Carbon taxation in all its simplicity

I have been doing the nefMythbusters course. There is a post over on Quakernomics http://www.quakerweb.org.uk/blog/ about the course (Quakers are involved, along with trade unionists &c).

Here is my comment on a post posing a question about taxation:

Clearly, all taxation shapes the activity going on in the economy, whether intended or not, because it makes that activity more expensive. The old window tax was an example of unintended consequences from a tax, since in taxing windows as a proxy for value of a house, people bricked up windows to avoid the tax.

A carbon tax is the first and most obvious step in decarbonising the economy. The neoliberal/carbon lobby wax hysterical about such a tax. It is true that it is probably regressive (bears more heavily on the poor), so the proceeds of a carbon tax should be earmarked to help the poor, e.g. by insulating their homes, and subsidising public transport. 

We should always remember that global warming is only one, albeit the major, reason to cut carbon. There is also the matter of its finite nature, air pollution, and ocean acidification to be borne in mind.

From a rational point of view, decarbonisation is a no-brainer. Yes it does bear an economic cost, but it creates jobs, and in the long run (that is, in the interests of our children) it saves money. It is a pity that we are still at the discussion stage. We should be doing it already.

Defeating Austerity with the General Tea Break

What the Cleggeron is doing to the UK people is truly damaging and ideologically driven. It is unacceptable. Therefore:

• The cuts must be stopped.

• Petitions and demonstrations, though necessary, are not sufficient.

• A General Strike would be effective, but the people are not yet ready for it.  They may be in a year or two, but by that time the damage will be done.

• Therefore, let us start with a General Tea Break.  Here's the plan

Every Monday morning, at 9 am, cuts activists meet up at work at the water cooler or someplace, and talk about the cuts for 5 minutes. That's all. Talk about the cuts for 5 mins. Anyone who comes along "Hello, we are just discussing the cuts. What do you think". 

After 5 mins they get to work. 

As numbers gather, the time slowly extends to 15 to 20 minutes and more.

If management comes and says "Why aren't you at your stations?"  the response is "We are talking about the cuts. They are going to wreck this country, do you not agree? We were just going back to our stations, but since you are here, we would like to know what you think? Do you think it will end up with a General Strike?"

Management will get the idea, as soon as they realise it is happening in other companies. They will realise we are tooling up for a General Strike, on the QT. They will have a word with the Treasury, which will have to calculate on the economic costs of a General Strike.

I do not promise that this will stop the cuts in their stride, but it is a useful weapon.  It is the Thin End of the Wedge. The thing is, it is so small (5 minutes, growing) that waverers will be encouraged to join. As more and more participate, it could go viral. The beauty of it is, if people are not sure and come up to question the General Tea Breakers, they become part of the action. 

Yes, OK a General Tea Break does not have the historic resonances of the Bolshevism to the Long March, but hey, we are British, and this is how we do things in Britain.

Rwanda: is Kagame trying to form a one party State?

The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda (DGPR) continues to have problems in registering to be an officially recognised party in Rwanda.

The party was founded in 2009, but it was blocked from registering as an official party before the August 2010 presidential elections. Link


Then, on the 14 July 2010, its First Vice President, Andre Kagwa Rwiseerek was found decapitated.

After this murder, which was suspected to be political, the leader, Frank Habineza, went into exile in Sweden, where he continued to fight for Rwandan democracy. He returned to Rwanda in August 2012, to prepare for elections to be held this September.

There were internal political problems with a Mr.Mugisha Alexis, resolved when he resigned from the Party.


DGPR’s new request for registration was submitted on 6th May 2012 to the Mayor of Gasabo District. The DGPR requested the Mayor to grant permission to hold their founding congress on 21st May.

Surprisingly Mr.Mugisha Alexis also submitted in a request to hold the same congress on 21st May but at a different location.

On 14th May 2013, while they were meeting the mayor at his offices, Mr.Mugisha Alexis entered and the the Mayor requested us to sit down together and solve the confusion.

This was not part of the plan but the Party respected the Mayor’s request and asked Alexis what he wanted and why he chose to do what he was doing in spite of the fact that he had resigned from the party. He made it clear that he wants to be brought back into the party and hold a senior position than he held before. The party leaders explained to him that we have lost all trust in him and that it won’t be possible and thus advised him to start a new party with a different name. He did not accept that proposal and the party is not ready to allow him back.

It is ridiculous that the Mayor should accept this blatant games-playing by one man, and allow it to frustrate the legitimate democratic desire to found a Green Party in Rwanda.

It is clear that registering an opposition party in Rwanda is exceedingly difficult. There is a real risk that the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, is trying to turn it into a one-party state. In other words, he is taking the first steps that lead towards dictatorship, with all the ugliness and suffering that that implies.

Dr.Frank Habineza, the Founding President of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, is also President of the Federation of African Greens.

What do both sides of the climate debate agree on?

Just posted this on the New York Times website. Will link later

There is now a  figure - 2C (3.6F) - that is agreed between the mainstream climatologists and the contrarians.  Such an increase is within the bounds of reasonable probability by both groups as a result of doubling CO2. Contrarians think it is the highest likely temperature rise, climatologists think it is on the low side. No matter - there is an agreed figure. 

At present we are about 0.7C (1.2F) higher than we should be. The Arctic ice is melting, the jet stream is changing, and we are getting extreme weather events. It is likely that these events are connected. If the present weather changes are a sign of  what we get at 0.7C, contrarians are going to have their difficulty in convincing reasonable people that 2C is something that we do not  need to try to avoid.