This is a key period for the environmental movement. If it were seen to be supporting the high price of fuel, then it will lose a large majority of its support. However, the higher cost of oil will lead to a fall in demand, essential in the fight against climate change.
Along with the rise in the cost of fuel, there has been a visible public outburst of rage – fuelled by the media – at the proposed increase in car tax for gas guzzling cars in October.
From the viewpoint of an environmentalist in a low income household, there is an obvious conflict; the climate verses being able to support oneself. This conflict is not helped with the possibility of being labelled a hypocrite by fellow environmentalists.
To fully engage the argument, it is important to note that the world oil price will now forever be high. This is down to peak oil supplies. Added to this, no country has been able to locate a viable ‘giant’ oil field for 30 years. We also have to take into account that although the Government are raking it in from high taxes placed upon fuel, it is not the Government who control the overall oil price. High prices are not limited to just this country. Recently, there have been other protests around Europe, including a rather violent riot in Belgium.
The most important issue that needs to be taken into account to help out the poorer members in society, while at the same time fight climate change, is the supply and demand of oil.
Gordon Brown’s recent reaction to the ‘oil crisis’ reaffirms his defunct commitment to the environment. By not offering viable alternatives to the car, and instead attempting to increase the supply of oil – by pleading with North Sea oil suppliers to increase supply – Brown has shown that any serious attempt to reduce our carbon emissions is not on the present Government’s agenda.
Let us not focus entirely on the Government during this period though. Let us also look at the oil suppliers themselves. At the start of this year, Shell announced a record breaking annual profit of £13.9 billion. The shareholders of these companies – that also include BP and ExxonMobil– must be sweating with excitement at the prospect of an even higher payback and increased yearly bonus at the expense of ordinary people who are struggling to put food on their families’ tables.
Now, we can never expect any oil company to show any form of corporate responsibility, especially when it is not possible to boycott their drug – however, consider the possible implications for the company of a 60 million strong petition being delivered to their next shareholders meeting.
Moving back to the issue of Government policy; protesters have commanded that the Government ease the impact of high oil prices by reducing the tax on fuel. The environmentalist in me is outraged at such an idea; we need to be lowing the demand for oil. However on the other side of my shoulder – the low income stricken angel, dependent upon the main income earner being able to drive, is whispering in my ear that the poorer members of society are being severely hit, including myself.
There are measures I believe can ease this situation. As noted, the world oil price shall conceivably never fall again. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the fuel tax should go down to ease pressure. Instead there should be a commitment from the Government that this money will be used for one of two things.
Firstly, there needs to be a huge rise in the investment into all areas of public transport. This includes: increasing the capacity of trains, making buses, coaches and trains more luxurious to make them more appealing, finally, and most importantly, to subside and lower the cost of using buses and trains. It is ludicrous that it is cheaper to go by car than by train in some circumstances.
It is essential that to reduce the number of cars on the road, and reduce the demand for petrol, there needs to be viable and suitable public alternatives.
Secondly, the money made from the rise in the price of fuel should be used to help subsidise essential travellers. These include manual labourers, such as plumbers and electricians, who need either their van or car for transport and to carry tools and materials. In many cases, these manual workers do not get fuel paid for them by their companies, and the fall in wages in these areas mean that it is increasingly difficult to run their transport and to feed their families.
The recent lorry protest demanded the introduction of an essential duty to lower the cost of fuel for truck drivers. Although I do agree with this duty, I do not agree that it should be given to long distance truck drivers. The reason for this is because I believe it is environmentally more effective to move haulage back onto the rail. However, it is naïve to suggest that this would not have dire consequences, as there will be high unemployment among former truck drivers. If significant investment in retraining programmes were implemented however, then it could be possible to manoeuvre these recently unemployed into the rail haulage network, working on transporting huge amounts of resources around the country on late night trains.
These two measures are not going to lower the cost of oil, however, it could ease and assist members of the public who financially need the most help.
This moves me onto the prospect of increased car taxes for those cars that emit higher emissions. As an environmentalist, I fully endorse a rise in car tax for higher polluting cars. However, coming from a working class background, the current proposals are economically destructive for British families.
Groups including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have commented how these would give green taxes a bad name. This is true. Although it is clear that radical action needs to be taken to halt the rate of climate change, it is also counter-productive for the poorer members of society – those whose apathy needs smashing – to be negatively impacted by these taxes.
Many economic, political and social commentators have suggested that the proposition of the tax being implemented on cars going back to 2001 is going to hit the poorest hardest. For example, it is highly unlikely that an average family would had considered how much carbon a new car would emit back in 2002 when they bought it. However, 6 years later, they will be taxed upwards of a hundred pounds a year extra for a condition that would not even be on the specification of a new car in 2002.
Once again, it would be the poorest who are the most vulnerable, and who will be hit hardest.
At the same time, the taxes should be implemented. We cannot give up on our commitment on the environment. These taxes however should only be placed upon cars that are bought from October 2008 onwards.
The risk is that families looking for new cars will purchase used inefficient cars, but at least at the same time it will put added pressure on car manufacturers to improve efficiency on new cars while not hitting those with low incomes who need their car in order to live the most.
There are therefore steps that can be taken by the Government to help those worse off from the rise in oil prices, while at the same time reaffirm their commitment to fighting climate change. However, whether the current or any future Government would dare be radical enough to implement such changes to move us away from this doomed addiction to oil that we have seems highly unlikely.
