Carbon credits were one of Miliband’s dafter ideas. Sensibly, he dropped it. Now the Environmental Audit Committee is attempting to resurrect it.
The government should go ahead with a system of personal “carbon credits” to meet emissions targets, MPs have said.
The Environmental Audit Committee said the scheme would be more effective than taxes for cutting carbon emissions.
Quite apart from the matter of carbon emissions being a disputed cause of the equally disputed anthropogenic climate change, the idea would have been unwieldy and unpopular – and, frankly, it is not the place of government to indulge in social engineering. A quaint idea, I appreciate, but my life is mine, not theirs, I do not report to them, they do not have the authority to decide how I should live my life.
Anyway, enough of the ranting, one of the problems with the idea of carbon trading is that the exiting schemes have already foundered due to collapsing prices. The committee acknowledges that such a scheme imposed on individuals might be unpopular with voters:
The MPs admitted members of the public were likely to be opposed to the move, but urged the government to be “courageous”.
I’m sorry, but what part of “representing constituents” do these people not understand. If their constituents don’t like it – indeed, prove to be vehemently opposed, for instance, then MP’s should stop being courageous and listen to the wishes of their employers and do as they are told.
Their report said: “Persuading the public depends on perceptions of the government’s own commitment to reducing emissions, and of the priority given to climate change in its own decision making.”
Given that every new public information film produced by government to scare me into submission merely increases my anger at them and their bullying, more propaganda is unlikely to have any effect on me – not least, because there is increasing evidence that their alarmism is just that.
Committee chairman Tim Yeo said it found that personal carbon trading had “real potential to engage the population in the fight against climate change and to achieve significant emissions reductions in a progressive way”.
These days whenever I hear someone justify a regressive proposal with the term “progressive” I switch off. Tim Yeo is just another totalitarian who wants to engineer society for the benefits of the political class. The political class is the enemy – the state is not your friend.
Mr Benn said that the report found the cost of introducing the scheme would be between £700 million and £2 billion, and would cost £1bn-£2bn a year to run.
And who will be paying for that, then? Oh, yeah, silly me…
Environmentalist George Monbiot applauded the scheme.
There is an obvious reason to object. If that fuckwit applauds something, it has to be a pile of horseshit.
Spot on longrider. They just don’t see it do they. Stupid idea + poor science + venal politico = labour bureauocratic quango. It’s just pathetic.
Is there any evidence that the authoritarian Miliband actually dropped his “let’s snoop on every purchase of fuel or food” intensely intrusive “personal carbon trading” scheme, which would have created a new blackmarket for spivs and speculators ?
After Miliband left for the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the DEFRA civil servants soldiered on with a “pre-evaluation study”, the findings of which they have recently published:
I appear to have conflated the two – I seem to recall it being Miliband making that statement – clearly my memory was playing tricks. It’s an age thing. Well, that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it.
Totally agreed. So horrified was I by this shit idea being resuscitate that it took me several hours to getting round to lambasting it.
Mark Wadsworths last blog post..Personal Carbon Allowance
‘…urged the government to be “courageousâ€.’
I’ve noticed something amusing: any proposal which ignores the wishes of the constituents to be ‘left alone to live their lives as they see fit’ is labelled as ‘courageous’, and some variant of the clause above is wheeled out. What it actually means, in plain English, is:
“We know that the proposal is vehemently opposed by the very people we’re supposed to represent, but they’re basically idiots and we, the enlightened class, must lead the way regardless. After all, our efforts are all in pursuit of the ‘Greater Good’, whether the proles realize it or not. So ‘be courageous’, and do what you think best. The Lesser People will follow along….”
Eric, a precis would be “fuck you.” Which his pretty much what they do on a daily basis.
Good point re ‘courageous’. It’d be far more courageous to e.g. legalise cannabis and turn off the traffic lights. That would take real ‘leadership’.
Mark Wadsworths last blog post.."Cocaine victim numbers surge"
“I’m sorry, but what part of “representing constituents†do these people not understand.”
Wait a minute LR, if they started representing their constituents they’d be bringing back capital punishment, controlling immigration and, oh no, having a referendum on the EU.
I am surprised that no one seems to have spotted the connection with ID cards. I always predicted that the next excuse for ID Cards would be ‘they solve global warming’. Well here it is. The ONLY way the carbon card could be implemented is by integrating it with the ID Card and the National Identity Register. Another point, it’s not going to stop with fuel, is it. Everything we do – eat a steak, munch on an apple, use a tooth pick – has a carbon footprint associated with it, as fuel will have been used somewhere its transport or manufacture. The Carbon Card would inexorably cover the buying of food, clothing and, well, just about everything.
I didn’t miss the connection. I’d have thought it too obvious to mention 😉
And yes, function creep would occur inevitably. Once these people have a toehold into our lives, they will seek to control their entirety.