As of next Sunday every plastic bag or paper bag used by shoppers in Wales to take their goods home will carry a 5p surcharge. I am surprised that all of the major retail chains have agreed to acquiesce. Under European law minimum pricing is illegal and this charge on bags is a clear case of illegal minimum pricing.
Because the Welsh Assembly Government is unable to raise taxes the proceeds from the 5p charge for each bag used in the larger retailers is going to be given to charity. Some supermarkets have named the charities that are going to benefit. Tesco will give to the RSPB, Morrison's to Save the Children, Boots to MacMillan Nurses. Others just note that the money raised will support unspecified charities; Asda will donate to local good causes and the Co-Op to environmental projects.
It would be interesting to know if the money given to the likes of the RSPB, environmental projects and MacMillan Nurses will be for the benefit of those causes' work in Wales alone; or will my bag money be subsidising their work in more affluent parts of the UK?
Will the plastic bags charge help or hinder charities?
When the nice lady from the local church comes round with her Save the Children envelope every year I am quite happy to give a couple of bob to the cause. But if I feel that I have been ripped off by Save the Children every time I shop in Morrisons – she might be sent away with a flea in her ear the next time she comes-a-knocking.
Many local charities raise money at Christmas and other holiday periods by offering to pack customers bags for them in exchange for a small donation; it's a major income source for many youth club, Scouts, Urdd etc groups. I will not be willing to be forced to give money to one charity for the bags and then volunteer to give to another for the packing. This bag charge could be the death knell for many local youth groups.
Isn't the point of charitable giving that it is voluntary? There are some registered charities who's objectives and activities I totally oppose. At the moment I can choose not to support them if I so wish. From next Sunday, if my local supermarket offers its support to one of those charities, I will be obliged under the force of law to donate a sum of money to them, against my wishes, in order to take my shopping home in a biodegradable plastic or paper bag! I suspect that there might be a human rights issue there!
Q Anybody know a no-win-no-fee HR lawyer who might take the issue on?
A Don't be silly Alwyn! The leftists who support Human Rights are the same people who support this enforced giving to anti-Welsh charities like the ROYAL Society for the Protection of Birds and the English National Trust (AKA The Save Snowdon from the Welsh Society)!
This is a Nationalist issue which Plaid should oppose on Nationalist grounds, but which Plaid stupidly supports in order to prove its British Socialist and British Environmental credentials!
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
27/09/2011
01/06/2011
The Green Monster
There is an interesting post on the Better Nation Blog that looks at how likely people are to vote Green. To paraphrase and over simplify the post, it claims that more than 50% of us see the Greens as a cuddly nice party who we might vote for in the right circumstances. This confirms my own non-empirical experience of how people across the political spectrum view the Green Party. Pleidwyr, Labourites, Lib Dems and Tories all see the Greens as a party they COULD vote for and a party that they don't fundamentally oppose.
The Greens are seen as a generally progressive, slightly left of centre party, a party with a heart of gold even if some of their policies seem a tad too idealistic, but this impression is wrong. The Greens are not a left of centre moderately progressive party; they are an extremely regressive anti-Welsh party.
Thirty years ago only the rich Jet-setters could afford to board an aeroplane to visit overseas countries at great expense; that wasn't an environmental problem! The problem is caused by us hoi-polloi being able to easy-jet to Spain, or wherever in our thousands.
Forty years ago only the gentry could afford a motor car, no problem. The problem is caused by those of us living in council houses having cars!
Sixty years ago the rich could have a range of good food in all seasons. The poor had to survive on salted meat and vegetables that had grown stringy in frost covered ground (if they were lucky); the environmental problems are caused by the lower classes expecting fresh meat and fresh veg from the supermarket in all seasons.
Wales has poorer road links, poorer air links, and fewer factories than other parts of the UK, because of that Wales has a GDP that is 26% lower than the UK average, but any attempt to build new roads, improve our air service or to re-industrialise our post industrial areas are met with howls of protest from the Green lobby!
And what are we offered by the Greens in exchange for giving up all the advantages that a 21st century economy could give us?- Yr Hen Ffordd Gymreig o Fyw (The Old Welsh way of Country Life)? No chance!
What we get is New Age Colonialist English Hippies who oppose anything to do with Welsh culture.
The Green Party is an anti-working class, anti-business, anti-Welsh abomination, that deserves no support from anyone in Wales.
The Greens are seen as a generally progressive, slightly left of centre party, a party with a heart of gold even if some of their policies seem a tad too idealistic, but this impression is wrong. The Greens are not a left of centre moderately progressive party; they are an extremely regressive anti-Welsh party.
Thirty years ago only the rich Jet-setters could afford to board an aeroplane to visit overseas countries at great expense; that wasn't an environmental problem! The problem is caused by us hoi-polloi being able to easy-jet to Spain, or wherever in our thousands.
Forty years ago only the gentry could afford a motor car, no problem. The problem is caused by those of us living in council houses having cars!
Sixty years ago the rich could have a range of good food in all seasons. The poor had to survive on salted meat and vegetables that had grown stringy in frost covered ground (if they were lucky); the environmental problems are caused by the lower classes expecting fresh meat and fresh veg from the supermarket in all seasons.
Wales has poorer road links, poorer air links, and fewer factories than other parts of the UK, because of that Wales has a GDP that is 26% lower than the UK average, but any attempt to build new roads, improve our air service or to re-industrialise our post industrial areas are met with howls of protest from the Green lobby!
And what are we offered by the Greens in exchange for giving up all the advantages that a 21st century economy could give us?- Yr Hen Ffordd Gymreig o Fyw (The Old Welsh way of Country Life)? No chance!
What we get is New Age Colonialist English Hippies who oppose anything to do with Welsh culture.
The Green Party is an anti-working class, anti-business, anti-Welsh abomination, that deserves no support from anyone in Wales.
07/06/2010
Gwynt y Môr - no thanks!
After my sojourn in foreign climes I hear on my return that the Gwynt y Môr project to place 160 offshore wind turbines in the sea off Llandudno has been approved and that the work will begin next year.
The news has been welcome by Ieuan Wyn Jones and Cheryl Gillan, and by a number of Welsh bloggers. I'm sorry to break the all welcoming consensus. I think that the project is bad news for Wales.
I have nothing against wind farms, I accept the environmental benefits that projects such as Gwynt y Môr can deliver, but I am also aware of the negative effects of such a project. The noise, the visual impact and the affect on the local environment caused by taking energy out of the wind before it reaches land could be detrimental to the people who live on the coast and to the tourist industry that is the mainstay of the local economy. Incidentally I find the Plaid Blogger, Welsh Ramblings, response to such concerns that people who live in the coast are going to have to get over it is as insensitive as telling people in the Varteg that they should get over the fact that an open cast coal mine might blight their community.
Of course the argument is made that all disadvantages that the project will cause will be outweighed by the advantages that it brings. A point that I agree with in general, but as was the case with water extraction and coal extraction, Wales will bear the brunt of the disadvantages whilst the advantages are enjoyed by those outwith Wales. The economic benefit to Wales from this project will be a poxy 1% of its total value, whilst Wales will suffer 100% of the project's down side.
Rather than welcoming the development Plaid, a so called national party, should be shouting from the rooftops about yet another example of Wales' natural resources being ripped off for the benefit of others!
The news has been welcome by Ieuan Wyn Jones and Cheryl Gillan, and by a number of Welsh bloggers. I'm sorry to break the all welcoming consensus. I think that the project is bad news for Wales.
I have nothing against wind farms, I accept the environmental benefits that projects such as Gwynt y Môr can deliver, but I am also aware of the negative effects of such a project. The noise, the visual impact and the affect on the local environment caused by taking energy out of the wind before it reaches land could be detrimental to the people who live on the coast and to the tourist industry that is the mainstay of the local economy. Incidentally I find the Plaid Blogger, Welsh Ramblings, response to such concerns that people who live in the coast are going to have to get over it is as insensitive as telling people in the Varteg that they should get over the fact that an open cast coal mine might blight their community.
Of course the argument is made that all disadvantages that the project will cause will be outweighed by the advantages that it brings. A point that I agree with in general, but as was the case with water extraction and coal extraction, Wales will bear the brunt of the disadvantages whilst the advantages are enjoyed by those outwith Wales. The economic benefit to Wales from this project will be a poxy 1% of its total value, whilst Wales will suffer 100% of the project's down side.
Rather than welcoming the development Plaid, a so called national party, should be shouting from the rooftops about yet another example of Wales' natural resources being ripped off for the benefit of others!
22/10/2009
Beer and Fags and Plastic Bags
The European Court of Justice has decided that Ireland, France and Austria cannot set minimum prices for tobacco products. At the moment tobacco prices in many countries, including the UK, have a great deal of variation. A packet of 20 fags can cost between £4 and £6.50. When governments use taxes to try and discourage smoking for health reason many smokers can absorb the price increase by switching to a cheaper brand, which they do rather than giving up, making the reasoning behind the health tax defunct. The EU, however, argues that binding prices restricted manufacturers’ freedom to set prices, thereby posing a risk to free competition.
Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting notes how this could have a knock on affect on plans for minimum prices for alcohol proposed by the Scottish Government. Although Nicola Sturgeon claims that the decision will not affect the alcohol proposals, like Jeff I'm not convinced.
Another knock on affect could be on National Assembly plans to reduce the use of plastic bags. A number of countries have tried to reduce the use of bags by taxing them. In some US states one has to pay a tax of between 5c and 17c for each bag issued, for example. However, the National Assembly has no tax raising powers so their plastic bag tax plan is in effect a minimum pricing plan where shops will be forced to sell bags at a set price. So the Assembly might have to think again about this policy in light of the EU's ruling.
Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting notes how this could have a knock on affect on plans for minimum prices for alcohol proposed by the Scottish Government. Although Nicola Sturgeon claims that the decision will not affect the alcohol proposals, like Jeff I'm not convinced.
Another knock on affect could be on National Assembly plans to reduce the use of plastic bags. A number of countries have tried to reduce the use of bags by taxing them. In some US states one has to pay a tax of between 5c and 17c for each bag issued, for example. However, the National Assembly has no tax raising powers so their plastic bag tax plan is in effect a minimum pricing plan where shops will be forced to sell bags at a set price. So the Assembly might have to think again about this policy in light of the EU's ruling.
15/07/2009
Bottling it
On my travels recently I stopped in a small shop and bought a bottle of water. Make the most of it the shopkeeper said as I paid for my bottle, the politicians will be banning bottled water soon. Interesting to see a political debate that is going on in Australia resonating in rural north Wales.
However, the shopkeeper is probably right. This does seem to be the sort of issue that would appeal to the Assembly. Indeed Penri James suggests that one leading Liberal Democrat in Ceredigion is already advocating the cause, despite the fact that the county has two prominent water bottling companies providing much needed private sector investment and employment in the area.
Other Welsh politicians thinking of joining this bandwagon should remember that one of the Ceredigion water companies is Tŷ Nant, probably the most recognisably Welsh brand in the world.
I can’t quite understand the environmental benefits of not bottling water. If I was unable to buy water yesterday I would have bought a bottle of fizzy pop instead. As far as I can tell a plastic cola bottle is just as bad for the environment as a plastic water bottle!
However, the shopkeeper is probably right. This does seem to be the sort of issue that would appeal to the Assembly. Indeed Penri James suggests that one leading Liberal Democrat in Ceredigion is already advocating the cause, despite the fact that the county has two prominent water bottling companies providing much needed private sector investment and employment in the area.
Other Welsh politicians thinking of joining this bandwagon should remember that one of the Ceredigion water companies is Tŷ Nant, probably the most recognisably Welsh brand in the world.
I can’t quite understand the environmental benefits of not bottling water. If I was unable to buy water yesterday I would have bought a bottle of fizzy pop instead. As far as I can tell a plastic cola bottle is just as bad for the environment as a plastic water bottle!
26/06/2008
Pascal's Environmental Wager
There is an interesting spat going on between two Welsh blogs at the moment.
On the one side is Paul Flynn MP. He argues vociferously that all that can be done should be done to slow down global warming. The MP calls those who don't accept global warming deniers who have undermined well-founded public alarm on Global Warming.
On the other side is the Cynical Dragon who accuses Mr Flynn of advocating a form of terrorism by raising peoples fears based on unfounded propoganda.
Both present their arguments with passion. Both make valid points and both claim to base their opinions on sound scientific evidence.
It is difficult to decide which one to agree with, especially for those like me who don't really have the scientific expertise with which to judge the merits of either side's arguments.
One way of dealing with this uncertainty is to adapt Pascal's Wager to the environmental argument:
If we reject the argument that human pollution causes global warming, but we make the wrong choice, the result could be disastrous.
But if we accept that human pollution causes global warming and we are wrong, so what? The result of efforts to reduce pollution and to clean up our world will be beneficial anyway.
Cymraeg
On the one side is Paul Flynn MP. He argues vociferously that all that can be done should be done to slow down global warming. The MP calls those who don't accept global warming deniers who have undermined well-founded public alarm on Global Warming.
On the other side is the Cynical Dragon who accuses Mr Flynn of advocating a form of terrorism by raising peoples fears based on unfounded propoganda.
Both present their arguments with passion. Both make valid points and both claim to base their opinions on sound scientific evidence.
It is difficult to decide which one to agree with, especially for those like me who don't really have the scientific expertise with which to judge the merits of either side's arguments.
One way of dealing with this uncertainty is to adapt Pascal's Wager to the environmental argument:
If we reject the argument that human pollution causes global warming, but we make the wrong choice, the result could be disastrous.
But if we accept that human pollution causes global warming and we are wrong, so what? The result of efforts to reduce pollution and to clean up our world will be beneficial anyway.
Cymraeg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)