Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Carbon taxes and more working from home, to disincentivize travel.
Reducing UK emissions Progress Report to Parliament
June 2020
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed all of our lives. Its effects are far-reaching – its implications profound. Our 2019 report to Parliament urged Government to act on climate. “Now, do it” was our call. Twelve months on that remains our emphatic message, but with a new determination: we must seize the opportunity to make the COVID-19 recovery a defining moment in tackling the climate crisis. We say to the Government: “act courageously – it’s there for the taking”.
This report provides important new advice to Government on framing a recovery from Covid-19 that both accelerates the transition to Net Zero and strengthens our resilience to the impacts of climate change, whilst driving new economic activity. It builds on the six key principles for a resilient recovery which we outlined in our letter to the Prime Minister in May. We are pleased to see these principles guiding the growing momentum for a green recovery.
…
The review, and the response to the pandemic provide an opportunity to strengthen incentives to reduce emissions when considering fiscal changes. Many sectors do not currently bear the full costs of emitting greenhouse gases. Carbon pricing can be used, alongside other policies, to incentivise emissions reductions across the economy. Similarly, changes in tax policy can aid the transition to net-zero emissions. Revenue could be raised by setting or raising carbon prices (or other taxes, such as VAT) for these sectors. Low global oil prices and improved energy efficiency provide an opportunity to offset changes in relative prices without raising consumer bills.
…
b) Decarbonising transport: getting there sooner and other transport priorities – recommendations for DfT, supported by HMT and BEIS
The COVID-19 pandemic is already changing how people travel, and provides an opportunity to encourage sustainable behaviours such as working-from-home and active travel (e.g. walking and cycling). Some cities are already redesigning streets to encourage walking and cycling instead of car use. Without Government support in these areas there is a risk of lower use of public transport and increased use of cars, in the short-term.
The Government is currently consulting on bringing forward its ‘Road to Zero’ ambition to phase-out the sale of petrol and diesel cars. Our assessment is that the date should be brought forward to 2032 at the latest, as currently planned in Scotland. In the near-term, purchase subsidies should be maintained and planning for a transition to fiscally neutral incentives should begin now, for example through Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) that is more highly differentiated by CO2. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure will also require targeted support to continue.
Separately, a comprehensive framework for decarbonising HGVs, covering financial incentives, regulation and infrastructure is needed for the 2020s and should be planned for now.
…
Source: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/reducing-uk-emissions-2020-progress-report-to-parliament/
I suspect if the UK government seriously attempts to impose these policies they will end up with yellow vest riots.
There are vast areas outside London where internet performance makes working from home a struggle. In my opinion the UK government has been breaking promises to upgrade internet performance for decades, so I don’t see why the cash strapped, resource constrained future will be any different.
As for cycling and walking, this might be fine if you live in central London, where there are plenty of late night cafes to break the journey, but outside the Westminster bubble things are very different.
There are a lot of lonely long poor quality roads on the outskirts of cities and in the countryside, which in winter become dangerous slush and ice covered death traps, risky even for automobile drivers, let alone pedestrians or cyclists.
The thought of cycling or walking for miles in such conditions on a regular basis is absurd.
Translation: “Here’s something we can shamelessly exploit.”
It doesn’t matter if you don’t have internet access. Thanks to the so called “renewable” energy, you won’t be able to afford the electricity needed to run your computer. If there is any available electricity in the first place.
So do we start calling UK residents crash test dummies of the new green society?
Where Newton stood on the shoulder of giants, climate “scientists” stand on the piles of COVID dead.
This quote from H.L. Mencken has probably already been repeated many times. But in light of this post about the U.K. govt’s plans to address the climate alarmist narrative, the quote bears repeating yet again:
“..The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary…”
–H. L. Mencken
With Brainless Boris in charge nothing is too stupid or too ridiculous
Sorry to say that mental virus has spread across the pond. And China wins again while watching the fallout from a great distance.
So, to sum up, they want to take the would-be recovery, beat, thrash, and torture it, then tie rocks to it and sink it in the ocean.
Good plan.
“we must seize the opportunity to make the COVID-19 recovery a defining moment in tackling the climate crisis”
Yes, and how is a country which does 1% of global emissions going to do that?
By sacrificing their children to Moloch, obviously.
“A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind” ― Robert Oxton Bolton
The sort of thing I am reading here, is why I left the UK in the firstplace.
Watching my suspicions being acted out, makes me have some sort of wry satisfaction I was right all along, but unable or unwilling to watch the train crash without whincing.
I can see it starting to happen in my own back yard as well.
I honestly thought with USSR memories too fresh in minds, they might be cured of this illness, but sadly apart from Poland and one or two others…..well they even forced us to adopt the EURO and close Ignalina…
WFH was a novelty, but many I speak to are now sick of it, for some it has affected their mental & physical health for the worse, team bonding varies but again novelty has now disappeared; if companies start using it to save office running costs it may well unknowingly (at first) affect their long-term business performance.
Also it depends on motivation, those who live further away from place of work obviously & initially see a benefit to save a few hours travel, some admit they sleep more, but the end up groggy & performance has dwindled. Personally prefer a half-way house, go into office occasionally at least once a week, or for important team reviews/meetings, or as I originally suggested a few years ago to local UK MP before this Covid-19 scenario occurred divide week so surnames beginning A-E Mondays, F to J Tuesdays, K to O Wednesdays, P to T Thursdays, U to Z Fridays WFH (or now flip to go in office)?
Certainly for my job most can be done at Home for now, but contacting colleagues is harder & some don’t reply to email chasers, when we could have walked up to their desk & asked a question, pointed to the screen, I’ve had many I.T./laptop issues and many I talk to are now working longer hours & not at all saving time; HR I suspect are totally unaware of this, and could be a proverbial ticking time-bomb.
The company I work for did a survey, but that was to determine who can WFH (not who wants to).
All this is NOT to save CO2 emissions (the good output of FF burning) but to reduce real pollution and road congestion.
As with all generalisations they don’t work for all situations, just an idea for discussion or pondering….