Dear Editor,
So the US has been hit by devastating tornadoes. An event following on from sand-storms in China and flooding in the UK with the IPCC having published it's climate report just a couple of weeks ago. Yes, it is clear that the world is facing a serious climate crisis but we, the public, seem to be happy for our governments to pacify and reassure us with lip-service and token gestures.
One policy option which seems to be glaringly absent from the debate is the path of "taxation and regulation" which, ironically, is normally a main plank for tackling undesirable activities. For example with smoking, alcohol and gambling regulation and aggressive taxation are key tools to tackling the problem.
So why are these policies not also part of the fight against climate change?
Why not ban the advertising of "flippant" air-travel and overpowered cars? Why not put a hefty tax on aviation fuel and on petrol? Why not limit the size and power of private cars and commercial trucks? Or even better "tax-and-subsidize" us out of our cars onto bicycles and public transport. Why not use taxation to increase the price of electricity and gas? And limit air-conditioning, excessive packaging and long-haul trucking. Impose extra taxes on non-local and non-seasonal produce. And restrict imports which carry a large carbon, chemical, pollution or exploitation footprint. It's not rocket-science and, indeed, such tax-and-regulate policies have, in health-policy, been shown to dramatically cut levels of smoking.
Of course we the public would howl with indignation at having our convenience, our self-pampering and our "goodies" taken away but, if we abandon car-dependent suburban living, switch to more localised production and live more modestly, I am convinced that, as excessive consumer-luxury "falls away", we would actually find more satisfaction in our lives. Indeed, my grandparents cycled and took public transport, they had an allotment and only the most basic of household appliances, and mostly only heated one room of their home ... but they certainly weren't unhappy with their lot.
And I am sure that it would not be completely "hair-shirt" living because, as fossil-fuel based consumption were "prised" away from us, human ingenuity would kick in and many conveniences would live on in a modified form (such as, for example, the "wind-up mobile phone"). On top of this, unemployment would be dramatically cut, as people would be needed to pick up the slack (e.g. personal service rather than over-packaging and automation).
For me it is a clear decision: Either "Cut the Pampering" or "Fry the Planet". Unfortunately we seem to have chosen the second option.
Regards
