What does it mean to be green? Can you be green and drive a car? Can you be greener than you already are?
The Congestion Charge in London is supposedly a tax on congestion but there are concessions for those driving green cars. Will these concessions disappear, or even the tax, when all cars are green? Will the car driver remain the political left’s enemy? Is the pollution caused by cars really the thing that makes the political left hate the car?
The Carbon Neutral Company says that I need to plant one tree per year to counteract the pollution caused by my commute to work. I planted a tree on Sunday and will buy a tree from the company next year.
There are so many things that can be done to be green and so many things that actually save you time and money at the same time. If you use energy saving light bulbs, for example, you will save yourself trips to the shop to buy new bulbs as well as the more obvious electricity savings. If you compost your fruit and vegetable waste you will reduce the amount of waste you produce and the amount of weight that the dustcart must transport away.
I wonder how many people who consider the car an evil actually do all they can to be green? There are two categories of car-complainer, those that hate the car and everything it stands for (Ken Livingstone once said that if he could ban cars completely he would); and those that think we should use our cars only when necessary. I have sympathy with the latter - of course we should restrict our use where possible if our car is not green.
Do the car-haters, for example, turn off lights when leaving a room? Do they use A rated kitchen appliances? Do they run their heating when it is not necessary? Do they have thermostats on the separate radiators? And, most importantly, do they recycle everything that they can?
I am sure the answer to most of those questions is yes, but those that hate cars for non-environmental reasons should check their own lifestyles before trying to tell people not to use their vehicle. I wrote to the Evening Argus in Brighton a year or so ago when parking charges were introduced pointing out that car use is not always more expensive (as the bus companies would have you believe) - time is money (to use an overused cliche)…
Given all the other examples listed above, especially energy saving appliances and composting, the financial false economy of car-hatred seems at odds with the genuine savings that can be made in favour of our environment.
Brighton & Hove and London are easily navigable by public transport, but what of those living or travelling to places not served by the mass transit options? What also, of the cost? For an individual, a car is more expensive - I accept that - but what if you are transporting a family or a group of adults? Maybe those making policy dissuading us from using the only viable method of transport (for many) should look at the alternatives for someone living outside of a city.
And finally, a thought. The government taxes petrol and diesel used as fuel at an extraordinary rate. The average petrol tank would pay approximately £30 to Gordon Brown for each refill… And yet to be carbon neutral costs only £30 per year from the Carbon Neutral Company - what is Gordon doing with my money? Is he, for example, funding development of a green vehicle? Is he looking at ways of tackling, in a real way, the disadvantages typical of public transport (inflexibility of time and location)? I have to say, I doubt it. The rate of tax has been similar for a long time (I haven’t checked for how long, but it is for at least as long as I can remember) and no progress has been made on this at all.
For the environment, the car is not the enemy. For the political left, the car epitomises individual freedom from the state’s control. The government must look at ways of mitigating the affects of cars on the environment, not at making life more expensive for individuals in the vain hope of acheiving a political aim. Taxing cars to the extreme will inevitably lead to the poorer in society not being able to afford to live comfortably, not to a greener England.
On the environment, there is unequivocal evidence that the world is heating up. Bush’s apologists are not representative of scientists. But whether this is because of human activity alone, has not been proven. I don’t think this is a reason to ignore the environment - I go to great lengths to be green (aside from the car) - but it must be taken into account. We must also recognise that there are costs to focussing on the environment - money will be spent on Kyoto compliance that could be better spent on improving the lot of society - it is a balance that we must achieve.
[Technorati: Environment, Green, Politics, Socialism, Science]
November 3rd, 2005 at 7:16 pm
[…] Following on from my rant about environmentalist’s complaints about the car without providing a viable alternative or correctly spending the tax on greener methods, I thought the two following things would be of interest: […]
November 4th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Two biggest Carbon Users in peoples lives. Car, Central Heating. Solution: Choose a small, cheaper and greener car. It hirts nothing but the ego extension. With congestion noone can really drive more than 50 mph anyway. Turn down the thermostat, get a new boiler, put some more insulation upstays great deals on at the moment. Don’t even have to by solar panels. More money left in the wallet over all.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Again no. Replacing a working boiler is an apalling waste and, worse, requires carbon emissions to be released in the manufacture of an unnecessary appliance.
And the biggest two carbon emitters in your life are the aeroplane and the consumption of meat — not the car and central heating. But the consumption of meat isn’t something they can attack without appearing extreme, while the underinvestment in roads has made the congestion issue seem like a legitimate ride-along to the environmental angle.