Saturday, 30 January 2016

Sales tax or a chance to make fundamental tax reform .

I note in the media this morning that  Lord lawson of Blaby is suggesting replacing corporation tax with a sales tax   and maybe further reform of the whole taxation system maybe required.

I have for several years now believed that urgent fundamental change is required  not only to make the tax system just and fair and equal to all , but to act as a catalyst for the transition from an unsustainable state in environmental and ecological terms, as the climate change debate is highlighting the necessity to act quickly on all technological  solutions to climate change , but as has been highlighted  it is the fiscal and monetary  systems that are at the core of where and how fast we adopt the right policies to avoid the unsustainable state of the planet we have at present.

As you suggest moving the direct taxes from corporation tax to a sales tax  does indeed help to sort the problem of the day, but it still leaves many loopholes that leaves the tax system as an unfair and unequal system. Tax systems of the past and to date have always ignored the abuse of all the resources that are causing the present problem , from fossil fuel extraction, abuse of land use,  and many aspects of human abuse around the globe in slavery  and exploitation at all levels by businesses but also individuals also.

A fundamental tax system of the future has to move away from funding wars, and subsidies to large corporates to make profits without paying a living wage to its employees. This must all change if we are to have a world we can all live in without fear and with a mutual equality that all humanity deserves.

I have been promoting a new tax system that would replace all existing taxes by  introducing a tax system based on taxing all Natural Resources  at source , This new tax would be collected according to the actual and potential damage all those resources cause by their use and consumption. This would indeed be a little like a sales tax  but one based on the damage to the planet all human activity has upon it, and now maybe the time we look seriously in trying to achieve a whole new taxation system that addresses the future needs of our grandchildren and the ecosystems of the planet.

This fundamental change would achieve many of the problems we are struggling to achieve , from fairness to equality but also to tackle fraud , evasion, and avoidance. The tax collected at source means that the price of all resources would rise according to its environmental damage factor  and would make the polluter pay, The cost of this tax is passed on down the chain of production , making all goods and services more expensive according to it environmental impact, The consumer would make the final choice  and would pay for the damage caused to ecosystems, The consumer is the polluter and the more they spend the bigger the polluter, but at least they would be paying a fair tax to help prevent it further damage.

I do hope you look further into the future rather than just another tinker subject to further loopholes, fundamental research and change is urgently needed, not to just solve greed of a few but help solve the planets ability to support life itself!

Money=energy= climate change

Your expenditure or salary is the same as your environmental footprint.

Yours sincerely,

David Dunn

Monday, 4 January 2016

If it were just carbon , the problem!

Is it just carbon !

If only it were just carbon to be sorted, its all pollution and abuse of all natural resources we have on the planet.

Just too many of us on the planet, we all have to live, but to what moral and standard of living should we expect? And how much should we trash the planet in the short and long term.

I believe we have to put a price on all Natural Resources based on the actual and potential damage their use does to the planet. This should be the main carrot and stick for everyone without exception and perhaps should replace the existing taxation system!

Sunday, 3 January 2016

Miscalculations In Climate Change ?

Is it me or is it the rest of Science that seems to be not calculating in the effects of Phase change, when the ice turns to water and water to gas,

During this process an awful lot of heat is use in the actual process of changing from one state to another, and I can't really find any references to in in context of climate change.

There discussions about what has happened to all the excess heat that has been trapped in the earth and little real temperature difference has occurred. Some argue that it has be absorbed by the deep oceans. but this would show up on data?

Can anyone explain the truth here please .


The new economic future?

 Technical solutions rather than economic or social change that can be applied to make the technical solution more relevant and feasible more quickly and without having to find out down stream its not as green as thought , as we have seen with wind power, and solar .

If we do not fundamentally look at the economic and social implications first , how can we ensure that we arrive at the correct long term solutions. Subsidies and Grants are  parts of a bad solution , as they often do not take account of the resources used but just concentrate on the outcome, when indeed it is the resources employed that need to be concentrated on in terms of use ,recycle-ability, and over use.

 Using subsidized steel for the auto industry for example, has lead us to the situation of relatively cheap auto's that make up our massive transport system, let alone subsidies direct to the auto  and oil industries that have encouraged this further at the expense of more sustainable mass transit systems.

It is the fundamental way governments run the economy that has to be tackled , in terms of taxation especially, but also on incentives they give out,  which are often focused on helping the established businesses ,rather than proper incentives for new technologies and ideas that need proving to be sustainable and have longevity.

I do hope governments and people in general wake up soon to the new realities of Climate Change  and how the real way forward is.

Monday, 14 December 2015

Lesson on how to use money

WE are not running as we have nowhere to run to, we are like headless chickens  and no one has any real idea of what to do except leave carbon in the ground.
There has been no real research into the main drivers of climate change and environmental destruction, MONEY.

MONEY is the key driver of growth as we all know, but what has been little understood is the direct relationship of MONEY in destroying everything we know and love on earth.

It is not until  mankind revalues MONEY, in respect of its value to the planet, rather than man's personal greed, will we ever get anywhere very quick.

We must place responsibility on individuals not just on the few politicians and CEO's of large corporations to make the real decisions. and this could be done by transforming the tax systems from taxing people to valuing all Natural Resources. This shift would place responsibility on all individuals, governments, and business to provide services and goods that automatically take into account the real value of the resources we have on the planet and ensure that there is not needless exploitation and greed , as this would be taxed highly and then self regulate itself .

Keeping in the ground movement, and carbon taxes are just a very small start, but without a revolutionary change in the way we value all resources and find a way of linkage between all aspect of consumerism with MONEY , we will fail to meet any deadlines like headless chickens.

I have respect for Bill Mckibbon and James Hansen et al , But I believe they are missing the most important link of how money behaves within society  and how money is the driver of almost everything. This whole exercise of resolving climate and environmental change is fundamentally an economic one and I place the whole problem with the economists of the past, and so far I see little in the Paris Agreement or at any level of addressing this key issue.

Greed wins

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.

Why should large corporations be any different to anyone else in paying their taxes , in fact it could be argued that they should pay more than individuals , as they often determine what the consumer consumes  and  the subsequent damage to the planet through the decision they make all through their actions from concept,design, manufacture, sources of parts and resources employed, right through to marketing and final sales, They also have a large say on the longevity of the products they make and how easy they are to reuse, recycle and the effects of all these actions have upon the planet.