For pete's sake - peat tax

Governments have a duty to pretend to want to lower people's carbon footprint. However they don't really want us to.

If we all lower our carbon footprint, say for example by growing 50% of our own food, or sourcing it from within a 10 mile radius of home, then we get lots of lorries off the roads which lowers our carbon footprint. But those lorries are using fuel, and fuel duty+VAT+road tax = a lot of revenue. Less lorries means less drivers earning a living, so less income tax being paid, and higher unemployment, which crucially means that the party in power that does this carbon footprint reduction is less likely to get re-elected.

 

In witch case they should tax fruit and veg seeds, this way people will be more likely to be put off buying grow your own food seeds and more likely to buy supermarket stuff, therefore increasing profit and tax.

 

Don't forget all those also employed by the shops selling food that could be grown at home, those constructing more & more stores, the garages selling fuel/servicing cars to go & buy the stuff, the home shoppers & delivery drivers, etc., etc.

Too much of our economy is based on shopping.

 

True, but that would be far too controversial, so they'd lose too many votes. Now if some recognised authority was to say that it is environmentally damaging to produce seeds, then that would be a different matter.

 

I tend to think that growing your own, however widespread it was to become, could not seriously affect supermarkets and all that goes along with them.
Dont see many houses being built with anything bigger than a postage stamp for a garden these days, in fact most are just modern versions of 1960s flats, sorry we call the apartments now, at least in the 60s they were also building proper houses along with the flats, unlike now.

 

So what you are saying is that it's better to tax everyone (peat users), rather than a section of users (fruit and veg growers)?

Kinda makes sense in a way, this way "everyone is equal" as they say. Still I find it an unfair tax.

 

I don't think peat users should be taxed for using peat. Furthermore I think most taxes are unfair. I appreciate that we need some taxes, so that we can have the things that we collectively need, like roads and hospitals and things, but many taxes are unfair, and a tax on peat would be another unfair tax.

My point was simply in response to a comment about government driven carbon footprint reduction, that governments are simply not interested in anything other than staying in power and continuing to get their salaries. They have to be seen to be eco, because that is essential if they are to have a hope of getting re-elected, given that many people nowadays have eco values, but at the same time they can't actually really make any major changes, because if they do then they upset enough people to get booted out.

 

I agree it should not be taxed just for the psudo reason of conserving the wetlands. If the tax went straight back into that then I would agree.

I have to pay an "eco tax" when I buy single glazing, regardless of whether the glazing is internal or external:DOH:

Should we not be considering how to manufacture artificial peat ?

After all, in it raw state, its not much use for growing seedlings, it needs added fertilizers and something to balance the ph, unless you're growing rhodedendrons.

On Gardeners Question time today, they had an outing to a council green waste processing depot. Anne Swithinbuildingsociety said most of the waste was woody conifer cuttings, idea for anaerobic decomposition.

Should the depots be geared up for peat production instead. Lets face it, they're not producing anything else more usefull than a soil conditioner.

 

at Anne Swithenbuildingsociety (courtesy of Ziggy), that really got me laughing!

I only heard about the proposed tax on peat from this thread and then I saw something about it somewhere else - it might have been in an RSPB newsletter or on the BBC website. Wherever, I agree that it has been very low key campaign. I disagree totally with a tax on peat and don't think it will deter anyone who wants to continue using it, just annoy them intensely.

 

I've heard of building societies turning into banks.

But not banks turning into building societies, must be a new trend.

 

She got bailed out

I have been making Peat, Pete. Will let you know how it turns out and will send some to Kristen, not for analyisis, just for a laugh.:D

 

Peat bogs are a source of CO2 emissions, and by disturbing peat beds we disrupt the eco-systems and habitats of wildlife, much of it rare and vulnerable. This could be said of other agricultural practises, but the levels of carbon released on excavating peat are especially high, exceeding those of coal, and virtually doubling those of natural gasses. In Finland, peat contributes as much to greenhouse gas emissions as all the cars on the road - in the UK as much as 300,000 cars.

The government have made no commitment to a peat tax and lack any clear environmental vision, other than threatening to go on polluting and concreting over areas of green belt. A moderate tax on peat, however, though never possible with this government, would in my view be preferable to a further hike in income tax or National Insurance, or the relentless VAT rises which price many of us out of basic daily goods.

I never use peat, and there are many alternatives, as a simple Google search will indicate. Admittedly, some are not perfect, but as with many things, we have to start somewhere, and transferring our attention to alternatives can pay dividends. It is easy to stay stuck in the narrowness of maintaining time-honoured habits when new directions seem more daunting.

 

Such a "tax" might go towards funding research into alternatives and how best to develop them. As I said before, I too oppose the reckless hikes in ordinary tax and VAT, and would prefer more equitable rates. I support almost anything which may result in reduced use of peat, mainly because of the damage done to the habitats of other animals. However, if this were tried and found to have no, or contrary, effects, then I would be the first to agree it was time to go back to the drawing board.