It’s a big day for patio heater manufacturers, as the European Parliament looks set to approve a Lib Dem-inspired measure which would see the faddish appliances phased out, along with electrical stand-by modes, and minimum standards set for energy efficiency on air-conditioning, television “decoder” boxes and light bulbs.
Lib Dem MEP Fiona Hall is behind the initiative (which has no legal force). You can read her report in full here. Here’s an extract:
Latest scientific evidence suggests that the world has as little as eight years to tackle global warming. If global temperatures rise more than 2ºC above pre-industrial levels, climate change is predicted to spiral out of control.
Energy efficiency is the most cost effective and immediately available tool in the battle to cap greenhouse gas emissions. A wide range of energy efficient technology already exists and can be introduced with a much shorter lead-in time than is required for major new construction projects.
Energy efficiency is also a crucial tool in the EU’s efforts to secure adequate supplies of energy, particularly for those Member States currently dependent on Russian gas. Nor should the importance of energy efficiency in supplier countries be overlooked: the IEA estimates that energy equivalent to a fifth of Russian exports to European OECD countries could be saved through the use of enhanced technology and energy efficiency in Russia.
In addition, energy efficiency has an important role to play in delivering the Lisbon agenda: energy efficiency equates to economic efficiency. The energy efficiency industry is a high growth sector for employment, with building renovation at the forefront of job creation. …
Strategic regulation on energy efficiency is absolutely necessary. Although energy intensity has improved in the EU since 1990 it has not improved enough to counter the year on year rise in GDP, with the result that final energy consumption has nevertheless risen. Trading of carbon emissions now offers a key global tool in tackling climate change but there is no evidence or precedent for market mechanisms alone delivering to a short deadline. To achieve energy saving on the timescale necessary to control climate change requires consumer choice to be exercised within a restricted range of options which are increasingly energy efficient.
[…]
Both the Commission and Member State governments have been guilty of a serious dereliction of duty over the implementation of energy efficiency legislation. The Commission has failed to put in place the number of staff necessary to ensure full and timely implementation of the Buildings Directive and National Energy Efficiency Action Plans, the cornerstones on which the current EU Action Plan rests. Member States are culpable for failing to grasp the strategic importance of energy efficiency and the need to make it a political priority.
It falls now to the European Parliament to give the political leadership that has been lacking in the other two institutions. EU elected representatives need to keep the fullest glare of scrutiny on the Action Plan, both through the European Parliament and through national parliaments and watchdogs such as Energy Watch, to make sure that the Plan is implemented in full and on schedule.
The Guardian meanwhile quotes climate change expert, Dr Eric Johnson, a national expert reviewer for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, who argues:
The overall impact of outdoor heaters on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions is very minimal, and once you look at the domestic models used in homes, the impact is almost non-existent. Once comparisons start with well-known offenders such as airplanes, outdoor heaters dwarf in comparison. In actual fact, plasma TVs produce far more CO2 than patio heaters when you compare normal usage patterns. What constitutes a waste of energy is always going to be open to debate but it is important that the public is properly educated about environmental impacts in order to make informed decisions on their everyday activities.”
So, is this a case of Europe and the Lib Dems calling for unnecessary ‘hairshirt’ regulation which will have little real impact? Or is it a case of our party being the only one willing to put its head above the parapet to urge practical measures which will address global warming?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Chase Park fair photos
Green and Lib Dem Southwark brings government closer to voters
A swamp of lies and disinformation
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Tom Reeve
Peter Martin
David Wright
Iain Donaldson
66 Comments
Haggis . . . patio heaters . . . this is one of those days that makes me slightly embarrassed to be a Liberal Democrat.
No we shouldn’t be banning patio heaters, madness though they are.
I mean, there’s plenty of other things to ban that would be more effective and have a bigger impact on climate change!
If you want to get people to change their behaviour you need to get a cultural change – this is not done by banning things!! A cultural change would be far more effective. Look at the impact it had on the fur trade in this country! Drink drive was always illegal but the fact that you become a social pariah if you do drink has a far greater impact on people’s behavour than points on a license.
If we are going to start banning things that we don’t approve of, can we start with people talking very loudly at bustops at 6 in the morning – especially the one outside my house?
No we should not be supporting it.
Its hair-shirt neo-puritanism, nothing to do with liberalism.
Instead, why not sort out the emissions trading scheme? Or green taxes? Except they’re too difficult to do, so instead just ban something inconsequential and you can say ‘look, we’re doing something’.
If there is one sure fire way to turn people off from the climate change agenda it is to start banning things that make their life easier that they don’t necessarily need. The banning of patio heaters would set a precedent for this kind of behaviour and logically you have to ask where it would stop.
Yes, we don’t *need* heating for our smokers (of which I’m not one) in cold evenings, but it is something that avoids creating social fragmentation and stress. What would be next? We don’t need TV’s while there are perfectly good wind up radio’s, and what are so many of us doing with private cars, let alone more than one. Let us ban hair straightener and hair driers because they only ease a process we could do with a towel and enough time.
Finally, lets cap the amount of gas a house can legally use, because why if we aren’t allowed heaters outside our pubs when we can wear extra clothing should we bother with heating in our homes with our wardrobe in such easy reach?
Ridiculous.
Nice to see some good common sense in the comments. I would have thought that the whole biofuels debacle would be a salutory lesson about looking at the impact of changes very carefully before just ploughing ahead with something just because it boosts one’s green credentials.
Fairly worrying that I find myself agreeing with Laurence Boyce, Tristan and Passing Tory. Patio heaters are wasteful and I would never dream of buying one, but banning them is not the way to go about it. The contribution they make to global warming is so minimal, it’s really not worth it.
There is one great argument for banning patio heaters – we will no longer have to put up with:
Bill Oddie on a Tuesday night telling us what a serious threat global warming is to the environment
Bill Oddie on a Wednesday night doing a B&Q advert voiceover urging us to buy patio heaters.
BAN THEM !!!!
Embarassing nanny-state nonsense if you ask me.
Bans beget bans, it seems.
Tax the fuel they use by all means, but leave it to individuals to decide how they respond.
This is dangerously close to the kind of nonsense motions being put to Conference – porn, goldfish, and now banning haggis and patio heaters…
Climate change is supposed to be…well, it IS, a serious topic. This sort of thing smacks of “loony left” reactionism.
No, we shouldn’t be supporting it.
NO, NO, NO and NO once more. Jesus does it take the London “Tory” Standard to point out how many other things pollute more than these things!
As many of the above have pointed out we sometimes come close to becoming a parody of ourselves with the BAN EVERYTHING attitude that some in the party have.
We need to be sensible (yes I know that’s hard for some) and think big picture not trying to micro manage peoples lives.
That’s exactly what Labour has done and look at the absolute mess the country is in.
Please leave this type of thing to the lunatics at the fringes and let’s get on with real policies that affect everyday people.
Let’s act like a serious party and not some jumped up and highly annoying pressure group that people laugh at every time you mention their name.
And what about patio heaters powered by methane from landfills, or from anerobic digesters? Would you ban those too or would you rather have the methane in the atmosphere?
Stupid proposal.
. . . porn, goldfish, and now banning haggis and patio heaters . . .
Don’t forget the asteroids.
The average patio heater is responsible for more carbon emissions than the average car, for a tiny fraction of the usefulness. While a ban is almost never the best solution (and I generally favour supertaxes on silly wasteful products), I don’t think all this scoffing is justified.
Of course the smoking ban has a lot to answer for…
No No No! It’s a complete embarrassment.
I missed the asteroids, Laurence (if you’ll pardon the pun). Was that going to be a direct ban on all asteroids or just those that fall on the EU 🙂
Anythibng that annoys faggites must be a good thing.
Also, if we ban patio heaters we are more likely to be able to walk past pubs without having fag stink blasted at us.
14. Tell me please how 35kg of CO2 from a patio heater per year is more than almost 3000kg of CO2 for the average car? Where exactly are you getting your figures?
Even using the worst (and false) figures given for patio heaters in this country the emissions of a single patio heater on average is still only half that of a car, so it is perplexing to work out how you can make such a claim.
Ban patios I say – then there’s no need for patio heaters …..
Also, 29% of households in the UK own two or more cars/vans. even generously removing 6% of these households because they may have children learning to drive (assuming each household only has one kid, and they all own their own car) that is still 27% of households or over 6.5 million household.
Banning all patio heaters will have the same effect as removing almost 7,500 cars from the road, a far cry from the 6.5 million we could remove by banning second cars. If we’re trying to make a difference here how about actually making a concerted effort to invest properly in public transport throughout the country and take up to 19 million tonnes of CO2 out of our emissions (before emissions added for transport infrastructure, obviously)?
This idea of banning patio heaters is all about the image and not about the effects. I’d also like to note I’m not for banning second cars, we’re in a much more sustainable position if we use our brains and not our knee-jerk muscles to try and bring down carbon emissions.
Ban patios I say.
Yes, and “decking.” Ghastly stuff. What we really need here is an Aesthetics Act.
Agree with Peter, tax the excessive energy use by all means, same as we do with car fuel, but banning them is insane, and would almost certainly kill off a fair few more pubs as well.
Can someone take Ms Hall to one side and give her a lesson in basic liberalism and basic economics please?
It is not Fiona Hall’s work here that is making me embarrassed, but the comments so far posted in response.
It is true that in the grand scheme of things patio heaters don’t produce much emissions. In the grand scheme of things it doesn’t produce much emissions if I drive 500m to my local shop. But both are pretty pointless. The reality is that the best solution to cutting carbon emissions is to cut out all the small and wasteful things.
Ideally, we would do this through a carbon market – and in such a market I can assure you Patio Heaters would come right at the bottom of people’s lists of carbon ‘spending’. But in the mean time (ie, while the Lib Dems aren’t in government) we have to do what we can by other means. And that includes banning obvious waste where we can.
“This is dangerously close to the kind of nonsense motions being put to Conference – porn,…”
Which was of course such nonsense that there was a full policy paper produced saying pretty much the same points as the motion was agreed by the Shadow cabinet, FPC and conference about 18 months later.
I didn’t see why it was nonsensical to say that the system whereby a committee of councillors decided what the demand was locally for vibrators and hardcore porn was.
As for patio heaters – just buy a jumper. Silly to ban them though – this isn’t what’s going to melt the ice-caps.
If you are in opposition all you have is gesture politics and incrementalism. Of course banning patio heaters won’t save the planet but they are a symbol. Our consumer society can’t put up with a winter chill or use a jumper so we pump out co2 artificially heating the atmosphere while we all know its Co2 emmision thats going to heat the atmosphere permanently. I think the irony alone makes patio heaters an excellent target for a campaign. Is fiona really doing anything less credible than the camapaign agaisnt areosols years ago?
Is a ban the right answer? probably not. I’d favour using penal taxes and letting the market do the enforcement for you. I just think the tone of comments here is a bit superfical and shrill.
Never seen Fiona Hall MEP speak on TV on anything before, then up she pops to tell us patio heaters, should be banned!
Then I read that some other MP says that wine should only be served in small glasses,and large measures banned, because woman are being served in big glasses, and thats why we’re all a nation of binge drinkers. A note to our elected reps: GET A GRIP, and a life!
I think comments from people who want to send a symbol and a gesture that we care about the environment are right that it would do so, but let me suggest that it’s more important that we send out the right “symbols” that we’re a consistent liberal party – and these all too frequent intrusions by our elected busy-bodies (just 2 days after Mulholland wanted to ban people from drinking red wine out of large… red wine glasses) put us back.
There’s logic in the argument that we should “do whatever we can” in the areas that we’re concerned with, but that leads to masses of contradictory and unhelpful laws – You’d think that we’d learn this from seeing New Labour already try it.
Can someone take Ms Hall to one side and give her a lesson in basic liberalism and basic economics please?
That sounds very limp Mat. Don’t you think we should at least rough her up a bit? What I want to know is when are we going to tackle the problem of flatulence? It’s a major problem in this household, I can tell you.
No we shouldn’t be banning things – even if, as someone says, it happens to be more expedient than carbon taxing (which is not rocket science frankly – it’s just harder to get big players in the game than it is to stuff the consumer against their will).
However, the article talks about other things – TV stand-by buttons etc. Can someone tell me whether this is right…
I recently bought a brand new model LCD TV. I was shocked, nay appalled, when it arrived to find that it doesn’t actually have an on-off button that shuts all the LEDs off completely. If I want it to look off I’d need to remove the plug from the wall! SO I asked about this and was told “oh, it draws less power on standby than it draws in the form of a power surge when you turn it on after being completely off. Drawing this tiny wattage enables it to boot without that surge, which itself causes damage to the set and reduces its lifespan considerably, meaning even more carbon is expended making a replacement” (or words to that effect).
Does anyone know if this is a feasible answer?
I own a patio heater. I use it once, maybe twice a year, but I really appreciate those uses. I bought it is 2002, to host a party for my sister’s thirtieth. I am still on the first gas bottle, 5 years later. I suspect that I do more harm for the environment having my computer on to read LibDemVoice than I do by owning a patio heater. Perhaps Fiona Hall should call for websites to be banned because they encourage us to use our computers more?
Really pleased to see that almost all the comments are anti-banning. It is good to know our party contains liberals.
Jock, there is something to be said for that, but in reality you’d have to be turning it on and off all day for it to be better to leave it on standby.
And Peter @ 28, no-one was banning large wine glasses, only implementing more choice…the exact opposite of what is being proposed regarding patio heaters.
Those that think banning patio heaters are the right way to go are making a very strong statement that “unnecessary” items that emit CO2 should be banned regardless of any other value they have, and that is a very dangerous door to open.
There are still plenty of these “unnecessary” luxuries we have (second cars, flights within the UK, household heating) that could be banned to provide a “symbol” and actually make a dent in emissions.
PS To Jock – my printer uses less than 1w of electricity on standby – which is about 6p a year’s worth of electricity. For some new gadgets it really isn’t worth worrying about standby. In contrast, a single cordless phone can use £10 of energy a year, even if it is never used. Now that could usefully be addressed by legislation, just as we have legislation for fridge energy efficiency.
Yes we should ban patio heaters.
It is a small measure in itself, but it should bring home to people the urgency of what we are facing. We cannot expect to take for granted in the future the energy intensive lifestyle we have today. It is simply not sustainable.
We should be getting more angry about what will happen as a result of global warming than the minor inconvenience of not having patio heaters.
If we see a young child running into a busy road, we do not say “as a liberal that child should have freedom of choice to kill himself”. Instead we would physically stop that child running into the road.
Well that is what you do, even as a liberal, in an emergency, and that is what we face with global warming. It would be absurd to be trapped by liberal dogma to prevent taking emergency action.
That is the principle, of course patio heaters in themselves are a small part of the equation, but we haven’t even started looking at the larger parts of the equation.
Green taxes may be a better solution, but in the end the point is to use less energy and banning should not be ruled out.
“Those who would give up their liberty for security deserve neither”
The thing is though Geoffrey, banning lots of little things makes people believe something is being achieved, whereas banning patio heaters would have the less of an effect than putting a 3p tax on beef (less beef being eaten, less methane from cows, qued).
We’re coming up with approaches that we would take it we were in government. If we were in govt I hope that we would take the answer which addresses the real issues and which leaves people with the most freedom within necessary constraints to make their own decisions in life. Launching an offensive on patio heaters would achieve neither and would also assure that we as a party would never have that chance to be in govt.
The ironic thing is that people don’t like being told what to do by micro-managing busy body administrations which just make laws which don’t have an impact. That’s why a liberal party should be able to be successful if it just focused on being liberal.
I feel that some people are mixing up liberal pragmatism with authoritarian utilitarianism. Geoffrey, great analogy on first glance but in real terms you’re not saving a child you’re punishing him for going near a road that he should have, and unfortunately in doing so have completely ignored the child’s ability to cross the road safely on his own.
How does Brussels or Westminster know that the carbon emissions that could come from my hypothetical patio heater (I don’t have a garden) aren’t being offset by my own proactive nature on the subject? It is highly insulting for a governing body to take away the luxuries we have because of the environmental impact they cause, especially when they are ignoring much bigger producers of CO2 (something to do with taxes and keeping business happy no doubt), but doubly so when we have the ability to micromanage our own lives to achieve a responsible outcome on these sort of issues without a higher power trying to micromanage it as well.
There is no strategy I can see from governments across the world to properly record just how much of the carbon emission cuts they need to achieve need to come from business and how much from domestic, and therefore without this sort of data how can they dare tell the general non-commercial population that they’re not doing enough? How do we KNOW we’re not doing enough, how do I know that I am not cutting back my lifestyle further than I need to to be sustainable but no-one is telling me because in turn I’m offsetting my irresponsible neighbour?
We need proper strategic guidance as a general populace, without it politicians have no right to assume whether or not we are doing our bit and to force us to do more. Fiona Hall and her ilk are approaching this arse about face.
Our MEP’s initiatives really make me cringe sometimes.
Remember Chris Davies’ plan to ban fast cars? That one went down really well…
What in the name of all things environmental will banning the patio heater do to stop global warming? The combined use of patio heaters in this country has next to zero effect on global warming.
To say that it is the little things that make the difference is missing the point. It would be like saying we need to move a beach and the first measure would be to move one grain of sand. yes it has reduced the number of grains of sand on the beach, but actually it has made absolutely no difference. This is such a small measure that a thousand similar ones would still make no difference.
The only effect this will have is on smokers (who aren’t all mass murders, by the way) and the revenue of pub landlords. It might also be annoying for some people who like to have an evening in the garden – we don’t live in Spain…
I thought Liberals were supposed to be liberal, not legislating against every single small annoyance that an individual may have.
The emissions debate has lost all sense of perspective and reason. No wonder people are already getting fed up with, we are sold lies and taxed on measures that boost coffers but do little to save the planet.
For God’s sake, let’s take a sensible approach and then we might all jump on board and actually make a difference to what is actually a serious issue.
Patio heater? What has this debate come to?
Lee @18: a figure of 4000kg for patio heaters was on the BBC news the other day reporting on Fiona Hall’s initiative.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7219565.stm
I guess it depends on how much use the patio heater gets. If that figures is exaggerated – which is not unlikely – then this may explain the excess of enthusiasm.
While searching I found this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5358300.stm
which by far my preferred approach.
Ideally of course the cost would go onto fuel; except that we have very cheap domestic fuel for social policy reasons – we don’t want to freeze too many pensioners, and very cheap business fuel for competitiveness reasons. Perhaps a higher fuel tariff could be applied to the retail/pub sector which isn’t in direct competition with the rest of the world.
And I do agree that trying to heat the outside air is madness. Not that banning patio heaters would stop braziers and bonfires. The best bet would probably be to irradiate the beer garden with some sort of microwave. It would be tough to get it past health and safety though.
>I suspect that I do more harm for the environment having my computer on to read LibDemVoice than I do by owning a patio heater.
Nor there’s a thought.
Lib Dem Voice will remain on my blogroll after it is banned … in memoriam.
I suspect that I do more harm for the environment having my computer on to read Lib Dem Voice than I do by owning a patio heater.
That’s a slightly specious argument if I may say so. The real damage wreaked by Lib Dem Voice, is to the productivity of ordinary working Liberal Democrats.
I wonder if the problem is that the EP doesn’t have much money to spend and it can’t hold the Commission effectively to account. What is left for a parliament to do, but to try to ban things?
Trust Joe to raise the tone. It’s an interesting point though!
The computer point is a good one. I interviewed some of the Buildings staff at University about steps being taken to improve the organisations environmental footprint. They said in terms of energy costs they spent more cooling buildings than they did heating them
24. “I didn’t see why it was nonsensical to say that the system whereby a committee of councillors decided what the demand was locally for vibrators and hardcore porn was.”
Judging by baffling number of ‘councillor downloaded porn onto council computer’ stories quite high in town halls it would seem…
Aren’t people being slightly o.t.t. picking on the patio heaters as I understand it this piece of Eurpoean legislation is going to do a lot to incourage better development of energy efficient products.
Hmmm, is banning things traditionally considered liberal?
I add my voice to the throng. What a stupid idea, and what a waste of time.
Take food for example, we don’t ban fatty and high salt content foods, we label them. We (supposedly) educate people about daily allowances and even talk about removing free healthcare for fatties. What we don’t do is say all doughnuts and cakes are going to be banned to stop the obesity crisis.
This is because we understand some people can eat in moderation, why can’t the same understanding be passed on to the practice of carbon emissions and energy efficiency?
Or do those that wish to ban patio heaters here believe we should all be forced on to a diet of rye bread and celery?
Take food for example, we don’t ban fatty and high salt content foods, we label them.
Yes, good point, and I’d like to see less talk of banning and a lot more labelling. How about this one for Homeopathic products?
“Repeated medical trials have failed to prove the efficacy of this remedy.”
Essentially a polite way of saying, “you’re wasting your money.”
Joe
I think the point about the relative carbon emission figures for patio heaters is that they will emit four tonnes of CO2 if they are run non-stop all year. This is the only plausible way of getting a figure of four tonnes. Assuming the comparison is to a car being run all year, the comparison is “apples and apples” but neither is realistic.
Peter at 37. Remember this is a hung parliament (the EP) with political and national allegiances playing everywhere.
Davies knew that the key to getting a strong parliament position (so that it wouldn’t be watered down in subsquent Minesterial negotiation on the final decision) was to get a solid compromise: and the best way to acheive a good compromise is to start by asking for something well abovw what you actually want and which no one is ever going to give you…
Liberal Democrats are always decrying the pisspoor media at large for its myopic hystericism; so why do we allow our rationality to completely disappear over Europe?
That’s for the tories!
LB wrote: “Repeated medical trials have failed to prove the efficacy of this remedy.”
When you want to tell a lie and deceive the public, use an unattributable quote.
You should get a job with an advertising agency, Laurence.
Wahey! I’ve just made another enemy! But it’s not an unattributable quote. In fact I can tell you exactly what the source is.
Me!
That’s right. It’s just my own suggestion for what might go on the tin of a homeopathic remedy. But of course I’m always open to debate and negotiation. What would your suggested label be? How about:
“Beats cancer every single time.”
I would have to concede that my line now looks a bit leaden by comparison.
Has anyone noticed that this thread has adverts for patio heaters at the foot?
Has Fiona called for the abolition of flights from Newcastle and Durham to Brussels? After all, there is or was a ship across that route that people from the NE could use. If we were a “let’s ban it party” then those flights would seem like things to ban.
The Google ads can be the source of much consternation. For instance, my anti-religious blasts invariably seem to attract adverts from various evangelical organisations. Suffice it to say that I would be absolutely mortified if anyone ever “came to Jesus” as a result of one of my articles.
True, but if several people were to click on those links out of, say, curiosity, then by fortutous happenstance LDV gets money to pay hosting bills at the expense of certain fringe groups that we’re not that keen on.
As an adsence user, it would be against my terms of contract to encourage people to click the links in order to simply make the site money, that would be wrong. But, y’know, if you’re curious about what their message is…
Heh, the patio heater site link resolves to a 404, go to their homepage and the search engine doesn’t work with Firefox. So my curiosity about prices cannot be assuaged and they’re pyaing money for no benefit.
Joking apart, I really can’t see why the eco-warriors are so exercised over patio heaters. What with temperatures projected to rise sharply over the next decade, before too long nobody will be buying them anyway.
LB wrote: “What would your suggested label be?”
The facts.
The facts about homeopathy. Sounds good to me. Now what would they be “Sesenco”?
Banning patio heaters is nothing more than cheap gesture politics. Won’t make a blind bit of difference to climate change. It will make a few hairshirters feel better about themselves but that’s it.
And – though this is irrelevant to the patio heater issue – homeopathy is, in my view, absolute nonsense. It is – fact – water.
Banning patio heaters is just another example of a small, pretty much pointless, gesture that can lull us into a false sense of security.
There are lots of little things I can do in my own life to slightly reduce my carbon footprint. Some of them are easy, save me money or make no real difference to me so I’m happy to do them. Others make my life a little harder or deprive me of a luxury I rather enjoy, so I don’t.
What they all have in common is that they make no measurable impact on global warming, and still wouldn’t even if everyone did the same.
If people choose to do this stuff then great. If, by regulating manufacture, we can get more environmentally-friendly goods without asking consumers to wear a hair-shirt, even better.
But banning things like patio-heaters manages to achieve the worst of all worlds: it annoys people because the EU is banning something they genuinely like and find beneficial; it gets people thinking “I’m doing my bit for the environment by giving up my patio heater, so I don’t need to do more” whilst actually making sod all different to global warming. (Not to mention the effect on manufacturers of patio heaters).
To me, the corollary of most of the sentiments here is that we should be standing up for genuine liberal values and telling people that they are perfectly at liberty to use patio heaters if they want. We should not be supporting a ban. This is perfectly consistent with saying that they are a bad idea and trying to disuade people from using them. Dissuade, not ban. Joe Otten’s views would be more at home in the Green Party.
David @62.
Miaow.
Can you quote me where I supported this ban?
And by all means persuade individuals. I’m sure that there are millions of us in this society who don’t feel lectured at enough.
But please face the fact that businesses have a duty to respond to raw incentives and ignore lecturing.
@ David, rereading Joe’s posts within the thread and following his links, his approach is the liberal approach and one the Greens probably would be less keen on.
The liberal approach should be to allow people to do as they wish, but ensure that a) they make an informed choice when doing so and b) the full costs of their actions are paid for, not just the monetary costs of their product.
In other words, a pigouvian tax on the externalities of the fuel burnt, etc. Which is what I proposed earlier and Joe has linked to. That’s not an illiberal ban, it’s allowing people to make an informed choice. Which is the heart of modern liberalism unless I’ve missed something.
Priceless.
Big Brother Is Watching You..
And if you don’t behave according to Lib Dem principles.. He will ‘apport’ you to the ‘proper authorities’…
Nice to say Google also has some useful adverts on this topic as well…