READER LETTER: Time to embrace the idea of 'polluter pays'

Wednesday 04 August 2021

A reader has shared their vision for a new tax on goods and services, measured by their environmental impact.

Andrew Le Quesne had this to say...

Reading Monday's article on the possible introduction of GST in Guernsey has spurred me write about an idea I have had for an alternative form of taxation that might offer a better and more fitting way of raising revenue in both Islands.

The working title is Environmental Impact Duty, and it is motivated by the observation that we need to find a method of more fully embracing the idea of ‘polluter pays’ and integrating it into every aspect of the provision of goods and services.

Pictured: "For vehicles over say 3-5 years of age it would incorporate an additional component for mileage and be measured as an average say every two years."

The new duty could be levied upon every component part of the sale of goods and the provision of services; a simple example would be the introduction of a levy upon private motor vehicles, for new vehicles it would be calculated as a function of price, weight and emissions level.

For vehicles over, say, three to five years of age, it would incorporate an additional component for mileage and be measured as an average, say, every two years. This would replace/avoid the need for an MoT style test by measuring the emissions and mileage.

This would still leave vintage or collectors' cars relatively unaffected since, despite having high emissions, their mileage would tend to be lower.

For services, there would be sliding scales based upon the carbon footprint and energy efficiency - the ‘greener’ a bank is, the lower its EID rating; the more efficient and less damaging a telecoms provider is, the lower the rating.

This is a more complex area to assess but, even if it were to be based upon the materials employed, there is a basis upon which to build.

Pictured: "We could be growing up to 200 varieties of fruit and vegetables in unheated glasshouses, refurbish them and add renewable heat sources and the range and seasons are further extended."

In every example of competing or alternative products being imported the lower the food miles or supply miles the lower the rating. For example, out of season produce - be they asparagus from Chile or beans from Kenya - would have a higher rating.

We could be growing up to 200 varieties of fruit and vegetables in unheated glasshouses, refurbish them and add renewable heat sources and the range and seasons are further extended.

In construction, the cost of demolition would carry an extra tariff of, say, 20% over the conversion adaptation of refurbishment of an existing structure; the use of steel and concrete would carry a similar tariff wherever a more sustainable alternative was available, there are already high rise buildings constructed from timber in other countries, the Sumitomo Corporation of Japan has announced plans for an 84 floor timber tower in Tokyo.

Sustainable timber, hempcrete, shredded organic matter for insulation instead of foam panels there are already a huge range of materials available.

Pictured: "Plastics as opposed to sustainable plant based products, refurbished/ungraded IT hardware as opposed to new, washing machines without microfibre filters could be 5-10-20% more expensive than those with filters."

Our new hospital could be almost entirely constructed from sustainable modular components manufactured to the highest standards off-island, and, similarly, the new schools programme in Guernsey - both islands could be producing the highest quality and lowest energy consumption social housing using the latest methods.

Plastics as opposed to sustainable plant-based products, refurbished/ungraded IT hardware as opposed to new, washing machines without microfibre filters could be between 5% and 20% more expensive than those with filters.

Agricultural chemicals, especially fertilisers, increase the EID by 5% every year. We would not put a tariff on locally produced compost.

In Jersey we burn approximately 14,000 tonnes of food waste a year - this requires fuel to evaporate the water and pumps out carbon dioxide - but compost it, and you have an opportunity for carbon sequestration, so put a tariff on all dumped food waste!

A tariff-based system that penalises harmful materials is much easier to sell than outright bans and, if properly structured, could be designed to penalise the wealthier or less responsible members of society whilst not increasing the burden upon our poorer citizens.

I hope that this idea finds favour in some circles and sparks some lively debate before other more drastic and less equitable solutions are contemplated or imposed.

Andrew Le Quesne