Treasury misses chance of big cut in emissions

The great clunking fist hammered down on millions of hard-pressed car users yet again today, as Gordon Brown's fuel tax rise announced in his last budget as Chancellor reaches the forecourts.

Prices will rise by 2p a litre but, taking into account VAT, the rise will actually top 2.3p.

Further rises are on the way, with another 2p a litre scheduled for next April and 1.84p more in April 2009.

But it wasn't just motorists getting a hammering, as the announcement also left the government's claim that 'urgent' action is necessary to halt climate change badly bruised.

Speaking to the BBC, a Treasury spokesman claimed that the tax rise sent "the right environmental signals in our fight against climate change".

But because the increase has been applied to all grades of fuel, including more efficient fuels on the market like BP Ultimate, the only signal that has actually been sent is 'we could give car users a real choice to cut emissions, but we'd rather just pocket a bit more cash'.


Brown's choice: pounds or planet?

Due to its cleaning power and greater efficiency, BP claims that if everyone used their Ultimate range, emissions equivalent to one million cars would be extinguished.

That'd be like removing all the cars from a city like Newcastle. The benefit to the environment would be quick and considerable.

With more efficient fuels upwards of 6p a litre more expensive than ordinary unleaded, few car users currently opt to shoulder the extra costs.

However, when 70% of the price of a litre of fuel is tax - about 68p a litre - the government has considerable scope to equalise the price of greener fuels with ordinary unleaded without losing too much income.

After all, can the government seriously expect only us to make the sacrifices they claim are needed to cut emissions? Can taxes only be 'green' if they go up? Clearly not.


Rhetoric or action?

The only conclusion to draw from this apparent unwillingness to take a very simple and effective action to reduce emissions - albeit one involving the government cutting its income slightly - is that the government doesn't believe its own hype about the 'urgency' of climate change.

So why should we? No wonder so many are coming to suspect that climate change is simply being used as a bogus justification for government to grab an even bigger share of people's earnings.

The result of today's change is that most car users still can't afford to take action to reduce their carbon footprint, even if they wanted to.

Right environmental signals? Hardly.