Thursday, 2 August 2018

Land tax response to larry Elliott, the Guardian

Land tax should be part of a far wider ranging tax reform , where all Natural Resources are taxed according to the degradation of them from the natural state, so this would not just affect the housing market but should affect all aspects of how we treat land and all resources as a valuable resource to be used by current and future generations.

Land tax by area is critical,  and the worse the eco effects of any development on land away from the original natural state should I believe be taxed according to that divergence.
For example land used for housing would attract a high tax as the land beneath the house is in effect sterile and useless for nature and would be awarded a very high tax rate as would roads and paved areas,  there would NOT be any offsetting for green initiatives directly as with my proposal all Natural resources should be taxed in a similar way and thus all use and consumption of resources would be far more expensive and the worse they are environmentally the the higher the tax would be , so by default everyone will want the most eco friendly way of living.

There has to be a What I call a Natural Resource Tax, NRT, that taxes all land water and air according to how it is used and abused and its effects on all ecosystems

These NRT taxes would I suggest replace all existing taxes and therefore would also stop much tax fraud, evasion , and avoidance as it should be collected as close to source as possible  and based on the eco damage cause by their use and consumption.

Its our place on the planet that is at risk not  that the planet will die , it will live on in a much poorer state.

Land Tax is a part soulution a much wider change that has to occur and if this is a small step then we must do it , but do not fool ourselves it is our money in our pockets and its spending on all consumption that is the problem and this must be addressed as a whole not just to placate a few.

Climate Change is real and as we see this year catastrophic changes are beginning to impinge on everyday  living for everyone globally.

Far more imaginative thinking and actions have to take place if we are to live in a harmonious society we all share in.

Friday, 20 July 2018

Burberry, Capitalism and circular economy

Burberry, Capitalism  and circular economy

I wake this morning listen to the radio and was shocked to hear that Burberry is literally burning ££££ Millions of  good clothing in the name of holding up their brand.

This is utterly devastating for the planet and everyone on  it . This is such an utter waste of energy and resources at all levels  and should be stopped ! BUT HOW ?

The best way of protecting the waste of resources and therefore the subsequent damage to the planet through pollution, and Climate Change  through all the wasted energy that has been expended on these clothes is to -
                               Scrap all existing taxes and replace with a single Natural Resource Tax collected as near to source as possible and calculated based on the actual  ecological damage caused by their use and consumption by all sections of the consumer chain. 

It is not until all natural resources attract a real value of their worth both in terms of the damage they cause all ecosystems  but also their real value in what we can use them for , for the benefit of mankind and the planet.

This maintenance of brand in this way  must stop as it shows just how wasteful capitalism is  and how greedy we are to maintain and elitist lifestyle at all costs, even one that abuses the third world and its cheap labour used in the making of these garments.

The Circular Economy must be brought far more to the fore and with a Taxation system as proposed above, this would certainly achieve this. It is only through the recognition of the true value of all Natural resources, will any long term stability and sustainable living occur,
The polluter must pay and they are the consumer at all levels , whether from design to manufacturer , from farmer to plate, from birth to grave , Everyone must appreciate the true cost of their lifestyle and pay the price as they go.


Friday, 22 June 2018

Why Change?

I  believe  that market economy as it stands can not do the job that needed to save the planet from severe climate catasphophy and that the only way within a market driven economy is to change some of the rules.

So I have been proposing for some time now , is to place a real value of all Natural resources  as these essentially are free at present, as nobody pays god for the privilege of using them , it has to be the global governing bodies duty to protect all Natural resource from being overused, abused and cause pollution and climatic changes that may terminate in the living world being threatened within one generation.

Surely, we all have a moral duty to Nature and future generations to do far more than pay lip
service and take real actions on a national and global scale to turn this around.

We do not have to wait till armageddon has arrived before we take action , we could all benefit and enjoy the fruits of the planet if only we took far more care in the way we use all of Natures Bounty.
There is a simple solution which stares us all in the face , place a realistic value on the damage that is done by all the resources we use, from land , fossil fuels, mining , farming ,oceans, fishing water consumption,  air pollution  etc, We should not take anything for granted and we the polluting consumer must pay a realistic price.

To achieve this,

Scrap all existing taxes and replace with a single NATURAL RESOURCE TAX  collected at source and based on the damage caused to the environment at all levels.

This tax replaces all existing taxes and should be collected as near to source as possible , and everyone then down the chain  would have the tax passed on to them pro rata  according to the damage caused by its use and consumption.

It revalues all Natural resources and makes the end user the decider on how much they are prepared to pay for their consuming habits. The more damaging the resources uses are the more they would pay for the goods and services they use and consume.

This empowers the consumer in making the right choices, rather than being misled by subsidies and grants made by governments as enticements , which only distort the whole equation.

This revolutionary change in taxation would place Nature and the use of ALL Natural Resources at center stage all the time and also empower the individual whether as a consumer a worker a director, designer, transporter, retailer, to decide what is best for the ECOSYSTEMS of the planet.

Whether you are green red or blue , all should follow the same rulebook over the planets wellbeing.

Carbon taxes and other incentives are not a solution by themselves , they must be a part of a far wider holistic approach involving all aspects of all resources and that is why we must press for a replacement Natural Resource Tax.

Wednesday, 16 May 2018

What is Natures Capital?

Are we sure about what we all mean about Natures capital, Is it the hard bits , the land ,soil, water oceans, air ? or is it the nature of the plants , animals,  and even softer the landscape the noises and sights?

I ask this as its very fundamental in the arguments as described and how we want to tackle them .
For me we already place a value on the hard Natural resources , and it seems to me that what we have not done is place any value on these according to the damage they do to the rest of nature, the ecosystems, plants , animals, and mankind through their use and consumption.

Nature Capital for me is the soft bit, and I fully understand that some want to place a value on these but it is very difficult dependant on the standpoint you are from .

From and ecological standpoint any disruption to any part of the ecosystem is terrible and should be prevented at all costs, but as a farmer I have to make a living and I will destroy habitats to make fields and ensure my crops make a return on investments and as a Investor in land I am interested in maximising my returns at any cost  and will build over any land to do so.

The dilemma is to be greedy and make money and destroy the planet's ecosystems?

Yes we have choices about at what level we will destroy, by living in harmony with nature is very difficult to achieve and whos harmony are we talking about anyway?

I have come to a personal decision where we should place value of all Natural resources for the actual and potential damage we can do when they are exploited at any level.

Take land , for example . It has many uses. Farming damages the land at all levels but to differing levels, organic not so bad perhaps compared to conventional farming that uses many chemicals, but they both destroy nature to some level or other, often dependant on the viewpoint you are coming from?
The other extreme is fossil fuel extraction like coal mining and even oil drilling and fracking, these are all recognised as bad for the global environment but just how bad are they, They are used by everyone without exception in some form , so whats the problem ? It's not just the energy we get from them but the waste products, and not just these its also the sheer volume that is being used and the huge consequential amount of waste incurred, that causes so much problems to the environment at all levels.

So getting back to Natures capital, it does have a value but its determined by Who?
I think we should all make a decision on how to protect Nature and all its beauty.

Climate Change is the single biggest threat to all of the soft Natures capital, and unless this is tackled with speedy correct decisions , we all could be doomed including much of nature as we know it.

I believe we have only one choice left, as all the others are failing in so many ways and are open to abuse and have no real morals or ethical ground to stand on, so we need a way in which we all collectively make the right choices by the lifestyles we lead.

SCRAP all existing Taxes and replace with a single Natural Resource Tax  collected at source and based on the eco damage done to all ecosystems by their use and consumption.
This would help prevent most tax evasion,fraud and avoidance which most governments and rich have failed to address and would help provide a fair equitable and morally acceptable sustainable future. This in effect means the consumer is the polluter and they would be paying directly for that behaviour which today is becoming totally unacceptable.
It would directly put pressure on designers, manufacturers distributors, retailers recyclers to get their act together quickly through the use of new technologies  and methodology to create products far less polluting, long lasting and  recyclable.

Along side this may be also the introduction of UBI and reforms of the health, welfare, and benefits systems to make everyone more responsible and accountable for their own lifestyles.

Tuesday, 15 May 2018


Are these just more words ?

They are very good words full of intention and willingness but that where it stops. 

We need to do exactly as you prescribe but within a fiscal and economic framework with a precise time scale. 

I believe we need to radically reform all our taxation methods globally, putting at center stage the value of all Natural Resources , not just carbon but All land, Oceans and Air  and any use of them by extraction,  pollution and alteration from the natural state would pay a tax  based on how severe the the use or consumption of them is on the ecosystems of the planet. 

We have to wake up and recognise that it is our monetary and greedy wealth that has and is causing the problem, We do not need more money for green technology , we need to have less money and have it redirected in a new SMART way to enrich us rather than COOK and FRY us !

Instead of taxing business for behaving without due environmental care , or taxing citizens for their labours, surely we need now to take a fresh look at taxation to make it suit the present and future needs of the planet and its long term stability and sustainability. 

Why not SCRAP all existing taxes which are often abused, by all sections of society unfairly over the populus and replace with a tax that treats everyone including governments , businesses and citizens all the same , it the taxes they pay. 

You clearly state "the polluter must pay", yes but who is the polluter, Yes its you and me, we consume and employ all these services and they all pollute, so surely we must all pay, and I suggest equally, through all the goods and services we use and consume.

So I suggest This Scrap all existing taxes and replace with a single NATURAL RESOURCE TAX  collected as near to source as possible and based on the ecosystem damage caused by their use and consumption.

This will create a mindset change as does any monetary changes , but it is aimed at empowering the consumer, as they pay more for their goods the more polluting they are, and quite rightly should pay more taxes for the damage of polluting the planet at all levels, 
By taxing at source you are making a real clear statement that those resources with the highest taxes are the most polluting and will then be passed down the chain of design, manufacture, marketing,distribution, and finally to sale , but not to forget the waste and recycling afterwards to make the circular economy work. 

This tax reform should just be the start of a far broader and wide ranging set of changes that would incorporate  reform of health, welfare pensions, benefits enabling the citizen to have more control and take more responsibility for their own actions , whether it is for education,or eating to much!
So I believe this could be achieved with a full UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME that would incorporate all these reforms within it. 

Finally but not probably the endm a Death Tax as suggested by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Snr a few years ago, to help redistribute wealth more evenly within society as a whole. 

I am an Idealist  but  pragmatist also , As a farmer I believe Nature will heal , but only if it has not been destroyed to much and then we need a new deal for nature and this is what you have basically asked for in your brave new recommendations. 

The right action are needed quickly and targeted  with the sights an a timeline that is real and not one that keeps getting delayed


Sunday, 4 March 2018

Courage not Hope

We Need Courage, Not Hope, to Face Climate Change

As a climate scientist, I am often asked to talk about hope. Particularly in the current political climate, audiences want to be told that everything will be all right in the end. And, unfortunately, I have a deep-seated need to be liked and a natural tendency to optimism that leads me to accept more speaking invitations than is good for me. Climate change is bleak, the organizers always say. Tell us a happy story. Give us hope. The problem is, I don’t have any.
I used to believe there was hope in science. The fact that we know anything at all is a miracle. For some reason, the whole world is hung on a skeleton made of physics. I found comfort in this structure, in the knowledge that buried under layers of greenery and dirt lies something universal. It is something to know how to cut away the flesh of existence and see the clean white bones underneath. All of us obey the same laws, whether we know them or not.
Look closely, however, and the structure of physics dissolves into uncertainty. We live in a statistical world, in a limit where we experience only one of many possible outcomes. Our clumsy senses perceive only gross aggregates, blind to the roiling chaos underneath. We are limited in our ability to see the underlying stimuli that, en masse, create an event. Temperature, for example, is a state created by the random motions of millions of tiny molecules. We feel heat or cold, not the motion of any individual molecule. When something is heated up, its tiny constituent parts move faster, increasing its internal energy. They do not move at the same speed; some are quick, others slow. But there are billions of them, and in the aggregate their speed dictates their temperature.
The internal energy of molecule motion is turned outward in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Light comes in different flavors. The stuff we see occupies only a tiny portion of a vast electromagnetic spectrum. What we see occupies a tiny portion of a vast electromagnetic spectrum. Light is a wave, of sorts, and the distance between its peaks and troughs determines the energy it carries. Cold, low-energy objects emit stretched waves with long, lazy intervals between peaks. Hot objects radiate at shorter wavelengths.
To have a temperature is to shed light into your surroundings. You have one. The light you give off is invisible to the naked eye. You are shining all the same, incandescent with the power of a hundred-watt bulb. The planet on which you live is illuminated by the visible light of the sun and radiates infrared light to the blackness of space. There is nothing that does not have a temperature. Cold space itself is illuminated by the afterglow of the Big Bang. Even black holes radiate, lit by the strangeness of quantum mechanics. There is nowhere from which light cannot escape.
The same laws that flood the world with light dictate the behavior of a carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere. CO2 is transparent to the Sun’s rays. But the planet’s infrared outflow hits a molecule in just such as way as to set it in motion. Carbon dioxide dances when hit by a quantum of such light, arresting the light on its path to space. When the dance stops, the quantum is released back to the atmosphere from which it came. No one feels the consequences of this individual catch-and-release, but the net result of many little dances is an increase in the temperature of the planet. More CO2 molecules mean a warmer atmosphere and a warmer planet. Warm seas fuel hurricanes, warm air bloats with water vapor, the rising sea encroaches on the land. The consequences of tiny random acts echo throughout the world.
I understand the physical world because, at some level, I understand the behavior of every small thing. I know how to assemble a coarse aggregate from the sum of multiple tiny motions. Individual molecules, water droplets, parcels of air, quanta of light: their random movements merge to yield a predictable and understandable whole. But physics is unable to explain the whole of the world in which I live. The planet teems with other people: seven billion fellow damaged creatures. We come together and break apart, seldom adding up to an coherent, predictable whole.
I have lived a fortunate, charmed, loved life. This means I have infinite, gullible faith in the goodness of the individual. But I have none whatsoever in the collective. How else can it be that the sum total of so many tiny acts of kindness is a world incapable of stopping something so eminently stoppable? California burns. Islands and coastlines are smashed by hurricanes. At night the stars are washed out by city lights and the world is illuminated by the flickering ugliness of reality television. We burn coal and oil and gas, heedless of the consequences.
Our laws are changeable and shifting; the laws of physics are fixed. Change is already underway; individual worries and sacrifices have not slowed it. Hope is a creature of privilege: we know that things will be lost, but it is comforting to believe that others will bear the brunt of it.
We are the lucky ones who suffer little tragedies unmoored from the brutality of history. Our loved ones are taken from us one by one through accident or illness, not wholesale by war or natural disaster. But the scale of climate change engulfs even the most fortunate. There is now no weather we haven’t touched, no wilderness immune from our encroaching pressure. The world we once knew is never coming back.
I have no hope that these changes can be reversed. We are inevitably sending our children to live on an unfamiliar planet. But the opposite of hope is not despair. It is grief. Even while resolving to limit the damage, we can mourn. And here, the sheer scale of the problem provides a perverse comfort: we are in this together. The swiftness of the change, its scale and inevitability, binds us into one, broken hearts trapped together under a warming atmosphere.
We need courage, not hope. Grief, after all, is the cost of being alive. We are all fated to live lives shot through with sadness, and are not worth less for it. Courage is the resolve to do well without the assurance of a happy ending. Little molecules, random in their movement, add together to a coherent whole. Little lives do not. But here we are, together on a planet radiating ever more into space where there is no darkness, only light we cannot see.

Saturday, 3 March 2018

Brexit will help cause Armageddon

May will go down in history books as the PM who was gutless in making a decision, says no but with no alternative  She just kept meaning that in negotiations they will decide!  who is they the EU and her negotiators , but not her. May wants to pass the buck onto anyone who will make the decision.
She fails to stand up to the hard brexiteers  by saying we will leave the Customs union  whist offering no alternative , except one that is almost the same as we are leaving !

Fundamentally it seems to boils down to 3 criteria.
1   We want to do trade deals with anyone , despite the fact that if we do it will undercut the rest of the EU when we compete against them, unfair marketing  As with any trade agreements  unfair competition is usually covered, so we gain very little except trying to duck and dive and make sharp deals for a quick buck to help those multinationals again .

2  Control over our borders and immigration, we already have the power to do so much already within the EU , but fail to use what we could achieve, But it does hurt people and that wants to be screened under a banner of Brexit not any party.

3  Sovereignty means just being greedy and just looking after oneself and not  negotiating a compromise and trusting others in partnerships of trade, and business in particular.
The making of our own laws is selfish , mainly because it victimises the other partners by not allowing an equal reciprocal arrangement.

I believe the Uk is becoming a very selfish and inward looking as a  country, and it will pay a very high price in all aspects of our society as we know it.
We are challenged enough already from external events which we are not addressing at all and in fact ignoring them in all respects at present, I mean Climate Change ; Air, water, land  and ecological pollution .
Globally we are at a precipice of collapse and all we seem to be interested in is looking at what colour our trade relations ships are and casting our friendships, trust, and families away into the pond to drown.