Jan 2010 28

DFT survey finds that the public don't support making petrol and flying more expensive to fight climate change2

The Department for Transport have released a new survey, the January 2010 survey of "Public attitudes towards climate change and the impact on transport".

Much of the poll is pretty useless as it asks ridiculous questions.  For example, it asked whether respondents agreed with the statement "I would be prepared to change behaviour to limit climate change".  Leaving aside the awful grammar, it is impossible to gauge the meaning when someone says that they "agree" with such a vague statement.

The results from some of the clearer questions are interesting, though.  Particularly, the question about public support for different measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.   Just 10 per cent supported increased taxes on petrol, just 21 per cent supported increasing the cost of flying, just 16 per cent supported charging motorists to enter more towns and cities, just 6 per cent supported increasing car parking charges and only 37 per cent supported higher taxes on "less environmentally friendly cars" (and the public tend to be even less supportive of that agenda when they find out that such policies don't just target the likes of the Hummer but also more ordinary family cars).

Even some of the measures that don't entail paying more didn't attract much support.  Only 39 per cent supported an expansion of cycle tracks.  Only 42 per cent supported measures to encourage car sharing and even "better information" on local public transport services only got 38 per cent support.

The only measures that enjoyed public support were "more safe routes for children to walk to school" and spending more on improving bus and rail services (and here the poll's failure to capture whether these policies are a priority against cutting the deficit, cutting taxes and spending on roads makes it less than helpful).  Even those proposals didn't reach 60 per cent support, though.

The public are right to oppose any plans to make driving and flying even more expensive.  In most of the country, outside the dense transport networks in the cities, people need to drive to get to work and access services.  And, they don't want to be penalised when they take a well-earned holiday.  Research by the TPA has shown overall green taxes are too high, particularly for motorists, and the DFT has confirmed that the same is true for taxes on flights.

Green taxes are excessive and unpopular; the last thing politicians should be doing is planning to increase them.

Related Posts

  • Adrian Wrigley

    The government has just increased VAT. It is clear from the above that the TPA support VAT as a better alternative than taxes on petrol and aviation fuel. Why is this?
    VAT has a higher compliance cost than fuel taxes. And almost certainly a higher deadweight cost. VAT is also notoriously prone to fraud, evasion and dispute. So the evidence seems to point to the green taxes as superior.
    Indeed, one can ask the basic question, why should aviation and domestic fuel get any subsidy/discount/exemption on VAT at all?
    Does TPA research show that “too high” green taxes should be transferred onto Income Tax and Stamp Duty? Or what?
    Wouldn’t it make things clearer if the TPA would explain its preferred mixture of taxation? Say 60% from Income Tax, 39% from VAT and 1% tax from petrol, or whatever? You can’t have lower reliance on *every* source of government income!
    If TPA genuinely wants to make a contribution to the debate on how taxation is raised, it should propose its ideal model and explain its reasoning. Blog entries like the above just seem like populist agitating.

  • AdrianS

    Not sure why you think VAT has a higher compliance cost than fuel taxes. Fuel duties do have their problems as well such as Red diesel being used in road vehicles
    Vat counts for something like 35% of all money collected by goverment for taxation. As with all taxes there will always be some evasion/ fraud, VAT has a big advantage in that it is an up to date tax, collected every 3 months. Many people who might otherwise avoid paying tax also end paying VAT, for example if someone is “moonlighting” they still end up having to pay VAT just like the rest of us of many goods for example VAT on alcohol sold in supermarkets. The trouble with “green taxes” is they generally seem quite vindictive aimed at which ever group is out of favour at the time. You can have endless SIF groups, Lobby Groups, Weird Beards all calmouring for some particular group to be ” punished” for thier lifestyle excesses, and this can be quite an unbalanced adminstration of taxation based upon emotion rather than fairness. VAT applies to us all equally. Its interesting to note that Missing Trader Intercommunity Fraud ( MTIC) moved rapidly into Carbon Trading, arrests have all ready been made by HMRC for those engaged in such “green” activities.