It shouldn’t need to be a choice. The US has proven over the last few years that environmental effects can be reduced without socialist meddling that the Kyoto Treaty and the EU typefy.
If you are in any doubt about the EU’s position on making private vehicle ownership artificially more expensive, this is a passage from an EU document on ‘Sustainable Cities’:
Local authorities should use parking management as a tool to control traffic volumes through both price and supply. Reducing parking facilities available to commuters as opposed to residents, limiting parking provision for offices and other employment sites…
This will clearly effect the economy and so the wellbeing of everyone in the EU. The job of government is to implement laws (and some would say provide services) to make life safe and, in some cases, pleasant. Under that definition protecting the environment is in government’s remit and is in everyone’s interest, but how this is done, and what proportion of effort and money should be spent on it is where the debate should be.
There’s little sense, as far as I am concerned, spending money on protecting the environment while we simultaneously allow pensioners to live in relative poverty.
Reduce taxes on the elderly and remove pensions for the young (so that they are under no illusions about what will happen in forty years time and so that this reduction in taxes is not a permanent tax burden) and spend less on the environment.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
