The British Taxpayers' Alliance says the equivalent of a $20.5 billion surplus is collected annually to offset carbon dioxide emissions in the U.K. Emissions tax-happy Europe has actually seen greenhouse gas emissions rise 3.2% between 2000 and 2005.
By Steve Doughty
Town hall bin police are to be given powers to stop, search and seize vehicles whose drivers are suspected of fly-tipping.
Under laws to be introduced next year, bin wardens working for councils will be able to order drivers to stop and then search their cars for black bags of household refuse.
They will be entitled to impound a family car if they think it is being used to dump rubbish unlawfully.
This is the latest escalation of a campaign which has made it a crime to leave out too many rubbish bags, put them out at the wrong time, or fill wheelie bins too full. Ministers announced the new stop-and- search powers for bin police as they released figures showing a massive jump in flytipping in England in the 12 months up to this spring.
Most of this, however, did not involve the commercial or construction waste most often associated with eyesore dumping.
The big rise came in household rubbish abandoned by roadsides, a huge proportion of it in singlydumped black bags of the kind now pursued by council bin police.
More than half of all "fly-tips" were of home rubbish, a 10 per cent increase on levels reported in 2006.
The jump in fly-tipping in areas which have introduced fortnightly rubbish collections was nearly three times bigger than in places where rubbish is still collected once a week.
According to figures calculated by the Taxpayers' Alliance pressure group, in areas with fortnightly rubbish collections, the increase was 11.89 per cent. In places with weekly collections, the rise was 4.24 per cent.
MPs blamed the increase in dumped rubbish on fortnightly bin collections and overbearing rubbish collection rules imposed by the Government and local councils in an effort to force families to cut the amount of waste they put out and recycle more.
Tory MP and former local government minister Sir Paul Beresford said: "People fear the way bins are inspected and the threat of fines and charges. These fly-tipping figures are the predictable result.
"This is the point where the Government should be working with people, not threatening new laws against them."
Corin Taylor of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: "Following the spread of reduced and fortnightly rubbish collections, punishments for people who break the rules, and the threat of charging for rubbish collection, it is not surprising that people are trying to find other ways to get rid of their rubbish.
"The Government is always looking for more powers to push people into line - so now we get stop-andsearch rights for council wardens. But they just won't work."
A paper setting out the new powers for bin wardens will be published by the Environement, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary Hilary Benn in the New Year.
The consultation will pave the way for regulations establishing town hall stop-and-search powers by the end of 2008.
The regulations can be brought in without full-scale new legislation under the terms of the 2005 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act, the law which first gave council wardens the right to impose on-the- spot fines for litter offences.
Town halls are also pressing for powers to levy pay-as-you-throw rubbish taxes on household bins to encourage families to cut the amount of rubbish they leave out.
Ministers also want to give them the right to make charges for the first time for leaving rubbish at council dumps.
The unpopularity of these measures and of fortnightly collections was underlined by the huge public response to the Daily Mail's Great Bin Revolt campaign, and a voters' rebellion against them in local elections in May.
By Martyn Brown
TAXPAYERS are being hit by soaring bills for town hall “rubbish police” as councils wage war on home owners who fail to meet strict refuse laws.
Local authorities across the country have seen rapid increases of more than 100 per cent in the cost of tackling “enviro-crime” in the last year.
Some councils have even recruited officers to spy on householders who fail to put their rubbish out at the right time or in the correct place.
Taxpayers’ Alliance chief executive Matthew Elliott said the strategy was hitting the public in the pocket.
“Council tax has doubled over the past 10 years because non-jobs like these have been created,” he said. “Rather than using the costly ‘stick’ of enforcement officers, councils should be offering people the ‘carrot’ of tax breaks to recycle their waste.
“This approach would be better for the environment and better for our wallets.”
Christine Melsom, of the Is It Fair? council tax protest group, said: “We are becoming more like a police state every day. Everything we do is being watched somewhere.”
Details of burgeoning town hall waste budgets over the last three years are revealed for the first time under the Freedom of Information Act.
In Peterborough the cost of enforcing and monitoring waste disposal regulations has soared by 173 per cent from £68,279 to £187,078.
Staff numbers have doubled to six, and the amount of recycling and composting has risen from 35.6 per cent to 43 per cent in the last year.
A spokesman said: “We have been working to increase domestic recycling levels and raise public awareness. This will help us live up to our title of an Environment City.”
Tower Hamlets in London has doubled its staff to 28 in three years and last year invested £3.5million to improve recycling and extend it to high-rise homes.
A council spokesman said: “Council staff also ‘doorstep’ to encourage people to be greener and provide a cash incentive for good recyclers.”
In April it was revealed that Ealing Council in London was paying plain-clothes snoopers £30,000 a year to track down home owners who put their rubbish out incorrectly.
It spent £150,000 on recruiting and employing four new enforcement patrollers to add to its 23-strong team.
By Louise Gray
HOUSEHOLDERS could face charges for rubbish collection under recommendations made by the public spending watchdog yesterday to increase recycling in Scotland.
The Audit Scotland report on waste management found recycling rates have increased, with a quarter of rubbish being recycled last year compared with 7 per cent in 2002.
But Scotland is still not recycling enough and, according to the watchdog, is "unlikely" to meet targets on reducing landfill, meaning the country could face fines of millions of pounds.
Among a number of recommendations, the Accounts Commission, which forms part of Audit Scotland, said the Scottish Government should consider charging people for removing their waste.
However, consumer groups insisted taxpayers already pay enough for rubbish collection in their council tax bills.
Last year, Scottish councils sent 1.54 million tonnes of biodegradable waste to landfill. This is a reduction from 1.76 million tonnes in 1995, but nowhere near the 880,000 tonnes target set for 2013, which the government signed up to in 1999.
Achieving the target is made more difficult because the total amount of waste generated in Scotland is increasing by 1.25 per cent every year.
Also, there were "very few" available facilities for treating non-recycled waste, such as incinerators.
Caroline Gardner, the deputy auditor general, said: "As a nation we are now far more environmentally aware. Councils and the Scottish Government have played a key role in encouraging and enabling the public to recycle, with considerable success.
"A quarter of household waste is recycled, with four out of five people taking part. Yet the amount of waste we produce continues to grow. It is unlikely Scotland will be able to meet the EU landfill target for 2013 as there has been slow progress in developing facilities to treat the waste we don't recycle.
"Decisions on how landfill volumes will be reduced need to be taken by the Scottish Government as a matter of urgency."
Failure to meet the target could result in the UK government being fined up to £180 million a year and this cost could be passed onto councils.
The watchdog notes charging for waste collection is "controversial" and acknowledges concerns it could lead to an increase in fly-tipping or dumping as people try to dodge payment.
It also notes that charging householders could be difficult in tenements with communal waste collection, and there are "concerns" over how large families, the poor, and pensioners would be affected.
However, the report concludes: "The Scottish Government and councils should undertake research to assess the contribution that direct charging for waste management could make to increasing recycling and waste reduction."
The report also says that contentious fortnightly rubbish collections would increase the amount of recycling.
Friends of the Earth Scotland is in favour of charging for collection, but insists this should be coupled with a council tax rebate for those who recycle.
Duncan McLaren, the body's chief executive, said: "The priority has to be waste prevention, something this report only touches on.
"Well over 60 per cent of domestic waste could be recycled or composted if the necessary facilities and processing plants existed. With Scotland's recycling rates at only 25 per cent, there is so much more that could be done to boost recycling.
"One thing that must be avoided is any dash by councils to burn waste. Incinerators create climate pollution, generate fewer jobs and undermine waste prevention and recycling schemes."
However a spokesman for the TaxPayers' Alliance said consumers already pay for rubbish collection through council tax.
He added: "Charges for essential services which taxpayers used to take for granted are unjustified. Families have never paid so much council tax so the suggestion of extra charging on top of high taxes is an insult."
INCREASING the level of recycling in Scotland will prove "difficult and costly", according to the Audit Scotland report.
Although participation has risen from 50 per cent of people to 81 per cent in 2006, the auditors say councils have to invest more to increase rates.
The Scottish Government will have to increase funding for councils from £89 million to £271 million in 2020 to achieve 55 per cent recycling.
Waste management is also a policy challenge for councils. Audit Scotland suggested public education on reducing rubbish and more kerbside collections.
Isabelle Low, deputy chair of the Accounts Commission for Scotland, that forms part of Audit Scotland, said: "The Scottish Government recycling targets will be difficult and costly to meet due to the need to recycle more types of waste, extend access to hard-to-reach areas such as tenements and rural communities, and because the value of additional materials collected will fall."
Matthew Sinclair, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Existing green taxes already more than cover the cost of the UK's carbon footprint, so it is no surprise a majority of the public think green taxes are just another excuse for politicians to raise revenue."
By Andrew Pierce
David Cameron was last night embroiled in a growing row over his support for a Tory commission advocating higher "green" taxes on motoring, domestic flights and home improvements.
The Quality of Life Policy Group, set up by Mr Cameron to help the fight against climate change, also proposed a tax on workplace car parking spaces, a halt to airport growth, a tax on gas-guzzling 4x4s and restrictions on car advertising.
One of the most controversial ideas would require home-owners to pay to make their property greener if they increased their carbon footprint with a conservatory, extension or loft conversion.
Despite the commission recommending measures that would appear to penalise the lifestyles of traditional Tory voters, Mr Cameron embraced its findings, saying that much of it would be included in his next election manifesto.
But the 550-page report was condemned by many Tory traditionalists who feared it would cost the economy jobs and the party votes.
It was also attacked by groups representing motorists, taxpayers and airlines and their passengers - many of whom would ordinarily be considered to be Tory supporters.
advertisementMeanwhile, Gordon Brown stepped up his attempt to woo Tory voters and unsettle Mr Cameron by inviting Lady Thatcher for surprise two-hour talks at No 10.
Their discussions were preceded by Mr Brown and the former prime minister posing for carefully choreographed pictures on the doorstep.
Critics said Mr Cameron's proposals would hit hard-working middle-class families hardest.
Matthew Sinclair, the Taxpayers' Alliance spokesman, said: "Research shows that existing green taxes already more than cover the cost of the UK's carbon footprint, so it is no surprise that a majority of the public think green taxes are just another excuse for politicians to raise revenue.
"If implemented, these proposals would harm working families, motorists and manufacturers who are already over-taxed."
Edmund King, of the RAC foundation, said the recommendations would "lead to a gridlocked and stalled economy with more congestion and pollution".
The pledge by Mr Cameron that rises in green taxes would be offset by tax reductions elsewhere failed to stop warnings from within the Conservative Party that the proposals would cost votes and threaten jobs and Britain's economic health.
Roger Helmer, the Tory Euro-MP, branded the ideas in the report as "half-baked" and "anti-Conservative nonsense". But Mr Cameron praised the report as the most "thoughtful and comprehensive" response of any party to the challenge of climate change.
The authors of the report were John Gummer, the former environment secretary, and Zac Goldsmith, the millionaire ecologist.
BY JANE MERRICK
FREE parking at supermarkets, garden centres and DIY stores would be scrapped under a Conservative plan to tax pollution.
David Cameron says the move would encourage families to use small shops on the high street and curb the growing power of food giants.
The Tories claim it would also help the environment because shoppers would ditch their car and use public transport.
But it will dismay parents who have no choice but to use large supermarkets for their weekly shopping, especially in rural areas.
The idea is the latest policy to emerge from the Tories' Quality of Life group, headed by millionaire eco-warrior Zac Goldsmith and former Environment Secretary John Gummer.
It contains measures to encourage environmentally-friendly behaviour including higher taxes on gas-guzzling cars and jet travel and a clampdown on plasma TVs.
Mr Cameron gave his clear backing to the report in a speech yesterday when he committed a Tory Government to green taxes to 'discourage bad things'.
He said environmental taxation would be introduced only to pay for tax cuts elsewhere and insisted there were no plans for 'stealth taxes'. Charges for supermarket-Political Correspondent car parking already apply in some inner-city areas to ease congestion but the Conservatives would expand it to target stores in the countryside.
Councils would impose the charges, spending the money on public transport or recycling schemes.
The proposal to tax shoppers has a high chance of becoming party policy after Mr Cameron last year launched an attack on Britain's 'big four' supermarkets - Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons - which he said were
'squeezing' the farming industry into cutting prices to make billions in profit.
Supermarkets would also be banned from selling products below cost price.
Local authorities would be required to impose limits on floor space for supermarkets and to prioritise planning applications which protected the appearance of town centres over out-of-town developments. The report says: 'This is not only in the interest of protecting smaller local shops, but also to maintain the town's economic and social viability, reduce car dependency and promote ''walkability''.'
In his speech to the London School of Economics yesterday, Mr Cameron said research shows that environmental taxes make more economic sense than other green measures such as carbon emissions trading schemes, where trees are planted to offset the amount of pollution created.
He added: 'As taxes will always have an incentive effect - discouraging whatever they are levied on - why not use them to discourage bad things rather than good things?'
Tory MPs will be privately alarmed that the plan will be a massive vote-loser for their constituents.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: 'A supermarket car park ''stealth tax'' would be a big mistake. Families up and down the country rely on them for their weekly shop and it's often massively impractical to travel there by public transport.'
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Andy Burnham said: 'The truth is the Tories would need to raise green taxes by eye-watering amounts to meet the tax proposals they have been making.
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It's good news that the Conservatives plan to use tax cuts to give people incentives to go green - but we will have to wait to see if they're also planning to bring in higher taxes on family holidays and the bigger cars parents tend to use to take their children to school."
Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
Just as we begin to see the colossal price we are being asked to pay for measures to combat climate change, ever more of the evidence adduced to support the global warming scare crumbles away.
A key article of faith for the "warmists" is a supposed increase in the incidence of extreme weather events, such as droughts. As Al Gore claimed to a US Senate committee in March, "droughts are becoming longer and more intense".
But US researchers, led by Gemma Narisma, have now shown that, far from becoming more frequent in recent decades, serious droughts have in fact become rarer than they were a century ago.
In a paper (reported on the website CO2Science.org) they identified the 30 most "severe and persistent" drought episodes of the 20th century.
Seven of these occurred before 1920, seven between 1921 and 1940 and eight between 1941 and 1960, dropping to five between 1961 and 1980.
The last two decades of the century, when the world was supposedly hotting up more than ever, saw just three. The worst drought affecting the developed world was the US Dust Bowl disaster of the mid-1930s.
This corresponds with the recently revised figures for US surface temperatures published by Gore's leading scientific ally, James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Last month, when Steve McIntyre, an expert statistical analyst, spotted a fundamental flaw in the method Hansen had used to calculate his figures, GISS was forced to publish a new graph, showing that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998, as generally accepted, but 1934. Of the 10 hottest years since 1880, four were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade.
This in turn followed the latest satellite figures from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration showing how global temperatures in recent years have flattened out at about 0.2 degrees below their 1998 level, and that this summer's figures have been lower than they were in 1983, despite a continuing rise in CO2.
It is clear that 2007 is proving quite a turning point in the climate change debate.
Only last year one of the fathers of warmist alarmism, Professor James Lovelock, predicted that, by the end of this century, climate change would have been responsible for billions of deaths, and that the only habitable places left on Earth would be the polar regions.
Last week, however, significantly retreating from his apocalyptic view, he told the World Nuclear Association that, even though temperatures might rise by a further five degrees, nature and humanity would learn to adjust. The Earth was in "no danger".
Yet it is at this very time that, to combat the supposed threat, our political leaders are upping the ante in all directions.
At the recent UN conference in Vienna to discuss "Kyoto Two", the EU stood conspicuously alone with its plan to cut carbon emissions by up to 40 per cent, and its ruling that by 2020, 20 per cent of our energy must be generated from renewables, such as windpower and biofuels. British civil servants have advised ministers that these targets are wholly unreachable.
Already, not least in response to the new pressure on farmland to grow biofuels, wheat prices have soared to record levels and world grain stocks are plummeting, pushing the price of a loaf of bread for the first time over £1.
The Taxpayers Alliance last week calculated that "green taxes" now cost us £21.9 billion a year, equivalent to nearly £1,000 for every home in the country.
Yet scarcely a single politician in Europe dares question this collective flight from reality.
China, now building a new coal-fired power station every four days, last year added 102 gigawatts of new generating capacity, 25 per cent more than the entire capacity of the UK. As ever more pointed question marks rise up over the global warming thesis, who is to say it is the Chinese who are mad?
MPs cling to their final power, to pretend that they're in power
Our politicians continue to show an extraordinary reluctance to admit that there is an "elephant in the room" in the matter of how we are governed.
Boris Johnson makes the disaster of Ken Livingstone's scrapping of Routemaster buses in favour of ridiculous, Continental-style "bendies" the flagship issue of his bid to become London Mayor.
Yet, as he coyly admits in The Daily Telegraph, "alas, I don't think that current legislation would permit me to reintroduce the Routemasters as they were".
What he is too lily-livered to explain is that the law that would make it illegal to bring back the much-loved, user-friendly Routemaster is the EU's Bus and Coach Directive, 2001/85.
"The government," we are told, "plans to introduce new pictorial health warnings on cigarette packets," showing close-ups of diseased lungs and the corpses of those who have died from smoking-related diseases.
What we are not told is that "the government" that ordered us to do this is not the one we used to have in Westminster, but the new government we now have in Brussels, which laid down through directive 2001/37 just which shocking pictures we must place on our fag packets.
Again, when we are told that "the government" plans to introduce compulsory water metering, we are not told that the government proposing this is the EU - any more than that the reason our ministers cannot scrap their absurd Home Information Packs is because this would put them in breach of directive 2002/01 on the "energy performance of buildings", issued by the EU to combat global warming.
Finally last week, just to bring home where our seat of government now is, there was the campaign to stamp out food additives.
When the Food Standards Agency was asked to introduce such a ban, to stop our children behaving badly, it had to admit that it no longer has the power to make laws on food safety, because this has been handed over to head office, the European Food Safety Authority.
Presumably the reason that our MPs are so reluctant to explain how little power they have left to make our laws is that this might make us wonder why we bother to elect them at all.
Europe's advance bogs down in Flanders
The EU's leaders are clearly set on ramming through their new "Not the Constitution" treaty with as little consulting of their people as possible, even though in the case of Gordon Brown this means telling a brazen lie in order to avoid keeping the pledge on which he was elected.
But a potential fly in their ointment is the curious situation which has arisen in Belgium.
Thanks to growing enmity between the French and Flemish-speaking parts of its population, Belgium now has only a "caretaker government", because its constitutional court has ruled that the two groups must be equally represented.
There are all sorts of things a caretaker government is not authorised to do, such as sign treaties. But to redress the parliamentary balance between the two groups requires major legislation, which a caretaker government is again not empowered to introduce. Hence complete impasse.
Until this is resolved, Belgium will not have a government entitled to sign the EU treaty.
So Mr Brown and his colleagues cannot get the new government they want in Brussels until there is a new government in Brussels. At the moment, so bitter is the hostility between the Flemings and the Walloons, that prospect seems remote.
By Aidan Radnedge
Billions of pounds are being raised in green taxes with little or no reward for environmentally friendly consumers, according to two new studies.
Each British family is paying £400 more in green taxes than it would cost to cover its carbon footprint, one study claims – a total of £10billion nationwide.
While green taxes raised £21.9billion in 2005, the social cost of that year's carbon emissions was just £11.7billion, says the report from the TaxPayers' Alliance.
global warming
Satellite images published in Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World show the damaging effects of global warming on Lake Chad pictured in 1972 (left) and 1987 (right)
Matthew Elliott of the group said: 'We need more honesty about the costs of extra green taxes when British taxpayers already pay some of the highest pollution charges in the world.'
Only a fifth of people think politicians are genuinely trying to change behaviour using the tax system, a survey carried out by YouGov for the group found.
In contrast, 63 per cent believe Government is using the issue as an excuse to pull in more cash.
Nearly four-fifths oppose the so-called 'pay as you throw' schemes floated by the Government to encourage recycling – despite previous surveys indicating a majority backed the idea.
Some 60 per cent say fuel duty is an unfair tax, while 45 per cent think the same about air passenger duty, which was recently doubled by the Government. Opinion is evenly split over extra 'green' charges on motoring and air travel.
Meanwhile, a separate study found the Government gives back in tax breaks just two per cent of the money it collects through environmental taxes.
The Treasury receives around £29.3billion each year in green taxes such as air passenger duty, accountants UHY Hacker Young said.
The Government raises £25.1billion in fuel duties and takes in £2.1billion in air passenger duty each year, but gives just £254million back in lower vehicle excise duty for people who drive environmentally friendly cars.
The total it hands back each year to environmentally friendly taxpayers is just £549million.
Despite the Government's rhetoric about green tax breaks, little money is actually paid out, the group said.
UHY Hacker Young tax partner Roy Maugham said: 'It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last ten years.
'At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot. 'There's been a lot of talk about green tax breaks but very little action – and the last thing the environment needs is more hot air.
The Government should put its money where its mouth is on this issue.'
There is a large amount of scepticism among taxpayers that the green agenda is simply being used as an excuse to raise taxes, he added.
Dave Timms, from Friends Of The Earth, said: 'The Government could make greater use of tax breaks so it's cheaper and easier for people to go green, while also increasing environmental spending.
The greater tax breaks are still being offered to those involved in polluting activities such as the air industry and road construction.'
But he rejected the idea that green taxes are too high.
A Treasury spokeswoman disputed both reports, saying: 'As a result of measures introduced by the Government, the UK is one of a few countries on course to meet its Kyoto commitments. By 2010 we will have met it almost twice over – cutting greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20 per cent.
'The Government's definition of environmental taxes includes those taxes that are designed to primarily have an environmental impact — the climate change levy, aggregates levy and landfill tax.
'We make clear, for example, when setting fuel duty rates that the Government takes into account a range of factors, including costs of motoring such as congestion, and the need to maintain sound public finances.'
MOST scientists agree climate change is one of the greatest perils facing the planet.
But politicians do no favours to the save-the-Earth campaign with "green taxes" that voters reckon are a con to grab more of their hard-earned cash.
Research shows a pathetic £2 in every £100 raised in environmental taxes goes to ease the burden on green-friendly taxpayers.
And two thirds of the public believe ministers use the issue as an excuse to screw more out of them.
If greedy politicians aren't careful they will destroy support for measures that really ARE needed to protect the planet.
Nearly two in three people think ministers use environmental fears as an excuse to rake in more taxes, says a poll. Research shows green taxes, like those slapped on fuel and air travel bring in £10 billion MORE than the cost of offsetting the UK population's carbon footprint.
Gordon Brown and David Cameron want individuals to pay for damage to the environment. But research shows the Government gives back just £2 in £100 raised to greener taxpayers. Only one in five think ministers are trying to change our ways, found the TaxPayers' Alliance poll.
By Robin Harding
Green tax breaks as well as green taxes should be used to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, says new research from accountants UHY Hacker Young.
The report coincides with a new opinion poll carried out by YouGov for the Taxpayers' Alliance, a group that lobbies for lower taxes, which shows that the public is divided on the issue. Some 45 per cent of voters approve of additional taxes on motoring and air travel, while 46 per cent are against.
All three major political parties have proposed higher taxes on activities that harm the environment, and in December 2006 the then chancellor Gordon Brown doubled air passenger duty on flights from UK airports.
According to UHY, while the government expects to collect £29.3bn in green taxes next year, it will give up only £549m in environmental tax breaks, such as capital allowances for energy saving technology.
"At the moment it's all stick and very little carrot, but arguably a more balanced approach would be much more effective at hitting Britain's CO2 targets," said Roy Maugham, tax partner at the firm.
A Treasury spokesperson said the analysis was "misleading" because it did not include government spending on environmental protection.
"For example, landfill tax revenues are recycled to business waste reduction projects," she said.
Some tax breaks, such as one for landlords who improve insulation in their properties, are not included in the UHY analysis.
The most important "green" taxes are fuel duty, which is expected to raise £25.1bn in 2007-08, and air passenger duty, which should raise £2.1bn. The biggest green tax break is £254m in lower vehicle excise duty for less-polluting cars.
The government could try tax breaks for workers whose employers pay for them to use public transport, or reduce value added tax on home repairs to encourage fuel efficiency, suggested Mr Maugham.
The TPA polling, meanwhile, shows the depth of public hostility to specific green taxes - 77 per cent oppose extra charges for bin collection in order to encourage recycling and 60 per cent think fuel duty is an unfair tax.
Britons are paying more than £10 billion extra a year in green taxes than is required to cover the cost of Britain's "carbon footprint", research claims.
Using previous research into climate change, the report for the TaxPayers' Alliance estimated that covering the social cost of Britain's carbon emissions would have cost £11.7 billion in 2005.
Workmen installing solar panels, Britons 'pay £10.2bn too much in green tax'
The Taxpayers Alliance say that green taxes are a revenue-raising measure
But receipts from "green" taxes such as fuel duty, road tax and the climate change levy in the same year totalled £21.9 billion, according to the study.
This means that Britons paid £10.2 billion too much in green taxes that year - or £400 for each household in Britain.
The Taxpayers' Alliance also published the result of a YouGov poll today which found that 63 per cent of people agreed with the statement "Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes".
More than three quarters - 77 per cent - disapproved of councils placing extra charges for bin collection on top of council tax charges in order to encourage recycling.
More than two out of every three surveyed - 61 per cent - thought that if extra "green" taxes were raised then the extra money should be used to reduce other taxes.
advertisement
Matthew Elliott, the alliance's chief executive, said: "The public are right to suspect the motives of politicians. Our research proves that they have been using green taxes as a revenue-raising measure. They are cynically trying to win support for new taxes by exploiting concern about climate change."
A Treasury spokesman said: "In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change."
YouGov surveyed 2,162 adults online between Aug 28 and Aug 30.
The government is raising billions of pounds more in green taxes than it needs to remove the UK's "carbon footprint", a report says.
The Taxpayers' Alliance said emissions in 2005 had done damage worth an estimated £11.7bn, but green taxes and charges in that year had made £21.9bn.
It claimed ministers were "cynically" raising revenue rather than using the money to improve the environment.
But the Treasury said the pressure group's claims were "ridiculous".
But the Taxpayers' Alliance said the £11.7bn figure covered the "social cost" of climate change to the world, such as weather changes and related disasters.
It added that the burden of UK green taxes should not exceed this figure.
The group also said that, on average, UK households were "over-paying" £400 a year.
Fuel duty and vehicle excise duty were between 30 and 40 times higher than the level needed to cover estimates of the social cost of CO2 emissions.
The doubling of Air Passenger Duty, announced in last year's pre-Budget report, was actually likely to have increased total emissions from air travel, creating incentives for longer flights, the report added.
Meanwhile, it said the landfill tax was raising up to £620m more than was needed to meet the social costs of methane emissions from landfill.
Corin Taylor, research director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Green taxes and charges impose substantial costs on, amongst others, northern manufacturers and the NHS.
"Green taxes in the UK are already well in excess of the level they need to be to meet the academic estimates of the social costs of carbon emissions.
"Every household is paying more than £400 extra in tax every year because green taxes are set too high.
"UK taxpayers are already more than doing their bit to pay for the costs of pollution and additional green taxes would be completely unjustified."
But a Treasury spokesman said: "The government's definition of environmental taxes includes those taxes that are designed to primarily have an environmental impact - the climate change levy, aggregates levy and landfill tax.
"We make clear, for example, when setting fuel duty rates that the Government takes into account a range of factors, including costs of motoring such as congestion, and the need to maintain sound public finances.
"It is ridiculous to argue that the government is failing against its environmental objectives. The UK is one of a few countries on course to meet its Kyoto commitments. By 2010 we will have met it almost twice over - cutting greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20%."
A spokesman said: "In arguing against these taxes, the Taxpayers' Alliance are being doubly dangerous - it would mean cuts to public services, schools and hospitals, as well as higher carbon emissions leading to accelerated climate change."
By James Tapsfield
Nearly two-thirds of the public believe ministers are using environmental fears as an excuse to raise tax revenue, according to a poll today.
Their cynicism seems justified with green taxes raking in £10 billion more for the Treasury than it would cost to offset the entire UK's carbon footprint, according to one study.
And another claims the Government gives back just two per cent of the money it raises through environmental taxes in green tax breaks each year.
The poll findings are part of a dossier compiled by pressure group the TaxPayers' Alliance. A survey carried out by YouGov for the TPA found:
only a fifth of people thought politicians were genuinely trying to change behaviours using the tax system
63 per cent believed they were using the issue as an excuse to pull in more cash n nearly four-fifths voiced opposition to the so-called "pay as you throw" schemes floated by the Government to encourage recycling, despite previous surveys indicating a majority backed the idea
about 60 per cent said fuel duty was an unfair tax, while 45 per cent thought the same about air passenger duty - which was recently doubled by the Government
opinion was evenly split over whether they approved in principle of extra "green" charges on motoring and air travel - with 46 per cent saying they did not and 45 per cent saying they did.
Using previous international research into climate change, the report estimates covering the social cost of carbon emissions would have cost £11.7 billion in 2005. But receipts from "green" taxes such as fuel duty, road tax and the Climate Change Levy totalled £21.9 billion. On average every household in the UK paid £400 more in levies than it cost to cover their own footprint, the TPA claimed.
TPA chief executive Matthew Elliott said the public were right to suspect the motives of politicians.
"Not only are they split on whether new green taxes are a good idea, but our research proves that politicians have been using green taxes as a revenue raising measure and are cynically trying to win support for new ones by exploiting concern about climate change."
Meanwhile, accountants UHY Hacker Young claimed the Treasury receives about £29.3 billion in green taxes, such as air passenger duty, every year but hands back only £5 4 9 million to environmentally-friendly taxpayers. The group said the figures showed that despite the Government's rhetoric about green tax breaks, little money was actually paid out.
It said the Government raised a massive £25.1 billion on fuel duties and took in £2.1 billion in air passenger duty each year, but reduced vehicle excise duty for people who drive environmentally friendly cars cost it only £254 million.
Roy Maugham, tax partner at UHY Hacker Young, said: "It's surprising just how lopsided the Government's approach to green taxes has been over the last 10 years. It's all stick and very little carrot, but arguably a more balanced approach would be much more effective at hitting Britain's C02 targets.
A Treasury spokesman said: "This analysis is misleading. It makes no reference to the significant increases in funding for environmental protection measures - for example, landfill tax revenues are recycled to business waste reduction projects through Defra's Business Resource Efficiency and Waste programme.
The effects of global climate change are altering the face of the planet - and its maps, according to a leading atlas published today.
In the four years since the last edition of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World went on sale, cartographers have been forced to redraw coastlines and reclassify types of land. The main culprits are climate change and ill-conceived irrigation projects, the atlas's editors said.
Particularly badly-hit parts of the world include the Aral Sea in central Asia which has been reduced by three-quarters in the past 40 years, and Lake Chad which has shrunk by a massive 95 per cent since 1963.
The Dead Sea is some 25 metres lower than it was 50 years ago and sections of rivers including the Rio Grande and Colorado in America, the Tigris in the Middle East and the Yellow River in China are now drying out each summer.
Bangladesh is particularly susceptible to heavier rains and rising sea waters as a result of climate change, with land disappearing into the ocean.
And there are fears that some places, particularly low-lying Pacific islands such as Tuvalu, could be quite literally wiped off the map in the coming years by rising sea levels, turning their populations into "climate refugees".
Cartographers are also keeping a close eye on the village of Shishmaref, Alaska, where the sea is creeping inland by up to three metres a year.
Editor-in-chief Mick Ashworth said: "We can literally see environmental disasters unfolding before our eyes. We have a real fear that in the near future famous geographical features will disappear forever.
There are also more obscure things like the Yellow River in China sometimes failing to reach the sea, which makes the coastline change. The outline of places are changing, like Bangladesh. Sea levels are rising about 3mm a year, which has strange effects on the coastline."
Many of the dramatic changes are heavily influenced by man-made projects such as irrigation schemes, for example the Aral Sea where waters were diverted for an ill-fated cotton growing scheme.
Is Whitehall using eco fears as a tax-raising measure? Let us know what you think at birmingham post.net
There has always been something more than a little nebulous about offsetting carbon footprints.
While more and more people are convinced that it must be a "good thing" to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, the notion that individuals can somehow atone for their polluting lifestyles through a series of taxes and one-off charges takes some believing. The person who volunteers to pay a special carbon offset charge while flying from Birmingham to Mallorca on holiday may feel virtuous when he leaves the aircraft in Palma, but what impact if any does this really have on reducing global warming?
Nevertheless, carbon offsetting sounds as if it ought to achieve something positive and the words have certainly been used on many occasions by Government Ministers keen to justify a fast-growing range of environmental taxes. Fuel duty, road tax, the Climate Change Levy, air passenger duty, congestion charges and, coming soon, special levies on refuse collection combine to deliver a hefty income to HM Treasury under a general all-encompassing fight against the effects of climate change.
The trouble is, as the TaxPayers' Alliance pressure group points out today, green taxes already pull in £10 billion more for the Government than it would cost to offset the UK's entire carbon footprint. On average every household in the UK pays £400-a-year more in levies than it would cost to cover their own footprint, according to the TPA.
Separate research underlines a distinct meanness when it comes to rewarding those who do take sustainability seriously.
The Government receives £30 billion a year in green taxes, but gives back just two per cent of that in tax breaks to people who choose to adopt environmentally-friendly lifestyles.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that green taxes are regarded somewhat cynically by the public, with 63 per cent telling a YouGov survey they believed the Government was using the issue as an excuse to pull in more cash.
Climate change and global warming are issues that should concern us all and must be taken seriously, but Ministers should realise they have a long way to go to persuade voters that the carrot and stick approach is both justified and working. A comprehensive breakdown of green taxation, showing how much money is raised and exactly how it is used to stimulate environmental change, is required in order to bring public opinion on board.
HOUSEHOLDERS will have to pay directly for throwing out their rubbish under plans being considered by council chiefs.
They have come up with three possible schemes to cut the amount of waste ending up in landfill.
Wheelie bins with microchips could weigh rubbish, with residents billed for the amount they create.
Different sized pre-paid waste sacks could be used in urban areas where wheelie bins are not practical.
A third option is householders choosing different sized wheelie bins based on how much rubbish they generate - and being charged accordingly. The Local Government Association said the schemes would "promote recycling, not generate extra cash through an extra stealth tax".
But it warned taxpayers will bear the brunt of up to Pounds 3billion in fines councils face over the next four years if they do not meet EU targets.
A poll of 1,000 people found 38 per cent supported paying directly for rubbish collection IF council tax was cut. The TaxPayers' Alliance said cuts would have to be Pounds 20 a month but there was "no guarantee".
Rebecca Smithers, Consumer affairs correspondent
Nearly two-thirds of householders in England say they are in favour of a "pay-as-you-throw" system of collecting their rubbish, the Local Government Association claimed yesterday.
Local council chiefs said their survey of 1,028 adults found 64% would support a variable charging system which would reward individuals who actively recycled their domestic waste by offering them a council tax rebate.
But the Conservatives warned that the three separate schemes outlined were fraught with administrative difficulty and would not lead to lower council tax bills, while there was also a danger that people would try to side-step the system by burning their rubbish and fly-tipping.
The UK produces more waste a head of population than many of its European counterparts and has one of the worst recycling rates. The LGA has outlined three schemes for cutting the amount of waste going into landfill: a sack-based system in which householders buy different sized pre-paid sacks for general household waste; a weight-based system where wheelie bins are fitted with chips to allow the bins to be weighed when they are loaded on to the vehicle; and a volume-based system in which households choose from a range of wheelie bin sizes, and are charged accordingly.
The LGA said similar schemes elsewhere in Europe had been successful, leading to much higher recycling rates. Its survey comes in response to the government's Waste Strategy for England 2007, which set out how bin charges would work.
Paul Bettison, chairman of the LGA's environment board, said: "If councils introduce save-as-you-throw schemes it will be to promote recycling, not generate extra cash through an extra stealth tax. There is now strong public support for schemes that reward people for recycling and councils should be given the power to introduce these where appropriate."
But the shadow communities secretary, Eric Pickles, said: "Under the government's plans for bin taxes there will be no reduction in council tax. The overall burden of taxation will rise so householders will pay more. Labour ministers have already been warned that bin taxes will lead to a huge increase in fly-tipping and backyard burning. The government's half-baked plans wouldn't add up to a green measure - they are simply another stealth tax."
Michael Warhust, senior waste campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "Friends of the Earth supports initiatives that reward people who recycle, but councils need to ensure that everyone has access to a good roadside recycling service with a weekly food waste collection."
Blair Gibbs, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Past experience of rising council tax, alongside the introduction of parking charges in the 90s, gives the public good reason to distrust promises that pay-as-you-throw will mean lower council tax."
By Alison Little
FEARS rose yesterday that "pay-as-you-throw'' rubbish collection fees will become a new stealth tax on hard-pressed families.
The concerns grew after council leaders set out a list of possible ways to levy charges.
Pre-paid rubbish bags and wheelie bins fitted with microchips to weigh garbage were among the options for making householders pay for what they put out.
The Local Government Association, which represents councils, insisted the proposals were aimed at cutting waste and promoting recycling.
It denied that what it dubbed "save as you throw'' proposals would be used as a stealth tax to raise extra cash.
But Blair Gibbs, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "Past experience of rising council tax, alongside the introduction of parking charges in the 90s, gives the public good reason to distrust promises that pay-as-you-throw will mean lower council tax.
"Parking charges have become a stealth tax enabling councils to raise extra revenue, and there is every danger that bin charges will go the same way.
"People may be prepared to accept variable charging as an issue of fairness, but cuts in council tax would have to be in the order of £20 a month to justify charging, and no current proposals from the Government guarantee that council tax will be reduced at that level to compensate.
"Families have never paid so much council tax and when asked if they'd like charges on top of council tax - as is likely to happen - they give a very different response.'' Dr Michael Warhust, senior waste campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "We support initiatives which reward people who recycle, but councils need to ensure that everyone has access to a good roadside recycling service with a weekly food waste collection.'' The LGA outlined three schemes it said councils could use to reduce the amount of rubbish that residents threw out for disposal in landfill sites.
Householders could pay for differently sized rubbish sacks, or have microchips in wheelie bins to weigh waste as it is loaded on to refuse trucks. Residents would then be billed for what they put out.
The third option would be to let householders choose the size of wheelie bin they use, based on how much rubbish they thought they would put out, and be charged accordingly.
The LGA said any scheme would depend on local circumstances and need residents' backing.
It warned that taxpayers would bear the brunt of fines of up to £3billion which will be imposed on councils over the next four years if they do not meet EU targets for cutting the waste going into landfill.
It said a survey by Ipsos Mori had found that 38 per cent of people strongly supported a system in which they would pay lower council tax while being charged directly for the amount of rubbish they generated. A further 26 per cent said they "tended to support'' proposals under which the more they recycled, the less they would pay.
But Shadow Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said:
"Under the Government plans for bin taxes there will be no reduction in council tax. The overall burden of taxation will rise so householders will pay more.
"Labour ministers have already been warned that bin taxes will lead to a huge increase in fly-tipping and backyard burning.
"There is more than a whiff of desperation with their bin tax plans if they need to rely on loaded questions.
"The Government's half-baked plans wouldn't add up to a green measure - they are simply another stealth tax.''
kar, PAP
Brytyjski związek samorządów lokalnych (LGA) przedstawił w środę projekt wyposażenia koszy w mikroczipy, które obliczałyby, ile dane gospodarstwo domowe ma zapłacić za śmieci.
LGA zaproponował także "system worków", w ramach którego gospodarstwa domowe miałyby płacić z góry za worki na śmieci. Torby mają mieć różne rozmiary i różne ceny tak, aby Brytyjczycy mogli wybrać odpowiednią wielkość i nie "przepłacali" za wywóz odpadów.
Pomysły samorządowców zrodziły się po tym, jak ankieta przeprowadzona przez LGA wśród 1028 osób wykazała, że ponad dwie trzecie Brytyjczyków popiera wprowadzenie systemu "ile wyrzucasz, tyle płać" w zamian za ulgę w podatku od nieruchomości (council tax). Tylko jedna na pięć osób zdecydowanie sprzeciwiła się nowemu projektowi.
- Jeśli samorządy wprowadzą system "ile wyrzucasz, tyle płać", będzie to promocja recyklingu, a nie próba podstępnego wprowadzenia nowego podatku - powiedział przewodniczący rady ds. środowiska w LGA, Paul Bettison.
Jednak grupa lobbingowa stowarzyszenia podatników (Taxpayers' Alliance) ma pewne wątpliwości. "Ludzie prawdopodobnie zaakceptują zróżnicowane opłaty za wywóz śmieci, jednak ulgi podatkowe musiałyby być na poziomie 20 funtów miesięcznie, by wprowadzenie nowego systemu było opłacalne dla Brytyjczyków" - poinformowała grupa w oświadczeniu.
Bettison ostrzegł władze samorządowe, że jeśli ilość utylizowanych śmieci się nie zmniejszy, Wielkiej Brytanii grożą kary Unii Europejskiej w wysokości nawet 3 miliardów funtów (17 miliardów złotych).
Pre-paid waste sacks and wheelie bins with microchips could be introduced to make householders pay for their rubbish under plans outlined by council leaders yesterday.
People could also be charged according to the size of the wheelie bin they choose to use, in Local Government Association proposals to cut waste and encourage more recycling.
But the LGA insisted the "save as you throw" proposals would not be a stealth tax to raise extra cash for councils.
The association outlined three different schemes which councils in England could use to cut the amount of rubbish residents throw away.
The first would be a system in which householders buy different sized pre-paid rubbish sacks - a scheme which could be used in urban areas where wheelie bins are not always practical.
The second would be the use of microchips in wheelie bins which would allow the amount of rubbish to be weighed as it was loaded on to the refuse truck. Residents would then be billed for the amount of waste they created.
The third option for councils would be a scheme in which householders choose the size of the wheelie bin they use, based on how much rubbish they think they will generate, and are charged accordingly.
The LGA said any scheme a council introduced would be dependent on local circumstances and have to be supported by residents.
But the association warned taxpayers would bear the brunt of fines of up to £3 billion which will be imposed on councils over the next four years if they did not meet European targets for reducing the amount of waste which ends up in landfill.
And it said a survey carried out by Ipsos Mori found 38 per cent of people strongly supported a system in which they paid a reduced council tax rate and were charged directly for the rubbish they produced.
The poll of 1,028 British adults found that a further 26 per cent "tend to support" the proposals, which would mean the more they recycled the less they paid.
Coun Paul Bettison, chairman of the LGA's environment board said: "If councils introduce save-as-you-throw schemes it will be to promote recycling, not generate extra cash through an extra stealth tax.
"The unfortunate reality is that we must do more to reduce the amount of waste being thrown into landfill. There is now strong public support for schemes that reward people for recycling and councils should be given the power to introduce these where appropriate.
"Evidence from the continent shows "save-as-you-throw" schemes can reduce waste and boost recycling."
The schemes would require Government legislation before they could be implemented and could be introduced by around 2009/10, the LGA said.
The latest plans to boost recycling and cut waste come after criticism earlier this year of councils alternating rubbish and recycling collections fortnightly.
The Government defended the alternate collections against concerns that they encourage rats and disease and said councils which had introduced them had much higher recycling rates.
Blair Gibbs, campaign director of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "Past experience of rising council tax, alongside the introduction of parking charges, gives the public good reason to distrust promises that pay-as-you-throw will mean lower council tax.
"Parking charges have become a stealth tax and there is every danger that bin charges will go the same way."
Shadow Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said: "The Government's half-baked plans wouldn't add up to a green measure - they are another stealth tax."
Dr Michael Warhust, of Friends of the Earth, said: "Friends of the Earth supports initiatives that reward people who recycle, but councils need to ensure that everyone has a good roadside recycling service with a weekly food waste collection."
By William Green Political Editor
NORTH-East taxpayers could foot the bill for annual fines of up to £83m unless councils slash the amount of rubbish dumped into landfill.
The warning from town hall chiefs comes as councils work to meet Government targets to cut the level of biodegradable waste sent to landfill, as required under European Union (EU) rules designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.
The 12 North-East authorities responsible for waste disposal must cut the amount from 879,666 tonnes in 2007-08 to 692,340 tonnes by 2010 and to 322,680 tonnes a decade later - or be fined £150 per excess tonne.
Annual fines could reach £28m within three years and £83.5m by 2020 if no progress is made, although councils say work is underway to meet targets. Councils are also allowed to trade surplus allowances, keep them or 'borrow' future amounts.
Newcastle Council say its cumulative fine could reach £47.5m by 2020, but it is investigating potential solutions like composting and incineration as part of a strategy to avoid penalties.
The National Audit Office (NAO) has already warned of a "significant" risk that English councils won't meet targets set out in the landfill allowance trading scheme (LATS), introduced by ministers to meet EU rules. The watchdog last year said councils could face £40m annual fines by 2010, rising to £205m by 2013, while EU penalties imposed on the Government could be passed to town halls.
Blair Gibbs, from the Taxpayers Alliance, warned council taxpayers would lose out because of the EU forcing decisions on councillors.
"If councils try to meet these landfill targets, we get a reduced level of service, frontline collections and extra charges for bins.
"If they don't try to meet these targets or they try and fail, they will pay a fine to the European Union which will only mean that they raid resource budgets for frontline services or hike council tax further," he said.
A Local Government Association spokesman said: "The fear is that any additional costs may have to be passed onto the council taxpayers. We have identified waste and recycling as one of the biggest pressure points on local government and we certainly identified it as an area that needs a lot more government investment over the next few years."
He added councils in England and Wales face paying £3bn in landfill tax - designed to encourage recycling - over the next four years. The standard fee is increasing £8 a year per tonne, rising to £32 next April.
But North-East councils responsible for waste disposal said work was under way to cut landfill use and avoid penalties. Northumberland County Council said recycling rates would rise to 45%, generate energy from residual rubbish and disposal to landfill be cut to 8% under a 28-year waste contract.
Sunderland Council is consulting on a joint 20-year strategy with Gateshead and South Tyneside - with a key issue being how to best use waste that cannot be recycled.
"Facilities that can use the residual waste to generate electricity and steam for heating purposes did feature among the options. The aim is to seek arrangements that help to meet the landfill avoidance targets from 2009 with longer-term facilities being available from about 2012," said a spokeswoman.
John Wade, from Durham County Council, said additional treatment capacity was needed from around 2011 but hoped to award a new waste contract to meet targets. The new system would stem greenhouse gases, even if it was initially more expensive.
HOUSEHOLDERS face paying an extra £100 in council tax — unless they recycle.
Town hall bosses will add the charge to every bill and only refund it if residents hit composting and green targets.
Lib Dem-run Seaford council in East Sussex voted 10-6 this week in favour of the tax, which needs the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ approval.
Deputy leader Eddie Collict, 64, said: “Any scheme to encourage recycling is to be welcomed.”
But Matthew Elliott, of the Taxpayers’ Alliance, branded it “blackmail”.
He added: “It is an attempt to raise extra revenue under the guise of caring about green issues.”
BY CHRIS BROOKE
HOUSEHOLDERS may be 'blackmailed' by their council into going green with a £100 recycling charge on annual council tax bills.
The money would be refunded if residents took part in recycling and composting schemes and the local authority met waste reduction targets.
The scheme could be introduced in Seaford, East Sussex, despite being criticised for its negative rather than positive approach to recycling.
The town council has approved the plan and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is now being asked to give it the goahead. If successful, the controversial idea could be copied across the country.
Local authorities are being forced to look at new ways to promote recycling to meet tough government targets.
In East Sussex around 29 per cent of waste is currently recycled, but the figure is required to reach 35 per cent by 2015 and 50 per cent by 2020.
Details of what residents would have to do to get their £100 refunded have yet to be worked out.
However, there is already huge opposition to the charge from pressure groups and the seaside town's 25,000 residents.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, branded the plan 'absolutely outrageous'.
He said: 'If town halls really did care about the environment they would offer real financial incentives, say £10 or £20 off a monthly council tax bill.
'Families have never paid so much council tax and now they want to chuck on another £100 to blackmail people into recycling. It beggars belief.'
Gail Elliston of the Seaford Residents' Association said: 'It seems to me it has nothing to do with recycling and everything to do with raising money.
'I can imagine a riot in Seaford if this went through.'
BY FIONNUALA BOURKE
EXCLUSIVE £25,000 council Green Fun Day is branded a flop after poor turnout
IT was the family event aimed at encouraging Midlanders to save the planet.
The Green Fun Day, organised by Walsall Council, featured a wind and solarpowered circus big top, where jugglers and clowns provided environmentally friendly advice to children and adults.
But the event cost a whopping £25,000 of taxpayers' cash to stage, including £2,000 on transport alone.
Last night, environmental campaigners branded the fun day a 'flop' and a waste of cash.
The cost amounted to more than £10 for each person who attended, based on the council's own figures - and that included more than 1,000 schookids who had to go as part of their studies.
"The council spent a lot of money on the day, which was very educational," said one critic. "But not enough people turned up to hear the messages."
The two-day event was held at Walsall Arboretum last month with complimentary transport laid on from the town centre.
Alongside the circus, there were environmentally-friendly demonstrations and activities to encourage families to do their bit to save the planet and slow climate change.
These included energy-efficient electric vehicles, bicycles and tricycles, a renewable energy display, woodland crafts, a sustainable living exhibition and a solarpowered Victorian roundabout.
Life-sized inflatable models of species at risk from climate change such as whales, dolphins and porpoises were also at the show.
But figures obtained by the Mercury show the event cost £25,000 to stage, including £13,570 for 'structures and equipment'.
A further £2,000 was spent on transport and related costs, and another £1,950 on bikes. Tim Martin, former local election candidate for the Green Party in nearby Darlaston South, said: "Walsall Council is beginning to wake up to green issues slowly.
"But the problem with this fair is that they did not publicise it very well, so hardly anyone attended.
"It could have been something really special. But to spend that sort of money, and not to make sure they were going to make an impact, doesn't make sense."
A spokeswoman for the Taxpayers' Alliance, a pressure group which campaigns against wasting public funds, said: "Noone is denying that we should all do our bit for the environment.
"But Walsall Council should not be spending £25,000 of taxpayers' money on extravagant entertainment days.
"Council tax has doubled in a decade.
When people rightly ask where that money as gone, it is clear that a lot has been wasted on these kind of non-vital activities.
"Councils who have the money to blow £25,000 on a Green Day should not then be able to increase our council taxes by more than the rate of inflation each year."
But a spokesman for Walsall Council said the fun day had been a huge success.
"We have received excellent feedback from those who attended," he said.
"This was a two-day event, with the first day being exclusively for Walsall primary schools, of which 29 schools participated with an attendance of 1,064 children plus teachers.
"The second day, the public day, saw an attendance of around 1,250 people.
"Our children are the future. I we can educate our children in a fun way about using alternative forms of technology to protect our planet, the environmental and economic benefits will be inestimable.
"The event was an important part of informing the community of our obligations towards the environment. It was just one of a series of sustainable events planned for this year."
Press Association National Newswire
29 July 2007
The Government was accused of green tokenism tonight amid claims it has wasted £900,000 of taxpayers' money buying hybrid-engine cars for ministers and civil servants.
The TaxPayers' Alliance, which campaigns for lower taxes, said the money should have been spent on ordinary cars and planting 70,000 trees.
It released figures showing that the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) owns 98 Toyota Prius vehicles and 12 Honda Civic Hybrids.
With a list price for the Prius of £20,677 and the Civic Hybrid £16,285, these were 'significantly more expensive'' than a similarly sized car like a Ford Focus hatchback at £12,122, it said.
The group claimed that had GCDA bought the same number of Fords at list price it could have saved the taxpayer £888,000.
The trees would 'breathe in'' about 730 kg of carbon dioxide each over their natural lifetime, the group added. A small forest of 74,028 trees would take over 54 million kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere.
A Department for Transport spokeswoman said: 'All vehicle purchases are assessed to keep costs low and at the end of their normal service period vehicles are publicly auctioned to achieve the highest value possible.''
She added: 'A hybrid also exempts the car from the London congestion charge, as well as improving fuel efficiency - presenting a minimum saving of around £1,800 each year for each car.
'The GCDA has reduced its average fleet CO2 emissions by 22% since last year.''
The TaxPayers' Alliance claimed each Toyota Prius or Honda Hybrid would have to drive over 9 million kilometres (5.8 million miles) before it was retired to equal the carbon saving that could be achieved from planting trees.
'It is distinctly unlikely this will happen as cars rarely last more than a few hundred thousand kilometres, and Government cars are replaced far more frequently even than that,'' it continued.
'It is therefore evident that purchasing a large fleet of hybrid-engine cars is a waste of taxpayers' money, and also a very ineffective measure with which to curb carbon emissions.''
Blair Gibbs, the group's campaign director, said: 'The trendy obsession with hybrid vehicles is the worst sort of green tokenism.
'For the same money, Government could have purchased ordinary cars with enough left over to plant more than 70,000 trees, which would have been much better for the environment and given our children a forest of trees to play among for generations to come.''
By STEVE DOUGHTY
Town halls were ordered to restore weekly collections of food waste.
In a major Government U-turn, officials were told food should not be allowed to rot in household bins for a fortnight.
The 180 councils collecting every other week have been told to prepare to reintroduce separate weekly pickups specifically for perishables.
It is a victory for opponents of the Government- sponsored move to abandon a weekly system in place for more than 130 years.
But local government chiefs warned that the Treasury must find more money to pay for weekly food waste collections or big council tax increases will follow.
The Daily Mail's Great Bin Revolt campaign this spring was followed by local election results which punished councils that had dropped or threatened to drop weekly collections.
Last week a referendum on fortnightly collections in one borough - Dartford in Kent - saw 95 per cent of voters opposed to the plan.
Corin Taylor, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "Fortnightly bin collections were always a bad idea, and so it's good to see the Government retreating on its earlier advice to councils.
"But millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has yet again been wasted on Government incompetence."
The new guidance comes from the Waste and Resources Action Programme-The £80million-a-year quango advises local authorities on rubbish and recycling issues on behalf of the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs.
WRAP is telling town halls considering bringing in fortnightly pick-up schemes that they should "collect food waste separately and weekly".
This, the advice said, "increases the amount of waste collected for recycling, is likely to be acceptable to residents and when delivered alongside fortnightly refuse collections can be a cost- effective means of diverting biodegradable materials from landfill".
Other waste not meant for recycling would still be collected once a fortnight. But this would not include sensitive perishable material.
Councils are also advised to simplify their recycling systems, so that people are no longer told to strip the plastic windows from envelopes or given similar complex demands for recyclable material.
Local authorities which already have fortnightly collection schemes in which garden waste and food waste is picked up together should in future collect food waste separately and "more frequently".
WRAP said: "Some residents view less frequent collections of food waste negatively, and have
concerns about possible risks to public health from odours and the attraction of vermin."
Councils which have brought in fortnightly bin pickups without separate food waste rounds are told that weekly collections of perishable waste may help ease the pressure on landfill sites.
The instructions also tell councils to cease "heavy handed" enforcement of their bin rules and to go easy with on-the-spot fines and prosecutions.
A Peterborough family was fined £700 last week for leaving extra rubbish sacks by their wheelie bin.
WRAP said: 'It is important not to be heavy handed in enforcement.
"This could have the perverse effect of deterring residents from using recycling schemes.
"In particular the use of prosecutions and fixed penalty fines should be a last resort."
The shift back to weekly food waste collections was foreshadowed in the Government's new waste strategy published by former Environment Secretary David Miliband in May.
This suggested families keep kitchen "slopbuckets" to keep food scraps which could be collected for recycling.
The official call for weekly food waste collections brought warnings of extra costs from council leaders.
Town hall chiefs are already preparing to bring in rubbish taxes likely to cost families more than £100 a year. Many have bought wheelie bins with microchips to make it possible to collect the tax.
Paul Bettison, environment chief of the Local Government Association, said: "Many councils would like to introduce separate collections of food waste on a weekly basis if Government, and not the council tax payer, were prepared to foot the bill.
"Local government would need extra money to pay for this, on top of the 10 per cent annual increase it already needs to meet the escalating costs of landfill tax and EU laws."
Christine Melsom, of the Is It Fair? council tax protest group, said: "This is going to be expensive, and we have to watch who is going to pay for it.
"There seem to be large numbers of people sitting about having reviews of rubbish collections."
As a symbol of a council's green credentials, a tree, no doubt, seemed the natural choice.
But plans approved for a 21 ft tall metal sculpture version, surrounded by floodlights in cleared woodland, have left local taxpayers less convinced.
The creation, called Tree Stories, is part of a £12 million "Greening for Growth" initiative to improve the environment of Stoke-on-Trent. But angry locals have likened it to the Blackpool Illuminations.
They say it makes a mockery of a campaign by the council to encourage residents to cut back on their own energy use by driving less and not leaving their televisions on standby.
With eight 26 ft high lights and 30 floor lights, the £350,000 project does not appear to be a shining example of carbon-neutral policy.
"The council tells us how to cut our energy use - then they do something like this," said Donald Pass, who lives near Forest Park, where the metal tree is to be erected. "They talk green but fail to practise what they preach."
A spokesman for the council said the extensive lighting was necessary to ensure visitors to the park did not walk into the sculpture. "This fabulous sculpture and plaza will make for a stunning entrance into a great park full of facilities, which will benefit everyone," the spokesman insisted.
In all, 20 trees will be removed to make way for Tree Stories. The council said it planned to plant more elsewhere in the park.
The Sunday Telegraph reported earlier this month that local authorities were spending more than £100 million a year to hire 3,500 "carbon-reduction advisers" and other workers charged with combating climate change.
Policies aimed at tackling climate change have been criticised for being 'incoherent' and failing to keep up with the latest scientific evidence.
Targets for cutting damaging greenhouse gas emissions were lagging behind the latest developments, which would make it more difficult for the Government to achieve its aims, the Commons Environmental Audit Committee said.
The committee criticised ministers for failing to include emissions from international aviation and shipping in the targets set out in the draft Climate Change Bill.
The Bill currently includes a legally binding target for Britain to cut carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.
However, the committee said that the latest scientific research suggested that this was now 'very unlikely' to be consistent with the Government's overall aim to stabilise the rise in global temperature at 2°C.
'The Government's policy towards the UK's 2050 target is clearly incoherent,' the committee said.
Committee chairman Tim Yeo added: 'To make things worse, these forecasts have not been updated often enough, which means that by the time ministers knew Britain's 2010 CO2 target was significantly off-track it was too late to do much about it,' he added.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said: 'The UK should be proud of its record on tackling climate change.'
Meanwhile, the Government was last night accused of green tokenism amid claims it wasted £900,000 of taxpayers' money buying hybrid cars for ministers and civil servants.
The TaxPayers'Alliance, which campaigns for lower taxes, said the money should have been spent on ordinary cars – which could have cost up to £8,000 less – and planting 70,000 trees.
By Christopher Booker
A lunatic crop of laws for global warming
The cool wet summer of 2007 may be looked back on as the moment when global warming finally got serious: in two respects. First, we are beginning to see the scarcely credible costs of the legislation our politicians are dishing out, supposedly to change the world's climate.
At the same time, the latest climate data themselves begin to raise some rather serious question marks over the scientific basis for that legislation.
There has been no more vivid example of the mounting costs of our politicians' "climate change" policy than BP's announcement of a £200 million plant in Hull to turn a million tons of wheat a year into "biofuel". This is to help meet the EU's new diktat that within 13 years "CO2 neutral" biofuels must supply 10 per cent of all our transport needs.
The UK's current wheat production is 11 million tons (against our consumption of 10 million). To meet the 10 per cent target by 2020 from wheat alone would require us to grow 14 million tons of wheat a year, 3 million more than we currently grow. World demand for wheat is rising so fast that, in the past two years, a global surplus has become a deficit.
Soaring prices have already doubled. Yet it is at this very moment that the EU decides we must either turn our entire domestic wheat production into fuel (thus needing to import 13 million additional tons from the world market), or devote similar amounts of our farmland to growing other fuel crops.
By any measure, this is complete lunacy. Yet consider some other recent reports inspired by the political response to "global warming". Last week, some of our leading travel firms asked the High Court to declare illegal the £2 billion a year Gordon Brown is costing airline passengers with his tax of up to £80 on every UK-bought airline ticket.
The chief executive of ThyssenKrupps warns that EU climate change policy is likely to cost Germany alone 500,000 jobs, as industries relocate outside the EU to escape its requirements. And, as this newspaper reported last week, the Taxpayers' Alliance reveals that local councils are paying at least £102 million a year on a new army of "climate change-related" officials.
The list goes on and on. By 2050, the EU has decreed, we must reduce our output of CO2 by 60 per cent. As one step towards this, within two years the EU is to make it illegal to buy ordinary incandescent light bulbs.
This will force us (according to Government figures) to spend billions of pounds on new light fittings, to accommodate hideous "low-energy" compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), which to work to full efficiency, the experts point out, must be left on all the time, thus substantially eroding any savings in CO2.
Yet just when all this tidal wave of new costs is approaching, the latest scientific data, as I reported last week, are beginning to raise the largest question marks so far over the entire global warming thesis on which they are based.
A graph of satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that, over the past eight years, average global temperatures have flattened out well below their peak in 1998. The 2007 figures to June show a dip to a level first reached in 1983, 24 years ago.
During this same period, however, the graph of CO2 levels from the Mauna Loa Observatory has continued a consistent rise. If rising CO2 inexorably means rising temperatures, what happened to those temperatures?
More importantly, what happened to the brains of all those panicking politicians who are now heaping on us an Everest of costs without bothering to check whether the simple little equation on which they are based actually corresponds with reality?
The cool wet summer of 2007 may be looked back on as the moment when global warming finally got serious: in two respects. First, we are now beginning to see the scarcely credible costs of the legislation our politicians are dishing out, supposedly to change the world's climate.
At the same time, the latest climate data themselves begin to raise some rather serious question marks over the scientific basis for that legislation.
There has been no more vivid example of the mounting costs of our politicians "climate change" policy than BP's recent announcement of a £200 million plant in Hull to turn a million tons of wheat a year into "biofuel". This is to help meet the EU's new diktat that within 13 years "CO2 neutral" biofuels must supply 10 per cent of all our transport needs.
The UK's entire current wheat production is 11 million tons (against our consumption of 10 million). To meet the EU's 10 per cent target by 2020 from wheat alone would require us to grow 13 million tons of wheat a year, 2 million tons more than we currently produce. World demand for wheat is now rising so fast that, in the past two years, a global surplus has turned into a deficit.
Soaring prices have already doubled. Yet it is at this very moment that the EU decides we must either turn our entire domestic wheat production into fuel (thus needing to import 10 million additional tons from the world market), or devote similar amounts of our farmland to growing other fuel crops.
By any measure, this is complete lunacy. Yet consider some other recent reports inspired by the political response to "global warming". Last week some of our leading travel firms asked the High Court to declare illegal the £2 billion a year Gordon Brown is costing airline passengers with his tax of up to £80 on every UK-bought airline ticket.
The chief executive of ThyssenKrupps warns that EU climate change policy is likely to cost Germany alone 500,000 jobs, as industries relocate outside the EU to escape its requirements. And, as this newspaper reported last week, the Taxpayers Alliance reveals that local councils are paying at least £102 million a year on a new army of "climate change-related" officials.
The list goes on and on. By 2050, the EU has decreed, we must reduce our output of CO2 by 60 per cent. As one step towards this, within two years the EU is to make it illegal to buy ordinary incandescent light bulbs.
This will force us (according to Government figures) to spend billions of pounds on new light fittings, to accommodate hideous "low-energy" compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), which to work to full efficiency, the experts point out, must be left on all the time, thus substantially eroding any savings in CO2.
Yet just when all this tidal wave of new costs is approaching, the latest scientific data, as I reported last week, are beginning to raise the largest question marks so far over the entire global warming thesis on which they are based.
A graph of satellite data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that, over the past eight years, average global temperatures have flattened out well below their peak in 1998. The 2007 figures to June show a dip to a level first reached in 1983, 24 years ago.
During this same period, however, the graph of CO2 levels from the Mauna Loa Observatory has continued a consistent rise. If rising CO2 inexorably means rising temperatures, what happened to those temperatures?
More importantly, what happened to the brains of all those panicking politicians who are now heaping on us an Everest of costs without bothering to check whether the simple little equation on which they are based actually corresponds with reality?
Dodgy phone-ins are nothing to the BBC's great wind scam
A feature of the row over the BBC's rigging of competitions has been the rush to protest that this is trivial compared with the much greater scandal of the BBC's generally biased world-view on a whole range of topics, giving almost everything it broadcasts a distorting spin.
It is not always easy to pin this down to hard, indisputable facts, but one small, telling example consistently demonstrates just how one-sided its coverage has become.
For some years, in all the BBC's promotion of the benefits of wind power, it has always concealed one central flaw. This is the fact that turbines are a highly inefficient and unreliable energy source because wind only blows on average for a quarter of the time.
The BBC betrays its systematic bias on this by invariably referring to the output of wind turbines only in terms of their "installed capacity", as if their blades were constantly spinning at maximum efficiency,
Last week, for instance, the BBC reported on three turbines, nearly 400ft high, being installed at the port of Bristol. These, it told us, will produce "all the electricity needed to run the port", while saving 15,000 tons of CO2 every year.
There was no mention of the fact that three quarters of the time the port will have to draw its power from conventional power stations, kept running to step in when the wind drops (let alone that those 15,000 tons of "CO2 savings" equate to 3 per cent of the yearly emissions of one jumbo jet).
Another tireless promoter of the wind scam is Sarah Mukherjee, the BBC's environmental correspondent, who recently reported on the Government's energy White Paper standing in front of the 36-turbine Gallow Rig windfarm in Dumfriesshire, which she excitably claimed produces "enough power for around 18,000 homes".
In fact, thanks to the Renewable Energy Foundation's website, we can now see exactly how much (or how little) energy is produced by every turbine in the land. This shows that claims such as this exaggerated Gallow Rig's output by about 400 per cent.
Because this sort of telltale error is so persistent in the BBC's coverage of wind power, perhaps it is time for the corporation to tell us exactly what it is up to.
Friends of the Earth is friend of EU
My sharp-eyed colleague Richard North, who runs www.eureferendum.com, spotted a fascinating admission by Siim Kallas, the EU's Estonian anti-fraud commissioner. In a speech in Brussels, Mr Kallas was referring to the lobby groups that play a key part in the way the EU is governed.
This is the process known to the EU as "participatory democracy", whereby it enjoys dialogue not so much with ordinary European citizens (heaven forfend!) as with bodies which supposedly speak on their behalf, representing what it calls "organised civil society".
Mr Kallas said that one of the more important such organisations in Brussels is Friends of the Earth Europe, adding that it gets half its income from EU member states and the EU itself, including £425,000 a year from the European Commission.
So the Commission actually uses our money to fund a supposedly independent organisation to lobby it, on issues where the EU and Friends of the Earth have pretty well identical views anyway.
No prizes for guessing which issue is currently number one on the FoE agenda. As its website proclaims: "Climate change: the biggest threat our planet is facing!"
By Ian Drury, Political Reporter
An army of up to 3,500 council staff has been hired at a cost of around £102 million to tackle climate change.
Local authorities are spending a fortune on the workers to promote green policies, despite being criticised for forcing unpopular cuts to bin collections, social services and libraries. One council has employed a team to talk to children about environmental issues.
Another has spent thousands advertising in newspapers for a ‘carbon reductions adviser’ to help educate businesses, public bodies and charities about how to reduce energy consumption.
Critics condemned the policies as costly and pointless at a time when local authorities earn increasingly large sums from the public. Since labour came to power in 1997, the average council tax bill has almost doubled from £564 to £1,078. The spending on green advisers was uncovered by the Taxpayers’ Alliance pressure group.
Using figures from 25 councils, it worked out that on average each employed eight people to deal with environmental issues. If that figure were replicated across all 442 councils in England and Wales, the total number would be around £3,500. Researchers found the average salary for the staff was £29,283 – leading to a total of £102 million.
Tower Hamlets council, in East London, has 58 staff tackling aspects of climate change, while Hull – which was devastated by recent flooding – has 30.
Matthew Sinclair, the group’s policy analyst, said: ‘Town halls are spending more and more of our money so they can just say they are doing something on climate change. It is expensive and futile when China is building a coal power station every few days.’
The news comes as many councils face anger from voters for scrapping weekly rubbish collections and imposing cutbacks on long-term care for pensioners. More than 30 councils were toppled in May as a result of introducing fortnightly collections of household waste.
Critics say this mean binbags sit outside for days, decomposing, smelling and causing infestations of flies and vermin. Meanwhile, Help the Aged has warned it is ‘deeply worried’ about councils slashing the number of elderly people eligible for carers in their homes.
