Most Brits Willing to Pay to Save the Planet
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 02.23.06
Most people in the UK would accept new taxes on goods and services that damage the environment, according to a Guardian/ICM poll which reveals a widespread willingness to make personal sacrifices to tackle the threat of climate change. Some 63% said they approved of a green tax to discourage behaviour that harms the environment, while 34% said they would not accept such price rises. About a third of the UK's greenhouse gas pollution comes from domestic heating, and the poll reveals that people would be willing to spend an average of £331 (nearly $600 US -- about the price of this solar starter kit) to make their homes more environmentally friendly, even if the investment never paid for itself. Only 16% said they would not pay anything; 32% were willing to invest over £100 and 8% more than £1,000. More than half (51%) said they or their family had boycotted a company because its products damage the environment.
The poll suggest that voters do not share Prime Minister Tony Blair's assertion that policies to help the economy grow should take precedent over those to address climate change. Asked which two areas should be priorities for the government, 28% highlighted action to tackle climate change and 16% wanted the economy to grow faster. The signal from those aged 18-24 was clearer: 35% picked climate change and 9% the economy.
The poll also suggests that people believe that small changes in their domestic lives can make a difference: 83% said they or their family had turned the television off instead of leaving it on standby to protect the environment. Some 82% of households said they had turned the central heating down, 75% had installed low-energy lightbulbs, 25% had bicycled at least one journey instead of using the car and 24% said they had decided against a vacation that involved air travel. Further, 92% said they recycled as much as possible, while 38% said they were likely to install solar panels, and 28% a wind turbine. Almost three-quarters (73%) said they would upgrade their home insulation. The poll was conducted by ICM, a UK market research and data-processing company, who interviewed a random sample of 1,002 adults over age 18 by telephone between February 17 and 19. ::ICM poll via tipster Carl and ::The Guardian
Oooh, I get to defer to that book "Freakonomics" with respect to the Child Care Study in the Netherlands when I say this: bad idea. I'm sure that the 63% think that higher taxes would (a) discourage poor consumer choices, and (b) could be used to promote sustainable ecofriendly industry. However, in actual practice people tend to respond to extra fees as a having purchased the right to the behavior the extra cost was supposed to dissuade.
If people don't do the things necessary by choice, you'll never successfully force it on them through taxes or fines. There's always an economic advantage to be found. At least that's what I learned from that book; true change comes from enlightened self interest, not harsh incentives.
The Stop Global Warming Virtual March is a non-partisan effort to bring all Americans together in one place to prove that global warming is here now... and, it is time for us to do something about it.
One person can can change the world. Over 275,000 people have already joined. Imagine what millions of marchers can do! Together we will be heard.
Join the March Now!
www.stopglobalwarming.org
Its easy! - No cost, No hassles. There is every reason in the world to become a virtual marcher. Why? Because it affects our public health, our national security, our economy, our planet's future.
Our mission is to use the strength of our numbers to urge 1) Our government to join the rest of the world in addressing global warming, and 2) American business to start a new industrial revolution on clean energy products that reduce our dependence on oil and other global warming pollution.
"If people don't do the things necessary by choice, you'll never successfully force it on them through taxes or fines. There's always an economic advantage to be found. At least that's what I learned from that book; true change comes from enlightened self interest, not harsh incentives."
Well if that is the case, why did the congestion charge work in London then?
In this article we see people actually wanting more regulation, maybe because they realise that left to their own devices they are likely to fall back into more selfish habits.
I agree with Andrew Krause - that's why we need DTQs rather than simply raising taxes on environmentally unfriendly products. Capitalism and the Free Market do not work in the way that economic theory suggests in its simple-minded way!
"Well if that is the case, why did the congestion charge work in London then?"
In fact the congestion charge has only had a limited effect - it has REDUCED the traffic in central London by 30%, but I know from conversations with people who drive into London that anyone who can afford the charge (typically because their company pays if for them) just shrugs their shoulders and pays up.
30% is definitely better than nothing, but we are talking about a charge of £8 a day - hardly chicken-feed! How much would it have to be before no-one drove into Central London?
At the end of the day if we are to see the sorts of reductions in consumption which we need to see, some form of compulsory rationing is going to be necessary.
As Clare Short said in a recent programme on Radio 4, this is one area where she thinks the people are ahead of the politicians. I'm delighted to see that the Guardian/ICM poll confirms this.
"Well if that is the case, why did the congestion charge work in London then?"
You'll have to define your metric by which you determined that it "worked."
If the metric was to get people to switch to public transit, then you can claim a 15% victory (2004 Transport for London survey). If the goal was to reduce carbon emissions, then the draconian $13 per day charges (or, go to $87 with fines for not paying on time) only encouraged people to take longer routes around the c zone. The overall reduction in traffic was only 30% (again, 2004 TfL Survey), so I'd say quite a few people are just allowing themselves to be... how you say... buggered?
Well, i'm lucky enough not to have to deal with commuting to London, and I realise options other than the car are pretty poor, but 30% seems to me a lot. Do you think that could have been achieved through the goodness of people's hearts?
Without something like the charge I doubt there could even have been a reduction.
I believe people will do it out of enlightened self interest. People will willingly do things that they could never be forced to do. Also, the c-charge isn't exactly popular, and politics has a nasty habit of swinging the pendulum of public conscience to extremes when extremes are taken.
The trick of getting a 'sin' tax to work is, /not/ sending the money straight to the Government: else they will fail to discourage the 'sin' (gas-guzzling, smoking, boozing) from which they collect so much money! One alternative is to dedicate the money raised to subsidising a better activity (public transport or renewable energy development, fresh fruit etc) if there is one (not sure what the alternative to smoking is! Clean coal??) in such a way that the total excercise is, and remains, revenue-neutral.