Hit people’s pockets to save planet

NO matter how well-meaning people might be in their concerns to save the planet, there’s still no better incentive to do something than money.

If you can convince someone about a way of making, or saving, cash you’re on a winner.

Just look at the change in behaviour the plastic bag levy has brought about and the lengths to which people will go to save a couple of euro in the way they bring their shopping home. Little changes can count a lot and could save us all money after the carbon tax comes into effect next year.

Better insulation in the home, for instance, can cut heating bills. Cars are cheaper to run if tyres are kept at the correct pressure and engines are regularly serviced. Better still, people can reduce their transport bills by sharing cars while travelling to and from work, or using the bus, or train.

And, of course, a growing number of people are engaging in the ideal environmental practice of cycling. Everything is positive about the pedal-powered high nelly, which is utterly kind to the atmosphere, good for the health of the user and cheap on the pocket.

By making small changes in their lifestyles, Irish people will be able to adapt quickly and easily to the introduction of a carbon tax, according to the latest commentary from Professor Frank Convery, Chairperson of Comhar Sustainable Development Council.

He welcomes the Government’s commitment to introducing a carbon tax in the 2010 budget. Exemptions from the tax should not be allowed, he says, except for businesses that are significantly exposed to international trade and that commit to achieving the most demanding energy-efficiency standards.

“It might be argued, for example, that those who purchased homes in commuter towns during the boom years should be exempted on the basis that they, as a group, are suffering from negative equity and salary cuts and the use of cars remains essential to commuter life,” says Professor Convery.

“The problem is that exemption is another way of saying: ‘someone else should pay’. If commuters don’t cut back, then others must do more. And who should take on this extra burden?”

Farmers and rural-dwellers, in their case for exemptions, might argue that they are even more disadvantaged, as they have to use their vehicles to get to work, shop and socialise.

On the other hand, city and suburban-dwellers who walk, cycle, take the bus, or train, and drive shorter distances to work will argue that they are already contributing least to global warming and that it would be unfair to make them pay for the rest by requiring them to do even more.

However, Professor Convery, maintains that rather than looking for exemptions people should make simple lifestyle changes to reduce their carbon emissions and their exposure to the carbon tax.

For drivers, the following are ways to limit the pain, he suggests: “Keep at or below the speed limit. Every 8kph (5mph) over 100kph (about 60mph) can reduce your fuel economy by 7-8 per cent.

“Fixing a car that is noticeably out of tune can improve fuel performance by about four percent.

“Keeping tyres inflated to the recommended pressure can improve fuel economy by up to five percent.

For those who are doing all that, he further recommends they should look for just one other person to share the trip with them one day a week, on alternate weeks. Action along these lines would cut the fuel bill by 20-30 percent and allow people to absorb the carbon tax without damage to their pockets.

Fuel and emissions could also be cut by 50 percent by making the right purchase when people change their cars, he adds. As for his overall view on the tax, Professor Convery says charging ourselves for emitting greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is something we should welcome.

“The reason is that the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb more of these gases is very limited and access to this capacity now has to be rationed if we are to succeed in avoiding the risk of catastrophic climate change,” he remarks.

He describes a carbon tax as a charge for disposing of our waste to the atmosphere and says it is fair, because those who emit most pay most.

“Introducing a carbon tax is not going to be easy or painless, but we have to start charging ourselves for the use of the atmosphere or our chances of making the changes in behaviour needed to save us from disaster are slim,” Prof Convery concludes.

“And if we can use some of the money earned from the tax to protect our most vulnerable from fuel poverty by insulating their homes and support innovation that creates green collar jobs, we will all win.”