One thing we have learnt this week – land value tax

walled gardenThis site supports all sorts of tax reforms, a citizens income, a carbon ration and also a land value tax.  What has the land value tax got to do with the environment?  I’ll come to that but first a brief history of local taxation in the UK.

In the beginning was the rates.  Actually I’m not sure this was the beginning but was certainly the system of local taxation as I knew it.  Property had a rateable value set by local government (notionally based on the property value).  The owner then paid a sum each year.  The money was meant to go towards local services although gradually over my lifetime the amount of money collected locally has declined and now most (about 80%) of money spent by local government comes as a block grant from central governments in the UK.  With austerity this block grant has been cut back hard meaning huge cuts to services.  The rates system seemed to work reasonably well it wasn’t widely popular but there were no major uprisings against it.

Then came Thatcher.  Mrs Thatcher didn’t like local government.  She did everything she could to undermine it.  The Tories didn’t like the rates system at all.  They thought it was paying for local government excess with the wealthier paying more.  The official objection (which I will return to below) was that for a little old lady in the big house who was cash poor it was unfair.  The Adam Smith Institute in Scotland came up with the idea of the “poll tax” a flat rate tax per person not per property.  In other words a millionaire would pay the same a dustman (as it was put at the time).  Scots Tories persuaded Thatcher to introduce it in Scotland a year (1989) before England (1990) (in pre-devolutionary times).  It went down like a bucket of cold cyanide.  The Scots refused to pay.  The English rioted.  (Those are the only major national trait differences in my view).

The whole debacle helped (along with Europe!) bring down Thatcher.  John Major came to power and realised he could not win an election with it in place.  Civil servants who presumably were working off their own bat came up with a fusion of the rates and the poll tax called the council tax.  This was based on the property value with bands A-H but each person resident pays.  There are exceptions and discounts for single people.  In the lower bands (A) the tax is reasonably progressive but at the top end its capped so those in huge mansions pay the same as someone in a smaller expensive house.  With Labour in power the tax went up (higher than inflation) with the Tories back in it was squeezed again (meaning cuts in local services) (the increases set by national government).  Its never been popular but the main problem was governments in the UK (post devolution) have feared revaluing the bands (with the exception of Wales and that was in 2003).  In Scotland the Nats toyed with the idea of a local income tax.  This was a misnomer it was an additional national income tax that would have been collected by Holyrood and then parcelled out by them to local government giving them a stranglehold over local government.  Luckily it was dropped.

Here we stand with no one very happy.  The Department of Economics at Oxford University has had another look at the idea of a Land Value Tax (LVT).  This idea is used in Singapore (Denmark?)  amongst other places.  The idea is that you tax the value of the land, not the property on it.  This pure LVT has been toyed with by some political parties in the UK such as labour in the past (they are thinking about it again).  The main objection to it is that of the little old lady above (remember her) and the fact that would be at a higher rate than the council tax.  However in Denmark where I believe its used you are allowed to defer it until you die then your estate pays it (this has some disadvantages in my view but could be tweaked).  How much you would pay depends on the % of the land value is set at.

The clever people at Oxford have come to a scheme that avoids the “garden tax” middle England Daily Mail headlines.  The tax would have three elements.  An element based on the value of the land, an element based on the % of the land built on and an element based on the eco accreditation of the buildings on it.  The first would encourage developers to stop sitting on land they own waiting the value of it to rise (land banking) and would ease the housing crisis.  A land value tax would also its believed slow down house price rises.  The second element would protect green space within cities and the third would encourage the nations housing stock to become more eco friendly.  The authors make a lot more suggestions to fix the UK’s broken housing market and the whole proposal can be seen here.

Neil

Posted in Lifestyle, One thing we have learnt this week, Practical low carbon living, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Does cycling racing success encourage cycling?

2016-09-14-17-16-48Does cycling racing success encourage cycling in everyday life?  This is the question I’ve been thinking about since Geraint Thomas won the tour.  It seems to be question that not many people are either thinking about or have an answer to since there does not seem to be any information out there on it.  When I say everyday life I mean in crude terms does Geraint’s win make people make the step of cycling to work or the shops?  As opposed to leisure cycling.

I’d like to think it does but I’m not sure.  At least with older people.  I think his win will encourage many children to have a go at competitive cycling.  Most of course will not go onto win the tour or anything like it, but hopefully they will continue to cycle in later life.  I started cycling seriously as a teenager (around town), gave it up when I passed my driving test and then took it up again as a student.  London – no helmet – doesn’t bear thinking about.  So if the Froome’s and Thomas’s and Hoy’s can encourage children to get on their bikes they will be doing us all a favour.

Cycling as a means of transport is on a gently rising curve in the UK but there does not seem to any correlation with our sporting success.  Its more to do with lifestyle/environment/traffic concerns.

Neil

Posted in Cycling, Practical low carbon living, Transport, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week – climate change and mental health

honey bee in oregano 2018Climate change is regarded as a threat to all sorts of things, civilisation itself, wine, beer, skiing….  Now there is said to be a link between climate change and mental health.  So far there has been too little action.  You would have thought the threats to wine and beer would be enough?  Now a group at Berkeley California has found a correlation between rising temperature and suicide.  For a 1ºC rise in temperature suicides in Mexico and the US went up 2.1 and 0.7%.  It has to be said that if you search for climate change and mental health all sorts of links to all sorts of mental conditions come up not just suicide.

Of course correlation is not causation.  There is some evidence to support their assertion from social media with higher temperatures in these places people are more unhappy.  So what’s going on?  I’m happy when its warmer.  I’m sitting in the garden in the sun and its stewing.  However the difference is in the UK heat and a decent summer is an added bonus.  Living somewhere where its already hot to start with and it gets even hotter I can see could drive people to desperation.  Of course its probably not just the heat but that is the final tipping point.  It seems likely that increasingly hot summers could lead to 10,000’s of thousands of deaths worldwide and are another reason to do something about climate change.

Neil
mind

 

Posted in climate change, One thing we have learnt this week | Leave a comment

Renewable energy investment

800px-Shelby_Farms_Solar_Farm_Memphis_TN_2013-02-02_008Somewhere recently I read that renewable energy investment had stalled and according to the latest report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) this is true.  Overall energy investment declined (which is in itself surprising).  By 2% in real terms.  But this energy investment was in “conventional” sources of energy nuclear, coal and hydro.   Renewable energy investment in the from of solar continues to soar.  Offshore wind investment also soared but this was offset by a fall in onshore wind and hydro.  Overall there was a 7% fall in Renewable energy investment.  Nevertheless investment in conventional sources makes up two thirds of all investment still.  (I wonder how long before we call solar conventional?)  There is still an ongoing shift towards cleaner sources of energy though its % has fallen slightly this year with a modest increase in oil and gas spending.

Solar costs are still continuing to fall (by a huge 15%) last year as well.  This bodes well for the future.

There is a huge increase in electric and hybrid car sales and they now make up 1% of all sales globally.  The IEA interestingly give an estimate of their reduction in oil demand.  Its 30,000bpd.  To put this in context oil demand is about 98 million currently.

Heat pump sales have continued to soar although from a low base.  As this blog has covered before several times renewable heat is a problem.  Solar hot collector sales although high in value terms continued a long term decline (why)?

Finally encouragingly investment in energy efficiency continued to grow albeit more slowly than in previous years. Much of this is due to the fitting of LED’s which is very cost effective.  Worryingly energy intensity reductions are slowing though and this is one to watch as we need to cut our energy use sharply in the West so as to allow the developing world more energy use to catch up.

Neil

Posted in energy costs, Renewables, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week – indirect gadget energy use

I’ve been reminded about indirect gadget energy use this week.  I’ve blogged on this before but the article I read was a real eye opener.   Here are some of the claims.

  • Soon data centres will have a bigger carbon footprint than the aviation industry (and that is big).
  • Bitcoin “mining” will use produce more CO2 than 1 million flights.
  • Most astonishing of all.  The use of the internet in Japan by 2030 may use more power than the countries current generating capacity.

There are two trends going on here.  The first is that the devices we actually use are getting more efficient.  The EU has pioneered this.  So my new sophisticated boiler has a standby of 1W, my laptop uses less power than my old one etc.  This however is being outdone by the “internet of things”.  This connectivity which we are just at the start of will increase the “need” for big data.  (I would question whether its desirable to have an internet connected fridge).

Raspberry_Pi_2_Model_B_v1.1_top_new_(bg_cut_out)The second trend is more and more people are getting connected to the internet.  This is great especially in the developing world but it does mean that the internets’ energy use is rising.  Of course this is countered by the trend of more efficient sever centres, with companies putting them in cold places or even trying them underwater.  Plus computer are getting more energy efficient.

Is there a solution to indirect gadget energy use?  I’m not sure there really is.  We can hold the big tech companies to account on where their power is coming from.  But ultimately we need to learn to be less obsessive bout our devices.

Neil

Posted in One thing we have learnt this week, Practical low carbon living, Renewables, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Insect Armageddon

I’ve been thinking about insect armageddon a bit over the last few days.  With one of these rare very hot summers (by that I mean no rain and consistent sunny days) I have been out in the garden a lot.  There has been a lot of talk of insect armageddon over the last year or so.  As more flowers have come out (and due to the very long cold winter many are late) I’ve been examining the insect population.  Or rather lack of it.  Earlier on in the year bumblebees were out on my thistle (below) which they love.

https://www.theoillamp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/cuckoo-bee.jpg

To be fair the plant is past its best but insects there are none.  Another plant they love is the sage.  This year its noticeably had less flowers, but also very few bees visiting.  Another herb they love is oregano.  Bees and hoverflies fight over the small mauve flowers.  This years visitors are almost absent although the flowers have only just come out.  Encouragingly there were two honeybees on the flowers earlier.  Its really rare to see a honeybee at all.  Its not just bees but hoverflies, flies and the irritating midges that live in the vegetable patch and only bite you under your clothes and you don’t notice the bites for 24 hours are also in low numbers.  There are very few social wasps, I have yet to to see any solitary bees or many of the more unusual social wasps or parasitic wasps.  When we went to the highlands in the first week of June there were myriad insects of all sizes and types where we were staying but few elsewhere.  Our car had few insects on its number plate something that has continued since and was noticeable last year.

Another strange thing is that both my neighbours had bumble bee nests along my boundary.  Both have disappeared something I found in the past when I had a nest on my compost heap.  Logically I would expect them to last out the whole summer.

This is all anecdotal but does suggest a drop in numbers.  This has very serious implications for the natural world and for us.  We need these pollinators.  I’m hoping that the strange weather we went straight from winter to summer may have something to do with it and next year numbers will recover.  However I fear its pollution and climate change.

Neil

Posted in bees, Food | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week – new uses for roads

open roadPeople are coming up with new uses for roads apart from for driving.  I heard this week of a researcher in India who is experimenting with using plastic combined with tarmac to build road surfaces.  Whilst this is not a new use per se its a way of tying up carbon and also a use for waste plastic which we know is a huge problem at the moment.  Apparently the waste plastic prevents potholes forming.  A company in Scotland is also trying using plastic as a road surface.

I learnt today of others coming up with new uses for roads.  These include embedding solar PV in them (surely relies on less traffic over time not more).  Growing flowers to encourage bees and even growing crops.  The short film was sold as making toilet paper.  I suppose you would not want to eat food grown in the central reservation, but then I’m not sure I would want to eat honey produced by bees foraging there either.  Bees are very sensitive to pollution so I suppose this is one way of indirectly measuring it.  I’m not absolutely sold on with of these new uses for roads (apart from the use of waste plastic), but keep thinking people.

Neil

Posted in One thing we have learnt this week, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Are scooters a good idea? (as urban transport)?

Electric_Razor_ScooterAre scooters a good idea? (as urban transport)?  There are myriad ideas floating around at the moment about how to solve the urban transport crisis in our cities.  There have been numerous cycle hire schemes with many more being reported on the way and many having fallen by the wayside.  The Guardian sent its reporter out to try another idea from Paris (the Velib scheme being a Parisian one), this time electric scooters.

These are being hired out by yet another American startup company.  There is a plan to pay people to charge them up at night but at the moment the company collects them at the end of each day.

Paris is awash with electric cars, bike hires, buses and of course conventional traffic.  Having cycled in Paris twice.  Twice being two times too many.  I can honestly say I wouldn’t touch one with a bargepole.  The cycling I did there was honestly one of the most dangerous things I have ever done.  These things move at 15mph which I think for me is pretty fast cycling.  I wouldn’t like to be hit by one at this speed or come off one.  At the same time its not quite enough to outpace cars.  They are allowed on the roads.  You’ve got to signal and look over your shoulder etc….

I think this will go the way of the electric car hire scheme in Paris. i.e. bust.  Are scooters a good idea? Take the metro or the RER.  This is not the solution to urban transport pollution; walking useing public transport or cycling on segregated lanes are the solutions.

Neil

Posted in Transport | Leave a comment

One thing we have learnt this week – carbon dividends

C,6Here’s an idea I’ve not heard about before – carbon dividends.  Broadly speaking polls show most Americans do believe in climate change.  There is also clearly some concern amongst Republicans about Trump pulling out of Paris.  They are both losing support of younger voters and if climate change is real then there could be a real crisis.  Looking at the migration crisis it could be argued that its roots lie in climate change.  Even if it doesn’t at present look forward to a possible climate future and it looks frightening,  Added to this there is still concern about energy security.  There must be some worries amongst more thoughtful Republicans that oil, gas coal and uranium are finite.

Carbon dividends combine the ideas of a carbon tax and a citizens income.  Readers of this blog will know I am a huge supporter of this latter idea.  The current social security model is broken in a world of part time insecure work (of which I am a part).  The problem has been how to fund it.  Could James Baker and George Shultz have found the solution to this conundrum and how to sell a carbon tax?

The carbon tax has been promoted by James Hansen.  He talks of a tax on all carbon and vaguely of tax cuts in return.  The problem is that of selling the idea.  I’ve always preferred up until now a carbon ration but recognise both are a hard sell.

The Carbon dividend idea is simple.  All business who pollute have to buy a fee.  The money is collected and paid as a “share dividend” to all households.  Imported goods and fuels are taxed to allow no home disadvantage.

The advantages are income would rise at least in the medium term.

Its simple in theory and allows markets to operate most efficiently.  It does not promote any particular solution but would allow companies to choose the most effective one to reduce emissions and avoids regulation.

The idea is a citizens income in all but name (the alternative would be to build a sovereign wealth fund).  However there do seem to be certainly some questions if not disadvantages.  In time the income should fall even if just for peak oil reasons.  Second who administrates it all?  The idea is to get the government of your back but it sounds like it needs to involve the government and the tax system (in fact they do suggest this).

Its certainly an interesting idea whether its sellable anyway least of all the US at the moment remains to be seen.

Neil

Posted in climate change, One thing we have learnt this week, Peak oil | Leave a comment

Ocean energy versus the other

thThe head of Scottish Power has said today that the government should drop all support foe wave and tidal energy since wind and solar are getting so cheap.  Is this a case of ocean energy versus the other?  This in a week after the UK government dropped its support for the Swansea bay tidal bay scheme and as solar UK output briefly overtakes gas to become number one electricity producer last Saturday.

Up until recently I would have agreed with them but thinking it through has given me pause for thought.  One thing is off-shore wind.  This was the most expensive mainstream renewable energy until very recently.  But costs have plunged soon it will not require any subsidy.  This is because it has been given consistent support and the economies of scale and the learning curve will apply.  I have to agree with the government on the tidal lagoon that learning curves would not occur like nuclear each scheme would be effectively bespoke, but I think the benefits of it outwayed this.  There is no doubt that if wave and tidal were given consistent support costs would plunge in the same way.

Whilst wave is the same as wind for intermittency and tends to match wind output tidal is predictable and with geographic spread would do reliable base load. In addition we are electrifying the economy and will need everything we can muster.  There is only so much you can pack on to land.  Ocean energy versus the other, there should be no either or.

Neil

Posted in ocean energy, offshore wind, Renewables | Leave a comment