Cameron believes in protecting the environment but many people think that’s not a normal Tory position.
It is. We believe in recycling. There is only so much oil so to waste any on making plastic that could have been recycled is illogical at best. In fact that’s key to Conservative pragmatism. We understand the needs of man and we understand how to protect that.
There’s a lot of nonsense said about the need to recycle. Paper, for example, when produced in renewable forests, is no worse for the environment than is sweetcorn. In fact, in many ways it’s better. Ming accused us Conservatives of being against environmental protection when the truth is we’re against taxation as a ‘green’ incentive.
The main reason to protect the environment is ultimately for the long term benefit of mankind. If we destroy ourselves in the short-term trying to bring about this ideal world, what was the point? So Conservatives are for recycling. This must be why, then, Conservative Councils recycle more of their waste then other parties’ Councils.
Society hasn’t yet worked out how to stop climate change or even whether it can be done without harming humanity. There’s also the possibility that climate change is a natural phenomenon.
One thing you can be sure of, though, is that if and when a solution is found it won’t be taxing cars and flights. It won’t be encouraging people to use buses. It won’t even be making trains cheaper than planes.
No, when the solution is found it will be technological — much like recycling, the answer is not to not-use but to find solutions.
And that solution will be best implemented by Conservatives.
June 11th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
[…] Cross-posted from the Cllr. Gavin Ayling blog. […]
June 11th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
On a similar theme, I wrote this piece on my blog.
A quote: “For the Conservative party, this has certainly been an interesting move, though, if you think about it, not all that much of a surprise, as after all, part of Conservatism (as the word suggests) is about conserving.”
June 12th, 2006 at 2:16 am
Its not just possible climate change its natural, its a fact. The ‘Ice age’ has been a regular occurrence, as the gulf stream gets cut off every 10,000 - 50,000 thousand years.
Ofcourse that doesn’t mean humans couldn’t also be having an effect, but ’stopping’ climate change would be most unnatural.
However, my question to the ‘Conservatives’ would be, do you intend to equalize taxation on fuel for trains, cars, boats and ofcourse PLANES, because at the moment there is a huge distortion which promotes the most polluting type of transport.
June 12th, 2006 at 9:26 am
It’s ridiculous that planes are subsidised while trains are not.
I would rather all transport methods sank or swam on their merits with some support for vital strategic infrastructure if it sank…
Taxation of transport is to to damage our transport infrastructure and the free movement of people.
June 12th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Trains are subsidised and massively so. Planes are not subsidised, they are just not subject to the same level of fuel tax as cars. Fuel tax is used to pay for roads. When aircraft start using roads I will support taxing planes at the same rate as cars but not until.
The solution to our future energy problems will not be found by the Conservatives or any other political party - it will be found by the market.
June 12th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Ah, but the only party that will advocate market solutions are the Conservatives.
Of course, there’s no incentive on the markets to clean up energy, only to make power more efficiently (which may lead to the same thing). Also, abuses of the market by the oligopoly that is the oil companies means that your utopian solution will not happen.
June 12th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
“Ah, but the only party that will advocate market solutions are the Conservatives.”
So what you’re saying is… we’re screwed.
The only country to make any reduction in carbon emissions is the United States, without government interference. Perhaps because growth brings a switch from away from manufacturing towards services.
It is private companies that are considering taking carbon dioxide from power stationsand pumping it into the resevoirs they have exploited. Not because it will reduce carbon emissions but because it will allow them to get more oil out.
High energy prices will create the incentives to reduce power consumption and find alternative fuels. However the market will not destroy our economy in the short run because it will also look at new oil resouces.
As for abuses of the market: Last year when there was a refinery squeeze caused by hurricanes, the oil companies were buying more light sweet crude rather than less. The reason is that they switched away from heavier blends (which require more intensive refining) towards lighter blends (which can produce gasoline quicker). Thus they kept the price of gasoline from rising further while pushing up the price of light sweet crude - both of which narrowed their margins. If the oil market isn’t competitive then they must all be morons because that’s the exact opposite of what would happen in an uncompetitve market.
I’m not being utopian but looking to the government for help because the market isn’t perfect is an obvious example of “out of the frying pan and into the fire”.
June 13th, 2006 at 8:48 am
No.
Oil companies collaborate and place embargos on smaller countries insisting that they do not switch to oil alternatives.
That you can find, inevitably, examples of oil companies doing things that are simultaneously in our interest and theirs is a result of the market being the best provider of human wonts, but that doesn’t mean the oil companies don’t hold a scary position.
It is well recognised that American and British administrations have been compromised by oil interests not least of which the current administrations and Bush Snr. and Major.
We agree completely, I think, that the market works in the right direction, but when the market is distorted by an oligopoly who’s lobby puts them beyond regulation of abuse, we have a problem.
In the short-term there’s no interest for BP to switch from oil to wind-turbine manufacture and very little incentive for them to pay for research into cleaner cars because people are happy to buy polluting ones. If we want cleaner cars before the oil runs out (which is when the market will kick in) then we need something other than the market to make it happen.
June 13th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
“Oil companies collaborate and place embargos on smaller countries insisting that they do not switch to oil alternatives.
Have you any examples of this? It seems to me to be unlikely that the dozen’s of oil companies around the world (not just in the West) have all got together. Are Chevron and Texaco really working in concert with Lukoil and CNOOK, not to mention the nationalised concerns of countries like Venezuala, to force smaller countries to use oil?
That the British and American governments have been compromised by oil interests is hardly an argument for a government energy policy. It is an argument to keep governments small and entirely out of the business of regulating energy. Giving the state new powers will just see them work closer with the vested concerns - as has happened ever since the break-up of Standard Oil - to the detriment of the consumer.
“If we want cleaner cars before the oil runs out (which is when the market will kick in) then we need something other than the market to make it happen.
Speculators acted on the oil shortage before governments were even seriously talking about energy policy. That they have been so maligned for pushing the price of oil up shows how little people understand the way markets work. Were it not for the speculators we would still be doing nothing.
June 13th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
“Oil companies collaborate and place embargos on smaller countries insisting that they do not switch to oil alternatives.”
Have you any examples of this? It seems to me to be unlikely that the dozen’s of oil companies around the world (not just in the West) have all got together.
I know of two separate nations that have had this done to them and in each case the person who told me was party to the necessary meetings. This isn’t speculation, it is the way the world’s economy works, sadly.
That the British and American governments have been compromised by oil interests is hardly an argument for a government energy policy. It is an argument to keep governments small and entirely out of the business of regulating energy.
Of course, but the facts of compromisation (a word I may have just made up) mean that it’s not practical to expect any compromised government to be in a position to relinquish control. This is the exact reason I advocated the removal of artificial subsidy by government rather than the more unrealistic alternative of complete government non-intervention or funding of research.
Both these points are a result of pragmatism rather than ideology which we agree on.
June 13th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Gav, when you say small countries, how small?
June 14th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Small, island nations of a size similar to Luxembourg…