Last week's Budget was unforgivable. At a stroke, Gordon Brown broke the Government's manifesto promise to put "the environment at the heart of policymaking", and ground into the dirt his frequently repeated pledges to use the tax system to protect the environment, make the polluter pay and be fair to future generations.
The tokenistic measures on public transport, cleaner fuels and energy efficiency will not combat climate change, end exhaust pollution that kills up to 24,000 people a year, nor reduce the damage done by quarrying, pesticides, water polluters or builders to the green belt.
Elevating Sir Colin Marshall, former chairman of British Airways, to head a panel of industrialists to investigate energy taxes is like putting King Herod in charge of child care. Aviation lobbyists have fought long and hard to ensure that, as one of the worst contributors to climate change, the industry pays no green taxes.
The problem is that Treasury ministers, at heart, don't believe green taxes work. Labour backbenchers mutter darkly about regressive impacts on the poor. The all-powerful Number 10 Policy Unit is actively antagonistic to environmental action, believing it anti-industry.
Greening the tax system makes sense. Much more sense than the traditional stupidity of penalising employment and earnings, which both economists and people like, through high taxes, while rewarding pollution and waste which everyone dislikes with very low or no taxes.
Green taxes work. When Sweden introduced a tax on acid rain pollution, emissions fell by over 30 per cent.
Until Gordon Brown taxes industrial and domestic fuels on carbon content, the Prime Minister cannot deliver his vital commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2010. In our newly liberalised energy market, consumers may shop around for a clean, renewable supply.
Charges made on environmental damage provide an incentive for continuous commercial improvement. Business invests in technologies and management practices which reduce pollution and resource consumption. Operating costs fall, and companies become more efficient and competitive.
Domestic markets open up for environmental equipment, encouraging others to innovate and invent. With a secure base at home, UK firms can compete in the growing global market for environmental technologies. The OECD estimates that demand will be worth some $300 billion by 2000. Today, Japanese, American and German firms grab the lion's share.
It is fair that polluters should pay more. It is also right that consumers are rewarded for being environmentally virtuous. Belgium has cut VAT on energy-saving materials from 22 per cent to 6 per cent, and made drivers of gas-guzzlers pay pounds 1,000 more in road tax than fuel-efficient car owners.
Mr Brown trimmed a paltry pounds 50 off road tax for fuel- efficient drivers, and kept VAT at 17.5 per cent on energy-saving materials for home-owners. No incentive to go green there.
Backbench opposition to green taxes in the name of the poor is misguided. The present tax system guarantees that poor people suffer most from environmental degradation. Making polluters pay and targeting revenues is the best way of raising living standards and quality of life for the disadvantaged.
Friends of the Earth ran its Budget package of energy, pollution and resource taxes through a Cambridge Econometrics forecasting model used by the Treasury. Over 12 years, they generate revenues of pounds 27 billion and reduce climate change pollution by one third. Re-using the money to reduce industry's National Insurance contributions by 3 per cent generates 391,000 new jobs.
Sectors such as retailing, banking, hotels, insurance, food, electronics, textiles and communications, which account for 70 per cent of UK exports and 60 per cent of jobs, benefit the most.
The Government has other options on how to spend the polluter- pays money to meet economic and social as well as environmental goals. Why not ensure that the poor are protected from price increases on essentials like energy and water through a generously set base-use that is free, with extravagant use charged by the unit?
Or use carbon tax revenues on a home energy conservation programme targeting the 15 million people too poor to stay warm in winter - and end the scandal of 30,000 deaths annually from cold and damp while stimulating up to 50,000 jobs.
Opinion polls show that people are willing to pay environmental taxes, particularly when revenues are spent on further reducing environmental problems. Taxes that work, are moral and popular - what more does it take for Mr Brown to go green?
Charles Secrett is director of Friends of the Earth. These personal opinions do not necessarily reflect the policy of that organisation.
More Information on Energy Taxes
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
