Nick Clegg is at a joint press event with Greenpeace today presenting on the “compelling evidence that low carbon energy is deliverable now”.
The aspect the BBC have emphasised is the mooted possibility of offering rebates on business rates for businesses that make energy-saving improvements to their premises. This idea echoes the practice of some councils who offer council tax rebates to householders who make similar improvements to their homes.
Clegg rightly emphasises the importance of incentivising green behaviour as opposed to penalising pollution, noting that in the current economic climate, the prevailing feeling among both individuals and businesses is that “they cannot afford to go green”.
In other greeniness, Steve Webb fans will recall that last week he was co-operating with green bloggers to launch the shiny new Canvass Your MP campaign website last week to help people lobby their MP about the too-low proposed carbon reduction targets and I see that this has just been blogged on the Greenpeace blog today as well. Everything is holistically and harmoniously interconnected…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A magnificent Norman Abbey
A 14-year-old Mick Jagger demonstrates rock climbing on television
Prisons
Why Kierkegaard should be the official philosopher of Scotland supporters
Labour makes by-election gain in PM's own constituency
Jamie Dobson
PM
Graham Jeffs
Denis Mollison
Mick Taylor
7 Comments
I think Nick’s tone and sentiments are exactly right, but his actual prescriptions are unattractive. Progressive Vision’s press release on the announcemnt is here:
http://www.progressive-vision.org/Media/080619%20-%20environment%20regulation.htm
The simplest, smartest and most efficient way of tackling polluting companies and rewarding green behaviour is through a carbon tax (and a comensurate reduction in otehr business taxes)
We cannot afford not to go green, & anyone who refuses to admit this fact of human life is an idiot. It’a bout time we got a grip on all this & started taking it seriously.
People who say that environmentalism is a luxury for the good times, to be discarded when belts tighten… defy belief. It is more important than ever. Human greed & irresponsibility is the basic cause of the fuel crisis, the credit crunch, & food shortages.
We have got to wean ourselves off energy dependence, stop using “biofuels” as some kind of get out clause, & just stop living so wantonly. I believe we will be happier in such an event.
We also need to work to reduce population pressure by women’s education & contraception, standing up to reactionary forces like the Catholic Church & Islam.
The tax system in this country should change, not only to become greener, but to stop incentivising people to knock out f**k trophies in order to get an array of benefits denied to single people, which is worse than ever now that my hobby horse, the working tax credits, have been established.
It is time to realise that a lot of people, mainly “libertarians”, Clarksonites, etc. will be offended. But they are the past, their way of “life” has been discredited the future is green.
I have worked for businesses before where making a profit is so important, that “considering the environment” is taken as a joke.
So whether you use a carrot or stick – and I think you should use both – it really has to make a serious difference on the bottom line, or it won’t make any difference at all.
How will it be paid for. It is the duty of anybody presenting such a policy to say how it is paid for. Would this mean higher rates for the rest.
Neil Craig – before I was born it was considered important to build an independent nuclear capability. It proved to be both expensive and unnecessary, yet the country went ahead with the project in the face of massive popular resistance.
By contrast this measure is close to revenue neutral, potentially vital as well as able to claim a wide base of support.
So, obviously, this LibDem policy proposal ought to be opposed on the grounds it came from us, rather than on its merits!
Please don’t draw any assumptions that I think nuclear devastation and environmental devastation could be considered equivalent threats to our society in any way.
Geoffrey Payne, you’re talking about bad management rather than any failing of liberal economics. I admit that the standard of managers (& government) in this country is woeful.
But in fact, it is good business to treat employees well, & display social & environmental responsibility. Investment in certain areas yields returns. I believe the government should have less of a role, yes, but it should be aimed at policies which are most effective.
Many employees are realising that Dickensian behaviour doesn’t work, even on its own terms. Additionally, businesses welcome decent, sensible regulation because it holds everyone to the same standard, thus creating a level playing field & knocking out cowboy operators who may otherwise get an unfair advantage by unethical, uncompetitive & wuite possibly illegal behaviour.
The solution is still compatible with true liberal economics & a liberal society.