Posted by DaveGould on Monday, 19 February 2007 21:05:28

It's an interesting question. I know Germany has tried.

One obvious way is to tax consumption which inevitably leads to pollution. The petrol escalator should be reintroduced and flight fuel should get a much steeper one until there is parity. Public transport needs to be a viable alternative to using a car.

Probably the next most important is discouraging reproduction. You can't pollute the environment if you haven't been born. Eliminate child benefit or at least means-test it.

Taxing industry pollution is sometimes easy.

You can tax and give refunds on returning bottles but this is quite minor compared to the previous two items.

There's a system for reporting overpackaging but have you heard of it?

There is no simple answer to your question because free markets only work when there are no "externalities" ie effects on third parties. You can't simply blame markets and capitalism because 'human nature' is greedy and inconsiderate.

The solution is that independent bodies need the power to represent the environment's interests at every significant level.

Posted by kozmicstu on Monday, 19 February 2007 21:47:25

Capitalism is already restricted for various reasons with things like the monopolies commission and other 'necessary evils'. There are several ways that businesses can be made greener - such as placing the cost of recycling a product on it's manufacturer. If Bosch had to factor in the cost of recycling fridges when they make them, suddenly fridges would become far cheaper and easier to recycle. It just takes the right incentives.

The biggest problem comes from internationalising these restrictions so as to remain competitive on a global scale. If just one country does it, all the manufacturers will simply move offshore. More global action is required and that will take time.

Posted by WHYOHWHY on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 15:35:22

Thank you for your comments, interest and suggestions but ,really, are they anything more than 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic' ?we have a dominant species (us)with no serious predator to control our excesses, the old soviet system was hopeless at delivering consumer goods ,agreed, but is there a lesson there? we have to curb our consumption through regulation which is contrary to conservative philosophy and would likely scare off their corporate backers. When will Mr.Cameron give us his environmental policies?

Posted by Geddes on Tuesday, 20 February 2007 16:59:26

Dave Gould, how do you mean Germany have tried? Sorry, I'm very slow, and just got confused :S

Posted by DaveGould on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 04:41:13

Germany's Green Party used to be in a coalition with Schroder. Consequently a lot of Green ideas were tested nationally in real life.

Curbing consumption through taxation is definitely a Tory value. Both the petrol escalator and VAT on fuel were introduced by the Tories. New Labour got rid of the former and have done absolutely nothing but give empty rhetoric about environmental issues over the 10 years when climate change has become scientific fact.

I say this because the Govt have managed to deceive the public into thinking they're environmentally conscious.

Posted by Geddes on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 16:45:00

See what you mean. Wouldn't it just be easy then if the Conservatives merge with the Green Party or something like that? Surely then it would be difficult to escape the issues with all those greens about. But then I don't know.

Posted by WHYOHWHY on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 17:17:21

If you do all the right things and clear up all your mess (as you should!)confectioners paying for the tooth decay their product causes, brewers financing the casualty departments Saturday nights etc. then where does all the lovely profit come from? And the Marks and Spencer initiative to go 'green', isn't it flawed? how can they be green if they are trading with people who work in dirty industries?

Posted by Rueben on Friday, 23 February 2007 09:39:52

WHYOHWHY can we get something straight - are you anti capitalist?

Posted by WHYOHWHY on Friday, 23 February 2007 14:29:56

I like to think I'm a realist, I know the profit motive/capitalism is the dynamic that delivers goods and services to the market place at a competitive cash price in a supply that matches demand and that competition keeps those goods and services at the optimal high quality BUT at what R-E-A-L cost? As I think I've said, in the real world there is no such thing as profit, physics tells us energy or matter cannot be created or destroyed, put simply... you can't get ought for nought. I can't ever see the human animal doing the right thing voluntarily and I can't see a conservative government imposing the necessary regulation and policing that regulation to keep things in eco balance.

Posted by WHYOHWHY on Sunday, 04 March 2007 20:30:01

I'd really like to know what possessed Zach Goldsmith to 'take the Tory shilling' ? even more incredible than Sir Bob Geldof!