Well, no, not really

The message is as dismal. In summary, it is that the Treasury reluctantly concedes that something needs to be done, but not by them, and that it greatly pains them that they might have to change the tax system as a result of the demise of the carbon taxes that have been such easy revenue raisers for them. Climate change is, very obviously, a great inconvenience in that respect.

If revenues from carbon taxes are falling that means that carbon emissions which pay carbon taxes are falling.

That is, the carbon tax is doing its job of reducing carbon emissions. Or even, solving climate change is a great inconvenience.

6 thoughts on “Well, no, not really”

  1. My guess is that energy is short and expensive in the UK and industries are fleeing to less regulated climes.

    But perhaps someone can prove me wrong!!

  2. I see Mps are agitating for one of the potato’s plans ie to steal peoples pensions https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/20/mps-urge-pension-schemes-cushion-economic-effects-uk-net-zero-plan. Now they can fuck off with that idea. No doubt Spud is pleasuring himself thinking about it and will shortly issue a claim that he originated it and wheres my ermine? My local Conservative MP is very active in the community but I won’t be voting for this shower of bastards next time.

  3. @moqifen

    I see they are referring to funds held by Local Government Pension Schemes (HMG schemes are unfunded).

    LGPS already have f’ing enormous shortfalls in funs to cover pension promises. Wazzing their funds up the wall on green ecoshit will serve to worsen this.

    The country really is going to the dogs.

  4. AIUI pension trustees and the managers that work for them have only one focus – their beneficiaries

    All this social-engineering and climate action bollox is irrelevant

    If they can do it without compromising their support to beneficiaries (or better still enhancing it), then fine

  5. And what do the Treasury’s plans to change the tax system involve? Reduce spending?
    I’d say this validates my argument against Pigou taxation. Give government an opportunity to tax & it will become habituated to the revenue. Did we see other taxes fall to make carbon tax revenue neutral? No. Total taxation rose & the government spent more money on bollox. Now they’re looking round for other sources of revenue to replace falling carbon tax receipts. If they’re creative enough they might even hit on another Pigou tax.
    Sorry, the idea might make sense to economists. But in the real world it’s a disaster.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *