The Collins New Naturalists are a British institution. Not only are they a particularly fine series of reference books on British wildlife and natural history, the series has become even better known as highly collectible. There is no question that the volumes contained within the series remain among the finest books available on the topics they cover, and even those that are out of date, still remain useful as historical documents. Some of the volumes have been completely rewritten and revised, but even in these cases, the original, long out of date volume, still remains useful.
But as collectors items, the series epitomises the stupidity of collectors, who collect for collecting's sake. The fanatical collector of new Naturalists must have the first printing of the first edition, complete with mint dust wrapper. And of course, this often means that the first printing of a first edition had minor printing errors, that were later corrected. And in many cases dust jackets were what they claimed to be: Covers to keep the book clean, before sale. In the case of the Collins NNs, however, the dust wrappers were beautifully designed, and deservedly became collectors items in their own right. However, because of the collectors' market, dust wrappers became valued beyond any real intrinsic worth, and of course are very easy indeed, with modern high quality photocopying facilities, to fake.
If ever you come across a New Naturalist collector (and many of them are genuinely interested in natural history as well, they will, like so many collectors tell you how much this and that is worth, and how their prized possessions are increasing in value. The reality is rather different. If you were to compare the price of many of the books with their original value when sold, they have declined. A book costing 30s in the 1940s, when a week's wage could be under £5.00, may still only fetch £20-£30 . And a quick search of the internet will show that many of the so-called rarer volumes can still be picked up for relatively modest sums. And of course, for the real naturalist, there is the advantage, that reprints and ex-library copies, usually under a fiver, abound. Allegedly, one of the rarest was a monograph on Ants, published in the 1950s, and apparently withdrawn from sale soon after publication. But if this was the case, there are still a remarkable number of even this, which should be the rarest of the rare, floating around.
I cannot take too seriously the collectors market, but it is gratifying in one way -- it means that HarperCollins have got a guaranteed market for new volumes, on almost any subject they like to publish, however specialised.
Sunday, 31 August 2008
Friday, 22 August 2008
The World Land Trust builds on success
By June this year, the WLT had already raised over £1 ($2) million in the UK alone, and is all set to at least double its 2007 income. And this is good news, as the increase in income is not matched by an increase in fundraising expenditure. This means that even more of the income goes to projects, and in particular buying land.
The downside is that land prices are escalating almost everywhere. As the world's population increases day by day, and there is a demand for more and more food, even marginal lands are being gobbled up. The WLT recognises that land often has even more important values -- water catchment, for one -- and that we must not allow short-term profits erode the world's natural heritage.
That's why the world Land Trust's approach to saving land has been so important. In the 20 years since we were founded (initially to support Programme for Belize) we have seen more and more organisations follow us. When we started, hardly any NGOs were funding land purchase internationally. Now its a veritable bandwagon, on which everyone wants to ride. And that has to be a good thing. But as as our partners know, there are significant differences in the way we operate, and we believe that the long term success of our projects is largely due to the strength of our partners. Fundacion Patagonia Natural, REGUA, Fundacion Jocotoco, Philippines Reef and Rainforest, Ecominga, Guyra Paraguay, and the Wildlife Trust of India are just a few of our project partners. But our partners are not just a group we give money to. We have long-lasting well-developed working relationships with them. I have just spent a 5 week sabbatical in Paraguay, and for the next three months a member of the Guyra Paraguay team will be working in the WLT Office, to ensure that we work closely together for the long-term success of conservation in Paraguay.
But all this needs funding, land is disappearing under the axe and the plough. So please make a regular commitment to the WLT The price of a bottle of wine a month is enough to save the area of a small vineyard every year!
The downside is that land prices are escalating almost everywhere. As the world's population increases day by day, and there is a demand for more and more food, even marginal lands are being gobbled up. The WLT recognises that land often has even more important values -- water catchment, for one -- and that we must not allow short-term profits erode the world's natural heritage.
That's why the world Land Trust's approach to saving land has been so important. In the 20 years since we were founded (initially to support Programme for Belize) we have seen more and more organisations follow us. When we started, hardly any NGOs were funding land purchase internationally. Now its a veritable bandwagon, on which everyone wants to ride. And that has to be a good thing. But as as our partners know, there are significant differences in the way we operate, and we believe that the long term success of our projects is largely due to the strength of our partners. Fundacion Patagonia Natural, REGUA, Fundacion Jocotoco, Philippines Reef and Rainforest, Ecominga, Guyra Paraguay, and the Wildlife Trust of India are just a few of our project partners. But our partners are not just a group we give money to. We have long-lasting well-developed working relationships with them. I have just spent a 5 week sabbatical in Paraguay, and for the next three months a member of the Guyra Paraguay team will be working in the WLT Office, to ensure that we work closely together for the long-term success of conservation in Paraguay.
But all this needs funding, land is disappearing under the axe and the plough. So please make a regular commitment to the WLT The price of a bottle of wine a month is enough to save the area of a small vineyard every year!
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
chiffchaffs and Spaniards
Biologists are currently going through a phase of species 'splitting'. That is to say that what were once considered variable, widespread species are now being split into two or more species. Little green warblers in Europe, lots of marmosets and monkeys in South America and numerous other species all over the world are suddenly being created. But some of the differences are so small that I wonder if these splits are justified. If an Iberian Chiffchaff has a slight difference in song, and some very minor plumage differences to those found in England does it really make it a different species? After all Spaniards sound different to Englishmen, sing different songs, and on average look darker. But they are certainly not a different species. They can (and often do) interbreed with English women. And so, I suspect, could the Iberian Chiffchaffs, interbreed with English ones, given a chance. Just like their human counterparts, language differences may make it difficult, but not impossible
In terms of taxonomy, it makes relatively little difference whether or not they are considered geographical races (subspecies) or allopatric species. It does however, have a conservation benefit, in as much as it can highlight declines more accurately, and it probably has increased the number of endangered species being identified. But is this a good thing? Or is it misleading? Answers please......
In terms of taxonomy, it makes relatively little difference whether or not they are considered geographical races (subspecies) or allopatric species. It does however, have a conservation benefit, in as much as it can highlight declines more accurately, and it probably has increased the number of endangered species being identified. But is this a good thing? Or is it misleading? Answers please......
Monday, 28 July 2008
Fuel and food myths
There is a panic in the press about rising fuel prices and rising food prices. This is misleading the public, because the reality is that for the past 40 years we have been living in a blip in history. We are now getting back to normality.
Historically, the basic necessities of life have consumed most of an average family's income. For hundreds of years, most of the income a family generated went on feeding, clothing and housing. But for the past 40 years, in Britain and Europe, all these commodities have been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper. But this reduction in cost was based on unsustainable premises.
I could argue that a lot of the western economy, based as it is on extreme capitalism, is under threat. Crocodile tears have been shed at the collapse, or near collapse, of financial institutions, but why should we care? What do they really contribute? When capitalism is taken to the extremes of globalisation, there are huge numbers of people making money out of doing absolutely nothing productive -- simply shifting money around (but of course somewhere, someone is almost certainly being exploited, as any old fashioned socialist can explain to you). I can't get too upset about this, except it does have a major impact on wildlife. It leads to ever more rapacious attacks on natural resources. Agriculture expands, to provide more and more, cheaper and cheaper food, for our wasteful societies. I recall a recent statistic that stated around 40% of food in the UK was wasted. No wonder the rainforests are being cut for soya plantations.
What's the answer? Forget switching off the TV, we need to be far less wasteful in many other really big ways. Forget the idea of constant economic growth. Forget the idea that everything should be as cheap as possible, and thrown away in a few months. And bring population growth to the top of the political agenda. More and more people are going to put more and more pressure on resources; resources such as healthcare and transport.
I will repeat myself (and continue to do so whenever possible): Governments are using climate change and all environmental issues to obfuscate the real issue, and that is human population growth. And they are also ignoring the fact that any increase in population in a developed country, has significantly more environmental impacts than in a very poor country.
Historically, the basic necessities of life have consumed most of an average family's income. For hundreds of years, most of the income a family generated went on feeding, clothing and housing. But for the past 40 years, in Britain and Europe, all these commodities have been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper. But this reduction in cost was based on unsustainable premises.
I could argue that a lot of the western economy, based as it is on extreme capitalism, is under threat. Crocodile tears have been shed at the collapse, or near collapse, of financial institutions, but why should we care? What do they really contribute? When capitalism is taken to the extremes of globalisation, there are huge numbers of people making money out of doing absolutely nothing productive -- simply shifting money around (but of course somewhere, someone is almost certainly being exploited, as any old fashioned socialist can explain to you). I can't get too upset about this, except it does have a major impact on wildlife. It leads to ever more rapacious attacks on natural resources. Agriculture expands, to provide more and more, cheaper and cheaper food, for our wasteful societies. I recall a recent statistic that stated around 40% of food in the UK was wasted. No wonder the rainforests are being cut for soya plantations.
What's the answer? Forget switching off the TV, we need to be far less wasteful in many other really big ways. Forget the idea of constant economic growth. Forget the idea that everything should be as cheap as possible, and thrown away in a few months. And bring population growth to the top of the political agenda. More and more people are going to put more and more pressure on resources; resources such as healthcare and transport.
I will repeat myself (and continue to do so whenever possible): Governments are using climate change and all environmental issues to obfuscate the real issue, and that is human population growth. And they are also ignoring the fact that any increase in population in a developed country, has significantly more environmental impacts than in a very poor country.
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Should we call for an end to aid in Africa?
I have written about the problems of foreign aid on many occasions, and am going to develop the theme I first put forward on 28/06/07. Does aid wipe out poverty? Thinking about it, raised another question in my mind. Does aid actually encourage poverty? I don't know the answer, and would welcome feedback, particularly from the agencies which promote it. But surely if aid agencies pump in millions of dollars worth of aid into a country, they are really taking away the responsibility for carrying out those vital humanitarian actions from the government of the country concerned. Many of the recipient countries have significant natural resources
Take Uganda, for example -- a country universally accepted as being fairly corrupt. In the most recent budget I could find (2007-2008) income of $3000 million was projected, of which 10.2 million was to be spent on anti-corruption -- an indictment in itself. But $19 million was spent import of arms -- the most recent figures according to:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ug-uganda/mil-military
According to this latter website Uganda spends 2.2% of GDP on military, but only 1.9%on health. Could it be that pumping foreign charitable aid into a country on a longterm basis is actually a cause of ongoing poverty? It certainly does not seem to be solving the problem. Finding out how much aid the NGOs etc were pumping into Uganda proved beyond my resources.
And is charitable aid, just another form of colonialism? Again, I don't know. But I I know huge quantities of western-manufactured medicines and equipment are purchased, and I see images of relief operations unloading vast packages of plastic bottles containing water. I do wonder if the bottled water industry is benefitting more than the aid recipients, and I am certain the pharmaceutical companies are profitting. Surely a lot of aid is simply encouraging the sort of consumerism that dominates our own societies? It certainly is not encouraging 'sustainable development' (what ever that is, if it's not an oxymoron).
There are other even more difficult questions that need to be answered: for instance, is it morally right to prevent the traditional forms of population limitation, to increase survival rates, but without introducing alternative forms of population control? I think it was Spike Milligan who once said that every loaf of bread sent to Africa should be inside a condom... or words to that effect.
These sorts of issues are swept under the carpet by aid agencies and politicians alike. But I think it is high time they were addressed. The quality of life is certainly not improving for the majority of Africans, and in the 40 years I have been taking an interest in it, the negative impacts on the natural environment and wildlife have spiralled out of control. And while putting more and more (often marginal)land under intensive agriculture may well make aid agencies feel happy, and will almost certainly line the pockets of agri-business, but is unlikely to help the starving of Africa. Anymore than increasing the out-of-control goat population of the continent will benefit the people living in marginal habitats.
It does seem that countries in South America and Asia, once just as poverty stricken as much of Africa, have fared much better. Why?
I wrote most of the above several weeks ago, and now I am on a sabbatical in Paraguay where I happened to watch a spokesperson for Oxfam on the BBC World News, justifying their activities in Africa. The problem was that nothing she said gave me any confidence that the aid agencies had thought through their activities properly. It was still full of the hyperbole of 'wiping out poverty' and worse too, almost everything the aid agencies say smacks of social Darwinism. That there is "progress" towards a "better" , more "advanced" society. As any biologist knows, that is not what evolution is about, though Soapy Sam Wilberforce tried to portray it as such. Organisms evolve to be fitter for their environment. They do not progress to a higher plane -- that was/is an anthropocentric view, based on the premise that there was/is God, them humans, then the rest of creation. Aid agencies are very little different to 19th century Christian missionaries. Convinced they know better, convinced that theirs is a better way of life. And what does long term aid actually achieve? One thing I do know it achieves: absolution of the governments concerned of their responsibilities -- those government invariably have the resources needed; they just choose to use them on lavish lifestyles, grandiose western-inspired 'development' schemes, or worst of all, armaments.
Finally, I would add that I am not discussing emergency aid, in the wake of disasters -- that, as recent events in Burma, China and elsewhere have demonstrated is an entirely separate issue.
And I am not coming to any conclusions, yet. But the more I see of the world, the more I doubt that most long-term international humanitarian aid has significant long-term benefits other than to the donors, and the economies of the donor countries. Clearly a controversial view, and one I would be happy to modify, should evidence present itself. Just as if aid agencies were to carry out environmental impact assessments before carrying out projects that impact the natural environment, I would have more respect for them. But at present I am more of the opinion that the majority modern the foreign aid programmes carried out by NGOs are far too similar to nineteenth century missionaries in both outlook and objectives. Of course this is a personal view, but I wonder how many people think this, even if they don't admit it? The world has become so politically correct, that it is often considered wrong to even question the staus quo.
Facts and figures contradicting some of my assertions would be welcome. Opinions are easy to find, but facts much more difficult.
Take Uganda, for example -- a country universally accepted as being fairly corrupt. In the most recent budget I could find (2007-2008) income of $3000 million was projected, of which 10.2 million was to be spent on anti-corruption -- an indictment in itself. But $19 million was spent import of arms -- the most recent figures according to:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ug-uganda/mil-military
According to this latter website Uganda spends 2.2% of GDP on military, but only 1.9%on health. Could it be that pumping foreign charitable aid into a country on a longterm basis is actually a cause of ongoing poverty? It certainly does not seem to be solving the problem. Finding out how much aid the NGOs etc were pumping into Uganda proved beyond my resources.
And is charitable aid, just another form of colonialism? Again, I don't know. But I I know huge quantities of western-manufactured medicines and equipment are purchased, and I see images of relief operations unloading vast packages of plastic bottles containing water. I do wonder if the bottled water industry is benefitting more than the aid recipients, and I am certain the pharmaceutical companies are profitting. Surely a lot of aid is simply encouraging the sort of consumerism that dominates our own societies? It certainly is not encouraging 'sustainable development' (what ever that is, if it's not an oxymoron).
There are other even more difficult questions that need to be answered: for instance, is it morally right to prevent the traditional forms of population limitation, to increase survival rates, but without introducing alternative forms of population control? I think it was Spike Milligan who once said that every loaf of bread sent to Africa should be inside a condom... or words to that effect.
These sorts of issues are swept under the carpet by aid agencies and politicians alike. But I think it is high time they were addressed. The quality of life is certainly not improving for the majority of Africans, and in the 40 years I have been taking an interest in it, the negative impacts on the natural environment and wildlife have spiralled out of control. And while putting more and more (often marginal)land under intensive agriculture may well make aid agencies feel happy, and will almost certainly line the pockets of agri-business, but is unlikely to help the starving of Africa. Anymore than increasing the out-of-control goat population of the continent will benefit the people living in marginal habitats.
It does seem that countries in South America and Asia, once just as poverty stricken as much of Africa, have fared much better. Why?
I wrote most of the above several weeks ago, and now I am on a sabbatical in Paraguay where I happened to watch a spokesperson for Oxfam on the BBC World News, justifying their activities in Africa. The problem was that nothing she said gave me any confidence that the aid agencies had thought through their activities properly. It was still full of the hyperbole of 'wiping out poverty' and worse too, almost everything the aid agencies say smacks of social Darwinism. That there is "progress" towards a "better" , more "advanced" society. As any biologist knows, that is not what evolution is about, though Soapy Sam Wilberforce tried to portray it as such. Organisms evolve to be fitter for their environment. They do not progress to a higher plane -- that was/is an anthropocentric view, based on the premise that there was/is God, them humans, then the rest of creation. Aid agencies are very little different to 19th century Christian missionaries. Convinced they know better, convinced that theirs is a better way of life. And what does long term aid actually achieve? One thing I do know it achieves: absolution of the governments concerned of their responsibilities -- those government invariably have the resources needed; they just choose to use them on lavish lifestyles, grandiose western-inspired 'development' schemes, or worst of all, armaments.
Finally, I would add that I am not discussing emergency aid, in the wake of disasters -- that, as recent events in Burma, China and elsewhere have demonstrated is an entirely separate issue.
And I am not coming to any conclusions, yet. But the more I see of the world, the more I doubt that most long-term international humanitarian aid has significant long-term benefits other than to the donors, and the economies of the donor countries. Clearly a controversial view, and one I would be happy to modify, should evidence present itself. Just as if aid agencies were to carry out environmental impact assessments before carrying out projects that impact the natural environment, I would have more respect for them. But at present I am more of the opinion that the majority modern the foreign aid programmes carried out by NGOs are far too similar to nineteenth century missionaries in both outlook and objectives. Of course this is a personal view, but I wonder how many people think this, even if they don't admit it? The world has become so politically correct, that it is often considered wrong to even question the staus quo.
Facts and figures contradicting some of my assertions would be welcome. Opinions are easy to find, but facts much more difficult.
Monday, 30 June 2008
Who is certifying the certifiers?
Guest blog by the World Land Trust's Special Projects Consultant, Mark Gruin
A recent article on the BBC News website (Carbon standard 'to renew trust') described a new Carbon Standard certification scheme launched by the Carbon Trust. While interesting, and arguably newsworthy, this news is more than a little frustrating and disconcerting. I have a basic mistrust of certification schemes, especially ones like this that make sweeping statements like this one that smear with a very broad brush, "...the new benchmark was in response to the public's growing mistrust of companies' claims to be cutting their greenhouse gas emissions."
The underlying motivation could be seen as noble, if it was not so limiting and frankly, blatantly self-serving. This new scheme specifically eliminates from ranking consideration companies that use a 'third party' to offset emissions on their behalf, in a supposed attempt to claim that only on in-house measures to reduce a company's emissions are worth certifying. (In the interest of full disclosure -- World Land Trust (WLT) does provide 'third party' offsets to businesses, but only if the company agrees to also pursue in-house emissions reduction programmes. www.carbonbalanced.org)
Mind you, making the effort to reduce emissions and putting in place systems to measure and account for the emissions reduction efforts is certainly a good thing. But why eliminate from consideration other sound and proven approaches? And, by not considering for this scheme companies that use a 'third party' - like WLT - to offset emissions on their behalf Carbon Trust could be seen to be aiming sideways criticism at not only those companies who do, but the providers as well.
What gnaws at me most is that the 'certifiers' often introduce schemes like this to try and scramble their way back into the picture. The field of emissions offsetting is maturing rapidly, is eminently verifiable, and recognised and both scientifically sound and beneficial. Furthermore, and this is always the icing on the cake, when the 'certifiers' start charging exorbitant prices just for the privilege of being certified that's where, in my mind, they really cross the line. It's bad enough that a small company, with annual energy expenditure of less than £50k, would need to spend £1,000 to submit an assessment form to be considered for certification; why would they have to, or want to pay an additional £700 to have Carbon Trust 'assist' them in completing the certification materials, then be evaluated by that same Carbon Trust to see if they met the standards? To be fully legitimate and transparent, certification should be prepared and submitted independent from the evaluator and grantor of the certification. How much faith in the standard is generated if the certifier is assisting in the preparation of the application, and is being paid to do so? That money could be much better spent applied to initiatives that prevent even more CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.
Eliminating from consideration for this 'Standard' companies that pursue dedicated in-house programmes to reduce their emissions and choose to offset their emissions with legitimate initiatives that provide credits for reforestation, assisted natural regeneration and avoided deforestation is at best counter-productive. Take for example Nikwax, one of WLT's carbon balanced companies: they do a stringent internal carbon reduction assessment and action plan, they offset their calculated current emissions with WLT, and they match that offset in order to offset what they've emitted 10 years back. Isn't this not only a sound approach, but one that seeks to mitigate the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions by any legitimate means possible? Why should they be discounted from consideration, and not be properly recognised for their efforts and their leadership? Even worse, why remove the motivation to not only reduce but mitigate?
Certainly, businesses and consumers want to know that claims about emissions offsetting are valid. But they are not stupid, and should not be patronised or mislead by yet another supposedly authoritative certification standard. The information is out there, the public and the media are watching closely, and they are making their own informed decisions. (See Which? Magazine's April 2008 issue, highlighted on WLT's website.)
Maybe we should be asking who is certifying the certifiers, but we would rather spend our energy getting on with the hard work of providing legitimate and verifiable offsets that also benefit biodiversity conservation.
A recent article on the BBC News website (Carbon standard 'to renew trust') described a new Carbon Standard certification scheme launched by the Carbon Trust. While interesting, and arguably newsworthy, this news is more than a little frustrating and disconcerting. I have a basic mistrust of certification schemes, especially ones like this that make sweeping statements like this one that smear with a very broad brush, "...the new benchmark was in response to the public's growing mistrust of companies' claims to be cutting their greenhouse gas emissions."
The underlying motivation could be seen as noble, if it was not so limiting and frankly, blatantly self-serving. This new scheme specifically eliminates from ranking consideration companies that use a 'third party' to offset emissions on their behalf, in a supposed attempt to claim that only on in-house measures to reduce a company's emissions are worth certifying. (In the interest of full disclosure -- World Land Trust (WLT) does provide 'third party' offsets to businesses, but only if the company agrees to also pursue in-house emissions reduction programmes. www.carbonbalanced.org)
Mind you, making the effort to reduce emissions and putting in place systems to measure and account for the emissions reduction efforts is certainly a good thing. But why eliminate from consideration other sound and proven approaches? And, by not considering for this scheme companies that use a 'third party' - like WLT - to offset emissions on their behalf Carbon Trust could be seen to be aiming sideways criticism at not only those companies who do, but the providers as well.
What gnaws at me most is that the 'certifiers' often introduce schemes like this to try and scramble their way back into the picture. The field of emissions offsetting is maturing rapidly, is eminently verifiable, and recognised and both scientifically sound and beneficial. Furthermore, and this is always the icing on the cake, when the 'certifiers' start charging exorbitant prices just for the privilege of being certified that's where, in my mind, they really cross the line. It's bad enough that a small company, with annual energy expenditure of less than £50k, would need to spend £1,000 to submit an assessment form to be considered for certification; why would they have to, or want to pay an additional £700 to have Carbon Trust 'assist' them in completing the certification materials, then be evaluated by that same Carbon Trust to see if they met the standards? To be fully legitimate and transparent, certification should be prepared and submitted independent from the evaluator and grantor of the certification. How much faith in the standard is generated if the certifier is assisting in the preparation of the application, and is being paid to do so? That money could be much better spent applied to initiatives that prevent even more CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.
Eliminating from consideration for this 'Standard' companies that pursue dedicated in-house programmes to reduce their emissions and choose to offset their emissions with legitimate initiatives that provide credits for reforestation, assisted natural regeneration and avoided deforestation is at best counter-productive. Take for example Nikwax, one of WLT's carbon balanced companies: they do a stringent internal carbon reduction assessment and action plan, they offset their calculated current emissions with WLT, and they match that offset in order to offset what they've emitted 10 years back. Isn't this not only a sound approach, but one that seeks to mitigate the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions by any legitimate means possible? Why should they be discounted from consideration, and not be properly recognised for their efforts and their leadership? Even worse, why remove the motivation to not only reduce but mitigate?
Certainly, businesses and consumers want to know that claims about emissions offsetting are valid. But they are not stupid, and should not be patronised or mislead by yet another supposedly authoritative certification standard. The information is out there, the public and the media are watching closely, and they are making their own informed decisions. (See Which? Magazine's April 2008 issue, highlighted on WLT's website.)
Maybe we should be asking who is certifying the certifiers, but we would rather spend our energy getting on with the hard work of providing legitimate and verifiable offsets that also benefit biodiversity conservation.
Monday, 23 June 2008
Oil Price hike great for conservation?
With world leaders trying to bring down the price of oil, one thing seems to have been overlooked. The dramatic rise is probably the best thing that could have happened for the planet.
It is surely the swiftest way of curtailing the profligate use of energy. And in any case the high price of petrol is not actually related to the high price of a barrel of oil (at least in the UK,) it is largely related to the tax that is placed on it. It seems bizarre that the UK and other governments are trying to get everyone to reduce their dependence on a carbon economy, to reduce emissions, but as soon as a simple way of doing it comes along they cry "Foul." Not only does a hike in oil prices reduce demand for petrol etc, it will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on a whole range of consumer products. So all in all, surely for the sake of the future of the planet, we should be welcoming a dramatic rise in oil prices, and hope for further increases. Or have I got something wrong?
It is surely the swiftest way of curtailing the profligate use of energy. And in any case the high price of petrol is not actually related to the high price of a barrel of oil (at least in the UK,) it is largely related to the tax that is placed on it. It seems bizarre that the UK and other governments are trying to get everyone to reduce their dependence on a carbon economy, to reduce emissions, but as soon as a simple way of doing it comes along they cry "Foul." Not only does a hike in oil prices reduce demand for petrol etc, it will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on a whole range of consumer products. So all in all, surely for the sake of the future of the planet, we should be welcoming a dramatic rise in oil prices, and hope for further increases. Or have I got something wrong?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
