When I heard that 'Scientists' had put Heather on top of Peat Boggs, it immediately summoned risqué visions a la ‘Carry on up the Peak District’, Or a worthy ‘joy of love’ sex manual - One hopes they are at least good friends, etc.
Well - I say! We’re measuring the emissions Misses…
More prosaically it seems the intent is to restore the balance of the Peak District bogs, by growing live heather on them, to prevent erosion and possible resultant carbon dioxide emissions.
What next? Gagging MPs? There is a source of carbon dioxide emissions if ever there was one ;-)
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Thursday, 31 January 2008
Friday, 11 January 2008
Indian car giant Tata launch a one Lakh ‘people’s car’
And Talking of environ-Mental-ists…
The Indian car manufacturer Tata have developed what is billed as the world’s cheapest car. £1,290, brand new all in. They are dubbing it the ‘People’s Car’ - or should that be a Volks Wagan? ;-)It is small, cheap to make and has a tiny engine so it will be cheap to run. I caught the announcement on Sky News last night.
Much of the story was taken up with environ-Mental-ists bleating about what a disaster it was.
Now if it had been released in the US, or Europe, it would have been hailed as environmentally sound, low emission etc. Just the sort of thing that would be encouraged with low vehicle tax in the UK. But because it was in India and it’s price might allow Indians to actually buy it - well that was bad.
Their attitude struck me as dangerously paternalistic and unpleasantly patrician - in it’s best light.
The presenter pointed out that it would hardly be any worse than a motor bike and there were huge numbers of those in India. But the talking head seemed to think people who didn’t have a bike might buy one and increase pollution. They also suggested that oil reserves were running out and seemed to imply, in a self satisfied tone, that this would hasten it.
After some more discussion the presenter suggested that surely market forces would address the issues raised and the talking head was clearly aghast suggesting that market forces were the ‘last thing’ it should be left to.
This just about sums these people up Authoritarian, Paternalistic patricians who feel they should be in charge because they are the chosen ones who have the holy word direct from Gaia. Who think nothing of flying off to a conference in Bali, but criticise the ordinary people for wanting to have a holiday, or improve their lives.
One gets the impression they would just love a resource limited Malthusian world where they were the privileged overlords who could enjoy the benefits of modern society whilst the vast but diminishing bulk of humanity lived short, dirty, environmentally non impactive lives in mud huts.
UK Government Gives the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations.
I have been mean to Gordon Brown and New-Labour of late, highlighting bad stuff – but finally, something that makes sense! The Government are to give the go-ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations.
I suggested that if they were actually serious about reducing carbon emissions they should stop playing around, get serious - and commit to a comprehensive nuclear generation program. It seems they have done just that and I applaud them for it.
Now they should estimate what it will take to cover all the countries power needs and cover it by at least half as much again.
Hopefully the state will interfere as little as possible, apart from encouraging it and setting up a sensible framework for it to operate within that does not stifle.
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen that could be cracked from seawater by Nuclear, or renewable power.
If James Lovelock supports it then the environ-Mental-ists should ease up with their anti lobbying and consider how much cake they can keep if they want to eat it too.
Unfortunately Government is a bit like that advert where they joke that there is a clever/dumb balance and for every clever thing there has to be a corresponding opposite.
So I am now waiting for them to balance things up with something stupid ;-)
Of course if that were really true we would be seeing much more clever things happening to balance up all the stupid things they have done already ;-)
I suggested that if they were actually serious about reducing carbon emissions they should stop playing around, get serious - and commit to a comprehensive nuclear generation program. It seems they have done just that and I applaud them for it.
Now they should estimate what it will take to cover all the countries power needs and cover it by at least half as much again.
Hopefully the state will interfere as little as possible, apart from encouraging it and setting up a sensible framework for it to operate within that does not stifle.
In the future we should be looking to encourage the development of technologies that can power cars and air travel with hydrogen that could be cracked from seawater by Nuclear, or renewable power.
If James Lovelock supports it then the environ-Mental-ists should ease up with their anti lobbying and consider how much cake they can keep if they want to eat it too.
Unfortunately Government is a bit like that advert where they joke that there is a clever/dumb balance and for every clever thing there has to be a corresponding opposite.
So I am now waiting for them to balance things up with something stupid ;-)
Of course if that were really true we would be seeing much more clever things happening to balance up all the stupid things they have done already ;-)
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Environment Minister seeks to increase UK Cod Quotas
Jonathan Shaw, UK Environment Minister is planning to lobby the EU for an increase in cod quotas for the UK next month when they meet to decide 2008s quotas.
Predictably researchers, including the EU's advisers, say stocks are still too low.
Helen MacLachlan of the pressure group WWF UK complained: “I would say that 'business as usual' in the North Sea is not an acceptable position for a minister to be taking,"
"To be looking for an increase in cod quotas without changing fishing practices is unsustainable and untenable."
Callum Roberts of York university critiscised him saying; “If he's suggesting increases in cod quotas then he doesn't seem to be fully in control of his brief yet”
Their comments go with the ‘accepted wisdom’ of those who never actually do any fishing and rely entirely on theory.
Shaw may well have a point though.
Although it is seldom spoken of the UK has done rather badly out of the EU over fishing.
In order to be allowed the dubious ’benefits’ of joining the EU, the Government gave away fishing rights over the UK’s territorial waters it had formerly enjoyed - to allow them to be effectively plundered by European fishermen, to the detriment of our own. This over use helped damaged the stocks and devastated the UK fishing industry.
North Sea cod numbers appear to have experienced a small recovery in the last few years.
Also the fact is that the current EU quota system results in the needless killing and dumping of tons of cod. Thanks to the law of unintended consequences. When fishermen go hunting for prawn they often catch cod as well. If they are over their cod ‘quota’ these dead cod have to be dumped back into the sea.
So in fact many more cod are caught and killed than those setting the quotas realise and the quotas actually result in the appalling waste of tons of cod.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Nuclear Power, Good for the Economy, Good for the environment, Good for the UK
So if everyone is so concerned about reducing the UK’s carbon footprint - then how come close to half of the UK’s Nuclear power stations are out of action on the run up to winter? Apparently a lack of funding...
Nuclear power stations are capable of producing realistic amounts of electricity, unlike many other so-called renewable energy sources, moreover if more were built we could not only make a serious dent in out carbon footprint we could reduce our exposure to gas supply problems and the impact of Gazprom’s muscle flexing.
France, known for looking out for their own interests, get 79% of their electricity from Nuclear energy, they have 59 plants. They don’t seem to have much problem keeping them running either. We by comparison have a pathetic 16 plants that produce (when they are working) around 18% of our power.
If UK greens/environ-mentalists had spent less time bleating about nuclear power in the 80s and 90s then they might not have shot themselves in the foot over carbon emissions.
The French have a realistic attitude to nuclear power. The French launched a properly funded, comprehensive nuclear program, after the 1973 ‘oil shock’, when OPEC toyed with the west by ramping up oil prices, sensibly vowing never again to be dependent on the whim of others for power. Unlike the UK, in France, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular.
Even James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) thinks that nuclear power is the only real green solution to reducing carbon emissions.
It makes sense for economic reasons, as we wouldn’t have to cripple the economy to save a ha’penny’s worth of power here and there and spend billions changing our housing stock.
It makes sense, because it would protect us from much of the impact of oil and gas price fluctuation and scarcity.
It makes sense, from the point of view of the environment, massively reduced carbon emissions and avoiding the threat of mercury pollution posed by low energy bulbs.
It took the French around 15 years. The UK could do the same. If anyone is worried about where to store the waste, we have some very deep ex-coal mines that would do nicely.
Nuclear power stations are capable of producing realistic amounts of electricity, unlike many other so-called renewable energy sources, moreover if more were built we could not only make a serious dent in out carbon footprint we could reduce our exposure to gas supply problems and the impact of Gazprom’s muscle flexing.
France, known for looking out for their own interests, get 79% of their electricity from Nuclear energy, they have 59 plants. They don’t seem to have much problem keeping them running either. We by comparison have a pathetic 16 plants that produce (when they are working) around 18% of our power.
If UK greens/environ-mentalists had spent less time bleating about nuclear power in the 80s and 90s then they might not have shot themselves in the foot over carbon emissions.
The French have a realistic attitude to nuclear power. The French launched a properly funded, comprehensive nuclear program, after the 1973 ‘oil shock’, when OPEC toyed with the west by ramping up oil prices, sensibly vowing never again to be dependent on the whim of others for power. Unlike the UK, in France, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular.
Even James Lovelock (Gaia hypothesis) thinks that nuclear power is the only real green solution to reducing carbon emissions.
It makes sense for economic reasons, as we wouldn’t have to cripple the economy to save a ha’penny’s worth of power here and there and spend billions changing our housing stock.
It makes sense, because it would protect us from much of the impact of oil and gas price fluctuation and scarcity.
It makes sense, from the point of view of the environment, massively reduced carbon emissions and avoiding the threat of mercury pollution posed by low energy bulbs.
It took the French around 15 years. The UK could do the same. If anyone is worried about where to store the waste, we have some very deep ex-coal mines that would do nicely.
Friday, 28 September 2007
Nu-Lab’s campaign against ‘traditional’ light bulbs gathers pace.
Son of staring eyed Left Winger Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Hilary, Nu-Lab’s Environment Secretary, informed their conference he wanted to see sales of 150-watt bulbs banned from next January.
But of course it is not just 150 watt bulbs - He wants to take the same ‘defeat in detail’ route Nu-Lab so successfully applied with HIPs, that minimises resistance to the point where it can be ignored.
He stated "our aim is for traditional 150-watt light bulbs to be phased out by January next year, 100-watt bulbs the year after, 40-watt bulbs the year after that and all high-energy light bulbs by 2011."
This might be worthwhile if it had a reasonable chance of ‘doing what it says on the tin’, as they say.
Mr Benn claims that the ban could save five million tonnes of CO2 a year. Typically he appears to fail to take several factors into account:
Firstly he appears to fail to take into account that the heat generated by incandescent bulbs, that he is counting as wasted, actually contributes to heating the premises the bulbs are used in - and this reduction in heat will actually largely have to be made up by additional heating costs and result in increased CO2 emissions required in heating that will offset the supposed saving to be gained in introducing the bulbs.
So a lot of expense in changing all the bulbs for far less gain than touted. Then there are the disparities in production costs… All this will be coming out of the consumers pockets.
Then there is the small matter of the mercury that goes into making the ‘low energy’ bulbs. Nu-Labs Euro MPs were so concerned about the threat of mercury to the environment that they banned mercury barometers, but they seem happy turn a blind eye to the threat of a metric ton of Mercury being dumped in the UK each year that these bulbs pose.
But of course it is not just 150 watt bulbs - He wants to take the same ‘defeat in detail’ route Nu-Lab so successfully applied with HIPs, that minimises resistance to the point where it can be ignored.
He stated "our aim is for traditional 150-watt light bulbs to be phased out by January next year, 100-watt bulbs the year after, 40-watt bulbs the year after that and all high-energy light bulbs by 2011."
This might be worthwhile if it had a reasonable chance of ‘doing what it says on the tin’, as they say.
Mr Benn claims that the ban could save five million tonnes of CO2 a year. Typically he appears to fail to take several factors into account:
Firstly he appears to fail to take into account that the heat generated by incandescent bulbs, that he is counting as wasted, actually contributes to heating the premises the bulbs are used in - and this reduction in heat will actually largely have to be made up by additional heating costs and result in increased CO2 emissions required in heating that will offset the supposed saving to be gained in introducing the bulbs.
So a lot of expense in changing all the bulbs for far less gain than touted. Then there are the disparities in production costs… All this will be coming out of the consumers pockets.
Then there is the small matter of the mercury that goes into making the ‘low energy’ bulbs. Nu-Labs Euro MPs were so concerned about the threat of mercury to the environment that they banned mercury barometers, but they seem happy turn a blind eye to the threat of a metric ton of Mercury being dumped in the UK each year that these bulbs pose.
Saturday, 1 September 2007
EU Conflicted over Low energy light ‘bulbs’
The EU is mandating Low energy light bulbs.
The EU also has an import tariff of up to 60% on Chinese manufactured Low energy light bulbs. Over 80% of these bulbs sold in the EU are not made in the EU. The Commission have just voted to extend that tariff for another 12 months.
Clearly free trade enthusiasts then…
So the EU it is not really keen on all low energy light bulbs then – just those manufactured within the EU.
Environmental group Worldwide Fund for Nature don’t like the tariff and would like to see sales of the bulbs increase despite the serious environmental threat from the mercury in them.
Curious that the EU bans the sale and repair of mercury barometers on the grounds that they contain mercury, not exactly known for their environmental impact - whilst at the same time promotes these bulbs, that if taken up in huge numbers will likely prove to be a dangerous source of mercury pollution when disposed of.
The EU also has an import tariff of up to 60% on Chinese manufactured Low energy light bulbs. Over 80% of these bulbs sold in the EU are not made in the EU. The Commission have just voted to extend that tariff for another 12 months.
Clearly free trade enthusiasts then…
So the EU it is not really keen on all low energy light bulbs then – just those manufactured within the EU.
Environmental group Worldwide Fund for Nature don’t like the tariff and would like to see sales of the bulbs increase despite the serious environmental threat from the mercury in them.
Curious that the EU bans the sale and repair of mercury barometers on the grounds that they contain mercury, not exactly known for their environmental impact - whilst at the same time promotes these bulbs, that if taken up in huge numbers will likely prove to be a dangerous source of mercury pollution when disposed of.
Saturday, 18 August 2007
The trouble with Greens...
The trouble with Greens in general and especially Green toadying politicians, is that they don’t think through what they are doing and will almost certainly end up having their rear ends thoroughly savaged by the ‘law of unintended consequences’ time and again…
The latest instance? The EU, desperately stampeding like demented green lemmings, set a target of ensuring 10% of petrol and diesel is sourced from renewable sources by 2020 – in other words bio-fuel.
Presumably an attempt to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide - Sounds ok if you don’t think about it too deeply.
If you do think about it more deeply though, like say a UK-based team of scientists who published those thoughts in Science.
Then you might think that reforestation and habitat protection are an enormously more preferable direction to go in because forests absorb up to nine times more CO2 than the production of biofuels could save, using the same area of land.
Dr Righelato one of the authors pointed out that: "In all cases, the amount of CO2 sequestered (by forests) over a 30-year period is considerably greater than the amount of emissions avoided by using biofuels,"
If you want to make biofuels then so-called second generation biofuels are better, made from waste products like used cooking oil or feedstocks such as straw, grasses and wood (lignocellulosic material) rather than grains or palm oil.
A major problem with the growth of biofuels is that it is actually leading to increased deforestation.
Apart from being counter productive in reducing carbon dioxide, something that will bother many, it is also contributing to deforestation of rainforests in Malaysia and Indonesia, as the land there is turned over in massive chunks to palm oil production to feed the increasing demand. Something else that should cause concern.
On top of that those forests are the only home of the Orangutan and as their natural environment is destroyed to feed the demand for palm oil the poor Orangutan is being driven towards extinction.
Orangutan rescue centres in Indonesia are having to cope with an influx of orphaned baby orangutans saved from forests cleared to make way for oil palm plantations. Significant areas of Tanjung Puting National Park, the world's most famous protected area for orangutan, are under threat from oil palm plantation.
And that should concern us all.
It is a hideous irony that the well meaning blundering of Green Politicians, who really don’t think further than the end of their noses, are actually busy ‘paving the road to hell’ by actively harming the environment and contributing towards driving a great Ape towards extinction.
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
The briefing against patio heaters continues...
It seems mosquito populations are ‘taking off’ ;-), particularly in Norfolk according to the BBC. An insect conservation trust spokesman pointed out: "Where you have warm, wet weather in the summer that does tend to be a good time for mosquitoes, giving them the opportunity to breed.” "Last year June was quite warm and wet and there appeared to be a lot more mosquitoes about then."
Up until the 1880s malaria was common in the UK and was endemic in areas of Kent and Essex.
So far so good… Now the Metro, a free newspaper for London Commuters, is linking mosquitoes to the newly demonised Patio Heater.
They seem to suggest, quoting Matt Shardlow, of the trust Buglife, that there is a ‘connection’ between growing mosquito populations and the increased use of outdoor heaters.
Queue: Twilight zone music…
...OK stop now.
What he actually said was: "A lot of people believe that mosquitoes are attracted to body heat but when they identify their prey, what they actually home in on is the carbon dioxide.”
What that means is that, the heaters may attract any mosquitoes that happen for other reasons to be in the vicinity to make for the area round the heater. In the same way as a group of people sitting outside in the evening might by their exhalations of carbon dioxide, without the aid of an ‘evil’ patio heater, might attract them.
The heaters do not spontaneously create mosquitoes. They do not provide the conditions for them to breed, creating a plague of them.
So, the only actual ‘connection’, as they so disingenuously put it, between the ‘growing mosquito populations’ and the increased use of out door heaters, is that they may make it more likely, that a few more of the mosquitoes within ‘smelling distance’, will eventually find their way to an operating patio heater - mistakenly taking it for a crowd of people, in the same way as a moth might mistake a patio light for the moon and turn up for the evening…
Up until the 1880s malaria was common in the UK and was endemic in areas of Kent and Essex.
So far so good… Now the Metro, a free newspaper for London Commuters, is linking mosquitoes to the newly demonised Patio Heater.
They seem to suggest, quoting Matt Shardlow, of the trust Buglife, that there is a ‘connection’ between growing mosquito populations and the increased use of outdoor heaters.
Queue: Twilight zone music…
...OK stop now.
What he actually said was: "A lot of people believe that mosquitoes are attracted to body heat but when they identify their prey, what they actually home in on is the carbon dioxide.”
What that means is that, the heaters may attract any mosquitoes that happen for other reasons to be in the vicinity to make for the area round the heater. In the same way as a group of people sitting outside in the evening might by their exhalations of carbon dioxide, without the aid of an ‘evil’ patio heater, might attract them.
The heaters do not spontaneously create mosquitoes. They do not provide the conditions for them to breed, creating a plague of them.
So, the only actual ‘connection’, as they so disingenuously put it, between the ‘growing mosquito populations’ and the increased use of out door heaters, is that they may make it more likely, that a few more of the mosquitoes within ‘smelling distance’, will eventually find their way to an operating patio heater - mistakenly taking it for a crowd of people, in the same way as a moth might mistake a patio light for the moon and turn up for the evening…
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Hazel Blears: Green Belt no longer assured
Hazel Blears, the UK Communities Secretary, she refused to rule out redrawing green belt boundaries. And warned environmentalists to prepare for a showdown over house building in the green belt. Green Belts are land surrounding UK cities zoned to protect the countryside and contain urban sprawl.
Addressing the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, Ms Blears said the Government would move fast to ease the housing shortage freeing up greater swathes of land for development.
She said: "I think we are going to have a tussle, if you like, because some people are concerned about environmental issues," and added "But I think the priority has to be to build these homes."
When pressed if this mean drastically downsizing green belt land she said she was in no position to offer "categoric assurances". this is in contrast to pronouncements of the previous incumbent in the post, Ruth Kelly.
These comments should be taken in context with Gordon Brown signalling that housing would be a key part of his coming strategy.
Neil Sinden, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, warned that a move away from protecting the green belts would set Gordon Brown's new cabinet "on a collision course with local communities and environmental campaigners across the country."
"Green belt policy has been vital in securing sustainable urban communities, and attractive and accessible countryside close to where most of us live.
"The green belt is hugely valued by the public, 84 per cent of whom believe that it should remain open and undeveloped. The Communities Secretary's belittling of these views shows a disturbing disregard for public opinion."
“Disturbing disregard for public opinion”? Nothing new there then - but at lest he noticed commented. Clearly Broon does what Broon (and Nu-Lab) wants - and tradition, promises or public opinion appear to mean very little to him.
As things are many people seem to have no idea where bacon comes from, remove people's ready access to the countryside and it can only help increase their ignorance about such things - and reduce their quality of life.
Addressing the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, Ms Blears said the Government would move fast to ease the housing shortage freeing up greater swathes of land for development.
She said: "I think we are going to have a tussle, if you like, because some people are concerned about environmental issues," and added "But I think the priority has to be to build these homes."
When pressed if this mean drastically downsizing green belt land she said she was in no position to offer "categoric assurances". this is in contrast to pronouncements of the previous incumbent in the post, Ruth Kelly.
These comments should be taken in context with Gordon Brown signalling that housing would be a key part of his coming strategy.
Neil Sinden, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, warned that a move away from protecting the green belts would set Gordon Brown's new cabinet "on a collision course with local communities and environmental campaigners across the country."
"Green belt policy has been vital in securing sustainable urban communities, and attractive and accessible countryside close to where most of us live.
"The green belt is hugely valued by the public, 84 per cent of whom believe that it should remain open and undeveloped. The Communities Secretary's belittling of these views shows a disturbing disregard for public opinion."
“Disturbing disregard for public opinion”? Nothing new there then - but at lest he noticed commented. Clearly Broon does what Broon (and Nu-Lab) wants - and tradition, promises or public opinion appear to mean very little to him.
As things are many people seem to have no idea where bacon comes from, remove people's ready access to the countryside and it can only help increase their ignorance about such things - and reduce their quality of life.
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
EU saves us from deadly barometer threat!!
Headline: The heroic EU has saved the grateful citizens of Europe, yet again from another deadly curse of our times.
The fearsome Mercury Barometer will terrorise us no more! Thanks to The EU’s environment committee, including two British Labour MEPs, Linda McAvan and Glenis Wilmott.
After the bruising battle the Miss McAvan, a Yorkshire MEP, bluntly stated there is "clear evidence" that mercury in barometers was "highly dangerous".
A sinister conspiracy of traditional British barometer makers and restorers, backed by Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies, have finally been outflanked and foiled by this stalwart paragon of democracy and are now facing the closure they so richly deserve. They almost got away at the last moment, but the redoubtable, the steely eyed Lord Rooker UK minister for sustainable farming and food, managed to prevent that.
As we all know these merchants of death are single headedly responsible for the terrible swathe of death and destruction wrought by mercury barometers over the last three centuries or more. Not to mention the acres – oops! Square kilometres think I got away with that one - of land left uninhabitable.
I don't see anyone trying to ban Compact Flourescent Light bulbs. No they are promoting them as environmentally friendly! I expect McAven & Willmott will probably tell you so too.
Now compact fluorescent bulbs contain an average of 5 milligrams of mercury each, not a huge amount you might think. All CFLs will eventually need to be disposed of though - and you know they will end up in the trash and get broken.
Well some 200 million light bulbs a year are sold in the UK alone - replace them all with compact flourecent bulbs and you could end up with a Metric Ton of mercury being dumped in the UK every year.
Contrast that with the odd broken mercury barometer!
So in the great scheme of things – would it really have hurt for them to have granted an exemption?
The fearsome Mercury Barometer will terrorise us no more! Thanks to The EU’s environment committee, including two British Labour MEPs, Linda McAvan and Glenis Wilmott.
After the bruising battle the Miss McAvan, a Yorkshire MEP, bluntly stated there is "clear evidence" that mercury in barometers was "highly dangerous".
A sinister conspiracy of traditional British barometer makers and restorers, backed by Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies, have finally been outflanked and foiled by this stalwart paragon of democracy and are now facing the closure they so richly deserve. They almost got away at the last moment, but the redoubtable, the steely eyed Lord Rooker UK minister for sustainable farming and food, managed to prevent that.
As we all know these merchants of death are single headedly responsible for the terrible swathe of death and destruction wrought by mercury barometers over the last three centuries or more. Not to mention the acres – oops! Square kilometres think I got away with that one - of land left uninhabitable.
I don't see anyone trying to ban Compact Flourescent Light bulbs. No they are promoting them as environmentally friendly! I expect McAven & Willmott will probably tell you so too.
Now compact fluorescent bulbs contain an average of 5 milligrams of mercury each, not a huge amount you might think. All CFLs will eventually need to be disposed of though - and you know they will end up in the trash and get broken.
Well some 200 million light bulbs a year are sold in the UK alone - replace them all with compact flourecent bulbs and you could end up with a Metric Ton of mercury being dumped in the UK every year.
Contrast that with the odd broken mercury barometer!
So in the great scheme of things – would it really have hurt for them to have granted an exemption?
Monday, 21 May 2007
Taxing viewing?
Professor Paul Ekins, of the University of Westminster, speaking at a news conference in London, concerning the government's forthcoming Energy White Paper, expected to be released in the next few weeks, is calling for yet more taxation.
Ekins is billed as a leading expert on the economics of climate change and co-director of the UK Energy Research Centre
He wants the Government to put a tax on plasma screen televisions, insisting taxing plasma screens would reflect their ‘greater climate change burden’.
Plasma TVs, according to the government-funded Energy Saving Trust, consume about four times more energy than conventional cathode-ray tube TVs.
However researchers point out that exact comparisons are not quite so easy as that, because of the size difference between plasmas which are 50% bigger than their equivalents.
It has been estimated that on average a ‘conventional’ TV costs about £25 per year to run accounting for 100kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, whereas a plasma TV costs about £100 per year produces around 400kg of CO2 - All assuming the electricity is not sourced from nuclear, or renewable power sources.
Prof. Ekins, rather stating the obvious, also singled out patio heaters as especially energy-intensive.
The UK Energy Research Centre is essentially government funded being funded through:
The Natural Environment Research Council NERC - ‘Funding world-class science tackling the 21st century's major environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity and natural hazards.’
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) - ‘The UK Government's leading funding agency for research and training in engineering and the physical sciences.’
and The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) - The UK's leading research funding and training agency addressing economic and social concerns.
So, a Professor, indirectly funded by the government, calling for extra taxation – No cause for comment there then.
After all it’s not as if anyone would call into doubt, say, a professor funded by the tobacco industry who had done research suggesting there might be some benefits to smoking.
Why is it that the answer to any perceived problem always seems to be more taxation, more laws & regulations and ever increasing Government Control?
Ekins is billed as a leading expert on the economics of climate change and co-director of the UK Energy Research Centre
He wants the Government to put a tax on plasma screen televisions, insisting taxing plasma screens would reflect their ‘greater climate change burden’.
Plasma TVs, according to the government-funded Energy Saving Trust, consume about four times more energy than conventional cathode-ray tube TVs.
However researchers point out that exact comparisons are not quite so easy as that, because of the size difference between plasmas which are 50% bigger than their equivalents.
It has been estimated that on average a ‘conventional’ TV costs about £25 per year to run accounting for 100kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, whereas a plasma TV costs about £100 per year produces around 400kg of CO2 - All assuming the electricity is not sourced from nuclear, or renewable power sources.
Prof. Ekins, rather stating the obvious, also singled out patio heaters as especially energy-intensive.
The UK Energy Research Centre is essentially government funded being funded through:
The Natural Environment Research Council NERC - ‘Funding world-class science tackling the 21st century's major environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity and natural hazards.’
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) - ‘The UK Government's leading funding agency for research and training in engineering and the physical sciences.’
and The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) - The UK's leading research funding and training agency addressing economic and social concerns.
So, a Professor, indirectly funded by the government, calling for extra taxation – No cause for comment there then.
After all it’s not as if anyone would call into doubt, say, a professor funded by the tobacco industry who had done research suggesting there might be some benefits to smoking.
Why is it that the answer to any perceived problem always seems to be more taxation, more laws & regulations and ever increasing Government Control?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)