It sometimes seems as if things could not get any worse for poor Tony Blair; an endless quagmire in Iraq, embarrassing police interviews, John Prescott (need I elaborate?) and now, yet again, the British public have voiced there disapproval: over 1.65 million people have signed an online e-petition to ‘scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy.’
The Great British Motorist, whose rage was last expressed rather visibly in the national fuel protests in 2000, is something of a civil institution in the UK to be roundly whipped into a frenzy by various tabloid and/or political forces, as and when deemed necessary. We, unlike other Europeans, have had a long history of being rather unwilling to accept that motoring and fuel prices should in fact reflect the true socio-ecological costs of the activity itself. Perhaps we feel short changed in the ‘Blood for Oil’ War, with so little to show for it at the pumps.
What startled me most, however, was to receive from my mother one of the multitude of emails urging people to sign the petition. Far from being merely the bugbear of suburban bourgeois motorists (and the Conservative Party), this policy seems to have riled the nation up and down the land – either on the grounds of cost or privacy (as Peter Roberts, author of the petition, has stated, “the idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong…Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel, the more tax you pay”).
The rage was perhaps inevitable. But then again, maybe the shortsightedness and intellectual papacy underpinning it was also to be expected. Yes, there are serious privacy considerations inherent with the proposal, such as who will have access to the data? How will it be regulated? What safe guards will be in place? On closer inspection, however, the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in Britain are ready to accept ID cards, phone tapping, curfews, electronic tagging, the opening of private mail and extensions to detention without charge to fight the rather ethereal threat from the Al-Qaeda bogeyman proves just how hollow this argument is in reality.
Still, bloggers screamed a call to arms, demanding answers to questions like “are we prepared to be taxed for the privilege of going about our business? At what point do we turn round and say that something is a basic right rather than a privilege, and as such not something we expect to be taxed for?” In the process, of course, such outspoken opposition actually illustrated the very reasons why such a policy must, in fact, be implemented. Motoring, at least as it has been historically conceived, really is a privilege, not a right.
Without some kind of action, congestion on Britain’s roads is set to increase by 25% in less than a decade, in a country that has already seen road transport grow by a shocking 81% since 1980. We face a major transportation crisis, made all the more significant by the Stern Report last year that underscored the very grave financial (let alone human, social and environmental) costs of unrestrained global warming - of which transport accounts for 1/5th of all CO2 emitted. The transport study, led by Sir Rod Eddington, recommended a road pricing of around £1.28 per mile in direct recognition of this fact. According to the study, the world needs to "face up to the reality of climate change, and that implies learning to live within a carbon-constrained future.” People need to "feel the consequences of their decisions" and this is, contrary to rage-blinded motorists, neither patronizing nor authoritarian. The European Carbon Trading Scheme is already in place, and it is only a matter of time before this is extended to private individuals in the form of carbon credits.
It is, quite frankly, ridiculous to assert, as Austin Williams did in the Telegraph, that transport policy should follow a ‘predict and provide’ approach. Endlessly expanding the road system is not a sustainable solution. Nor is it morally or intellectually honest to dismiss Eddington’s conclusion that “some of the best projects are small-scale, such as walking and cycling.” Indeed, such changes in habits – requiring as they do first and foremost a change in mentality – will only be achieved with both the carrot and the financial stick. As the Prime Minister's official spokesman pointed out, whilst “people did feel strongly about this issue, feeling strongly was not a substitute for coming up with practical proposals.”
The supreme irony, of course, was in accusing Eddington of ‘Stalinist’ penny pinching, asking “since when have we ever reduced politics to such simple fiscal equations?” Williams himself articulated the crassest form of financial selfishness on behalf of the British Motorist, urging them to “downplay the so-called harm that carbon does” and, despite all the scientific evidence available, stress that global warming is a “potential problem.” Whilst that approach may save many motorists money and, sure, quite possibly a significant amount thereof, it is tantamount to mortgaging our future and gambling with the very sustainability and prosperity of our children, for they are the ones who will have to deal with our legacy of an infatuation with boundless mobility and endless consumption.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
Albert Einstein
- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Stuart Reeve
The Great British Motorist, whose rage was last expressed rather visibly in the national fuel protests in 2000, is something of a civil institution in the UK to be roundly whipped into a frenzy by various tabloid and/or political forces, as and when deemed necessary. We, unlike other Europeans, have had a long history of being rather unwilling to accept that motoring and fuel prices should in fact reflect the true socio-ecological costs of the activity itself. Perhaps we feel short changed in the ‘Blood for Oil’ War, with so little to show for it at the pumps.
What startled me most, however, was to receive from my mother one of the multitude of emails urging people to sign the petition. Far from being merely the bugbear of suburban bourgeois motorists (and the Conservative Party), this policy seems to have riled the nation up and down the land – either on the grounds of cost or privacy (as Peter Roberts, author of the petition, has stated, “the idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong…Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel, the more tax you pay”).
The rage was perhaps inevitable. But then again, maybe the shortsightedness and intellectual papacy underpinning it was also to be expected. Yes, there are serious privacy considerations inherent with the proposal, such as who will have access to the data? How will it be regulated? What safe guards will be in place? On closer inspection, however, the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in Britain are ready to accept ID cards, phone tapping, curfews, electronic tagging, the opening of private mail and extensions to detention without charge to fight the rather ethereal threat from the Al-Qaeda bogeyman proves just how hollow this argument is in reality.
Still, bloggers screamed a call to arms, demanding answers to questions like “are we prepared to be taxed for the privilege of going about our business? At what point do we turn round and say that something is a basic right rather than a privilege, and as such not something we expect to be taxed for?” In the process, of course, such outspoken opposition actually illustrated the very reasons why such a policy must, in fact, be implemented. Motoring, at least as it has been historically conceived, really is a privilege, not a right.
Without some kind of action, congestion on Britain’s roads is set to increase by 25% in less than a decade, in a country that has already seen road transport grow by a shocking 81% since 1980. We face a major transportation crisis, made all the more significant by the Stern Report last year that underscored the very grave financial (let alone human, social and environmental) costs of unrestrained global warming - of which transport accounts for 1/5th of all CO2 emitted. The transport study, led by Sir Rod Eddington, recommended a road pricing of around £1.28 per mile in direct recognition of this fact. According to the study, the world needs to "face up to the reality of climate change, and that implies learning to live within a carbon-constrained future.” People need to "feel the consequences of their decisions" and this is, contrary to rage-blinded motorists, neither patronizing nor authoritarian. The European Carbon Trading Scheme is already in place, and it is only a matter of time before this is extended to private individuals in the form of carbon credits.
It is, quite frankly, ridiculous to assert, as Austin Williams did in the Telegraph, that transport policy should follow a ‘predict and provide’ approach. Endlessly expanding the road system is not a sustainable solution. Nor is it morally or intellectually honest to dismiss Eddington’s conclusion that “some of the best projects are small-scale, such as walking and cycling.” Indeed, such changes in habits – requiring as they do first and foremost a change in mentality – will only be achieved with both the carrot and the financial stick. As the Prime Minister's official spokesman pointed out, whilst “people did feel strongly about this issue, feeling strongly was not a substitute for coming up with practical proposals.”
The supreme irony, of course, was in accusing Eddington of ‘Stalinist’ penny pinching, asking “since when have we ever reduced politics to such simple fiscal equations?” Williams himself articulated the crassest form of financial selfishness on behalf of the British Motorist, urging them to “downplay the so-called harm that carbon does” and, despite all the scientific evidence available, stress that global warming is a “potential problem.” Whilst that approach may save many motorists money and, sure, quite possibly a significant amount thereof, it is tantamount to mortgaging our future and gambling with the very sustainability and prosperity of our children, for they are the ones who will have to deal with our legacy of an infatuation with boundless mobility and endless consumption.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
Albert Einstein
- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Stuart Reeve
2 comments:
maybe they should opt for french system...where there are toll roads and non toll roads?
i do not think that co2 will go down by charging extra tax on drivers. I dont have faith in government to put money like that to good use.
Infact such tax is bad for business and consumers alike!
i understand problem of co2 is there...but is goes not away by simple tax
f
Hi Francois, thanks for taking the time to comment on the piece.
I'm very much in favour of the French toll road system, in indeed the UK has recently installed its first toll motorway, and I am confident the system will be extended. The road pricing system is in fact essentially the same idea, but extended in scope.
What I think is the core issue is that we are emitting too much CO2 as a civilisation, globally. A very significant amount of this comes from transport; but more fundamentally, the delusion of endless mobility and consumption is both manifest in and reinforced by, the private car.
We -as a scoiety- must step in and use the market mechanisms available -primarily price- to affect peoples consumption habits to drive down CO2 emmissions. Currently, people pay a lump sum fee per year, and then a smaller lump sum fee every time they refuel their car. This allows for the illusion of 'sunk costs' which people are notoriously bad at factoring in when considering economic choices.
Being charged per mile will bring home the reality of just how much driving costs people, and the fact that they pay for every millimetre they move in a car and not by another means. I am confident that, because of this fact, you will see very short car journeys (those under 2km), which can very easily and quickly be completed on foot, bus or by bicycle, drop dramatically.
Of course, sucha policy absolutely must be met with other incentives - more cycle lanes, subsidies on public transport, pedestrianisation and congestion charging.
We're going to have to radically redesign our societies and cultures, whether we want to or not, and this is one step in the right direction.
Post a Comment