Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Drogue, I have to say that this is a brilliantly written bill. I assume you've written it as you're the one responding. Im very impressed. I will need to digest the content on it before i can make a judgement one way or another.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    How would this effect companies in the UK, in a european marketplace for permits (as i understand it, its the companies, rather than the government, who would have to trade for extra permits if they want to produce more than their current allocation for a year). Would it mean that if the "market price" of permits was above £40 a tonne in europe, that UK companies couldn't sell their allocation for above that, or if it was less than £10, they couldn't sell it below that, or they couldn't buy permits outside that price range either? I might be not quite understanding the scheme, so correct me if i'm making a mistake about how it works.
    Sort of - while companies buy it, it's allocated to countries. This would mean that if the market price was above £40/tonne, the government would subsidise the price to keep it at £40/tonne for British firms, and if it was below £10/tonne, the government would tax it to keep the price at £10/tonne. It provides some stability for British firms as well as ensuring that if we get the allocation drastically wrong, so that the cost of abatement is above £40/tonne or below £10/tonne, we can over or under run our allowance.

    This would be better if it were done on an EU scale, but even just for the UK it's still a big improvement.

    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    I know, but in the short term, the money has to come from somewhere. What sort of period would you estimate we would be looking at for investments to become cost neutral? And the question was more about, what stimulus fund (just for reference), and whether or not the funds were already allocated by the RL government for other schemes, and if so, what would be effected by allocating it to this instead (again, in the short term, before it becomes cost neutral)
    The money would be borrowed and lent to the social venture capital fund, which would pay profits back to the government to repay that loan. Effectively the government is an intermediary. And short term cashflow isn't a problem for the government. Long term sustainable spending is. Hence the huge difference between consumption spending (health, welfare, etc.) and investment spending (infrastructure, education and funds like this). The former has to be paid for, the latter, at least partly, pays for itself.

    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    Its not any particular limit i have in mind, its more that the funds are there in the first place to fund them. Again, in the long term, it will be beneficial, and if this bill was written a couple of years ago, when the public finances were better, i would probably not be asking the question. But this money has to come from somewhere, so would it come from raised taxation, or cuts in other areas (so if it comes from the stimulus fund, is this money unallocated already, or would it have to be removed from a different area or different schemes, or if it was from a ministers budget, would anything have to be sacrificed in order to pay for this infastructure).
    This bill allocates some of the stimulus money that is currently unallocated. What would be sacrificed would be the other potential uses of the stimulus money.

    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    The question was asked about 3), not 4) (reductions in emissions, not planting trees). But mostly, i get your point, but as this is also going to apply to existing schemes that companies have under way, or would have had under way anyway, which will then be tax deductable, and lots of companies are investing in greener technology already (for the marketing benefit, if nothing else). What basis are you using that this wont have a significant impact on tax income?
    While companies are investing in such projects, it's tiny amounts of money. No firm spends a significant amount doing this, and making it tax deductible means 70%, rather than 100%, is paid for by the company. Effectively we get more bang for our buck than if the government spend 100% of the cost reducing our emissions ourselves.

    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    So will this only apply to trees planted in the UK?
    A good point, this isn't specified. I'd probably make that only apply to UK firms, but let them plant it anywhere.

    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    Was it intentional to exclude them (and if so why)? I've not got an opinion yet either way, so i want to hear what you think first.
    Not so much intentional as focusing on paper because it accounts for (IIRC) the majority of trees being cut down. You're right, it should apply across the board, so I will amend it as such. Unless there's a specific area that should be exempted?

    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    (reply was a little rushed, have to go to work, will try to clear stuff up if i haven't been clear or explained myself well enough, this evening)
    Thanks for the comments, you've been a big help in improving the bill!


    Eru, I'd also like to highlight one point from the Stern Review:
    the economic benefits of strong, early action to combat climate change are likely to vastly outweigh the cost of acting.
    In other words, we'll need to spend money whatever, either in prevention, which is likely to be vastly cheaper, or in terms of lost income from the damage caused by climate change. This is something worth finding money for, even if it means higher borrowing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davireland)
    Drogue, I have to say that this is a brilliantly written bill. I assume you've written it as you're the one responding. Im very impressed. I will need to digest the content on it before i can make a judgement one way or another.
    :o: Thank you. I did draft it, though there's been a lot of debate and input from the party. It helps having studied this though, as it gave me a pretty good idea of what a good policy would look like. Plus the Stern Review is an utterly groundbreaking and, IMHO, quite brilliant document. Incidentally, Oxford's environmental economics tutor was one of the authors of the Stern Review, which is great for someone like me who's interested in how to solve huge problems like this.

    I hope this showcases that our emphasis isn't so much about being left or right, but about addressing a problem as efficiently as possible. Most major parties agree emissions cuts are needed, and the disagreement about the size needed, while there, is not that great. To make it lean left or right, we could either tax emissions and increase spending or tax emissions and cut income tax. I'd quite like to add a little of both of these to the second reading, but I'm wary that it's a politically shaky issue.

    Would people be fore increasing taxes on fossil fuels (and anything else we can think of that causes emissions), using some of that money to pay for planting trees, some of it to pay for reducing the deficit, and some of it to cut income tax?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Would people be fore increasing taxes on fossil fuels (and anything else we can think of that causes emissions), using some of that money to pay for planting trees, some of it to pay for reducing the deficit, and some of it to cut income tax?
    Would have to think about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BruceTaylor)
    I just don't place green issues at the top of my agenda, personally. And I don't feel wasting money on them right now will benefit the people. The only bit of this bill I support is the tree planting bit.
    Bruce its the single most important issue that the world faces today. I dont think its a waste of money to help save the planet, if we dont act soon the problem may become irreservible if it already hasnt.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    India etc. want European coutries to PAY THEM to cut emmisions.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    I'd love to add this, but I'm not sure it'd pass. If there's support for this, I'll add it to the second reading. Though I'd want to keep this bill as close to tax-neutral as possible, given the recession, so would want to use some of the extra money to reduce income tax.

    No, because we wouldn't have enough land. We can't keep planting trees to replace the carbon we use, as we have a set amount of land and need some of it for houses or agriculture. We have to both plant trees and reduce emissions.
    Allow me to present my take on things, if you would.

    Activities we perform release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at no immediate monetary cost to us and yet it does produce a cost to us through global warming. My economics isn't the best but isn't that a run of the mill negative externality? If so, isn't the way to deal with that to find the cost of fixing the externality (in this case planting trees to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere) and then charging those that release CO2 the cost of removing it again?

    If we did this then companies and individuals who produce CO2 would be motivated by themselves to reduce their emissions and while they are working out how to do that we are fixing the problem. When the problem disappears the tax disappears. A simple solution that is flexible and targeted and which would actually work. So what's the problem?

    And if you say that we haven't got enough land in the UK to plant the trees there is nothing stopping the UK government buying land in other countries to plant trees there, is there?

    So why wouldn't we want to do that and make our country carbon-neutral?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    .
    Okay, wrote fairly long replies twice, but my laptop messed about on me. In short, add to the first bit of the bill something along the line that you will push to implement the same system in europe, and that will be enough for me personally (there are issues with companies operating in different countries being able to transfer permits under the scheme to its various operations without buying or selling them, as a possible loophole, but there is only so far we should be going with the details).

    As for the stuff covering investment and that, fair enough if the funds are unallocated (as i can't think of a better alternative allocation for the funds), and i'm not sure of the level of tax exemption that it would be, and while i'm not sure it would be so insignificant, i also don't think it would be great enough to be overly concerned about.

    I can't think of any exemptions when it comes to wood based products, though i'm still not convinced about the practicality of monitoring tree usage and planting. Has this type of scheme been implemented elsewhere before? (and if so, any information on it?)

    And finally, i totally agree with the fact that things need to be done sooner rather than later, and that the cost in the long term would be much greater if we don't take action now (thats not something you have to sell to me lol). My funding questions were more to make sure that we could, rather than try to say why we shouldn't.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drogue)
    Would people be fore increasing taxes on fossil fuels (and anything else we can think of that causes emissions), using some of that money to pay for planting trees, some of it to pay for reducing the deficit, and some of it to cut income tax?
    In a different bill, i would say so, simply because that might cause more disagreement than what you have so far.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Do you not think that B153 did enough?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    Do you not think that B153 did enough?
    You cant do enough to stop climate change.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sure you can. If we ever solve the problem we'll have done enough.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Dayne, has this bill get the largest preamble to date ? :awesome:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    Sure you can. If we ever solve the problem we'll have done enough.
    Exactly in an ideal world we would all be powered by renewables.

    I think one of the biggest things the world faces at the moment is deforestation, deforestation causes more emmissions than the worlds entire transport system put together, that includes planes, ships, trains, cars, etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Perhaps I spoke a bit rashly what I should have said was "There is more we can do." I think we are a long way off solving the problem. The renewable energy bill did take us a step closer to solving the problem. This bill tries to solve or lead the way, in terms of deforestation and emission control.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sadly renewables can't save us for the moment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Is there any global warming sceptics in the TSR parliament? jw

    And T/J did you watch Prince Charles speech on global warming the other day?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Nah, I tend to avoid Charles. Link me and I'll watch it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tucker672)
    Is there any global warming sceptics in the TSR parliament? jw
    Yeh. Me!

    As a keen meteologist I realise that their is NATURAL warming and cooling in the planet. We've just speeded it up a bit. Soon we speed up the cooling of the planet too. If we don't want to speed it up then renewable are the key. If we do then carry on as we are.

    That is my own opinion and not that of the party's.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well there is natural warming, a lot people with a brain don't dispute that anymore. That doesn't mean that global warming doesn't exist; not only are we speeding it up but we are causing it to happen on a larger scale.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 16, 2009
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.