The idea from the Tories that they won't put up petrol prices because of their concern for the welfare of the poor is a massive cynical humbug that only a Tory can rise to. It's unfortunate that some contributing here and Labour seem to have fallen for the same trick of logical inversion.
The answer to higher fuel costs for the poor and elderly is that no-one is really poor and that the elderly have sufficient pension and wam, low cost housing etc - the answer maybe a universal wage, better passions, better housing and public transport, etc.
Carolyn Lucas tells us that the cost of not raising fuel duties in line with inflation has been £90 billion. Basically a subsidy for pollution. That is very stupid. Wouldn't that money be better directed at doing the things I"ve suggested in the paragraph above?
The fact is that the cost of carbon and its pollution is far too low to affect our purchasing habits. and time is fast running out. Carolyn Lucas is not losing the plot, but is being environmentally and socially consistent and progressive. I am not sure why the antipathy.
A carbon charge as suggested by James Hansen is a possible charge that would work - poor people and elderly generally use much less carbon than the rich, particularly in travel (eg flying) and transport, and in the embedded carbon in property and purchases etc. Poor and elderly willl get refunds of perhaps thousands of pounds from the carbon that they fail to burn.
Actually, I think it's past the point of no return, but I suppose the future might be an alternative between the dire and catastrophic, and we might still have a chance to choose between the two.
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »