Eco bullying

Everyone talks a good environmental game, but very few actually know the rules, so the standard of play is very poor indeed. In the United Kingdom we have a series of disconnected environmental “signals” and schemes and consultations.

 

We have to be dragged almost screaming by the European Union into any cogent environmental laws and when we are forced to do something we manage to distort the rules from their true purpose, using them as an excuse for raising taxation or regulating behaviour in a way that is unconnected to any environmental benefits.

 

First, let us look at the environmental signals that the government has sent. What are they? It is hard to think of any except perhaps the plastic supermarket bags. Here the signal from our legislators is that bags are very bad indeed for the environment so unless the supermarkets do something about them the government may have to legislate.

 

What does this do? First it does not help the environment. If plastic supermarket bags were so bad the government should ban them or the supermarkets should cease using them. Instead we have a “signal” which supermarkets interprets; Marks and Spence, for example, introduces a scheme to charge for plastic bags giving the money to an environmental charity. It does not affect M &S’s cash flow in any way or cost them a penny. It simply bullies their customers.

 

If the customer thinks that the charge is wrong, M&S simply pretend to hold the moral high ground. The poor customer, usually a housewife, is made to feel guilty for using plastic bags, or bullied into buying “permanent” plastic or hemp bags, when no paper bags are available at the check out.

 

Secondly, let us look at the European directive created legislation; the most famous example of this is the land fill directive which requires the United Kingdom to reduce its waste. Plenty of people recycle; lots make journeys at their won expense and in their own time to recycling centres lugging around bits of kit in the hope that it will actually be recycled. What happens? Plenty of the stuff is not recycled but ends up in a landfill in China.

 

In an effort to reduce landfill instead of investing in packaging laws and recycling centres we take the easy options. Many local authorities reduce rubbish collection, which we pay for with our taxes, to once every two weeks. This is supposed to discourage people from throwing so much rubbish away in the name of the environment. What it actually does is save money, and encourage rats, germs and increase the likelihood of rubbish borne diseases.

 

Somehow we managed to pay for weekly rubbish collections in far less prosperous times. Now, in the name of the environment we suffer the risks and smells of fortnightly rubbish collections which would disgrace a second world country.

 

We also take the opportunity to fine householders whose bin is overfilled. One poor chap was fined and given a criminal record for overfilling his bin three inches (he claimed) and seven inches (the council claimed). The fact that if you are caught shop lifting (stealing) you get a lower fixed penalty fine and no criminal record demonstrates just how far we go with our eco bullying.

 

Thirdly I mentioned schemes; we have a serenely complicated Emissions Trading Scheme. I am the first to recognise that climate change, emissions and the like are very complicated and when linked to a nations energy policy even more so. It is a Gordian knot. However our legislators and their splendidly brainy civil servants seem to be devising the most complicated of computer programs in their attempt to unravel the knot, when the Alexandrian solution of a hefty sword blow would solve the problem.

 

Finally I did mention consultations. In the United Kingdom we must be the world’s leader when it comes to climate change associated consultations. I had thought about listing all the consultations that I have heard of and provided evidence to in the last three years but that in itself is a topic for another post.

 

All you really need to know about consultations and calls for evidence is that despite all these consultations nothing has changed except perhaps the increased eco bullying of the ordinary person. If our concepts about climate change and the risks inherent are right, then we need laws to regulate emissions, not more eco bullying of individuals.

 

If we carry on with this eco bullying the ordinary person may react by regarding all the environmental initiatives and signals and the rest as no more than an excuse for increasing taxes. Then we would have really lost the plot.