“Carbon Footprint my foot”: the voice of the masses

Today, BP announced it is withdrawing its commitment to build the largest Wind-Farm plan programme. And it is not only the big companies that respond their dissatisfaction to the green-policies. There are as this article has suggested many people, who are not happy at all with climate-change, global warming, and green-taxes.

It is very possible that these polices are truly intended to raise cash and have now started to backfire. No matter what political parties these suggestions come from, they will cause havocs and discontents in long term.

Charity starts at Home!
I (as many others) am not against improving our ways of life toward taking much more environmentally friendly actions. However, these policies wouldn’t be working for many obvious reasons.

Firstly, the government policy on green-policies ought to be advisory, not legislative.

Secondly, the main objections for any government should be tacking poverty, equal opportunities for all, providing well paid jobs, training, affordable and well standard housing (to buy and rent), decent safe reliable and affordable national health, free education at every level, securing national safety by introducing and implementing law and order, modernising and improving internal structures, controlling and limiting the private enterprises massive and irresponsible power in turning the country to recession and depression, control the borders, providing decent pension for all elders, in order to save ever increasing impoverish Britain.

Good Heavens!! I am astounded!! "Taxpayers express no wish to pay more!", eh??

More upcoming stories from the Indy

# Boiling water "best" for making tea

# Queen wears dowdy clothes to Ascot

# Many Brits reported to enjoy a biscuit with their cuppa

So people will have the opinion, to hell with the planet and wildlife, as long as i enjoy ALL the benefits of a modern lifestyle.
It's called rank greed and apathy.

The world is facing a global energy crisis. To get the problem under control we need serious financial commitment and we need to get everyone on board. Green taxes are inadequate for the job and socially divisive to boot. As Ralph (4.25 AM) has already suggested, the government seem to have plenty of cash available for warfare and the police state. They also seem to have huge piles of cash available for bailing out criminally irresponsible financial institutions.

The current food vs biofuel crisis should be a wake up call to our species. We started off with an enormous fund of natural capital, we seem to have spent our way through the best half of it already, either we turn the situation around or we crash. So do we want electricity or do we want identity cards, surveillance cameras and Trident missiles? Not a difficult choice really!

Whatever may be said, those in power want, first and foremost, to stay there. And you don't do that by running against the will of those who vote.

After their performance of late, I am not expecting much from the incumbents.

Of course, other than poorly thought-out and possibly plain daft enviROI- tax-or headline-grabbing tinkering that just irritates or puts folk off anything that is billed as 'green'. Like they have worked so well, so far.

Green campaigners are right to be dismayed, but many (not all) also need to look to themselves as well for way too many petty, self-serving Planet Ban-it campaigns, especially on trivial issues.

And with hard-working folk under ever more pressures on time and income, the sheer number of fund-draining initiatives... and personnel... being imposed on the tax/ratepayer or donor by government, LAs, quangos, and activist groups, is looking like a heck of a burden to carry in the face of difficult to comprehend, and still very poorly communicated (despite multi-million £ comms budgets) climatic times.

An awful lot of folk saying an awful lot of things and very little being DONE to actually derive many worthwhile, end-benefit results that folk can relate to. Or TRUST. When it comes to much that of necessity involves effort or cost in less than fun ways - like reduction or mitigation - it's not easy, but the current lot don't seem to be doing it very well... as these findings would suggest.

I do not however imagine seeing a reduction in the green-tosh/wash/scare/target/nanny/offset industries, etc and all the associated 'green hangers-on' (inc. many in the media, who often jaunt, irony free, to Bali at the drop of a conference to decry unnecessary jaunting) anytime soon.

The whole point of charging 4 x 4s in central London is to reduce LOCAL air pollution rather than minimise global pollution. The same tax should be levied against all HGVs moving through central London, too.

No one likes taxes - what is new?

Cap and dividend instead. Oil, coal, gas companies bid for the right to sell a limited (and decreasing) amount of fossil fuels. The humungous amount of money raised (not a tax!) is redistributed to the people (probably equal per capita, keep it simple). Fossil-fuel intensive stuff would cost a lot more. Overall, people who consume less (i.e., poorer people) and those choosing less fossil-fuel intensive products and services would all be better off. No new tax, just an effective market.

This is such an obvious vote-winner, why is no politician promoting it?

The way I see it is, we wouldn't need higher taxes if people just stopped being so bloody minded and were sensible, if they did things themselves the government would not need to put in place schemes to help the planet (although I am not so sure this is why they are doing it).

Nobody needs a gas guzzling 4X4 it is just a status symbol, one that is leading to the slow and painful death of this planet and the people on it.

It doesn't take much to reduce your carbon foot print and if the vote is true, it just shows how little we care about future generations and the fact they could be living in a dust bowl or frozen wastelands for a planet and have no quality of life at all.

If the taxes are introduced people will have no choice but to pay them.

Life with taxes will be far more livable.

Lack of oil, car or food doesn't bother myself or my family because we have things in place to cope with these things, we have been lowering our carbon foot print for many years, are we living in destitution no, we are not, it is as simple as not leaving all the lights, computers and electrical appliances on, growing your own vegetables not using the car to pop round to the corner shop which is well in walking distance, using public transport at every opportunity and walking, most people seem to have forgotten how to walk, which is also a shame because you miss so much of what is going on around you in nature, the very nature some people are destroying, and putting people like me and others who are doing their utmost to help this planet in danger.

So to the 1 in 10 people who are too lazy, selfish and ignorant. I say, thank God we aren't all like you.

No surprise there. We've beomcer a bunch of babies who want to have our cake and eat.

We're not prepared to pay for a decent health system.

We're not prepared to pay for equality of opportunity.

And then we lament the fact that our hospitals are no longer the pride of the world and our streets are getting more violent as social solidarity is eroded.

Next we'll be complaining about the heat, the pollution, the hunger, the wars and the starvation which are quite assuredly on the way if we don't do something about our exploding consumption and population, pursuing the pathologically childish dream of endless growth on a finite planet.

Prince Charles said: "What more can I do but urge you, this country's business leaders, to take the essential action now to make your businesses more sustainable. I'm exhausted with repeating that there really is no time to lose." What a joke! The kettle calling the pot black I think.

The latest VED proposed, again is in the same category as the 10p tax, it has not been thought thru, to backdate VED to vehicles registered after 2001 is an imposition which can longer be tolorated. Ration Fuel not fine them.

I just wonder whether the population of Britain during the 2nd World War complained this much about rationing. I expect so, its in our nature to grumble. They had no choice though, perhaps the government needs to take some lessons from that time. We have overstretched ourselves for years, now we need to cut back or face a grey world which lacks the beauty (and function) we take for granted. Short-sighted people complain about tax, why can't we see the big picture? Who do you think will pay for flood defences?

Ah science, economics, politics and the perception of the masses. Seeing as how hardly anyone is educated in science today (5% of the population?) what do you expect. People love their gadgets, their plasma TV's, new cars but they are not seen as science but as technology, gadgets or a being necessary to function in our modern world. Science itself makes nothing, it just demonstrates how things are and costs money to perform the research. The public has limited or no understanding of this process and hence have little understanding of the potential impacts of climate change regardless of who is causing it.

In terms of historic emissions, Europe and the USA are at fault. We reaped the benefits of keeping warm, having nice houses (although leaky energy wise), etc but as soon as a problem arose from it all we blanch at the costs. And who can blame us for economically we have failed to distribute wealth forming a high pyramid of poor at the bottom, some comfortables in the middle and a select few wealthy types at the top who fund just about everything in modern society to do with maintaining the status quo.

Presently the USA who has by far the largest per capita emissions is doing precisely nothing in seriosuly combating climate change because the wheels of politics and economics do not stop that quickly. I doubt we will see any serious action until 2020 and thats is only when the next post kyoto agreement is put in place.

I think it's significant that the government's response to the so called global warming scare is to raise taxes. The resultant income to be squandered on new labour projects.

The crisis in the world is not the increase in carbon footprints it's too many feet!

The UK Government (comprising failed Tory or failed Labour) exists to profit from taxpayers, or it has to borrow from other countries - simple.

Its decision to steal our pensions, sell our gold at its cheapest, invest much of that in illegal military action, spend our money on bailing out banks because of poor business acumen, suggests to me that the UK taxpayer is en mass either ignorant or just impotent.

I for one am neither and whilst I have tried to get Social Security payments whilst unemployed and told I am not elligable even after 30 years of paying NI I will no longer be paying ANY tax, UK is finished and I'm off suckers.

The answer, of course, is to ringfence green tax receipts so the public does not see them disappearing down the general treasury plughole. Governments are never keen to do this, but it is the only way to get them moving.

Most of the comments here seem to assume that the results of the poll are expected simply because anyone's knee-jerk reaction to being asked to pay more taxes is to say 'no'. It is much more likely that few people are willing to pay because there is no convincing case that global warming is happening at all, or that humans are involved if it is.

The so-called evidence for climate change is based on two main components: patchy, incomplete and selectively interpreted data from the past, and computer models that are designed using incompletely understood science and run on computers that aren't powerful enough to generate accurate simulations even if the scientific principles were understood. The models have not been successful in predicting current or past climates unless they have been specifically tweaked to do so, and only yesterday we now hear that the latest prediction is that global warming has stopped until 2015. It's amazing how these models keep changing to match the latest observations, rather than vice versa.

The real tragedy is the overreaction to a non-existent problem by governments, pressure groups and industries. The devastation that is already being caused to economies and societies world-wide by such policies as enforced reductions in 'carbon footprints', and biofuels, where food is diverted to SUVs while millions continue to starve, is a direct result of these rabid 'environmentalists' who are doing more than anyone else to destroy the planet they claim to want to save.

It would seem to be sensible to require accurate, verifiable predictions from the climate models for at least 20 years before we base any major government policies on them. And that includes introducing any more taxes.

You can see Darling's little brain ticking as he thinks through the 'green argument'....

I'll increase VED duty for people who have already made a purchase commitment for a car they think is sensible for them. That that will encourage them to buy a more suitable vehicle, with lower emissions....., and then I'll put a tax on these new cars with lower emissions and call it a 'showroom' tax.

Gets my vote for 'Cock of the Week'

Climate change will affect everyone, so it's in everyone's interests that (1) fiscal incentives encourage energy saving and (2) the Government offers funding to green projects.

People in Britain may think they're badly off, but remember that thousands of men, women and children are starving to death each day. Climate change will greatly increase that, besides sparking riots, wars and millions of refugees.

Wake up to the real world. Think of our children's future. Our bloated lifestyle has to end. Better to change our ways voluntarily than to follow the dinosaurs.

At last this much peddled myth about global warming / carbon footprint is being exposed. No, I don't believe all the pseudo-scientific claptrap about it, no I don't believe it's all down to human behaviour, and no, I didn't fall for Al Gore's flawed "documentary" - this from a man who was a complete non-entity as VP. (He's got a lot of kudos and very rich from flying around the World in a private jet to publicise it - what a hypocrite) .

The climate is cyclical, and always has been and always will be. Green taxes? Give me a break! More coffers for Gordon's tax haul. It's about time clear thinking folk stood up against the Govt and seriously questioned the logic and balance of their spurious arguments.This is just a band wagon that cynical politicians get onto because they think it is trendy and a vote winner, and to make the Greens feel all warm and comfy!!.

Try telling the emerging economies of China, India and Brazil to go green.........not a hope in hell!

I agree with Judith, suggesting the only real thing that will aid our overall environment is reduction of population. Although, since almost all governments across the world wishes not to advocate this because of assumptions that it would slow down the economy, they are only thinking of economical benefits rather than human generation safety.

People need to take their responsibility through understanding that the environment is important to uphold and not become too greedy in all aspects of day to day behavior. Consuming less is also an aspect of which humans in the west need to understand is affecting the global emissions a great deal.

Try and change not complain!

The Independent should not ask loaded questions like this!

The Briish people cannot be persuaded that green taxes are vital to fight climate change because they aren't.

Firstly there hasn't been any climate change for the past ten years and the Hadley Centre says there will be none for the next seven at least.

Secondly if there is climate change it will be at least 99% natural. Anything we might do to avert it will have a miniscule effect, certaionly not worth taxing ourselves to death to achieve.

Thirdly, even the IPCC do not think the worst case would be catastrophic -it is Al Gore and his claque who say it will.

Fourthly, in fact a warmer world producing more food is as likely to be a better place as a worse one.

Fifthly only a lunatic would invest pots of money inn uselss technology now to safeguard against an event which is exteremmly unlikely to happen and won't be too bad when it does.

Sixthly - and answerring your question - anything Government's seize on to extract taxes is more likely tp be cynical extortion than have any noble purpose at all.

Will that do?

How could a former US Vice President get such traction from a foggy headed idea as "Global Warming"? Al Gore lives a life in a vacuum as witnessed by the size of his palatial mansion in Tennessee. How he ever got others to follow him in this idea is beyond me.
I have between 2-20 years left on this planet and my thoughts to the future humans should learn to adapt and be aware that nature has cycles and patterns. Please be certain that you aren't led blindly by government. They seek to solidify their own positions through questionable logic and rhetoric. Perhaps the French had a good idea when they beheaded Louis and Marie.

In the energy debate, it wouild be helpful if people said what they mean. e.g.
Renewables: there is nothing remarkable about "renewables". The criterion is low production of carbon dioxide.
Green energy: the term is meaningless (except possibly in Ireland).
Clean energy: the removal of ash particles etc. has no merit except in keeping our cities clean.
Low carbon: correct that it falsifies the figures - the weight of carbon dioxide is what counts, not the much lower amount of carbon.
etc.etc.

As an American, I sympathize with raising taxes to foot the bill of becoming "green." We can barely make our mortgage payments, pay rents, buy food or help send our children to college. The Government and Big oil companies got us into this mess, let them pay for it. In the end they will be making money hand over fist for alternative fuels anyway.