Sponsored by

BUDGET: Friends of the Earth lament missed 'golden' chance

ISLE of Man Friends of the Earth says a 'golden' opportunity to raise money with a green tax has been missed in this year's Budget.

As well as raising revenue, it could have protected the climate, says Phil Corlett, co-ordinator of IoMFOE.

He said: 'The Isle of Man has yet again identified itself as the only Western nation failing to acknowledge the challenge of global warming.'

BUDGET: Income tax set to go up

16 February 2010

Mr Corlett argued the 2006 Stern Report on climate change identified the need for investment to prepare for the worst effects of climate change, calling for an investment of one per cent of GDP per year at least and up to 10 per cent for the most effective way to offesset the impact.

'By failing to address climate change in any way Mr Bell is running the risk of enormous economic impacts in the future,' said Mr Corlett.

'Economists believe the cost of dealing with climate change will overtake health, education and home affairs and become the main expenditure for Government within twenty years. The impact of this will be enormous, requiring either steep tax increases, or drastic cuts in other services. The VAT crisis will seem like nothing in comparison.'

He suggested a number of steps Mr Bell could have taken:

• Use green taxation to raise revenue by targeting those who waste CO2. Small charges on polluting businesses, either active or registered on the Isle of Man, could raise funds and send a message the Island took climate change seriously.

• Offer tax breaks for new environmental businesses.

• Impose climate duties on those travelling to and from the Isle of Man by plane.

• Substantially increase road taxes and introduce road use charges, especially for more heavily polluting vehicles.

• Introduce government carbon-budgeting to ensure reductions in CO2 and energy expenditure.

• Provide additional incentives for the MEA to invest in wind power, eg introducing a tax on all energy produced using fossil fuels – raising money for investment in renewable energy projects.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Send your comments to newsviews@newsiom.co.im

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Here we go again... punish the motorist just because he doesn't drive a pedal car!! I have a better idea... reduce or scrap road tax completely!! The IOM Gov should then levy an extra "tax charge" on fuel per litre. That way the more you use the more you pay. It annoys me that just because I have a big engined car that its assumed I polute the environment more. I only clock-up around 4k miles per year in my 3.2ltr car but why should I pay loads more than someone who clocks up 12k miles in a supposedly "green" smaller engined car. Obviously you can't keep tabs on what mileage people cover so make us all pay for our tax at the pumps. This will encourage everyone to drive less & might even encourage taxi drivers to turm off their big diesel engines more often too... most of them sit on their ranks for ages with the engines running, how much gunk must that be chucking out. I'm all for saving the planet but do it properly and logically.

ANON

I think Mr Corlett must have more money than most to spend on so called taxes. The last thing the island wants after the Tax/NI/Electricity rise is a green tax. I like many have not had a pay rise for the last year and am starting to feel a real pinch in the pocket. Every other bill I can think of and general cost of living has gone up and I'm worse of for it all. And before anyone comments I don't smoke nor do I drink so this area can not be cut back on to save moved for this green tax.

C BREW

ANON - excuse me for asking but, if you only clock up 4k mileage per year - why do you have a 3.2l engine car - do you like to arrive before set out??!!!! Seriously, I hope it's something decent and not just another 'Chelsea tractor'. lol

N

Corlett's ideas are lunacy. The island has far more pressing economic issues than further taxing its residents in the belief that the few tens of thousands of people on the IOM can make a significant difference to global warming. The problem isn't carbon, it's simply overpopulation, and the Isle of Man with its relatively static population doesn't even provide a drop in the CO2 ocean compared to the huge, growing populations in developing economies such as the ones in Asia and Africa, or the Carbon-intensive USA. Even if we were to all adopt a hair-shirted approach to gobal warming and go back to living in mud huts in Ronague, the earth's population will soon reach 10 billion, which will effectively negate any significant measures taken to reduce carbon emissions - especially pitiful token measures from an island that doesn't actually generate much carbon in the global scheme of things. Global measures are needed, not petty local climate-religions, and global measures need to focus on areas where populations are rapidly growing, economies are developing into energy-intensive phases, and where carbon emissions are vastly more significant than on the silly little IOM. All these stupid measures will achieve is a total non-impact on global warming whilst further taxing residents who have already been hit hard by the economic breakdown and loss of business. Pragmatism needs to rule here, not semi-religious belief that doesn't really quantify the global impact of the IOM's micro-contributions.

GURU SAJ

I don't understand where this guy's coming from – increase road tax and introduce road usage charges to get people to drive less, and at the same time hike the tax on the heavier polluting vehicles… such as buses? How does he expect people to get around? Does he expect people to pay more for the, frankly, abysmal bus service we have? Especially when the current bus service would be completely overwhelmed if everyone decided to bus it to work one day. And I'd like to know what his thoughts are on the use of the steam trains during TT week and the grand prix – their use was hailed as a success giving scope for them to be used more regularly, but I wouldn't be surprised if the greenies wanted them abolished as they run on coal. I fear that FotE haven't thought this through very well.

STEVE

Anon's idea is good. But I think it should be extended to include a levy to cover the mandatory third party insurance. Not the cover over and above third party, just third party. We know some drivers do not buy minimum insurance, and we know that when an uninsured driver has a claim made against them, that its the drivers who had purchased insurance who end up picking up the tab. So why not make sure that anyone who buys fuel for their vehicle, puts into the third party insurance fund? Like Anon was explaining, the more they drive, the more risk they represent, and the more fuel they buy as well. On another matter, this Budget did seem to miss out on opportunities to Green the Isle of Man. Rather than spend 28 million on a gas supply for 6,000 household (?) the money would have been better spent on grants for insulation, heat recovery, energy saving replacement appliances and a bunch of new homes built to better standards. A program like that would benefit more than 6,000 households. If Manx Gas couldn't afford to upgrade the network themselves then the government should have made sure that the people had access to alternatives and could enjoy similar benefits for less cost (i.e. more efficiently).

PM

Climate duties for those travelling by plane? Has this idiot ever tried to leave the island by plane. It costs an arm and a leg to get off here now without even more taxes being added. Here's an idea……… lets tax the farmers for each cow for all the methane they release. And whilst we are at it. Lets tax Mr. Corlett for all the hot air he has put into the atmosphere talking about this rubbish. As Jim Royle would say ……… "Climate change my ****"

ANON

IOM Friends Of The Earth - half a dozen crackpots with nothing better to do.Just why is it that they get so much publicity ? Loved the one about the MEA being given incentives to invest in Windpower - as if a 200 million debt is not enough ! And turbines only generate electricity when the wind blows - perhaps one could be installed in Phil Corletts front room to take advantage of all that hot air ! In a years time we will all be looking back and wondering how man-made "Global Warming" could ever have been taken seriously.Then it will be time for FOE to hitch itself to another bandwagon.

SJR

Tony Brown won the award for biggest clown in 2009, looks like his crown may be taken by Mr Corlett in 2010. Anyone who reads more than the Courier will realise that climate change is a complete load of rubbish, only now are the public realising it was a smoke screen to extract more tax from them. There has been no significant climate change since 1996. Mr Corlett needs to have a look on Google Earth to realise than the Isle of Man is only a tiny rock, its effect on earth's climate is zero.

ANON

Paying more tax, even higher travel costs and ridiculously expensive electricity prices isn't going to do anything about climate change! It'll help dig some people into a financial hole - no pay rises/bonuses, more tax, more expensive fuel, more expensive electricity. What about the carbon footprint Mr Corlett has left after whinging on about this, the effort to put the story online, electricity used to do the same, etc, etc... surely it would have been more productive to go out and plant a couple of trees!

DO

I could never understand why wind turbines were never properly investigated as an option to supplement existing supply before the MEA built the new power station a few years ago. It may have saved a fortune in the ensuing fiasco. A good way to offset carbon produced in the IOM would be to initiate large scale upland tree planting schemes which would not only provide an aesthetic and amenity value but provide long term work for people currently on Jobseekers Allowance. Also I don't think it's fair to financially penalise people with 'green taxes' when they are already paying through the nose for fuel, power, services, etc.

EMKAY

'but why should I pay loads more than someone who clocks up 12k miles in a supposedly "green" smaller engined car' Well, because you obviously can ! Maybe that person driving 12K has to drive that far to get to work like I do and maybe cant afford something bigger.

NW

To those who read the tabloid press and think that 'global warming' or 'climate change' is a myth and isn't happening, I would of thought that the recent weather the Island has experienced, you know the long cold snap and island wide snow coverage, might have turned a light on in their heads, but obviously not. When was the last time the Island, or even the whole of the UK experienced a cold snap like what we've just endured – 10, 20, 30 years ago. Don't any of you think that it's strange that considering where our Island is geographically located in the northern hemisphere, that we don't experience winter's like we've just had. I mean we're more northerly than Japan and New York as well as a number of other parts of the US, Canada and Europe who regularly get snow fall on a annual basis, and yet we don't. Then there's been the deluge of rain in the summer months and mild winters. Climate change is not about the average temperature going up, it's about a dramatic changes in weather conditions within a short period of time – which is what have been and what we are currently experiencing. Part of this may be down to a natural phenomenon, but the human impact of worldwide industrial revolutions of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries has probably played a significant part in the extremities of these climate changes within such a short period of time. The Earth's fossil fuel reserves won't last forever and the need to invest in new sources of energy needs to start now, so that when the reserves run out we're not scratching around in the dark or relying solely on nuclear power.

TIM K

I don't think half these people have read the story? By investing now we'll save heaps of cash in the future, so unless people are expecting to die in the next ten years they should be glad that Phil Corlett's demanding action. Why should we do it: because we're part of the problem; because we have a duty to share the responsibility for changing things; because the Isle of Man will save money in the long run; and because there are massive opportunities for the Island's economy if we get excited about embracing new technology instead of exploding in a paranoid rage every time climate change is mentioned.

There is almost no doubt that climate change is very serious and happening now. We know that there will be huge problems before 2050 - we're now trying to stop even worse catastrophe later. 8 of the hottest years on record have been in the last decade. The Daily Mail and Daily Express are waging a war against truth - but it doesn't change the fact that climate change is the biggest threat facing human beings today. This is why every serious politician in the world and every climate scientist is working for a penetrating treaty that will cut CO2 by 80% by 2050. Those who deny climate change are threatening the future of their children and grandchildren, which is just downright irresponsible. Using cars unnecessarily is anti-social - but on the point above - road-charging by the mile may be better than higher car tax. But that essentially is what petrol tax does, and it's made no difference so far. (Listen to documentary on Fuel Prices on Journalism page on my website.) By building a decent wind farm (which we could do really quickly) we could generate around 200% of the Island's electricity needs and sell on the excess. It's a complete no brainer. Wind is practically free electricity - and it would guarantee our energy security for the future, instead of having to rely on distant gas and oil fields (which will start running out soon any way). More info about climate change solutions and climate denial on the Green Pages at www.ffinlo.org

FFINLO COSTAIN

@ Tim K. The reason we don't have winters like Canada is because of the Gulf Stream - look it up on Wikipedia - the differences even extend as far as the mountains in Scandinavia, and drive most of the weather systems that we experience. And I have to argue with you - Climate Change is not about sudden changes in climate over short periods, it's about changes against an average temperature range over long periods of time. Wikipedia might help you there too.

GURU SAJ

Ludicrous piffle. Put taxes and prices up to prepare for what ? Climate armageddon ? If you really want to reduce energy consumption and lower our energy bills let the IOM Government pay half the cost of insulating the old housing stock.Let people install properly sealed, double or triple-glazed door and window units without the asinine planning restrictions. Here in Romania my modest apartment is virtually airtight the insulation is so good. Result, warm as toast when it's 16 below outside, and low energy bills.

MANX EXPAT

Reply to N: I drive a small german sports car not a chelsea tractor but I walk and cycle to work and for my sins drive it purely for pleasure. It doesn't do much more than 20 to the gallon but under the "pay as you fill" tax I would pay in proportion to the miles I travelled and the CO2 I created. Reply to NW: i appreciate that some people have to drive 12k miles a year and in doing so produce a lot more CO2 than I do but I think you've missed my point. If I had to drive 12k miles a year I would own a much more economical car than i currently have which would do at least twice as much to the gallon, need filling up half as often, and mean I'd pay a similar amount of "pay as you fill" tax. It shouldn't come down to who has more money to spend on a car, or who has a "bigger" car.

ANON (the first one)

@ Finlo - You haven't provided a reference for your temperatures and you're making the enthusiastic amateur's mistake of confusing weather patterns over the past few years with climate change. Your assertion about high temperatures over the past decade must be based on regional statistics, and just isn't reflected in the USS/UHA statistics. The IOM's just a tiny rock, as has already been pointed out, and makes a pretty much negligable contribution to global CO2 - comparable with a small town in the UK. Where's all this wind to support the wind farm you think can magically fix our electricity needs ? The IOM has a pretty poor wind record, for much of the year as any kitesurfer can tell you. To expect an 80% reduction in CO2 is to totally lose touch with reality, particularly when you factor in the population growth by 2050. If you really want to make a difference about CO2, stop pestering the small, static population of the IOM with religious rantings about your beliefs, and go and pester the USA about its massive contribution, or the governments of India, Africa and China about birth control. Basically you're making no difference to climate change by pestering people in the IOM, and you'd make a much better contribution by targeting your campaigning at the economies where CO2 emissions are likely to grow by enormous amounts, in line with population. Think rationally about CO2, and stop treating it like a religion.

GURU SAJ

Guru SAJ – You're using Wikipedia for the basis of your arguments. Wikipedia – an internet encyclopaedia in which anyone can edit anything in it – yeah, that's really reliable. Think I'll go in and change the explanation given for climate change to my way of thinking, then my argument will be right, until someone else goes in and changes it to read what they want.

TIM K

Guru SAJ, even using Wikipedia you still got the explanation it gives on climate change incorrect – climate changes can happen over 'periods of time', that range from decades to millions of years – and over the last couple of decades I think we've seen the effects of a 'climate change'.

TIM K

@ Tim K - my arguments aren't based on Wikipedia, but it might be a good starting point for somebody who's so ill-informed about some of the basics of Climatology (such as the Gulf Stream) to educate themselves before they start posting hysterical responses like yours. Look up the Gulf Stream in Brittanica if you want, the information's the same.

GURU SAJ

GURU SAJ - You're missing the point that weather is different from climate! The climate is heating dramatically. We know this. It's not open to speculation. You can speculate on the causes if you want - I'm listening to scientists, the UN, and almost every Government in the world. This isn't an argument I need to win, because it's happening whether you believe in it or not. You mention population being the real problem. 'Hello?!' of course it's part of the problem, partly because it enormously increases the carbon intensity of human existence. (Perhaps you should read my column in this month's Manx Tails, which is also on my website at ffinlo.org - 'Are there too many babies?')

Likewise, regardless of whether you think 80% is a realistic target or not - it is the target we're aiming for as a planet (many think it's too low), and getting there is going to be very tough - which is why Phil C, and I, and other environmentalists are urging the IoM and others to grab the new tech opportunities while they exist and while there's money to be made, to re-invest in mitigation and adaptation. The fact is we will have to drastically cut CO2 and reinforce infrastructure at sometime in the near future - if we chose when we do it then our GDP will benefit and we'll have to invest a helluva lot less. Btw - The US, China, India and Pakistan are all now working very hard to get a climate treaty. Not least because they've all be affected by some terrifying weather impacts already (which most credible observers attribute to climate change - though connecting CC to individual events is as difficult as connecting smoking to an individual case of lung cancer). The IoM should join the rest of the world and play its part - not least because our economy can benefit - but also because we're part of the world too. You want references? There so many... go to my website... or just try reading something objective for yourself instead of the biased twaddle you've clearly been saturating your mind with. Finally - climate change is based on hard science - the research has been more peer-reviewed than any other subject. Climate scepticism is more akin to a religion: it's based on hope and a prayer with absolutely, literally, no credible science to back it up. I'd love to be wrong - really - just doesn't seem likely that I am. Wake up and smell the CO2.

FFINLO COSTAIN

Guru SAJ – If your argument isn't based on what Wikipedia states then why mention it up in the first place?? Where in my comments am I being 'hysterical'?? I think you'll find I've simply commented on what is being posted around by the tabloid press and others, plus my own observations about the weather in Isle of Man, my homeland, which I've noticed over the last decade. And if I'm 'ill-informed' on the basics of 'Climatology' then it is because I am not a student of it, or a scientist or even an environmentalist. By your ranting you obviously fall into one of these categories, hence you may sound as though you know more about the subject in depth than I do.

TIM K

@ Finlo : You're off on another preachy religious sermon and if I wanted to read biased twaddle, your constantly self-promoted website would be a really rich source of it. You've nailed me to a cross as a skeptic when actually I'm not - but I am a realist who doesn't see a religious devotion to hair-shirted self-denial as the solution to a global problem. Population isn't "part of the problem", it IS the problem. It's pointless talking about "The US, China, India and Pakistan are all now working very hard to get a climate treaty" when clearly they aren't, and it 's a treaty based on lip service to minimum carbon reduction, without effective provisions for looking at population. More people=more carbon=greater climate change. A population of 10 billion is pretty much going to make any minor sacrifices we make on the IOM meaningless, so why are we bothering ? I'm very much for hard science, but also in the context of assessing whether saddling the already stretched IOM population with extra taxes is really going to make a difference - in global terms, it isn't, so are we talking about taxing people simply so we can look idealogically correct ? Is there a point in talking about "hard science" when you're just trying to scare up some hysteria with your uncited temperatures and apocalyptic ranting so that people make an emotional, rather than a rational decision ? There's a "disconnect" between the idea of doing something to look holier-than-thou, and actually doing something that achieves results for climate change.The IOM population is a small, static, already industrialised one - compare this to the developing economies where the population is rapidly growing and industrialising in the space of a generation - the historically poor populations who'd be living in one room and using cooking fires a generation ago, will be living in an apartment, drinking Starbucks' coffee and going to work in a Mercedes 4x4. That's where the challenges lie, not with taxing a few people on a rock. I agree that environmental power makes sense, and would encourage investment in that direction, but you're living in cloud cuckoo land (maybe they have better wind there ?) if you think that bunging a wind farm in is going to solve everything overnight - especially on the days with no wind. Maybe we could punch a hole in the gas pipeline to drive the wind farm, perhaps ? Where's the money going to come from ? Taxing the IOM people simply to look like a population of "right thinkers" doesn't make sense. Environmentalism is all very noble, but if you're going to be rational, you have to ask what benefits to the climate are going to occur from taxing the IOM population even more. If the answer is pretty damn close to zero, think again.

GURU SAJ

Mmmmm... I love the smell of CO2 in the morning... The environmentalists here seem to be basing and backing up claims of climate change by basing everything on the last 10-20 years. I've been alive for longer than that. Look back for millions of years and the Earth has warmed up and cooled down drastically - Not caused by man, but by the Earth itself. Think along the lines of the Ice Age, wiping out the dinosaurs, etc. Its not big, its not clever... but it happened and will probably happen again.

DO

Its quite encouraging to see some intelligent comment on this issue for a change. Of course, Anon is correct. The only honest way to 'penalise' the use of hydrocarbon fuels is at source of purchase. Why should licensed road vehicles be targeted with extortionate taxes when lawnmowers, garden equipment, generators, motorsport etc pay only duty and taxes on the fuel itself? Politicians have no genuine commitment to reducing emissions, only raising extra revenues, disguising its taxes under a cloak of 'global warming' scaremongering. Motorists always have, and always will be easy targets, as they are controllable by law. The Manx Government hangs on to the coat-tails of the UK Government on this issue, as they do increasingly on most issues. Car tax in the Island given our limited amount of very poorly maintained roads is out of all proportion to the UK with their extensive road network. Emotive terms such as 'gas guzzlers', and 'Chelsea tractors', are all part of the spin to disguise the real issue. I read recently that the avergage number of passengers, at any one time, on a service bus in the UK is 12. Its probably less than that in the Island. The emmisons per head from the bus are greater than those from a car with two people in. So don't fall for all this hype about the collosal benefits of public transport either.

JOE, Ballaugh

I wondered when that other self-interested crank (and one of the few IOM FOE members) Ffinlo Costain would contribute.His musings in Manx Tails always solicit a shake of the head and now it appears that anyone who reads the Express or Mail is in denial about so called "global warming."I read neither and yet have an opinion ! China wants to sign a treaty ?- is that why they opening new coal burning power stations in vast numbers ? Wind farms can contribute 200% of the Islands electricity ? Yes and 0% when the wind is not blowing ! Your arguements are fanciful to say the least ! Now that the CND arguement has died a natural death so called enviromentalists need something to believe in.The fact that CO2 forms less than 0.04% of the worlds atmosphere is convieniently ignored.Start planning your next campaign (and incidentally your next meal ticket) because the truth is beginning to come out.It is offensive that people who do not agree with you are called" climate change deniers" and in an earlier Examiner article "racist"

SJR

The more Ffinlo Costain goes into print, the more he damages his cause.

REALIST

He is a novel idea for Mr Corlett and Mr Costain. Stand for election instead of criticising others who have been elected.

GEOFF, Douglas

There is no global warming. It is just a new bandwagon for jobsworth's to climb on. Like BS5750 and 'elf an safety' there is a rush of "entrepreneurs" trying to sell their scare stories. Friends of the earth (or are they really enemies of mankind) thanks but no thanks.

TB

Allow Mr Corlet to have his say without too fierce a condemnation, he could be proved right in the long term. Though I disagree with him at the moment. There must be more convincing evidence. Society should encourage its colourful quixotic eccentrics, they make it much more interesting.

FERGAL STINKBOTTOM

Hasn't Mr Corlett caught up with the Copenhagen shambles where nobody could prove whether global warming was the fault of our burning fossil fuels or of some other cause like the sun's activitiy or changes in Earth's orbit or inclination or even the continuing chopping down of the rainforests. I shall remain very sceptical about the cause(s) until the majority of scientists can agree, based on provable evidence, why our planet is warming up – if, indeed, it is. Below is an article compiled by Associated Press and published in the Washington Post on 2nd November 1922:-

QUOTE

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

UNQUOTE

Does anyone see any similarity between then and now? Is global warming/cooling cyclical? Who is really talking sense? Is global warming just another avenue for scaremongers to cash in on our ignorance (like Al Gore who has earned billions from his AGW activities)? I think we need a lot more sceptics around here!

RH, Port Erin

• Email to a friend
• Print this page