These polluters will not pay

Since starting Harmless Sky I’ve posted a couple of times on opinion polls that suggest the UK government and the green movement are not carrying public opinion with them in quite the way they might wish. (here and here) Then the results of the local elections on 1^st May, when the Liberals and the Green Party failed to make any headway, seemed to confirm that there is a high degree of global warming scepticism among voters. (here)

Perhaps it was no coincidence that, about the same time as the elections, Opinium Research came up with some rather startling findings. In a poll carried out between 11^th – 14^th April and published on 2^nd May, more than 70% of respondents said that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change.

Of course no one likes taxes, and even in the rather sanctimonious political atmosphere of our times, it would be unlikely that there would be much enthusiasm for measures – however worthy they might sound – to take more money out of our pockets. But Opinium Research’s findings seem to indicate something more than natural reluctance to entrust our hard earned money to the government to spend on our behalf.

For ten years we have accepted higher levels of taxation to fund an improved health service, more effective policing, a better education system and much more. This was the price, we were told, that we must pay to see the New Labour dream become reality, and public support for these policies has been confirmed in three election victories.

Whether the money raised has been spent wisely, and the consequences of increased public spending for the economy as a whole, is now the most contentious element in UK politics. It is likely to remain so right up to the next general election and, as the months go by, growing turmoil in world financial markets will ensure that the public’s concern about their financial well-being does not diminish.

Party politics has no role to play in this blog, but the prospect of green taxes being added to the electorate’s already heavy fiscal burden certainly does come within its scope. Public reaction to government proposals to use taxation as a means of enforcing cuts in carbon emissions probably tells us more about attitudes to climate change than any other indicator.

The fact that the electorate has, more or less willingly, accepted high taxation as a means of building a more equitable society during the last decade indicates a willingness to behave with a commendable – perhaps even unprecedented – degree of social responsibility. So why, if we are willing to be taxed to improve medical care, policing and education, are we unwilling to pay-up to save the planet?

In 1997, long waiting lists at hospitals, rising crime and crumbling schools made the need for action all too apparent. These problems touched, in some way or another, the lives of almost everyone. The only issue at the general election was which party could be trusted to take effective remedial action. The economy, after decades of turmoil, was showing signs of recovery. Problems that had previously seemed intractable, because the financial means to solve them were beyond our grasp, now looked far less daunting. It was not difficult to believe Tony Blair when he stood on the steps of 10, Downing Street and proclaimed, ‘a new dawn has broken’.

So what happens if we compare the call to make sacrifices to save the public services of a decade ago with a call to do the same to save the planet now? Why was an appeal to social responsibility a vote winner then, and why is it beginning to look like electoral poison now?

These are questions that are only likely to be answered when one of the major opinion research companies is brave enough to ask: ‘Do you think that the threat of global warming is being exaggerated by politicians, environmental activists, commercial interests, and the media?’ I suspect that it will not be long before this happens, and the result will put an end to bellicose assertions about scientific consensus and evidence that is beyond dispute. It will become clear that this kind of propaganda has not worked. For much too long, it has been acceptable to defend the orthodox view on global warming by merely lambasting the dissenters or claiming that the majority must be right. The public have not been convinced by appeals to have blind faith in what they are being told.

A genuine debate about climate change is now on the political agenda and, this time round, the warmists will only be able to win if they treat the questions that informed sceptics have been raising for the last ten years seriously, and produce some convincing answers