Aug 2008 28

Response from the Government and Friends of the Earth31

We have had an excellent response to our report, with several newspapers supporting our message in their leader columns and a number of politicians voicing their support for our argument. Unsurprisingly, the response from the Government and Friends of the Earth has been less favourable. The Treasury said that:

"The estimate of green taxes is wrong as it includes taxes used to fund core public services, rather than simply offsetting the cost of CO2. For example, while fuel duty recognises the environmental costs of driving, it also pays for important public services, including new roads and public transport and efforts to tackle child poverty."

There are two points to make on that response:

  1. They are making the massive admission that green taxes can’t really be defended as environmental measures; they are excessive compared to the harms that British greenhouse gas emissions cause.  They’re just taxes designed to sate the Treasury’s immense appetite for taxpayers’ money.  That is worth remembering the next time they try to sell a tax hike as environmentalism.
  2. Green taxes are generally charged in addition to other taxes.  As we said in our report "people pay for electricity, motor fuels and other goods subject to green taxes with income that has already been taxed; companies that pay green taxes also pay corporation tax; and most green taxes are accompanied by VAT."  That means that green taxes are a premium that is deeply unfair if it isn’t justified.  Our report shows that green taxes are excessive and, therefore, constitute an unfair victimisation of various groups, such as those living in rural areas who need to drive.

Friends of the Earth said:

"The TaxPayers’ Alliance figures are seriously flawed because they are based on a discredited approach to calculating the cost of climate change – and in fact green taxes have fallen as a proportion of overall taxes since Labour came to power. Green taxes are one of the key policies needed to prevent dangerous climate change that would cost the UK billions of pounds and ruin lives. The Government has fuelled public scepticism by failing to use tax breaks and public spending to make it cheaper and easier to go green. If green taxes are to work the Government must also invest in greener alternatives such as public transport."

Our approach to calculating the cost of climate change has certainly not been discredited.  They don’t elaborate on that point but our method for assessing the cost of climate change is based on research by leading academics in the field, the "father of climate change economics" and an IPCC principal author, the IPCC and the Government.  If Friends of the Earth think that the social cost approach is discredited they have a mountain to climb convincing the most prominent experts and authorities concerned with the issue.

The fact that green taxes have fallen as a share of the tax burden since Labour came to power is really neither here nor there.  The TaxPayers’ Alliance doesn’t need convincing that a range of taxes have seen a big increase, the biggest tax rises were discussed in Mike Denham’s report for the TPA – The Great British TaxPayer Rip-Off (PDF).  That isn’t relative to the question of whether green taxes are excessive or not at all.

The idea that green taxes may be necessary to prevent climate change and its effects doesn’t undermine our report either.  Our research is premised on trying to work out how the harms that are expected to emerge from climate change, based on mainstream estimates, relate to the current extent of British green taxes.  We balance the £4.6 billion pounds that the IPCC estimate, for example, implies Britain’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2007 will cost people around the world, now and in the future, against the £24.2 billion of green taxes and find they are excessive by £19.6 billion.  Friends of the Earth therefore clearly can’t refute our argument by saying that the impacts of climate change could cost Britons billions.

One point we would agree with Friends of the Earth on is that the Government have fuelled public cynicism with their disingenuous environmental policy.  The Government have fostered cynicism by trying to disguise tax hikes with green rhetoric.

Neither Friends of the Earth nor the Treasury have established any kind of flaw in our report.

Related Posts

  • Hardeep_Singh

    The Government and “Friends of the Earth” (as if they have the arrogant self appointed licence towards caring) haven’t got their heads in the sand they are perfectly alert in order to guard their replusive motives. Just take a moment to listen to the venomous bite deeply infused in each of their responses, it appears to go along the lines of “How dare you even look in our direction let alone question us” approach. Well that little sack of money you have is mine I gave it to you (TAX) and I have every right to question your actions whilst you spend it. I am not being unreasonable in getting you justify your actions especially when the unelected Friends of the Earth are so closely allied with you. Companies have to report every year so why can’t I get you as a Government to answer my questions especially when you don’t even spend it on me anyway but you never forget to take it from me. I want proper accountability for all this Green-Enviro fairy tale stuff especially when it involves a serious amount of money that most just cannot afford in this day and age.
    These politicians and allies will no doubt come out with yet another delluded idea to keep complaining taxpayers at bay. Oh I know says Gordon to Alistair “why don’t we have a taxpayers appreciation day and parade through London, that should keep them happy”…. how naive do they think we are?

  • Joe Public

    If the government are intent on stopping child poverty why are they blatantly causing child poverty by overtaxing people with so called green taxes and letting fuel bills go up so high?????

  • ewan beck

    I wonder who funds the tax payers alliance or whether you are all just mad. out of control climate change could extinguish most family lines within a few generations. The changes could be absolutely catastrophic and irriversible on a human timescale. You can’t put a price on that. When are you going to WAKE UP! No one likes paying tax especially when the money is sometimes wasted but WAKE UP. There are far more important issues and people far worse off.Stop whining and do something about climate change. It’s the thing that REALLY matters.

  • joe

    Hey Joe Public
    Have you had your head in the sand for the last 24 months? The world is getting cooler by all the accepted measures,the global warming theory is a crock of s**t. Yes the climate is changing – it always has (vinyards in Northumbria during the Roman period, ice fairs on the Theames in the 18th Century) but what is becoming increasingly clear is we can’t do anything about it – it happens and the system producing the changes is so complex that it is sheer hubris to imagine anything we do will make a blind bit of difference to the big picture. Hence “green Taxes” are a con -moreover they are a con directed against ourselves since all they do is make the UK waste billions of pounds (which could be better applied to hospitals, schools, pensions and even giving our armed forces proper kit!)on measures which will are the equivelent of “p*****g against the wind”.
    Thanks to the green lobby we have had no realistic energy programme in this country for the last 15 years(thanks to the green lobby against “evil” nukes and coal power stations)something exacerbated by the insane EU large combustion plant directive (another green backed initiative). So when the lights start to go out around 2011 we’ll face a total breakdown of the country (unlike the 1970′s three day week everything is computer dependant now so no power = chaos. Still at least we can use the then redundant lamposts to string up the greens and their political fellow travellers.
    Joe

  • Riddi of England

    ewan beck
    I am sorry your exhortations are deluded and plain wrong.
    There is nothing wrong with climate warming /climate change/climate cooling .
    It happens all the time and will continue to eternity.
    It will be quick excesses that could be difficult but mans ingenuity to mitigate most excesses has been proved over mans whole stay on this planet.
    That is probably why we are still here.
    What would be stupid would be to ascribe the effect to a gas that probably is beneficial to mankind.
    Calm down… hysteria sells paranoia.
    Creativity and cool analysis provides solutions eventually.
    The unscientific consensus banning of DDT condemned huge numbers of(some say 40 millions in Africa alone) innocents to die of malaria.
    Science has now proven that DDT is benign and the ban has been rescinded.
    Too late for the poor innocents I fear.
    Let us not make a similar mistake with the new satan CO2.
    I too like you wonder who funds TPA but it seems to be an excellent beneficiary.
    I do know who funds the FOE, WWF IPPC amongst many others who propagate known and unknowable falsehoods.
    The unelected unaccountable Soviet EUnion contributes Millions of Euros of our money to these organisations.
    Makes you wonder does it not?

  • Garry laine

    I am not in the slightest bit surprised with the responce from this government. Yet more lies and distortions, for gods sake ‘New Labour’ just go and let us live our lives wirth the constant threat of yet more taxes.

  • http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/ Steve Loughran

    Can I take issue with your claim that “By relieving congestion on public transport networks motorists do a significant public good”. This is simply wrong. The cars on the road increase delays for public transport. By reducing demand for public transport it forces buses to travel less often and to charge more. As you say yourselves, “his kind of social benefit is known as a network effect in the economic literature.”
    One aspect of fuel taxes that the report happily ignores on is that higher fuel/vehicle taxes are designed to change behaviour. That is to reduce pollution, to reduce congestion and to reduce the dependence of the country on inefficient vehicles and processes. This is why the increase in oil costs over the past year has been less traumatic in the UK (a 50% increase) than in the US (doubling of cost and crossing their threshold of $4/gallon). Which is why the impact of the oil increases have been far more traumatic in the US
    The only externality considered in your report was CO2 emissions. Therefore issues like the fact that central bristol, where I live, is an Air Quality Management Zone is omitted. Furthermore it omits the costs of the Iraq war -arguably an external expense for oil- or even the costs of the Georgian debacle, where Europe’s effective surrender is driven by their requirements for Russian gas, and, to a lesser extent, oil.
    Where it would be justified in criticising all these taxes is not in their excessive amount, but in central government’s failures to use the money (or any windfall tax on energy companies) into investing in the power sources for tomorrow. That is solar, tide, hydro, wind and possibly nuclear, though its economics are always a bit doubtful. Giving people a bit of the cash back may help in the short term, but it still forces us to depend on Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran for our energy.

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    Steve,
    The big problem for trains isn’t lack of demand but lack of capacity (buses are only really efficient in big cities like London) . Increasing capacity on the trains would be great but is exceptionally difficult on a large scale. Given that cars make more than ten times as many journeys as trains there’s no way that trains can make up. So there is a hefty positive externality to driving in reducing congestion on the train network.
    The report doesn’t ignore that motoring taxes are there to change behaviour. It is entirely premised on that.
    Blaming the Iraq war on British motorists is absurd.
    The report did deal with air quality. It is regulated by car particulate emissions standards. Taxing as well would be to double-correct for that externality.
    Renewables aren’t the answer to energy security concerns. Wind provides pretty much no peak load capacity so doesn’t help much in security terms unless you’re okay with the power regularly going out. Hydro depends on having lots of suitable mountains that we don’t have in sufficient quality. Solar isn’t there yet, though it might be soon.

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    The main reason we’re not as worried by high fuel prices as the Americans is that we produce a large portion of our own needs. Of course, that won’t last because the Government have got us hopelessly dependent on gas for electricity generation. Green taxes certainly don’t address that problem.

  • http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/ Steve Loughran

    Matthew, thank you for your replies. Having lived in the US from 2000-2004, I saw that their low-fuel tax regime encouraged the manufacture, sale and purchasing of fuel inefficient pickups, SUVs and the like. The transition to a fuel efficient fleet is going to take a long time, and so hurt them. And, when you consider that oil is a global commodity whose price is based on global demand, hurt us too.
    Returning to public transport, all the UK cities are suitable candidates for bus transport, though up to the end of 2007, it is only London that has shown any increase in passenger numbers; the rest of the UK cities -the ones easiest and cheapest to drive round- have been showing reduced passenger numbers over time. Here in Bristol, firstbus have been cutting back on underused routes.

  • Peter

    I agree with Joe he right in what he says. How about the wind farm con how each 2MW turbine gets the owners £400k, £200k in electric produced bought at 2-3 times normal cost and £200k in subsidy. Denmark wind power only produces 6% of power greens claim 20% so they have stopped building them.
    Whitelee 30 square miles of land for 322mw earning owners £32 MILLION in subsidy alone yet only 7% of electric produced by one nucular plant occupying 1/30th of the land.
    Remember claims for each turbine of 2MW in reality is 1/4 of that due to unrealabilty of turbines.
    So let us stop this rip off and put the money where it would do most good back in our pockets.
    If one of us carried out this con we would be arrested and done for fraud and theft.
    So I will vote only for MPs with no green agendas which proves to me they are not NUMPTIES.
    Peter

  • Peter Phillips

    Encouraging people to use public transport isn’t only an issue of cost and taxes. It is also about the anti-social behaviour that one has to endure on trains and buses in lawless Britain nowadays. Although I’ve now got an over-sixty buspass (not because I want one but because I’ve compulsorily paid for it through my taxes), I do anything to avoid using public transport – particuarly buses.
    Just like the immigration debate over the last few years (as much as we are allowed to discuss immigration these days) only the supposed, but very questionable, economic benefits were talked about. There is much more to life, and the successfulness of a nation, than economics, but LibLab&Con and the rest of the establishment that govern us refuse to recognise that fact.

  • Peter Phillips

    Encouraging people to use public transport isn’t only an issue of cost and taxes. It is also about the anti-social behaviour that one has to endure on trains and buses in lawless Britain nowadays. Although I’ve now got an over-sixty buspass (not because I want one but because I’ve compulsorily paid for it through my taxes), I do anything to avoid using public transport – particuarly buses.
    Just like the immigration debate over the last few years (as much as we are allowed to discuss immigration these days) only the supposed, but very questionable, economic benefits were talked about. There is much more to life, and the successfulness of a nation, than economics, but LibLab&Con and the rest of the establishment that govern us refuse to recognise that fact.

  • http://www.paul-lockett.co.uk Paul Lockett

    I find Matthew Sinclair’s claim that “The report did deal with air quality. It is regulated by car particulate emissions standards. Taxing as well would be to double-correct for that externality,” questionable.
    Particulate emissions standards put an upper limit on the externality, but they clearly don’t irradicate the externality, as air quality issues can still continue. In that basis, taxing the remaining externality seems perfectly reasonable. It is two half-corrections rather than a double correction.
    The implication seems to be that there should only ever be a single action taking to correct any public policy issue, as using a package of measures would be double-correction, or triple-correction. That would raise some very difficult questions. Would traffic policing be viewed as a double correction, because driving tests are already in place to deal with the problems of bad driving?

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    We don’t impose a special tax on stereos to make up for the noise or factories to make up for particulate emissions. We use regulation to control emissions to an acceptable level. Unless you think that those regulations were composed with a complementary tax in mind (driving tests are clearly predicated on the existence of traffic police) then they already do the job of controlling particulate emissions.

  • http://www.paul-lockett.co.uk Paul Lockett

    Matthew, I think regulations controlling emissions from motorised traffic have always been designed with a complementary tax in mind. We’ve had fuel duty as a charge on pollution for decades, alongside increasing regulation.
    Regulations to limit pollution tend to increase as technology allows the use of less polluting approaches, while taxation remains as an option to price the remaining externalities which cannot be eliminated.
    Take the example of leaded petrol. It presented a serious negative externality, which was justifiably taxed. When technology advanced to enable the widespread use of unleaded petrol, it allowed the approach to change to the use of regulation to seriously restrict the use of lead in petrol.
    The approach taken in the report would imply that, because regulations have restricted the use of lead in petrol, we should no longer price any of the remaining air pollution caused by petrol because it would be a double-correction. I don’t think that makes sense.

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    Paul,
    Just think of other localised pollutions. Chemicals from factories, noise from houses, etc., etc. They’re all controlled to acceptable levels and by planning law. The idea that Fuel Duty singles out motorists for particular punishment for their particulate emissions, which are witin safe and regulated levels, is, in the end, a bit bizarre or simply unjust.
    Matt

  • http://www.paul-lockett.co.uk Paul Lockett

    Matt, I think it is a bit weak to say you can just dismiss taxation of externalities of fuel use as unjustified because other activities are regulated but not taxed. You could just as easily argue that the other activities should be taxed and green taxes are too low. Of course, some are already priced through taxes such as the climate change levy.
    What you are saying is different to what the report says. The report says that it is acceptable to ignore air pollution when calculating the cost of externalities because regulation deals with it satisfactorily. You seem to be saying that you can ignore it irrespective of how well regulation deals with it, because other pollution is not taxed. That is a completely different argument.
    The combination of regulation and taxation of externalities isn’t unique here. Consider alcohol and tobacco. The supply and use of these items is heavily regulated, but they are also taxed heavily, with the justification being that there are still costs remaining, such as health care and policing costs.
    The idea that emissions after regulation are within safe levels is dependent on not just how clean the fuel and the car is, but also how much fuel is being burnt overall, which is what taxation can influence. It isn’t just particulates that are relevant. Take for instance benzene; it is possible to restrict the amount of benzene in fuel by regulation, but it is not possible to remove it from emissions entirely, so the only way to restrict benzene further is by pricing what remains.

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    The analogy to those other costs that alcohol and smoking impose is spending on roads – which we’ve taken out.
    You are talking about singling out motorists to face taxation, on top of regulation, for localised pollution.
    In the end, most fuel burnt doesn’t cause any problem with particulate and other pollution. Unless it is burnt in an urban area. It’ll just diffuse and the quantities are low. For that reason, a tax is a bad idea because you would be taxing lots of people for non-existent externalities (this is the same reason the IFS says that Fuel Duty shouldn’t be used to correct for congestion). Regulation that can focus on making sure levels don’t get excessive and cause serious, Beijing-like, problems is all that is necessary.

  • http://www.paul-lockett.co.uk Paul Lockett

    I’m not talking about singling out motorists. I think other pollution should also be taxed.
    I agree that fuel duty is not the most accurate way to price congestion. Electronic pricing or privatisation of the road network would both be much more accurate, but the level of surveillance required would probably outweigh the benefit of increased accuracy.
    Likewise with air pollution. Total accuracy would demand the combined use of an exhaust meter and a GPS unit in each car, with the driver being charged according to the time, place and quantity of pollution. The use of fuel duty sacrifices some of the accuracy for simplicity.
    The key point when looking at the report is your comment: “most fuel burnt doesn’t cause any problem with particulate and other pollution.” Even if that is true, it implies that some pollution in urban areas does present a problem. If it presents a problem, then it is a remaining externality and it presents a cost. The report denies that and claims that regulation on its own is sufficient to adjust for the externalities and air pollution no longer presents a cost.
    If it really did have to be an either/or with regulation or pollution, it would make more sense to do away with the regulation and only use taxation, as regulation is inherently more limited in its effect.
    Irrespective of the severity of the pollution caused by different instances of fuel burning, it still makes more sense to tax fuel use than to tax things such as income, as working has no direct externalities and therefore is inherently too high at any level.

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    Paul,
    The general idea in forming taxation policy is to make your tax system as neutral between different economic choices as possible; to avoid economic distortion. The Pigovian logic is an exception to that.
    However, it doesn’t mean that going around finding every conceivable externality, particularly ones that have already been regulated, makes sense. Particularly when your tax winds up affecting lots of non-pollution. It could easily move you further from the social optimum by treating many problems excessively.
    Finally, your accounting of negative externalities involves ignoring the positive ones, as I discussed in the report.

  • http://www.paul-lockett.co.uk Paul Lockett

    Matt, all taxation influences economic decision making. If you place a tax on an activity, you make it more expensive and therefore discourage it. The Pigovian logic just acknowledges that and tries to use the effect to gain advantages, rather than ignoring it.
    Focusing on what the theoretical optimum level of green taxation might be misses the elephant in the room, which is that many times more tax are collected from income tax, NI, VAT, etc.
    Green taxes discourages pollution. Even if the level is set above a theoretical optimum, it will reduce pollution further and therefore continue to deliver benefits.
    Income tax and VAT discourage work and trade. I don’t see any particular benefit to be gained from discouraging either of those things, as they don’t have any specific negative externalities.
    Trying to reduce taxes on activities with negative externalities would be completely counter-productive while we still have taxes on activities with no negative externalities which could be reduced first.
    With regard to the positive externalities, I don’t think any of the ones outlined in the report are particularly valid.

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    Paul,
    You’re not talking about Pigovian tax theory anymore. I’d suggest starting from the beginning:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

  • http://www.paul-lockett.co.uk Paul Lockett

    Thank you for the link Matt, but I’m well aware of what I’m talking about.
    The point I made was that if you apply the Pigovian logic to income tax, VAT, etc. the optimum level is zero.
    These taxes clearly exceed their optimum level by far more than green taxes do and therefore the damage done by excess levels of these taxes far exceeds any claimed damage from green taxes.
    If you have any comment to make on that which goes beyond patronising link posting, I’d be interested to hear it.

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    Paul,
    The point is that Pigovian tax theory doesn’t give you an optimal tax you should max out. Instead it gives you a specific improvement that you can make if you get a specific intervention right. Other than that, the ideal of not using the tax system to discriminate between different economic activities remains.
    Matt

  • http://www.paul-lockett.co.uk Paul Lockett

    Matt
    All taxes discriminate between different economic activities, as they discourage the activity being taxed.
    Pigovian tax theory says that taxes should be set at the optimum level to correct negative externalities. Anything beyond that will cause a distortion, but that applies to taxes on activities which have no externalities (such as income tax) as much as the over pricing of an activity with externalities.
    The only non-distorting tax system is one where green taxes are set at the optimal level and non-Pigovian taxes (such as income tax) are set at zero. If that were sufficient to fund public services then that would be wonderful, but if public services require more funding, then collecting the extra tax will cause an economic distortion, irrespective of whether that tax is collected from a 1p income tax or a 1p increase in fuel duty.
    The key issue with making a choice between the two is that the increase in fuel duty will continue to reduce the externality and will at least provide some benefit, whereas the income tax will not reduce any externality and will provide no benefit for the distortion it causes.
    For that reason, it is more productive to have green taxes set above the optimal level than to have any level of non-Pigovian tax.
    Paul

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    Paul,
    You’re not talking about Pigovian tax theory anymore. Our report was about testing Government green tax policies against that theory, which politicians use to justify their green taxes. I’m not sure it is worth getting into a great argument with you about general tax theory.
    Matt

  • Trevor Wainwright

    Everything has fallen overall as compared with taxation since ‘New Labour’ came to power!
    I use public transport when it is viable. I drove to Hyde Park one day but there were four in the car. When there are only two of us, we go on the train. You have to cart your bags with you though, plus the train is expensive and crowded. As others have said, you are at some risk from rowdies as young as 14 ( who are outside the law).

  • http://www.paul-lockett.co.uk Paul Lockett

    Matt
    I don’t think politicians do use Pigovian tax theory to justify the level of taxes; that was a straw man set up in the report. I’ve seen no general consensus among politicians that green taxes are, or should be, set at the optimum Pigovian level, just that they are increasing as part of a general shift from taxing “goods” to taxing “bads,” in the same way they justify tobacco and alcohol taxes without actually claiming that they are set at the exact level of the social cost.
    The report is based on the false theory that the main purpose of the tax system is currently to correct for externalities, when in fact, its main purpose is to raise public revenue, with the correction of externalities being a side effect.
    You could just as easily set out to prove that tobacco taxes are too high because they are set above the cost of the externalities. You could also do the same for income tax, which corrects for no externalities and is therefore too high at any level above zero.
    If the report had done that and set out to establish the optimum level for all taxes, then it would have been a very interesting piece of work. As it stands, it attacks one group of taxes while not applying the same reasoning to the rest.
    For that reason, the results fail your test that “Pigovian tax theory doesn’t give you an optimal tax you should max out. Instead it gives you a specific improvement that you can make if you get a specific intervention right. Other than that, the ideal of not using the tax system to discriminate between different economic activities remains.” Once you’ve reached the optimal Pigovian level for green taxes, you are saying that further taxes should be spread across a range of activities, such that none is excessively discouraged. If you did that, you would increase income tax, VAT, etc., but you would also have to increase green taxes further so that all activities are being over-optimally taxed to ensure that the tax system remains as neutral between different economic choices as possible.
    Paul

  • http://sinclairsmusings.blogspot.com Matthew Sinclair

    Income tax is charged on the income used to buy motor fuel, VAT is charged on motor fuel. These products pay their fair share (externalities aside) under those taxes. Fuel Duty is a distortion one would only want to impose with a particular design in mind, and we’ve shown how it is excessive relative to its goals.
    In the end, our basic methodology isn’t controversial among experts in the field. The IFS have used a similar approach, so have the Department of Transport. If you disagree with the technical details we can have a meaningful debate but there is no cause to get so dismissive of the basic idea behind this report.

  • http://www.paul-lockett.co.uk Paul Lockett

    Matt, it is the basic idea that is the questionable part of the report.
    I think the methodology of the report is fairly sound (aside from the lack of pricing of air pollution and the positive externalities as previously discussed). It is the underlying premises which I’m not convinced by.
    You say that fuel duty is causing a distortion, whereas you imply that income tax and VAT aren’t. The question is, why should it be the fuel duty that gets reduced, rather than the income tax or the VAT? Why should it be that work takes the larger tax burden and fuel use the lesser?
    Income tax is as much of a distortion, applied with a specific goal in mind, as fuel duty is, so why should it be the fuel duty that gets constrained to a specific limit? That is the fundamental question which hasn’t been addressed.