For those that support green taxes, or to use the government’s jargon ‘environmental taxes’ it is worth noting just how much of the money that is collected in taxes, is actually reinvested into the environment and into reducing emissions. Given the numbers, it is little wonder that there are so many sceptics in the UK, in fact it is something of a scandal. This government is forever telling us how they value the environment, how they are leading the word in the reduction in carbon emissions and why it is so important that those that pollute the environment should pay. The reason I looked up the latest available figures was because the government offered so little new money to help those in fuel poverty in terms of saving energy and ostensibly, to reduce emissions.

According to The Office for National Statistics, the government collected £35.6bn in environmental taxes, that’s right, billion. This is equivelent to 2.7% of our GDP, a huge number by anyone’s reckoning. But how much did they reinvest? According to the ONS, in 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, the government invested £5.9bn into environmental protection measures. That is just 16.5% of the taxes collected. As we all know, since 2006, there have been further stealth taxes, sold as environmental taxes, which means that the figure collected in likely to surge in 2008, perhaps to £40bn.

How can anyone reconcile the platitudes and rhetoric spouted by this government regarding why we must pay green taxes, when they invest so little of what is collected in terms of green taxes, back into environmental protection measures? Green activists would be right to be angry, but so to should the tax payer, given we have been sucked into believing we were being taxed to the hilt in order that the government could introduce measures to protect the environment for the sake of our children.

The government have claimed that people can save up to 25% on their fuel bills if they follow a few measures in terms of insulation, low energy bulbs etc. Yet when the government told us they were investing £1bn to assist those in fuel poverty, it transpired that £910m was coming from the energy companies and just £90m from the government. This figure should also be considered in context, because the government reduced the Warm Front budget by a similar figure, so in fact their contribution was at best, neutral.

If you are angry, then consider this, our green government reduced spending on measures to prevent the atmosphere and climate change from £313m in 2003 to just £250m in 2004. This is hardly what we would expect from a government that claims to be leading the way. To be fair, the expenditure may have increased in the past 4 years, but as we all know, we cannot believe the figures provided by this government, so we will have to wait until the ONS can tell what the actual figures are. This is because, in case anyone has not noticed (we aren’t supposed to), whenever there is a tax rise, it is immediate, but when there is an investment to be made, we are told the total cost, over a period of years and there is always a delay before it is implemented. For example, “we will spend £900m over the next 10 years, starting from 2011“, you know what I mean. They will then repeat this number, making it sound like new money, every 12 months or so, or when they feel they need good headlines. Sorry, I am prevaricating.

I am not arguing against green taxes, but if they are labeled as environmental taxes, then the money should be reinvested into programmes which help the environment, reduce emissions and improve our planet. To ‘profit’ from this tax insults our intelligence, it devalues the whole green agenda and it demonstrates an indifference by a government claiming to care.

Gordon Brown is right, the rumoured proposal that the government provide rebates or vouchers to those in ‘fuel poverty’ is simply not sustainable. With an estimated 4.5m homes in fuel poverty by the end of the year, this problem is of a scale that no government can realistically resolve without placing a massive burden on the public purse. Worst still, the problem will still be there in a year’s time, possibly even worse and those recipients will expect the government to step in again.

The government is right, investment needs to be placed into a long term solution, that both encourages and helps people use less energy. This is part education and part investment. It is estimated that home insulation and other energy saving measures can reduce energy bills by as much as a third. However, the government recently reduced the money available to Warm Front by a third, this does not provide much evidence that the government is practicising what it preaches. No doubt Gordon Brown will reverse this decision and then suggest that it is “new money”.

Whilst there are an estimated 4.5m people in fuel poverty, it is worth noting that everyone is suffering, irrespective of whether they have been labeled as such. Those that are not currently in fuel poverty are also having to contend with higher fuel bills, higher food bills and in some cases, higher mortgage costs. Many who are actually working have had to seek part-time jobs. If the government provides subsidies to those in fuel poverty, the truth is, everyone else will have to foot the bill, either through higher taxes or higher fuel bills. The government need to be creative rather than simply shifting the burden, not least because those that are in work have consistently, under this government, been expected to take up the slack and pay for those that are not prepared to look for part-time work.

The government should increase the amount of money available for energy saving measures such as insulation and low energy bulbs. They should persuade, rather than attempt to threaten, the existing energy companies to meet this additional investment on a pound for pound basis. It must be remembered that these energy companies will have to invest billions of pounds over the next 10 years to secure our energy resources for the next generation. They must stop talking about a windfall tax, but instead, use the carbon trading scheme to maximum affect to encourage the investment in UK based energy saving measures rather than those of third world countries.

There is no doubt that the energy companies have taken advantage of the current turmoil to increase their profits and therefore the dividend payments received by their shareholders. The government must provide the regulator with teeth, in order that the regulator can control and approve energy increases. If the regulator is not in place to keep a handle on such matters, then what is it there for? [Can Parliament control Energy Prices]

Another, perhaps more controversial solution, is to allow those in fuel poverty to seek part-time jobs. Yes, I am talking about lone parents, pensioners, the unemployed and the 2.5m in receipt of long term disability payments. There will be some that are genuinely not capable of work, even light work, but the vast majority could do something, stacking shelves, cleaning, washing cars etc. If those in work have to help themselves to keep their heads above water, then why not the unemployed, lone parents, pensioners and long term disabled? Many won’t because they have to declare the money they earn and so, for every pound they earn, they lose it in benefit. So in a way, their view is understandable, given it is a disincentive to help themselves.

Instead of just giving them another handout, which only encourages them to expect a bailout everytime they are in trouble, the government should give them a tax free allowance, that would allow them to earn, for example, up to £150 per month without having to pay tax or national insurance. Yes, we wouldn’t get any tax revenues from these earnings, but neither would the rest of us have to pay out a cash subsidy in full. Better still, it encourages them to stand on their own two feet, to stop looking at the state, or more accurately their working neighbours, friends and relations to subsidise their living expenses. There may be a special case for pensioners, but they, of course, do receive additional fuel allowances and many would work part-time if it were not for the complicated process of paperwork and tax they must endure at the hands of this bureaucracy obsessed government. Those in receipt of ‘tax credits’ could be provided with a special ‘work credit’ that would allow them, or their partner to earn a specified amount of money which would not be subject to tax or national insurance. This could be removed, if necessary, at a leter date as the economy improves.

Any allowances should be very carefully targeted at those that simply cannot help themselves, genuine cases, not the workshy. Those in receipt of benefits would have no excuse not to do what everyone else must do when things are tight, to go and get a part-time job, to help themselves. You reap what you sow.

A creative approache to government always has its critics, because there will always be those that believe it is wrong to expect people to help themselves, or it is just not the way things are done in the UK. Who cares, our greatest leaders have had original thought and a desire to deliver. But, desperate times require desperate measures. A government bereft of original thought, needs to be more radical, a government that believes throwing money rather than opportunity in the direction of the so called poor, needs to look at alternatives.

This government needs to look at its income much the same as the average family. In difficult times, the family will look at ways to economise, ways in which they can generate additional income and ways in which they can reduce or minimise the cost of their borrowings. Government needs to adopt a similar approach. There are countless examples of this government’s waste, excess and abuse of taxpayers money. They need to reign this in now. Government needs to look, not at borrowing their way out of this mess, or just dipping into the pockets of the hardworking taxpayers once again. They must be creative in their thinking, radical in their approach and understand that if it was not for the taxpayers of this country, the poor would be desolate, starving and homeless. But there is a limit to just how much you can redistribute wealth and most taxpayers have had enough.

The pound is low, which makes exports much cheaper, this government should have their best ’salespeople’ lobbying leaders of other countries to buy our products, to improve our exports. It doesn’t matter whether it is the trade department or the ambassador, everyone should be put to work to help this country. Taxpayers funds, as the government has finally discovered, are not the bottomless pit they once believed. Be creative, be bold and stop worrying about your seats at the next election. This government must start to demonstrate respect, not contempt for the ‘have’s’ that have subsidised and supported the ‘have not’s’ and allowed you to spread our money around as if it were your own or an automatic entitlement. Above all, remember, there are 650 of you that have been entrusted with the future of this country, earn that trust by doing your jobs!

A good start would be to suspend or dramatically reduce our overseas aid budget. This could provide up to £5bn to invest in energy saving measures. Charity, as the saying goes, begins at home. This government ignores that at it’s peril.

Once again, labour party MP’s are looking to raid the coffers of big business. This time, it is to counteract the economic and social impact of the increase in fuel prices, through the imposition of a so-called “windfall tax”. This is so typical of new labour, if they can’t employ a stealth tax or borrow it, they simply steal it. Yes, how else can you describe a direct raid on the profits of the energy companies?

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating that we take no action, but simply applying a one-off windfall tax is not the answer. This would act as a massive dis-incentive for other international companies considering a move to the UK, assuming there are any left. That notwithstanding, this country faces another potential energy crisis in the next 10 years, or more accurately, an energy shortage and that is because many of our existing power stations are due to be replaced. With a build process of 10 years or so and the delay in the decision to utilise nuclear stations, if the existing companies refuse to invest, we could be in a lot of trouble.

It is possible to make the energy companies pay their fair share, by reducing the substantial windfall they received, as a consequence of the free carbon credits. Energy companies would find it more difficult to argue against this particular aspect of their business that a blatant raid on their profits. It may amount to the same thing, but arguably it is all in the presentation.

Using any money gained simply to reduce people’s bills is also not the answer; it is a short-term fix and would have to be repeated year on year, most likely rising year on year to take account of further rises. This is a massive burden on the taxpayer that would have to fund future shortfalls; after all, the government couldn’t simply turn to the energy company’s year on year.

What is needed is a joined up approach to the problem. Existing government and energy company initiatives need to be extended to put in place a programme designed to reduce the energy usage of those in fuel poverty, rather than simply subsidising energy costs. The introduction of low energy bulbs would make a significant difference to energy costs and if purchased in bulk, would cost the government pennies. This could be completed as a project, much the same as smoke alarms were some years ago. Similarly, looking at more efficient energy use, for example, a modern boiler will often use 35% or more, less fuel than an old one. I know the government already has a programme in place, but why not expand it, put more money into this initiative, rather than subsidise bills every year.

We all know of the various, well publicised methods of reducing home energy usage, most experts have suggested that there could be a saving of as much as 35% on annual bills, with a the adoption of commonsense approach to usage and a relatively small, targeted investment. Given the exponential savings in so called greenhouse gases, perhaps the government could consider transferring some of the revenues’ gained from ‘green taxes’ directly into this project.

I don’t have all the answers and I am neither an expert on energy nor the carbon trading scheme, but I know this, we cannot afford to introduce an ongoing form of fuel subsidy for those in fuel poverty and not expect it to hurt the majority. Surely it is better to invest a larger amount of money now, in fuel saving measures, rather than fuel subsidies? The government does not need to employ expensive consultants to come up with a commonsense approach to this problem. I don’t have all the answers and my suggestions may be over simplistic, but then I won’t cost the government hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer’s money in consulting fees either.