Wednesday, 18 November 2015


A reply to

The miscalculations may or may not have happened or are still happening but one thing for sure is that as any research based on so many variables, there is no doubt that is not right at the end , what it does do however is to show a trend of possibilities .
To spend so much time and effort on just one aspect of what may cause climate change is fatal, and the thought that carbon is the only culprit is ridiculous in the extreme , it may be the most significant , but there are so many other factors us humans are doing to the planets ecosystems , that some of these are probably are as equal to the carbon in the grand equation .
It appears that factors such as the soil carbon and other life forms that have been vastly reduced, also the green planet of the forests that have an important job of mitigating the rise of carbon but also in cleaning the air and water from many other contaminants that bedevil our lifestyles.
If this article does just one change in our minds , of how complicated the whole affair is and any solution should also address the whole problem not just a small part, as has been put forward so far, and the reliance of governments and large corporations as the only fixers is completely wrong, They can enable, so mankind can change their ways more quickly , but to fix it will take all of mankind's efforts to make any real difference.
Solutions come from the population at large, and with direction on which aspects of our use of all Natural Resources must be controlled by the actual and potential damage they can cause the planets life systems. It is due to the sheer population of mankind that is causing the problem, as David Attenborough explained this week , and we need to change our ideas on our morals and ethics in the very near future.
So Numbers are a real problem , to many people and miscalculations, on all the variables in climate modelling, but still the climate is changing, to what?, we are totally uncertain.
The one certain thing mankind is doing wrong is we are using far to many resources to quickly and in a damaging way to life on this planet.
I ask COP21 to think again and find an economic solution of smart economics where we can grow our living standards , as defined by what?, whilst at the same time drastically reduce our resource use that is so damaging.
Surly we must make the polluter pay , and as the end polluter is the consumer, surly we must individually take responsibility for what we all consume and pay the real price of the damage they cause the planet, So just why not scrap the existing tax system and replace with a single NATURAL RESOURCE TAX ,NRT, which is based on paying a tax on all natural resources according to the actual and potential damage they cause the planets life support systems.

Friday, 30 October 2015

Natural Resource Taxation,NRT.

Natural Resource Taxation

Natural Resource Taxation ,NRT, is a new form of taxation where all Natural Resources are taxed according to the environmental damage they cause by their extraction and or use by all aspects of human activity.

The Natural Resource Taxation  should be collected as close to the sources of initial extraction or use, and based on the amount of damage they do to the  environment and ecosystems.

The Natural Resource Taxation is aimed at replacing nearly all existing taxes with aim of ensuring everybody in the chain of consumerism is made responsible for their own footprint upon the earth by paying the NRT that is due via all purchases made.

 Natural Resource Taxation  is a very efficient way of tax collection , as it is collected  as near to source as possible , i.e. well head , landowner, mining and oil companies. and is not dependant on all let out clauses and tax breaks . Every Natural Resource would be taxed in some way as as the tax is then passed down the chain of manufacture or use, the cost is then  borne directly by the final consumer who pays in the final product or service they receive.
The higher the price of the end product , the dirtier it is in environmental terms, as it will have attracted a higher proportion of the NRT .
This taxation replaces all existing taxes and as such everyone who  buys within the taxation zone will all pay the tax accordingly and everyone would be treated equally and without favour unlike the present system which is full of exemptions and cause fraud evasion and avoidance.

The effect of NRT is that all goods and services will rise according to their ingredient mix of components extracted from Natural Resources.

The result of having a much more effective tax collection system that is less prone to tax evasion, avoidance and fraud; the  overall tax take may be reduced considerably over time.

Individuals may have to pay an NRT on land based on the size of house they own and there may also be tax for services like roads which occupy large swathes of land.  maybe collected like  council tax and road tax employed in the UK .

All taxes would be based on the degradation of the land upon which they use , the principle behind this is that all land would attract the NRT  because of the degradation caused by the infrastructure built upon it , or through use of the land that  is far removed from its natural state.

Agriculture would also attract NRT , dependant on how much the soil has been degraded from its natural wild state which has abundant micro flora and diversified species of plants and animals.

Taxation of Water and Air are more problematic , and may be introduced  initially to speed up change by industry and indeed everyone to move to new forms of heating, transportation, etc etc. The NRT on Air and Water  is the stick to enforce the change to move to a sustainable future to happen quickly and as we have seen with EXXON and BP.

 Banks have paid huge sums for mistakes made  that affect people , but should also extend to include ecosystems and environment, such as financing of palm oil and mono cropping on huge scales, that destroy rainforests and other delicate ecosystems.

The financial sector has a huge role to play , and as such should be held accountable for actions taken by their clients and far more due diligence should occur, as it is no different than the banks bankrolling the slave trade of the past, and as we see with SHELL withdrawing from the artic exploration , may in some way be a response from shareholders and financial institutions to the liabilities that may be in store if anything goes wrong as well as keeping the oil in the ground.

Economist's Reality Check

 I suggest this as a reality check to all economists, as most seem not to be able to see the wood from the trees.

I mean by this that most economists are so wrapped up with traditional economic theories, and seem to have forgotten some of the real economic ideals we have seen from the past in the likes of Ruskin and others. This together with lack of reference to what indigenous peoples around the world valued most, NATURE.

Present day economics seems to have left out its roots of the study of natural resources and how to maximise the greatest use from them with as little damage in return.

I mention these things as we approach COP 21 in Paris this December and all the hype so far ignores the real world and seem to be setting their eyes again on theoretical ideas that are rooted in the stock exchange crashes and black Mondays.

As a retired Glasshouse farmer growing real crops with all the expertise of a scientist with computers and models for the absolute control to maximise the yield and financial returns, has given me an insight to the highly complex organism the earth is, with all the inactions with the natural forces of the planet and ecosystems upon it.

To this end I have watching interdependently, just how could mankind reverse such a state that we have got ourselves into.

I now believe their is only one real way forward , that resolves many of the global , national and local problems we have caused ourselves on the planet.

That is Fundamental reform of the taxation system, from one of taxing people and things of added value and businesses that manage to escape paying their dues, to a tax that pays respect and reduces resource use from the planet.

A taxation system that Only taxes ALL Natural Resources, a NATURAL RESOURCE TAX,(NRT).
This tax would replace all existing taxes with perhaps the exception of a death tax to prevent roll-over of vast fortunes.The NRT would be collected at as near to source as possible and based on the damage those resources cause the planets life forms from their exploitation and use.

That is it!   sounds simple enough , but it seems to have evaded nearly all economists, scientists and politicians.

I think the main reason is the change in mindset is to big to imagine such a solution and implementation to complex, however I think the opposite, Rather than having highly complex taxation instruments that seem to cause evasion and avoidance of taxes, by taxing close to abstraction, or first use, the tax would be inescapable by everyone, and would also be much more tax efficient in that many tax accountants would be redundant  and everyone would be treated exactly the same.

If however there is a need for variances, then this should be as grants or subsides rather than tinkering with the base system of the tax.

To date we have not imagined a way out, theier is no other sysstem I have read about that will achve so much. I does almost achieve all the goals set by the UN , IPPC, and others, but it seems we have the knowledge but when it comes to the real solution everyone is frightened to consider it as it will AFFECT them directly. Self interest is above everything else.

I have a couple of motto's I would like to share

Money = Energy = carbon and environmental footprint.

Your salary or wage = your energy footprint

Friday, 17 July 2015


Bankruptcy corrupts all involved , it is self perpetuating , it is immoral at all levels.

Usually Bankruptcy is a measure of last resort, but the journey there causes many heartaches and soul searching by some and  in others a "fait accompli",  just business and with no moral or understanding of the full ramifications of the consequences.

Surely there should be a way of monitoring the journey of a loan , to ensure that the repayments can be met and no to create indebtedness that we see all around us today.

Within a capitalist society, as there surely should be in any civilised society, responsibilities on both sides of any deal that is created,  lending and borrowing excessive amounts for goods and services that are not affordable in the long term has to be questioned , even if the lender is offering sweeteners and tie ins that are mainly to the benefit of the lender, as we see with on most interstate loans.

These tie-ins are often enabling the lending country huge incentives to lend further money and involve buyouts of resources within the borrowing state, and then employing the lender's capital and resources to maximise the return of the borrowings. We see this across the EU particularly in the transport and road building sectors, where germany has almost the monopoly of providing such services.
This in turn degrades the borrowing states ability to help themselves, by doing the work themselves , perhaps with help and education from the lenders, but not the action which employs local labour and the nation's own resources.

Loans should be only provided  along with education and direction with respect on both sides on which is the best way forward for the long term.
To allow bankruptcy at levels where the collateral is far lower than the assets is unforgivable, except in the position of state borrowing , where the state has no collateral of its own, it all belongs to the people of the state and any government who wants to sell its assets should be resisted at all levels. as this diverts any possible income from the borrowing state to that of the lender  as in the case of transference of rails assets for example, and another county takes any profits back home denuding the states ability to help itself still further.

The acceptance as almost normal in business that there are few consequences of going bankrupt is at the heart of where we are going and want to go as society as a whole.

The question we have to ask ourselves , should we really lend and borrow money at all, especially at high interest rates and unreasonable tie-ins? Is society ready for this sort of change?

In the state sector as in Greece and African states , surly debt cancellation or relief has to be done, but with the knowledge that it is often the poorer in all the lending states that will suffer the most!!!! So should there be a change whereby the rich are forced to take the biggest hit , as it it they who took the risk in the first place?

We need to look back sometimes at some of history's lessons and built knowledge from philosophers  like Ruskin and others to gain other insights in how we may get out of this mess.

Grexit, Loan sharks, Coup de tait, upon Greece , is without compassion and fairness.

It's all WAR without any Love, compassion, understanding and without forgiveness.

Greece has been dealt a horrible hand of cards since the mid 30s, and have been advised by numerous politicians, economic advisors , generals, and dictators on the best way forward as have many other countries in the region.  It is this center of democracy that has led perhaps to Greece being dealt the hand it has , as it has had more leniency awarded to it by it's lenders and also without any real compassion but on a pure commercial basis.

The difference between credit to a business and a country are huge although with corporations getting to the size they are now , bring some of them down certainly would have dire consequences to some countries also. Credit to most business is purely commercial and  if repayments cannot be made then a rescheduling is done on what can be achieved realistically or the company is put up for sale and made bankrupt, with the state often picking up the pieces of the subsequent unemployment and lossof local investment is infrastructure of education, health and welfare.
On the other hand the state has no long term control of the direction of where its target is , governments change from left to right or vice versa, ensuring an unstable commitment repay loans negotiated by a policy which is often defunct after a few years, it is this which is now a major problem as the loans have built up to a level, where they are not only unsustainable but are self perpetuating, meaning that they in all probability will never be paid and so in effect the lenders have an income for perpetuity without the capital providing any services to Greece or any other borrower.
Other commitments of the state  has to guarantee personal and state security, health and welfare provision as well as education and transport and other infra structural obligations  which are set not just by the state but also by the EU and other global institutions.

These obligations to it peoples forces many governments to borrow far more than they can pay for , so as part of any lending to states there has to be a moral understanding that the lenders should not and cannot expect the same terms as a commercial enterprise.
The lending to states should only be allowed if is only for short term needs and be able to repaid in full within a normal term of office of one parliament.
Lending into the distant future as see applied to all countries globally is abhorrent, and indeed is is morally indefensible, as it seeks only to benefit the wealthy and rich within society as a hole and places the poorer in an impossible situation where they are unable to dig themselves out of, and will if perpetuated cause long term social deprivation at best and unrest and chaos at worst due to lack of respect and the bare necessities of life.

The creditors of Greece and indeed all creditors globally should quickly take stock of the moral implications of what they are doing, and must provide a let out in situations like this,in Greece. They are responsible often for the terms and conditions of such loans and they appear no better than the loan sharks we have seen in the UK as payday lenders , asking such high interest rates and take no mercy and force people into suicide and poverty rather than guiding them through with intelligent loans that we have seen applied to some countries in Africa.
Just because some states are "Developed" and others are not all should be treated with the same  respect and  dignity and terms that can be seen and applied that if all goes wrong will not in themselves jeopardize the State's ability to fund basic security for their citizens.

All this often is discussed and debated without ant reference to the effects of such loans have on the environment and indeed on climate change. It is in this area that far more has to be considered in how  much, when and what terms any loans should be awarded.

Money use=Energy= goods and services+environmental damage and climate change.

Tuesday, 23 June 2015

Response to You and Yours, Welfare Cuts?

Welfare Cuts ?

Having just been listening to the program  I was surprised to hear that in effect you want to see a simplified and more fair tax and benefit system  and that all the recent tinkering with them only causes more and more unfair situations both for the recipients and also the taxpayers.

To this end I have been actively trying to suggest a complete reformation of the tax and welfare system , But surprisingly I have arrived at it from a completely different angle , that of how do we effectively sort the climate change  and environmental problems we have at present .

The proposed solutions are idealistic , but I feel that it is now time to really think the unthinkable and have a fundamental reform of the whole tax and welfare systems based on empowering the individuals to make the right choices for themselves, rather than being in effect being forced to do what the government says by default. This covers all aspects of consumerism and health and welfare.

To achieve this I have proposed a simpler taxation system  that would replace all existing taxes except a death tax used to redistribute excessive wealth, This new tax would be to raise revenue from the use of all natural resources based on the actual and potential damage their use causes the planet, from fossil fuels,  minerals,  water ,  and land .

This new tax collected as near to source as possible and raised at a level to replace all existing tax revenues, it is a tax on natural capital use rather than on human capital use. a fundamental shift to recognise that it is the planet's survival that most important and also as it is collected at source would also be less subject to fraud evasion and avoidance.  

As individuals will not be paying tax  directly unless they are a land or property owners, They will have a lot more disposable income , and it will then be their decision how and what to spend the money on, and if the want a big car then they will pay dearly for the privilege of being able to pollute the air and cause damage to the nature by large areas of concrete roads etc.

Welfare and Benefits , These I believe should be scrapped and a citizen's wage should be introduced  and it should be the citizens right to use this money as they wish , but primarily , it is to replace all welfare and health benefits ,and the NHS would become in effect a private company where citizens can obtain surgery and all existing services but through payments from their citizens wage, There would however be exceptions for the disabled and severely long term  incapacities that some require, but basically similar to the netherlands health provision,.
This would encourage preventative health options and should in the long term be a less cost option than what we have at present , with all individuals feeling they are in control.
The benefit system as we know it would cease as the citizen's wage would in effect be its replacement and also it would  also be a pension for everyone, There is an example of this in Canada which trialed such a system and proved it could work but was stopped before the real benefits could be gained. However it promises to be solid example of where we need to go in the future.

Finally , a death tax to help redistribute wealth rather than leaving it to the super rich to spend it on their own pet ideas, some of which are all good and do help others across the globe , but much is wasted on giving a "life of riley" to subsequent generations  and hoarding the money in staches  of investments which distort the real free market economies.

I firmly believe we have to maintain a Free Market within a capitalist system which promotes choice, and bettering oneself , but within a new tax regime which respects the planet's sustainability and reduces the difference between the rich and poor, enabling everyone to have a more equal chance to succeed and increase mankind's capital wealth on the planet.

Monday, 22 June 2015



If I may take a few minutes of your time to point to a new direction I believe we should all be taking on the issue of climate change.

Firstly we all recognise something has to be done  quickly , and effectively and with the cooperation with all global citizens, It is to this end  I have come to the conclusion that it is the financial and tax systems that will be key to any lasting and fair way forward to this mounting problem of not just climate change but also of water security,loss of species, ill health due to pollution and other factors like poor diet, noise and so on.

Secondly  we all need to recognise the widening gap between the rich and poor along all the world over and especially in Europe, where being near to the islamic states and north africa where so recently we saw the Arab Spring uprisings. all of which have been partly due to unfairness and widening gap between the haves and the have not's.

Thirdly, welfare, to include all welfare of pensions, health, and education are being attacked on all fronts due to lack of resources and ever increasing expectations.

Forthly, Greece has highlighted the greatest problem of overstretching the monetary capacity of sustainable financial stability of not just the EU but potentially of the global capitalist system.

These four fundamental aspects are high on everyone's agenda, but the one thing everyone seems to not be able to comprehend and facilitate is the way in which all these aspects are interlinked and dependant upon each other and when discussions are taken place  whether on Roads, Rail, Housing, Greek bailout, Climate change, and in fact on most topics that The EU and the UN are responsible for. there is a failing of grasp an holistic way forward that not just helps on objective but helps meet many objectives at the same time.

To resolve this major global problem , surely we have to think and act in a completely different way, so as to  enable each citizen to have the tools to make the right decisions for society and the planet whilst at the same time feel they are in charge and not being controlled by states, multinationals or even other individuals. This empowerment is the real challenge and would I believe create real human capital and give us the power to control our destiny as a united civilization , rather than one which is tearing itself apart as we see at present in Greece, Russia and Ukraine, Syria and so on .

The resolution I believe is to treat everyone and every entity equally , so if we abolished all taxes with the exception of a death tax to redistribute excessive wealth, rather than relying on benevolent Bill Gates and the like. This being replace with a single tax on all natural resources at source, and based on the potential harm their extraction and use does to the planet, This would include all Resources eventually in any changeover , from water to land ,  Fossil fuels to minerals. This then would be the only tax states would use to obtain revenue to enable services to be rendered. The replacement of all existing taxes and replaced with this Natural Resource Tax,(NRT), would empower every citizen and business to rethink the real value of natural resources whilst at the same time reducing Fraud, Evasion and Avoidance at all levels and everyone to be treated equally.

As I write Greece is at another crisis point , but will the politicians have any idea of their responsibility in their deliberations for the longer timeline of a sustainable future for all?