What in the name of Wild World of Sports are these people smoking? Neither Scrappleface nor The Onion can out parody them. And these guys are supposed to be for real?

What are the carbon implications of 2,000 dead bodies - plus of course the methane consequences of 2,000 (probably more, many more) legal representatives at coroners' courts, the Health & Safety enquiries, the Human Rights actions and compensation claims - not to mention the outpourings of grief by the spokesmen of the other two parties and the media breastbeating?

Better by far for the globe Charlie, just to slink home in the usual limousine. Of course, if our sanity is to be weighed in the scales it may be necessary to think again!

I went to many whacky happenings as a Green Party member, but never, ever, was anyone mad enough to assert that a meeting--even a small one--might be "carbon-neutral".

Yikes!

carbon neutral adj. Emitting no net carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Also: carbonneutral.
—carbon neutrality n.

>

Here are some yearly carbon footprint figures to consider:

An average person (world-wide): 4 tons
An average American: 22 tons
An average Chinese: 2.25 tons

Word Spy.

My American foot is ten times as big as a Chinese foot. I'm a carbon Sasquatch.

If you thought that was bad, you should have seen the Iraq debate. Or rather the, lets bash Israel/the Jews, and not bother about discussing Iraq.

The climate debate is a stalking horse whose only purpose is to legitimize further political controls over economic activity. The climactic record shows recurrent mini-ice ages, not uninterrupted warming, over the last several millenia.

If we were affecting the climate as much as the doomsayers claim, we just might be able to ameliorate the next ice age by a degree or two. Big whoop.

Nothwithstanding this, the Lib Dems have been getting better, eg their support for abolishing the DTI.

hooray! Hooray! dare to infringe on the right of every other vehicle i see with one person inside to pollute the air a hearty pedestrian (ok, i can't afford a mercedes...all or nothing!) breathes.
seriously, this improving the environment is going to take concerted effort from every being (person) on the organism (earth). I'm doing a small part by bussing and walking (keeps the glutes firm as well).

What's even more disturbing than these idiotic policies is that so many people seem likely to vote for the LibDems at the next election.

People vote without understanding what they are electing, which makes the abject failure of the Tories to challenge "New" Labour a catastrophe even beyond re-electing Bliar & co.

If these statist collectivists get anywhere near power we're in ever greater danger than we are now.

Carbon Neutral, eh? Does that mean carbon-based life-forms, too?

"improving the environment is going to take concerted effort from every being (person) on the organism (earth)."

The Earth is NOT an "organism", whatever Gaia devotees might believe to the contrary.

The damn shame of it is that the LibDems are still better than the Tories or Labour.

- Josh

Wild Pegasus you obviously havent looked very hard at the Lib Dem manifesto of economic disaster. Top tax rate 50% plus a 3.5% local tax, joining the euro, surrendering all sovereignty to brussels ???? just to name a few. If you enjoy high unemployment and no economic growth then by all means vote lib dem, but nobody else capable of conscious thought will be !

What are the carbon implications of 2,000 dead bodies....

1) The Liberal Democrats have 2,000 supporters?
2) You forgot the massive safety implications in cremating Charles Kennedy's body. This being a man where it is normal for reporters to make sure they interview him before 2pm, or before he's finished his first bottle of the day ...
3) I kind of like the idea of our new carbon-fibre Typhoon fighter being made from the incinerated remains of LibDem politicians - has a nice sense of nemesis about it.

Wild Pegasus,

Despite the warm, fuzzy title, the Liberal Democrats are positioned somewhere to the left of Lenin.

If they ever get into power (and they just might) then it is time to pack up and head for the nearest airport.

David - Labour's latest Lib Dem-bashing screed says they will abolish the NHS, abolish the DTI and all industry subsidies, and make defence procument less corrupt. These policies are to the left of Lenin how?

Indeed, the Sun article inadvertently makes a fairly good case for the Lib Dems as the least-worst UK party for an anti-statist to support.

Apart from the higher tax band Lib Dem economic proposals have been praised by the Adam Smith Institute for extolling "the virtues of free markets and limited regulation," and were not so long ago condemned by some Indy/Graun columno for their "shrill Thatcherite tone."

And it seems that when taxes have gone down government as a proportion of GDP has gone up. Libertarian?

"when taxes have gone down government as a proportion of GDP has gone up" -- Something wrong there, surely? Not possible unless goverment borrowing (that is, postponed taxation) has gone up. Or am I missing something?

john b,

Thank you for the link. To the best of my knowledge, the LDs have made some pipsqueak noises about abolishing the DTI but they do not intend to carry that through and, even if they did, they would replace it with something worse.

They have also committed themselves to maintaining the NHS in its present form and as well as this they have pledged to increase state pension funding, restore student grants and commence a sustained campaign of 'Year-Zero' environmental laws.

It all adds up to a colossal tax hike and a strangled economy.

I do not blame ther Labour Party for trying to dissuade their supporters from switching their allegiance to the LDs and, of course, the best way to do this is to accuse the LDs of wanting to do all the things that Labour voters disapprove of. It is not the truth, it is merely tribal rivalry.

As for me, given the choice between the LDs and Labour, I would stick with Labour. Merely bad instead of worse.

I guess they could successfully make their gatherings "carbon neutral" - if they festoon their meeting places with lots of vegetation. An indoor jungle would be just the right atmosphere for that sort of gathering...

"when taxes have gone down government as a proportion of GDP has gone up" -- Something wrong there, surely? Not possible unless goverment borrowing (that is, postponed taxation) has gone up. Or am I missing something?

Guy Herbert, "tax rates" to be clear, following on from the supply side argument that lower taxes generate higher revenues. If revenue raises faster than economic growth the government as a percentage necessarily increases. I read in The Free Radical that following the tax cuts in New Zealand government as a share of GDP went from 30% to 36%. This is important, as government expressed as a percentage of GDP is often described as a key measure of liberty?

It's arguably more libertarian for some people to avoid tax altogether in a high tax environment, than for taxes to be officially lower and actually paid.

I think the Lib Dems are having some interesting internal discussions at the moment with the 'orange' faction trying to rediscover classical liberalism. The trouble is the populist tendency see the party needing to move to the left of Labour to pick up disaffected Old Labour. The DTI policy would abolish some of the functions of the DTI and move others to different departments while spending the savings elsewhere. No net decrease in government. Higher tax rates for the better off would act as a disincentive to invest in creating businesses in the UK. The net loss to the economy would be in the loss of wealth created.

It's arguably more libertarian for some people to avoid tax altogether in a high tax environment, than for taxes to be officially lower and actually paid.

Lower tax rates might lead to higher tax revenues if they encourage more wealth creation and raise the percentage of GDP taken in tax in the short term because tax revenues are often more buoyant than GDP in a growth phase. I don't think that is a reason to believe that lower tax rates are unlibertarian. The libertarian approach would be to use the surplus to reduce tax rates further. Government as a proportion of a rising GDP only goes up if the Government spends the surplus, which in the New Zealand case, they must have done.

"benefit the wider community..." A meeting of Overeaters Anonymous? Free donuts?

Think of the stupidity that they're trying to present. You cant make more carbon, or anything else in the world. You can transfer it - move it from place to place, but there isn't any "new" carbon around. The part that was under the earth settles on top of.

Think about the kids you knew in school who were the really big 'environmental' boosters - how many of them were any good at math and science? Weren't they the ones who always went for the literature extra credit class?

You only go around once - leave the biggest crater that you can.

Kit Taylor: "[...] following on from the supply side argument that lower taxes generate higher revenues. If revenue raises faster than economic growth the government as a percentage necessarily increases."

It is an empirical observation that lower taxes may increase revenues--they do not always do so--and it is posited that that happens if taxes are high enough to constrain economic activity or divert it into avoidance.

Your "necessarily" only aplies if you have moved back from rates to absolute amounts in the middle of your argument, otherwise it depends entirely on the proportion of tax to the size of the economy as a whole.

Without knowing the details of the New Zealand tax system or the period of comparison, I am hard put to understand, let alone explain your factoid, but--though in general I'm skeptical of the usefulness of economic aggregates--I'd say that Government spending as a percentage of GDP is a good way of estimating actual tax rates, if not necessarily the whole of the tax burden.

In the absence of a vast increase in borrowing, 36% indicates higher taxes than 30%, not lower. Increase though it might be for New Zealanders however, 36% ought to be enough to prompt a huge rush for the airport, in Britain did people make decisions on purely economic grounds.