I am aware that not all who have commented here are convinced that tax can be used to save the environment, as I have been suggesting over the last few days.
In part I accept those critics' point: by itself tax cannot save the environment. But then, by itself very little can. What is required to save the environment are radical changes to the way that we live. And in my opinion tax both signals what those desirable changes are, and reinforces them.
Raising revenue is not the issue: the aim of these taxes is to change the behaviour that they address. The desired revenue is then precisely nothing: that would be the sign that they had worked. This is how taxes of this sort should work. And precisely because I do think that they can work, even if imperfectly (just like almost everything else we humans have ever come up with) I will be suggesting more such taxes.
Another one that we very obviously need is a variant on a land value tax. Recent reports in the Guardian have shown how skewed the ownership of the UK is. Just 5% of land is used for housing. Of the rest a very large part is owned by the old aristocracy or newly concentrated capital. And we know land use is a big issue in climate change. I am convinced by the evidence that some forms of farming - most especially of cattle and sheep - is harmful. I am equally persuaded we need many more trees.
The obvious need is, then, for a land value tax on all land, excepting maybe housing where other options exist. And the tax due should be determined by the use of the land. I am not suggesting for a moment I have worked out all the details of such a tax. But I am confident enough to suggest that the rate should be positive unless the land is wooded.
And what should the proceeds be used for? I would suggest for protecting the land for use. We are going to suffer increased flooding in the UK. In East Anglia vast areas, as far inland as Bedford, unless the Wash is dammed as a flood protection measure sometime soon. The need for action is urgent. And a tax could assist that process of change.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Hi Richard, interesting points, thankyou.
I am no expert or even very knowledgeable about ‘woodlands’ but do know and understand a huge amount of our countryside has been denuded over many years as we know, especially the uplands. This can and should be creatively reversed at a higher rate.
Commercial afforestation has been ‘ok’ but not when taxation gifting has led to the ‘wealthy’ getting rich through publicly supported ‘investment programmes’…on harvesting the public funds should be a take-back at a generous level and indeed the investors should get some return due to their ‘enabling’ through investment.
However I do not accept a recently seen development that puts top class pasture (or ‘could be arable’) land into woodland … how can ‘food producing ground’ that has been cultivated for centuries, be converted to woodland when there is already enough low land in trees (that is often not ‘accessible’)?
Trees can and should be a much bigger % of our land than currently but the land made good needs to be more selectively chosen.
When we talk about ‘developing’ then we must very seriously look at the mega millions of hectares throughout the World that are being ripped out for ‘arable and crop takes’… we are NOT an island in the sheen of things. The denudation of forests has a similar global reach to the scourge of nuclear emissions and contamination, if you get my point. So investment in tree stock locally, ‘at home’ is one thing but investment (how to?) to not destroy global afforestation is considerably more critical…..
Chemically speaking, a living tree is for the most part a vertical storage system for water. So the more trees we have the less sea level rises, as that is where the water would otherwise end up. About a 1% rise in tree cover offsets 1 year of sea level rise based on the arithmetic I’ve seen. So win win all round.
Well this probably isn’t as relevant in the uk, but grazing animals prevent desertification. https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change/transcript
And in the UK they create something like it – barren hill landscapes
No, human mismanagement creates barren hills. We felled the trees – for building, warships, fuel – then the deer, which are natural woodland animals, and sheep prevent any regrowth along with “management” for grouse moors which includes burning to bring on the heather and suppress trees. Grazing animals and woodland can work together and improve the environment given appropriate management. https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/mediafile/100263349/pg-wt-2014-woodwise-2012-autumn.pdf?cb=435a97b193f048419903e8a34c51ea8a
And we keep the sheep there
Read George Monbiot
Indeed they do! I believe the term is “sheepwrecked”!
I have just said the sheep (and deer) prevent the regrowth. But they can co-exist with woodland if properly managed. Read the link.
And others disagree
Whilst I do appreciate the impact that relatively small tax – the 5p on plastic bags- can do to change behaviour I am very concerned at your proposal to put VAT on beef/ lamb. VAT is very regressive and we will never get the majority of the population on board if they are perceived to be the only people being affected by all these taxes. As has been pointed out, the intensive farming is far and away the biggest problem, with organic farming far less of a problem- so why not put any tax onto the production at a varying rate depending on how it has been produced.
However, something would need to be done to ensure that the poor were not severely impacted whilst the rich carry on as ever. There are also, as has been pointed out, the complexities of ensuring that what replaces this food is not in itself at least as harmful eg palm oil, transport to bring in more imports etc etc.
For flying it has been suggested that each person should have an annual carbon allowance that can be monetised- ie sold to someone who wants to use more than their allowance thus at least compensating the poor who do not tend to fly at all / very often. The current cost of Business / first class v economy indicates the rich are more than happy to pay significantly higher amounts. A ban on private jets or an astronomical landing tax for all private jets would be a very good start.
I made suggestion to counter regressive consequences
And other foods are available
And I am not convinced organic methane is better than the non-organic form
Re flying – how would you arrange this sale for those, for example, with no bank account and no internet access?
“And I am not convinced organic methane is better than the non-organic form”
Nor am I, but with the right grazing: “Emissions from the grazing system were offset completely by soil Carbon sequestration.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338
As for trading the flying allowance just do it as things always used to be done via the Post Office. You could register your wish to sell your allowance or maybe just sell it direct to the PO.
I am not convinced Peter: I see no way even if this was true it could be enforced
I am more open to a graded allowance
Has anyone done any research?
Richard,
“Has anyone done any research?”
yes !
That was the link…
I know it is last year and American, but the British Isles usually have more rain (certainly in the West), better grass and now actually a quantity of farmers who do really keep livestock grassfed for 12 months a year…
I was asking on traded allowances – not methane
You won’t persuade me on that
It will come as no surprise to you Richard that I am very much in favour of this idea. Your suggestion that rates should be determined by land use and also that it should be positive unless wooded sounds like a quite sensible place to start. Of course it would require some refinement during its development as some woodland will be more productive than others (in terms of favourable outcomes – such as habitat creation and biodiversity etc.)
I stress: this is an opener on the idea
I believe the Greens have argued for a LVT to replace the Council Tax – (although the literature isn’t unequivocal in support of LVT). You say the proceeds will be used to prevent flooding. I thought you were against hypothecated taxes?
Certainly, sea level rise is inevitable, it’s just a case of by how much and maps like Surging Seas pain a gloomy picture. Then there’s the additional effects of the probable increase in frequency of violent storms creating flooding further inland and the possible collapse of a major ice sheet in Greenland or Antarctica.
You’ve explained how a GND could be financed so why can’t a Climate Emergency Strategy be part of that and funded in a similar way and by government investment?
I think Council Tax – reformed – still has a role
And I am not suggesting a hypothecated tax
I am suggesting use for revenues whilst they exist
And let’s be clear – government investment may well require additional tax. To suggest it might not is wrong
Have we mentioned forest gardening yet? If not https://spiralseed.co.uk/making-forest-garden/
It’s very provocative. I see dandelions as potential food these days rather than merely weeds. It makes me wonder, though which malevolent agency was I misinformed in this in the first place? It also makes me wonder what else is in front of us we could be eating which we don’t recognise as food because it isn’t packaged and sitting on a shelf in Tesco. I suspect we have a lot of unthinking to do if we’re to get clear of this mess. Our conditioning blinds us.
Of course tax is an essential ingredient in the required mix of fiscal policies both in terms of influencing behaviour and investment patterns but more importantly in wiping out the national government’s IOUs. Any transitional, transformative economy on this scale is going to require a massive investment not just for kick-starting new enterprises but also to mitigate against the inevitable rise in the overall cost of living – all of which will require the understanding and consent of the public. Mmmm …. way to go there, I fear.
Moreover, in present circumstances, does anyone have any idea as to how we’re ever going to get a government that is both wise enough and with an unassailable majority to push through these essential radical reforms in time? Extinction Rebels, Greta Thunberg’s army and other activists across the globe are not going to wait patiently for so-called ‘democracy’ to take its course. And if the prevailing establishment cannot / will not confront the crisis head-on – what then? While a Volodymyr Zelenskiy-style political ‘coup’ addresses specific national grievances, it’s unlikely to provide an answer to the more complex environmental challenge, even if it was technically possible in a country like the UK.
Unilateral reform is welcome & needed, but on this life-threatening issue there has to be international consensus. The next presidential election will be revealing. If the progressive wing of the Dems gets some real traction with the GND among voters it will resonate beyond the US. And China’s response is ever more critical. Challenging times, indeed.
“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is NOW!”
(Apologies for any lack of intellectual rigour – just some ramblings before heading out into the glorious Easter Monday sunshine).
Last time I looked, the UK was only responsible for about 2% of global emissions, so I’m not sure how UK tax changes can be anything more than utterly utterly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Have I got that figure wrong?
Don’t we need the big polluters (China, India and the US?) to act instead?
And as India and China are deep in fuel poverty and asking them to even CAP their emissions would literally result in millions of deaths, isn’t the whole ball game about the Americans?
Of course I care about the global position
But what f everyone said it’s someone else’s problem?
What then?
You’d be happy with that outcome would you?
And what’s wrong with a little leadership, anyway?
I think if we want to provide leadership, we should start by pointing out the truth.
The only people on the planet that pollute enough to matter and can cut emissions without literally killing millions, are the Americans.
That’s all – all that matters is the Americans.
So rather than us all saying that “it’s someone else’s problem”, we must all say “it’s America’s problem”
Anything other than America cutting emissions is either too trivial to make any difference, or too murderous to be conscionable.
Please don’t be silly
Of course the US matters – and many are taking it seriously
But this impacts everyone so don’t make silly excuses for inaction
Ivor says:
“Don’t we need the big polluters (China, India and the US?) to act instead?”
China have/are acting. See total renewables installed then compare to Europe and ROW
They have more HSR than the ROW combined.
Look at Chinese sales of EVs also.
Lets not be too Euro-centric here thanks.
M
Quality responses…. good to get the chats going Richard; an important subject in the scheme of things for the Blue and Green and yellow-brown Planet
can I pitch in on the subject of trees?
I came across this chaps proposal for a tree solution,
I downloaded his explanatory booklet and read it in one sitting,
even if you don’t buy into his proposed scheme in entirity it is worth reading because he pitches it in a way to be acceptable to the denialist perspective and the American establishment stance,
I’ve not seen the American objection to the Paris agreement explained before, when trying to overcome an apparently insurmountable obstacle it is wise to approach it from a different direction instead of just repeatedly banging your head against the wall.
I do broadly agree with his whole scheme, I was already aware of his work to make growing trees in challenging environments possible so I guess he’d already proved himself to me by his actions.
http://www.thetreesolution.com/en/
https://www.groasis.com/en/press/a-short-summary-of-the-water-saving-technology-groasis
It is vital to be wary of tax breaks for “woodland”. I think that much of the UK land ought to be rewilded to native woodland. I also think that the UK ought to aim to be self-sufficient for hardwood as currently UK consumption of non-sustainable hardwood is causing devastation across the world. However the UK has a variety of native wild landscapes not all of which are woodland. I’d like conservation of meddows, bogs and heathland just as much as woodland and some sorts of tree plantations are very bad for the environment. There was the tragedy where tax breaks caused valuable blanket bog habitat to be destroyed in North West Scotland by planting spruce plantations. IMO there should just be very strict restrictions on land use based on best evidence regarding conservation/restoration of nature. Such restrictions would automatically reduce the market value of the land and that would automatically reduce a simple LVT.
OK – a fair refinement to achieve a suitable goal
I accept that
I never pretended I had all the answers: I wanted to start debate
Richard – your horizons are too narrow
If you need ecological advice then do get in touch peter@wildwoodtrust.org
Some ecological concepts to consider:
Some woodlands are rubbish for wildlife
Woodland is just one of many habitats and a poor one for sequestering carbon dioxide – complex wet woodland, peat-lands and complex grasslands suck up much more. A commercial woodland contains as little as 60 tonnes of carbon per hectare while a peat-land contains 5,000 tonnes per hectare. A lecture on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9nFa0RGuMA or this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Q32On1GAQ
We need more land to become wild and rewild with animals acting as keystone species increasing the complexity of soils and vegetation to suck up CO2 and provide a place for more wildlife. Beavers are the best animals for this and also the ecosystem services of pollution reduction and flood prevention etc
A general Land Value Tax on all land equal to its unimproved rental value would achieve nearly all that is needed:
1. it would push people to use less land, land below the margin of production would rewild as it would be abandoned. Land that is designated as a nature reserve in perpetuity should receive a zero rental valuation and thus nor be taxed
2. Towns would become much more concentrated and efficient and this is were the real cash comes from to replace other harmful taxes such as VAT, income tax and NI on normal salaries
3. the wealthy could not avoid a LVT
These LVT principles can be extended to other natural monopolies and environmental externalities:
Externality taxes such as carbon tax to replace VAT on all imported goods and service as well as our own carbon produced goods and service. This means all goods and services contain the externality cost of carbon and thus we push the market to create more efficiency in carbon use. We can of course give a individual rebate equally to every person to avoid poverty.
A water tax on all water abstracted from the ground that is then used to provide free of charge a set amount of water per person but all business and use above a certain limit is charged the commercial rate plus the tax to create water use efficiency and have the externality cost baked into goods and services. this means food and manufactured food will be pushed to more efficiency
You overestimate the value of LVT: it will never, ever replace the other taxes you refer to and it would be undesirable if it did as inequality would rise as a result since LVT can be and will; be passed to tenants and 95% of the population would have less access to the land and I am not sure how that is going to help
I am deliberately targetting non-housing land because a different tax on housing seems worthwhile
I am open to exemptions for all environmentally useful use of land but let’s be clear: no one is recreating peatlands and we can create new woodland. I m wholly in favour of those not being commercially managed woodland.
In now way do I overestimate it, you implied that I did – I am no economist and do not know how much an LVT will raise but it would be substantial and all ‘economic rent’ in the UK from all sources would probably amount to 1.5 Trillion a year but assessing that is a complex business never mind identifying a process to tax it (especially economic rents from structural and platform monopolies like google and amazon as well as the banking and financial services). But we could ague on the numbers forever, but in reality Its not an issue that we must achieve a complete replacement – we just need to have a partial replacement, so just reduce those taxes on the productive economy, waited to towards rewards benefits the poor, environment and real productive economy relative to the amount raised.
Its as you say an issue of taxes changing behaviour – The plastic bag tax is a perfect example – tax something and the benefits appear almost instantly. The key to this is to ensure the poor do not suffer so have some form of rebate such as those I mentioned for carbon or water or even land value taxes. For plastic bags it would be to give every person 10 free bags(environmentally friendly and sturdy) a year and then double the plastic bag charge to achieve an even greater reduction in plastic bag use and pay for the free bags.
Much of my work has been fighting tax breaks & subsidies on land for commercial woodland, hunting land and farming which is what is destroying wildlife, causing flooding and other reductions in ecosystem services such as CO2 release for soil oxidation. A straight out LVT would sort out this problem as instantly and as effectively as the plastic bag tax.
One issue you may not be aware of is that farming, grouse moors and commercial woodlands have and are releasing vast amounts of carbon from soil oxidation through draining and drying out of soils – a problem that is as dangerous to global heating as fossil fuel use. (there is little good research in this area)
To take farmland as an example, across the UK, we already have plenty of farmland which looks green and pleasant. The problem is the management of land which over time has become useless to much wildlife. Farming has radically altered since WW2. Now profits in farming are slim and the public demand cheap food, and the supermarkets are locked into price wars.
Farmland has gone from being speckled by summer flowers, fungi, birds and surrounded by tall hedges to being part of an industrial enterprise however charming it may look superficially. Farms are like factories with machinery run on oil. Hedges are cut low so the hedge cutter can cut easily without tall trees in the way or removed altogether. Pesticides are used routinely and aggressive grasses such as rye grass smother competition. Water courses are polluted. Farmers are under pressure to produce food, and farms are going out of business if they cannot keep up. Supermarkets have changed the balance between the producers and their customers. It is partly ours’ and their fault for wanting cheap and perfect food all the year round and wasting a fair amount too.
Agricultural colleges teach this mode of farming and although there are organic farmers, the main stream is not evolving. It’s a business model where wildlife and regeneration of the land are regarded with suspicion. The only way to bring more wildlife back to the countryside is to financially encourage farmers to allow some of their land to revert to woodland, to plant woodland and to bring back some of the wetlands and ponds that have vanished. If farmers can see a value in schemes (which have to be monitored because there already paid schemes for leaving wild margins around field edges which are simply ignored) then wildlife will return in droves.
Although a land tax seems an attractive solution to this problem, farmers in the UK already receive subsidies from tax payers some of which could be put into better practice for the environment. Our behaviour across the world has changed and our demands are causing the problems. Less over consumption would help in rich countries and be fairer to less advantaged peoples.
So we improve the habitat protection clauses built into such a tax
Then what is the objection?
Damming The Wash is a non starter. For a start it would be technically very difficult as the centre is well
over 100 feet deep. Even more importantly it is the most important site for wetland birds in the British Isles. Under the current EU Habitats Directive replacement habitat would have to be found for hundreds of thousands of birds. That is ecologically impossible without flooding extensive areas of existing farmland. We cannot save biodiversity from climate change by destroying it!
The obvious tax change that would have an immediate impact would be to tax aviation fuel at the same rate as road fuel. Can’t see why anyone should object to that.
The technical issue is surmountable
And let’s get real about the bird issue: I am a bird watcher here and the habitats are going to be lost with or without a dam so let’s not be daft about this
https://www.ruralpayments.org/publicsite/futures/topics/all-schemes/forestry-grant-scheme/woodland-creation/
????? Public money being used to encourage landowners to plant…trees.
So?
You do realise we face a crisis, I presume?
Aw c’mon Richard, please don’t be so condescending…. I’m probably more switched on than you’ve ever been… and I am NOT ‘a climate change denier on here’
Your intonation is derogatory.
My inputs indicate that there is already money going into ‘systems’ to mitigate against local climate change.
Comments like this always spell ‘troll’
https://forestry.gov.scot/support-regulations/forestry-grants
So we can argue that ‘our taxes’ already are divvied up to plant trees and thereby ‘improve our living environments’ and serve to help the general eco-systems (especially focused near to urban developments).
I am depressed by the number of climate change deniers appearing here
It’s not a question of being daft and I too am a birder. We are talking about migratory birds that pass through a number of different countries. We have international obligations and our own fauna is already massively depleted. Changes we make will have a global impact. We can’t ask other countries to save their biodiversity if our own response is to put our own interests before those of other people’s and other species. We have to find a smarter and more moral way than that. What profiteth a man if he gains the world and loses his soul?
If we cannot prevent sea level rise, land will have to be sacrificed to provide alternative habitats. That needs thought and planning. It also provides protection against flooding as has already been recognised by existing “managed retreat” coastal realignment schemes.
Obviously these are life or death issues and it’s good that people are beginning to appreciate the consequences of climate change for their own lives. I live fairly close to the fens so I have an awareness of your predicament.
My advice to my children for many years has been not to buy property on a flood plain or within 30 metres of sea level. Or for that matter in an earthquake or volcano zone or within 50 miles of a nuclear power station. Worth keeping in mind if you relocate to Scotland!
Look at flood maps: the Wah will effectively disappear as it is without action
But there will be ample new territory
Birds will be fine
We won’t
I seem to recall discussing AGR – annual ground rent (aka LVT) here before. I believe it is a very effective tax: easy to collect, hard to avoid.
In this context I think of Crossrail 1; largely publicly funded, but the vast surpluses it produced were largely taken, wholesale and tax free by the landowners adjacent to the new Crossrail stations in exponential land-value increases; for doing precisely nothing, and contributing not a ‘brass-farthing’ to the provision of the facilities and services from which these fortunes are made ‘above ground’. Most of this land is used for commercial purposes, not housing. I use this example merely as a simple illustration. Effectively this is the modern British economy. One large, exclusively private-sector property binge.
Government, over centuries not decades, has retreated from property, although land and property is critical to its authority. The last and greatest retreat was in 1911, when the House of Land Interest (aka House of Lords) surrendered its power over Finance Bills, effectively (if not in intention) in return for future Governments not ever taxing land in future. The House of Commons has obliged ever since. The longer term effect is interesting. The vast majority of the population of the UK, unlike past generations; now, only look to their work or profession to pay their immediate bills; any ambition to raise personal capital is not dependent on enterprise or business or commerce or industry; or imagination, creativity or innovation – but essentially on inertia, what I may call the ‘couch-potato’ approach to wealth creation; constant capital appreciation on the return on private house investment; on rising up the so-called ‘property ladder’; based entirely on tax-free increases in housing wealth, and the ludicrous over-valuation of small plots of probably best described, property-dross;, gentrified or constantly made-over and recycled accommodation, inflated by pretension, but reliant on location for the next generation of couch-potato aspirants.
In the 1950s, in the age following the grim effects of WWII, wepurposefully built 500,000 houses per year for a population of 50 million (even Conservative Governments!). We now build under 250,000 houses per year, for a population of 65 million. You figure it. I need scarcely draw a picture of the effect on house prices, of this strategy. I rest my case.
I support an LVT and always have
I do not unlike some advocates think it a panacea and replacement for all other tax
I think an environmental twist would be very good