On the upside, I see there's a suggestion that normal light bulbs will be phased out of supermarket shelves, so there'll just be the energy-saving ones, rather than uselessly doubling the tax on them. So that's a good thing.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

For one thing, the taxes on air fares will mean the same number of flights, with the same pollution, with fewer passengers. In other words, a *decrease* in efficiency.

THe need is to tax the CO2 emissions directly. That would produce an incentive to fill planes efficiently (and hopefully reduce the total number of flights as well).

I would be willing to pay more tax overall (as long as I was certain the money was going to increase energy efficiency), but I also feel that most green taxes could easily be counterbalanced by reducing taxes that, for instance, penalise businesses for employing more people. Why not tax CO2 instead of having national insurance payments.

Why not reduce income tax and tax activities that pollute?

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

But the Times lead story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2442948,00.html) yesterday was about how people say they're greener than the evidence suggests they are (the paper had a big chart spelling it all out, but they don't seem to have put that bit online. If you follow the links for Populus (http://www.populuslimited.com/), though, you can find the poll listing what people claimed they were doing.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

People always think they are greener than they actually are. There is a naive belief that if you use the local bottle bank then you are making a massive difference, even if you still holiday in Australia.

And people always fake good in polls on *any* subject.

after yesterday, in the States I can only agree :)

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

Places like moneysavingexpert.com are da bomb, as my niece says. lol I think an environmental tax would be an excellent thing. Here, a state by state concept could work well -- with the better a state is at cutting back emissions, et al, the lower the tax. I think this would have to be an income variable, though, since poorer people tend to be gentler on the environment, because they can't purchase the things that impact the environment, etc.

Also, I think if they had a voluntary system, where people contributed funds to a central "bank" toward aiding the environment, this could work -- if said people could be reasonably certain it would dole out the funds appropriately, I think this would work. It would then become a status thing -- how green are you, et al, with social ramifications for not being so. lol Of course, this would only work in areas where being "green" is a good thing, and not so well in Washington DC, W1, Wall Street, etc.

Good post, Judith.