Yeah, but they're not paying him for his "economic expertise"

He doesn't have a clue about economics and he's a pretty dull speaker. JP Morgan is in fact now paying him for all the favours he did them while he was still President, Sarkonomics, bank bail outs, Euro-tinkering etc etc, all done on a nod and a wink.

It's only more junior politicians who are allowed to be "paid for their expertise" while they are still in office, by the very same companies who happen to be benefitting from his department's spending. Which is all entirely coicidental, of course.

Comparative Of The Week

From the BBC:

More could be done to prevent the early deaths of up to 50,000 people each year hastened by air pollution, MPs say. A Commons Environmental Audit Committee report said failure to reduce pollution had put "enormous" cost on the NHS and could cost millions in EU fines....

EAC chairman Tim Yeo* said: "Air pollution probably causes more deaths than passive smoking, traffic accidents or obesity, yet it receives very little attention from government or the media. In the worst affected areas this invisible killer could be taking years off the lives of people most at risk, such as those with asthma."

Oooh! "more deaths than passive smoking", so pick a number greater than zero, eh? "traffic accidents", that's a known figure, about two or three thousand a year, nowhere near "up to 50,000". How many people die of obesity? No idea. That must be what it's like in the Westminster bubble - the people in there actually see things like passive smoking or obesity as threats to life and limb.

* Lest ye forget, Tim Yeo is a Conservative MP. A company called AFC Energy pay him £3,750 a month for doing one day's work (from They Work For You). AFC Energy do all this clean coal, hydrogen fuel cells and all that nonsense, i.e. are exactly the sort of people who are claiming to have technology which will reduce 'air pollution'.

This is just to illustrate that the daily rate requested by Stephen Byers MP was quite realistic.

"Controversial landfill plan vote"

The whole enviro-greenie movement can be adopted as a mantle for all sorts of self-interested parties, here's an fine example, subtext "Oh no, we're not selfish NIMBYs who want to dump our waste elsewhere, we're generously and selflessly concerned about The Environment".

If that £4m extra cost of transporting waste to Wrexham isn't persuasive enough, why don't Wrexham Council just up the waste charges by another few hundred quid per lorry?

While I'm on the topic, Tory enviro-loony Tim Yeo is a corrupt shit.

Personal Carbon Allowance

Are they completely mad?

Tim Yeo MP (Sussex South), who is a Conservative and thus ought to know better, was on the BBC today saying how such a system would be better than 'carbon taxes' because they 'hit the poor'. The general idea is basically, to inch us a little bit closer to the Surveillance State by giving people an electronic card that they have to swipe every time they pay a gas bill or fill up the car. Under their bureaucratic dream scenario, people who don't use up their personal carbon allowance would be able to sell the unused bit to someone who needs it.

Complete and utter bollocks, of course. If (and that's a big 'IF') it were agreed that it were desirable to reduce our CO₂ emissions, then, as I have said before...

I would seriously consider increasing taxes on fossil fuels (demand is quite price inelastic) and dishing this out to all UK residents as a part of the 'Citizen's Income/Citizen's Pension' system. Those who use less than average will gain, those who use more will lose, but the overall pressure will be that people use less (and spend a bit more on insulation, warm clothes etc); our oil, gas and coal will last that much longer and it will hopefully help our balance of payments a bit.

Of course all this Kyoto nonsense, "binding legal targets" and trading of "carbon credits" is a load of crap and will no longer be necessary.

1. The point about price elasticity is that even if domestic fuel bills and petrol prices were to double in short period (oh, they just did) then the amount that people will consume will not fall by half, it might fall by a couple of per cent. Their scheme will not affect total consumption either - people will use up to their 'personal allowance' and assume that it's cost free.

2. Do politicians expect people to vote for them, and in exchange be forced into this sort of bureaucratic surveillance nightmare? (What happens if you fill up you car and realise you've forgotten your card?) Well, clearly politicians do think that we'll still vote for them, and we probably will - that's the frightening bit.

3. The only acceptable form of rationing is price rationing - it's called free markets. Have they forgotten the disaster caused by government-imposed food rationing after 1945? And if there are external costs (like road maintenance) then sure, cover this with a tax on petrol. But it needs go no further than that.

4. Of course taxes on petrol and domestic fuel are far too high anyway, on top of underlying prices being an an all-time high. So my solution wouldn't work either, politically or economically, but it has the merit of simplicity - at least you can look at the idea and dismiss it fairly quickly.