FAIR ON FUEL,
FAIR ON THE FUTURE
A social, economic and environmental case
for higher fuel taxes
The Green Party of England & Wales
6 November 2000
Written
for The Green Party by Dr Spencer Fitz-Gibbon, with thanks to the following for
their assistance: Alan Francis (Green Party Transport Spokesperson), Dr Ben
Matthews (Green Party Climate Policy Advisor), ffinlo Costain, Prof John
Whitelegg (Eco-Logica environmental consultancy), Dr Lucy Ford, Martin
Hughes-Jones, Dr Richard Lawson, Sarah Green, Dr Tony Grayling (Institute for
Public Policy Research); and also the Department of Applied Economics at the
University of Cambridge, the Environment Agency, the Environmental Transport
Association, Friends of the Earth International, Friends of the Earth UK, the Global
Commons Institute, The Guardian, HM Customs & Excise, the House of
Commons Library, the National Farmers Union, the Road Danger Reduction Forum,
and Transport 2000.
FAIR ON FUEL, FAIR ON THE FUTURE
A social, economic and environmental case for higher fuel taxes
Contents
Introduction:
Some basic steps towards a fairer, more sustainable society
1. Motorists are
subsidised, not disadvantaged
The real costs of road transport
2. Government taxation policy is
failing
Failing to reduce traffic
Failing to cure Britain's vulnerability to oil crises
Failing to tackle climate change
Failing to support poorer people
3. Greener
taxation, benefits for everyone
The immediate term: Benefits to the environment, to local economies AND to
poorer motorists
The medium term: Better transport choices for everyone, better health, higher
quality of life
The longer term: A socially just and ecologically sustainable society
Conclusion:
Genuinely Greener, genuinely richer
Appendix:
Further reading on the hidden costs of road transport
FAIR ON FUEL, FAIR ON THE FUTURE
A social, economic and environmental case for higher fuel taxes
INTRODUCTION
Some
basic steps towards a fairer, more sustainable society
I.1
This report makes a case for restoring the fuel duty escalator, while cutting
vehicle tax and investing heavily in sustainable transport alternatives, as a
preliminary step towards developing a Green tax structure - taxes that are fair
on the less wealthy, fair on people's health, and fair on future generations.
I.2
This report shows that:
- Road use is
currently heavily subsidised, when " external" or hidden costs
are taken into account. Road transport is a net economic burden on the UK of
£11bn-£17bn a year, at a conservative estimate.
- Fuel taxes could
be immediately increased without impacting on poorer people. With increases
in road fuel duty offset by cuts in car tax, a typical motorist could be £30 a
year better off, while encouraged to drive less and use a smaller car.
- Massive
investmentsin traffic reduction could easily be made now - to provide
sustainable alternatives, to cut the massive hidden costs of road transport, to
increase people's transport choices, while helping tackle climate change. This
investment could involve switching even as little as one-quarter of the
government's intended expenditure on roads over the next 10 years. (They're
planning 100 new bypasses and 360 miles of major road widening.) Even a
minimalist Greening of government policy would allow £16bn to be switched to
sustainable alternatives over 10 years, including £1bn for rural public
transport, £1bn for improving disabled people's mobility, and £4bn for cutting
rail fares.
1.
MOTORISTS ARE SUBSIDISED, NOT DISADVANTAGED
The
real costs of road transport
1.1
Official statistics show that between 1987 and 2000, although petrol and oil
prices had increased by 45%, and tax and insurance payments by over 40%, the
total costs of motoring in real terms had risen by only 5.6-7.2%. [1] The same
figures also reveal that bus and coach fares increased by 18%, and rail fares
by 21%, in real terms. Therefore, motoring costs have increased hardly at all
despite the fuel duty escalator - while public transport users have faced
increases 2-4 times those faced by motorists.
1.2
Taking a longer timescale, motorists have been even better off, and public
transport users even worse. George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian
recently: "While average disposable income over the past 25 years has
massively increased, the cost of driving in real terms has remained unchanged.
Bus fares, by contrast, have risen by 87 per cent and train fares by 53 per
cent. Our train journeys are now the most expensive on earth, costing some
three times more per mile than the Spanish or Italians pay. British drivers are
charged more for their fuel than motorists elsewhere, but they don't pay road
tolls. The truth is that Britain's vehicles are massively subsidised by those
of us who don't own one." [2] [3]
The
hidden costs
1.3
Not only has the "real" cost of motoring not increased significantly
in statistical terms; but these statistics don't even reflect what economists
call the "external" costs of road use - chiefly the costs of road
damage, accident and emergency services, health effects of air and noise
pollution, and the economic impacts of climate change.
1.4
The annual costs attributable to road transport include:
Roadbuilding
£6bn [4]
Noise
£2.6bn [5]
Congestion
costs £19.1bn [6]
Road
damage £1.5bn [7]
Accidents
£2.9bn [8]
Health
impacts £11.1bn [9] [10] [11]
TOTAL
£43.2bn [12] [13]
1.5
These are conservative estimates; if the upper estimates are taken, the total
is £50.2bn. The roads bring in £32bn revenue a year. [14] Therefore the roads
are being subsidised to the tune of £11.2bn-£17.2bn a year. Note that some of
the above figures were 1993 calculations, and will require upward revision for
inflation. Moreover, these figures don't include any allowance either for
land-use subsidies to motorists [15], or for transport's contribution to
climate change. The latter could cost the UK billions in the coming decade.
The
cost of climate change
1.6
About 25% of CO2 emissions come from road transport. [16] But road transport's overall contribution to the greenhouse
effect is actually higher than this once we include the emissions frm all the
industrial infrastructure which supports the road industry. For example, we
need to consider emissions from the roadbuilding process, which in turn
includes the quarrying and mining of raw materials, and the manufacture of the
plant involved in the roadbuilding and quarrying and mining. We need to
consider emissions from vehicle manufacture, including from the mining and
transportation of the raw materials. We need to consider the pollution from
that portion of the oil industry which serves all the aforementioned, and so
on. So including indirect pollution, the roads system may account for as much
as 50% of CO2 emissions.
1.7
The economic burden of climate change is extremely difficult to calculate
accurately. Estimates vary from 0.5% of global GDP to 200% of global GDP,
depending on the assumptions underlying the calculations. [17] What can be said
with certainty is that climate change is already having colossal economic
impacts worldwide.
1.8
In England and Wales, climate change has led to an increase of 10% in annual
rainfall, and a greater frequency of extreme weather resulting in flooding.
Some 2m homes and businesses are in flood-prone areas. If each of these
suffered just one flood, the overall cost would exceed £12bn, according to
insurance industry figures. The weather events of late October 2000, which
killed five people, also caused damage in the UK estimated at £1bn. The storms
of early November were even worse. The total value of property, land and other
assets in flood-prone areas, and this threatened, have been estimated at £214
billion. [18]
1.9
Enormous as the recent damage in the UK seems, it's only a tiny part of the
global picture. Aid agencies, predicting a decade of
"super-disasters," have estimated that 96% of the victims of
environmental catastrophe live in developing countries. [19] By 2020, 75% of
the world's population will be at risk from droughts and floods; and in the
next 20 years, the world could see as many as 245 climate-related
disasters.[20] The global cost of environmental disasters has doubled every
decade since the 1960s, and reached £250bn in the 1990s. [21]
1.10
The indirect dangers posed by climate change in the UK and elsewhere include
the threat to nuclear power stations. Scientists have predicted that some of
Britain's key nuclear installations are at risk, including Hinckley Point,
Dungeness, Sizewell and Sellafield. [22] Flood damage to a nuclear installation
could, on its own, have immense economic costs.
1.11
It is neither acceptable that the world should face such threats, nor fair that
some some people should subsidise the damage caused by others, nor reasonable
that the government should fail to facilitate the social change which is
necessary to guarantee sustainability. One of the keys to both sustainability
and fairness is Green taxation.
2.
GOVERNMENT TAXATION POLICY IS FAILING
Failing
to reduce traffic
2.1
Before the 1997 general election, New Labour repeatedly promised traffic
reduction. But in its first Transport White Paper it performed a U-turn. It
accepted that traffic would increase significantly. But in typical New Labour
style, government spindoctors have tried to make more traffic sound like
less traffic by talking about reducing traffic growth as though
this was the same as reducing traffic volume. And the government's new
10-year plan to 2010 acknowledges that even after another £180bn is
spent on transport, there will still have been a 17% increase in
traffic. [23]
2.2
The government has claimed that the fuel duty escalator was part of its
"environmental commitment." However, Tony Blair recently said that
higher fuel taxes are necessary to help pay for hospitals. This would be the opposite
of Green taxation, because it would mean making society financially dependent
on traffic pollution for the costs of healthcare - in fact, a particular irony
in that traffic pollution costs society over £11bn a year in health costs.
2.3
But in fact, the fuel duty escalator has not had the traffic-reduction effects
which might have been hoped for - not least because the government isn't
investing adequately in the alternatives to car use. Studies indicate that a
10% increase in fuel duty only results in a 5% reduction in car use. [24] The
annual number of UK car-miles rose each year despite the introduction of the
escalator, and even despite the much higher increases attributable to oil
prices. In 1990 British motorists drove a total of 253bn miles between them.
Over a decade, this rose by 12% to 284bn. [25]
2.4
While some of this increase may be attributable to the social irresponsibility
of some individuals, a more significant factor is government policy. Firstly,
if the government prioritises roadbuilding over support for public transport,
cycling and walking (as it does), the alternatives to driving are likely to be
inadequate (as they are), and millions of people will feel they have no choice
but to drive. Secondly, if the government fails to educate people about the
social, economic and environmental consequences of excessive pollution,
millions of people will be insufficiently well-informed to see the need to seek
Greener forms of transport. Thirdly, if government policy in general
facilitates a growth in road freight, in air transport and in car use, then it
can hardly escape the responsibility for increases in car-use and other
fuel-intensive means of transportation - and for the dire consequences of
these. That is why government policy must be genuinely Green, not just
rhetorically so.
Failing
to cure Britain's vulnerability to oil crises
2.5 The fuel tax rebellion of autumn
2000 marked the third oil crisis in as many decades. Clearly we are far too
dependent on this finite resource - and certainly a lot less dependent than we
need be, even in the short term. In fact it was ironic that the rise in fuel
prices which led to the rebellion was not mainly due to fuel duty, but to
increases in the price of crude oil imposed by OPEC countries, which have
raised the crude price three-fold. [26]
2.6
As Paul Lannoye MEP, Co-President of the Greens/EFA group in the European
Parliament, said recently: "The petrol crisis that is currently stirring
political unrest through Europe is the result of 20 years of serious negligence
on behalf of the EU Member States. Nothing has been learnt from the petrol
shocks of 1973 and 1979. The EU has paid lip service to a sustainable transport
policy and to the shifting of merchandise transport from road to rail. But
statistics tell another story. Road use for merchandise purposes has gone up
from 50% of the total movements of goods in 1980 to over 85% in 1999. Europe is
just as dependent now as then on OPEC oil but to add to its problems it is now
also a hostage of the mighty haulage lobby." [27]
2.7
Another factor is our dependency on the profit-driven oil corporations which
form a very powerful lobby group, exercising considerable influence on
government policy. In the past 10 years, North Sea oil industry operating
profits have almost doubled from £7.5bn in 1988 to £13bn in 1999 - although in
the same period, government revenues from North Sea oil actually fell from £3bn
to £2.5bn. The last Conservative government cut PRT (Petroleum Revenue Tax)
from 75% to 50% on existing fields, and abolished it altogether for fields
developed after the 1993 budget. New Labour has continued the Conservative
policy. So although oil reserves are legally the property of the crown, the UK
government allows oil companies to have North Sea oil free - and without
even taxing it (other than the standard corporation tax). [28] Meanwhile
Britain remains vulnerable to oil crises - whatever their cause - and the
policies not only of the Labour government, but of the Conservatives and
Liberal Democrats, perpetuate this vulnerability by failing to develop adequate
alternatives.
Failing
to tackle climate change
2.8
The New Labour government is failing to do what is necessary to help stop
climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP), have called for a 60% reduction
in global CO2 emissions by 2050, in order to avert the worst consequences of
climate change. Greens have pointed out that for this to be done in an equitable
manner, those countries which have traditionally caused by far the most
pollution per capita, and which continue to do so, must make cuts of 80-90% or
more, in order to allow for reasonable standards of development in the poorer
countries.
2.9 New Labour has boasted of its part
in achieving an international agreement to cut CO2 emissions. But the Kyoto
agreement was only for a 5.2% cut by 2012 [29] which is utterly
inadequate. The government has adopted its own policy of 20% reductions by 2010
- a target based on political expediency (being better than the Conservative
Party's targets) rather than on what is needed to do the job.
2.10
Even then, the government lacks the policies to meet those targets. The RCEP
has welcomed the government's "step in the right direction," but
expressed "doubts whether the measures at present proposed will achieve
it." [30] The RCEP was also "disappointed at slow progress in
implementing the measures required to curb traffic growth and regret[ted] that
successive governments have not devoted more of the revenues from the fuel duty
escalator to developing alternatives to car use." [31] The Commission
found it necessary to make some 87 policy recommendations, indicating the
extent of the shortcomings in the governments's policy.
2.11
The government is even more behind in its policy on air transport. Aviation is
the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the government's
policy is to facilitate the growth of the industry. The larger airlines get
their fuel for about 17p a litre, and pay no tax on it whatsoever. Air tickets
are 42% cheaper than they were 10 years ago, and air traffic is expected to
almost double during the next 15 years if preventive action isn't taken. [32]
Although, thanks to work by the Greens in the European Parliament (led by South
East England's Green MEP Caroline Lucas), the EU has now accepted that aviation
fuel must be taxed, the UK government has failed to take the necessary vigorous
lead in the international arena. And this from the party which promised to
"put the environment at the heart of government."
2.12
The devastating floods of autumn 2000 - causing damage in the UK estimated at
£2.4bn [33] - should have been a timely reminder of the consequences of
inaction. The effects on poorer countries are going to be far worse. The UK
government must begin serious reform towards the eco-taxation essential to a
sustainable economy, and must act vigorously in the promotion of serious
climate targets at the international level.
Failing
to support less wealthy people
2.13
It is simply not true that Greener taxation and transport policies necessarily
impact on poorer people. The poorest people don't even have cars, but tend to
suffer the adverse effects more sharply than wealthy people. As George Monbiot
wrote recently, "While 59 per cent of households in social class five have
no access to a car, their children are five times as likely to be hit by one as
those in social class one. Road deaths are now lower than ever before, but only
because the streets have been seized from the poor and handed to more
prosperous people. While the children of richer people have gardens or quiet
cul-de-sacs in which to play, the children of the poor must either run among
the traffic or sit at home and watch the telly.... The rich move away from busy
roads, leaving their pollution with those who can't escape. A study this year
by researchers at the University of Colorado suggests that children living
beside the most hectic highways are six times more likely to contract leukaemia
and other childhood cancers than children in quiet places. Diesel engines emit
the two most carcinogenic compounds ever detected. Traffic pollution may also
be responsible for the catastrophic recent growth of Britain's commonest form
of blindness. The poor subsidise the rich with their lives." [34]
3.
GREENER TAXATION, BENEFITS FOR EVERYONE
3.1
The Green Party strives for the twin imperatives of social justice and
ecological sustainability. Therefore our taxation policies - commonly known as eco-taxation
- intend to promote sustainability in the most equitable manner possible.
3.2
This is why the Green Party has been so critical of half-baked policies and
proposals by Labour and Conservative governments and Liberal Democrat
politicians. Anything which falls short of properly addressing climate change
is not Green. Regressive taxation structures are not Green. Transport and fuel
tax structures which impact most heavily on poorer people without even reducing
traffic are definitely not Green.
The
immediate term:
Benefits
to the environment, to local economies AND to poorer motorists
3.3
If Green policies were pursued, poorer motorists could be better off. The Green
Party wants to shift tax liability from ownership onto fuel use, in order to
encourage drivers to use their cars less and to opt for smaller, more
fuel-efficient cars. Similarly the Greens want to support local economies and
the smaller businesses which are vital to communities - to promote local
production and supply for local need wherever practicable - and this would
favour the struggling smaller enterprise, the family farm, the local shop,
rather than the huge corporation. [35] Heavily taxing larger trucks (which have
far higher external costs in terms of road damage and bridge strengthening
requirements), while favouring smaller trucks travelling shorter distances,
would benefit local economies and the smaller enterprises which are struggling
against big business competition shifting cheap goods from abroad. And such
policies would, of course, help reduce pollution.
3.4
A simple immediate step could be as follows:
- Cut car tax by £100 on all cars under 1800cc.
- Abolish car tax completely for cars 1100cc and under.
- Restructure lorry tax, with an average cut of £1000 a year, but with the
benefits of this going to smaller lorries, and much higher taxes on the biggest
lorries.
- This would balance with a 6p/litre increase in fuel tax over the next
financial year (even allowing for a significant reduction in fuel use). This
would leave the average driver of an 1100cc car £30 a year better off [36] and
could significantly reduce traffic. [37]
The
medium term:
Better
transport choices for everyone, better health, higher quality of life
3.5
In the medium term, poorer people would be the chief beneficiaries of Green
transport policies. Public transport would be cheaper and more reliable,
walking and cycling would be safer, pollution and resulting health impacts
would be lower, and residential streets would be less hazardous. Disabled
people, who are usually in lower income brackets, would benefit particularly
from targeted investment to improve their transport choices.
3.6
Poorer people in rural areas, who often have no access to a car and virtually
no option of public transport, would benefit far more from Green policies than
from cheaper petrol. Much has been written recently about the impacts of fuel
duty on rural areas, where there is greater car dependency. But DETR statistics
show that rural motorists don't drive very much longer distances than urban
motorists. Rural households drive, on average, only 600 miles a year further
than the national average. [38] And 17% of rural households don't have cars -
so lower fuel duty wouldn't help them. Clearly rural Britain needs much better
public transport more than it needs lower fuel duty. [39]
3.7
It would be very easy for the government to make a serious start on the
Greening of the UK transport system, in such a way that less wealthy people
would be major beneficiaries. Reclaiming only about one-quarter of projected
roadbuilding cash for sustainable alternatives, over and above existing
government plans for the latter, could pay for the following:
- 10,000 residential streets redesigned as Home Zones (twice as many as
in
the Netherlands). [40]
- Eight times as many bus lanes as we have at present, meaning better
public
transport. [40]
- Comprehensive Safe Routes to School policies for every school and
college
in the UK [40] - which in turn would cut morning rush-hour traffic by
10%.
[41]
- Light rail systems for eight more cities, like those in Greater Manchester
and
Sheffield - which could replace many millions of car journeys every year
and
create 28,000-60,000 extra jobs. [42]
- £4bn to reduce bus and rail fares, to be spent over a 10-year period.
- £1bn specifically for improvements to rural public transport.
- £1bn specifically for improving transport for disabled people.
3.8
This would be a financially modest start which the government could easily
afford without increasing either income tax or business taxes, and without even
cutting roads expenditure to the extent which the Greens would like. Nor would
it tap the £15bn reserve allowed for in the government's 10-year transport
plan.
The
longer term:
A
socially just and ecologically sustainable society
3.9
In the longer term, the aim of Green taxation would be to improve social equity
while facilitating ecological sustainability. [43] Tax liability would be
shifted onto undesirable things like resource-depletion and pollution.
Regressive taxes like VAT would be phased out. [44] [45] A Citizens' Income
scheme would be introduced, and taxation overall would be redistributive of
wealth.
3.10
Eco-taxation could play a major part in abolishing the involuntary unemployment
which is endemic in a consumer-capitalist society. A Cambridge University study
found that an escalatory road fuel tax, with its revenues pumped into job-creation
through reductions in employers' National Insurance payments, could create over
a million jobs over 10 years. This could save the Treasury over £10bn a year in
benefits within 10 years.
CONCLUSION
Genuinely
Greener, genuinely richer
C.1
It took Tony Blair four years to make a major speech about the environment. In
it, he revealed that his understanding of the issue was about 20 years out of
date. But he was right about one thing: that looking after our environment
could make our lives richer. He could perhaps follow this realisation by
understanding that taxation policy can make or break environmental aspirations;
that a Green taxation structure could be the chief economic tool for promoting
sustainability and social justice.
C.2
The Green Party awaits the introduction of such taxes. We are determined to
hasten their adoption. And every voice in support of the Green Party and its
policies, every new member, every vote at any political level, is a step
towards the day when rhetoric makes way for reality; when society will be truly
richer - by being truly Greener.
Find out more about The Green Party:
Media enquiries to media@greenpartynw.fsnet.co.uk
Policy enquiries to activeminds@cwmcom.net
Membership enquiries to ffinlo@greenparty.org.uk
Printed and published by The Green
Party, 1a Waterlow Road, London N19 5NJ. Tel 020 7272 4474. Fax 020 7272 6653.
Website: www.greenparty.org.uk
Appendix:
Further reading on the hidden costs of road transport
Overall
impacts of transport
Maddison,
D., Pearce, D., Johansson, O., Calthrop, E., Litman, T. and Verhoef, E. (1996)
"Blueprint 5: The True Costs of Road Transport", Earthscan:
London.
Pollicino,
M. and Maddison, D. (1998) "Valuing the Impact of Air Pollution on
Lincoln Cathedral", Working Paper (forthcoming), Centre for Social and
Economic Research into the Global Environment (CSERGE), University College
London and University of East Anglia.
Small,
K. and Kazimi, C. (1995) "On the Costs of Air Pollution from Motor
Vehicles", Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, pp7-32.
Eyre,
N., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D. and Steele, P. (1995), "Damage Costs of
Transport Emissions – Geographical and Fuel Dependence", Centre for
Social and Economic Research into the Global Environment (CSERGE), University
College London and University of East Anglia.
Health
effects of air pollution
Department
of Health (1998), Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health
in the United Kingdom, Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution
(COMEAP), HMSO: London.
Jones-Lee,
M. (1985) "The Value of Safety – Results from a National Sample", The
Economic Journal, Vol. 95, pp49-72.
Maddison,
D. (1998a) "Valuing Changes in Life Expectancy in England and Wales
caused by Ambient Concentrations of Particulate Matter", Working Paper
No. 98-06, Centre for Social and Economic Research into the Global Environment
(CSERGE), University College London and University of East Anglia.
Maddison,
D. (1998b) "Valuing the Health Effects of Air Pollution"
(forthcoming book).
Newbery,
D. (1998) "Fair Payment from Road Users: A Review of the Evidence on
Social and Environmental Costs", The Automobile Association:
Basingstoke, Hants.
Office
for National Statistics (1997) "Mortality Statistics General 1993, 1994
and 1995. England and Wales", Series DH1, No. 28, HMSO: London.
Pearce,
D. and Crowards, T. (1995) "Assessing the Health Costs of Particulate
Air Pollution in the UK", Centre for Social and Economic Research into
the Global Environment (CSERGE), University College London and University of
East Anglia.
NOTES
1.
National Statistics data based on the Retail Price Index, cit Bolton et al,
House of Commons Research Paper 00/69, 12.7.00, Road Prices and Taxation.
2.
"The British motorist has never had it so good", Guardian
3.8.00.
3.
The Road Danger Reduction Forum - a local government road safety organisation
whose membership includes 26 local authorities - has written: "The costs
of motoring are the same as they were in the 1970s. They went down in the 1980s
– their rise is simply up to the level it was at some 25 years ago. In that
time average incomes have gone up by 2 to 3 times. In terms of the average
income, motoring has become very much cheaper."
4.
The government's roads programme includes £60bn for roads 2000-2010, including
360 miles of motorway and trunk road widening and 100 new bypasses: DETR News
Release 484, 20 July 2000.
5.
D Maddison et al, The True Costs of Road Transport, Earthscan
Publications Ltd, London 1996, p141.
6.
CBI figures, cit Maddison 1993, ibid.
7.
Maddison 1993, ibid.
8.
Maddison 1993, ibid.
9.
Fair Payment From Road Users? A critical look at the calculations for air
pollution, David Maddison, Centre for Social and Economic Research into the
Global Environment (CSERGE), University College London and University of East
Anglia, for ETA Trust on behalf of: Council for the Protection for Rural England,
Friends of the Earth, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Transport
2000, December 1998.
10.
Note that in February 1998 the AA published a report entitled Fair Payment
from Road Users: A Review of the Evidence on Social and Environmental Costs,
written by Professor David Newbery of the Department of Applied Economics,
University of Cambridge. This revised the figures for health impacts from
Maddison's earlier £19.7bn to as low as £0.6bn a year. Maddison 1998
acknowledges the need for downward revision, but provides a sharp critique of
the flawed assumptions in the AA report.
11.
The Department of Health has published figures showing that up to 24,000 people
die each year in the UK because of air pollution, and 31,000 are admitted to
hospital: COMEAP (the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution),
Department of Health, 1998. Maddison 1998 notes that: "Even on the basis
of quite conservative estimates the residents of England and Wales will in
aggregate lose something in the order of 15.7m years of life unless ambient
concentrations of particulate matter fall significantly from their current
levels. In addition, the air pollution generated by road transport will bring
forward the deaths of at least 10,800 individuals each year. Thus, it is true
to say that at least three times as many people are killed from the effects of
air pollution generated by road traffic as die in road traffic accidents."
12.
The Environmental Transport Agency estimates that external costs including
damage to health, road deaths and casualties, landscape, bio-diversity, noise
and severance of communities, amount to £42bn a year: The Real Costs of
Motoring, ETA 1991 (updated 1996). A study commissioned by the British Lung
Foundation estimates the
damage
caused by driving to UK health, environment and infrastructure costs an annual
£45 billion: cit George Monbiot, Guardian, 3.8.00.
13.
A study of transport in Germany in 1993 calculated hidden costs of about £25
per 1000 passenger/km for car travel - ie every passenger travelling 1000km
passed on costs of £25 to society (1993 prices) - seven times the hidden costs
of rail travel: P Kageson, Federation for Transport & Environment,
Stockholm, Getting the prices right: A European scheme for making transport
pay its true costs, cit T Jenkins & D McLaren, Working Future? -
Jobs and the Environment, Friends of the Earth UK, 1994, p82.
14.
G Monbiot, Guardian, 3.8.00.
15.
George Monbiot wrote recently: "In my neighbourhood, for example, a room
about 3 times the size of a parking space costs £3500 a year to rent. Given
that bricks and mortar account for less than 50% of the cost of the houses, and
that no parking charges are levied, each car receives a free plot of public
land worth some £500 a year. As streets become hostile to human life and even
the pavements become impassable, as tens of thousands of acres on which houses
could have been built are reserved instead for parking, the driver's access to
land is underwritten by everyone in Britain": Guardian, 3.8.00.
16.
Green
Fuel Tax: The Case Against Cuts: Friends of the Earth UK, November 2000.
17.
Global Commons Institute. See "defending the value of life,"
www.gci.org.uk/vol/vol.html.
18.
For fuller details of the weather effects of climate change, see Out of the
Frying Pan, into the Flood: Global Warming and Weather Disruption, Green
Party, November 2000.
19.
World Disasters Report 1999, International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies, cit Environmental News Network, 24.6.99.
20.
Christian Aid's briefing paper and Policy Position Paper on global warming can
be found at: http://www.christian-aid.org.uk .
21.
Munich Reinsurance, cit Paul Brown, The Guardian, 15.5.00.
22.
Dr Edward Hill, Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, cit Martin Bright, Observer,
6.2.00.
23.
DETR figures.
24.
Institute for Fiscal Studies, cit C Denny, "Tax rises fail to cut car
journeys: Policy drivers say levies must be spent on public transport," The
Guardian, 2.9.00.
25.
Ibid.
26.
Transport 2000.
27.
"Present oil-crisis is a result of 20 years negligence of energy policy by
EU Governments", press release from Greens/EFA in the European Parliament,
20.9.00.
28.
Greg Muttitt and James Marriott, "Pump and circumstance: Why the oil
companies stayed silent during the fuel crisis," The Guardian, 4.10.00.
29.
See http://www.financialcrimes.com/pages/story9.htm .
30.
Press release during the launch of its report Energy - The Changing Climate.
See Chapter 5, paragraphs 5.46-5.60 of the latter for the RCEP's assessment.
31.
Ibid. See Chapter 6, paragraphs 6.107-6.128.
32.
Caroline Lucas MEP (Green Party, South East England, rapporteur for the
European Parliament's Transport Committee on the environmental impact of the
aviation industry), speech to the European
Parliament, September 2000: further info from clucas@europarl.eu.int .
33.
The Times 31.10.00; Manchester Evening News, 4.11.00.
34.
G Monbiot, Guardian, ibid.
35.
It's sadly ironic that eg farmers, in supporting fuel protests, are blaming
their problems on fuel taxes. The Green Party is highly sympathetic to the
plight of the agricultural sector, which according to the NFU has lost 22,000
jobs in the last 12 months. The National Farmers Union tells us that the
average farmer will make a loss of around £4000 this year (further info from
www.nfu.org.uk). But in fact it is cheap fuel, and government and EU
policies based on promoting competition, which are undermining British farmers.
It's cheap fuel which allows producers in warmer countries to undercut British
farmers in the British market with produce which has traditionally been grown
in Britain. Green policies of favouring less resource-intensive practices -
including higher fuel prices - would support British food production for
the British market, not hinder it. And studies have shown that government
support for organic production could create tens of thousands of extra jobs:
see Best of Both Worlds: Green policies for job-creation AND sustainability,
North West England Green Party, 1999.
36.
Figures extrapolated from Tony Grayling, Institute of Public Policy Research,
in "More mileage", The Guardian 24.10.00. A 6p/litre increase
in fuel duty would raise about £2.5bn in the year, and the suggested cut in
vehicle tax would cost about £2bn.
37.
Abolishing vehicle excise duty, and increasing fuel duty to compensate for
this, would cut car use by 8% in one year: M Pearson & P Smith, Taxation
and Environmental Policy: Some Initial Evidence, Institute for Fiscal
Studies, 1990, cit Bolton et al, ibid.
38.
Rural households drive on average 10,200 miles a year - 1000 miles a year more
than households in large urban areas, and 2,400 miles more than households in
London: DETR, Focus on personal travel 1998, cit Bolton et al, ibid,
p31.
39.
Households in rural areas make only 4% of journeys by public transport, compared
with 20% in London and 9% in Great Britain as a whole: DETR, ibid.
40.
Extrapolated from figures provided by Transport 2000:
http://www.transport2000.demon.co.uk . Further information from
info@transport2000.demon.co.uk .
41.
Eco-logica environmental consultancy.
42.
See T Jenkins and D McLaren, Working Future? - Jobs and the Environment,
Friends of the Earth UK, 1994.
43.
See the Manifesto for a Sustainable Society, Economics section, for
details of Green Party taxation policy, at www.greenparty.org.uk .
44.
Although VAT is often portrayed as a tax on consumption, it is really a tax on
the spending of money. Sometimes spending money is entirely benign, and
sometimes it has adverse social and/or ecological effects; and it penalises
poorer people, who spend a higher proportion of their income on VAT than
wealthier people when purchasing the same goods. Replacing VAT with genuine
taxes on consumption would both address the regressive taxation problem, and be
conducive to sustainability.
45.
Currently VAT acts to amplify oscillations in the price of oil. People don't
just pay VAT on fuel, but also on the fuel duty they're already paying. Major
price-rises driven by the oil industry can be extremely inconvenient for
individuals and businesses alike. Predictable price-rises (such as from an
escalatory fuel tax) are much easier to plan for or avoid by switching to less
fuel-intensive modes.