Thanks for engaging. I haven’t seen the Times/Populus raw figures so don’t know what the questions were – do you know where to find it, by the way?

That aside, two points:

1) I was at the TUC event yesterday and Rowan Williams gave a complicated answer to a question from Richard Murphy (covered on his blog: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/11/17/rowan-williams-on-tax/). Williams was essentially talking about what economists call substitution and income effects.

2) Green taxes should, in my view, seek substitution from bads (pollution) to goods (cleaner energy, etc). Of course it will raise money (income) if society doesnt switch but that’s a natural part of a well designed tax system. I don’t see why you’re cynical about that point. As the Green Fiscal Commission found, there is clear public support for this.

All the best,

Will

The questions the Times put to their readers include all sorts of relative judgements like “use a lot of petrol”. When that is translated into actual measures, which hit ordinary family cars – as the Government’s Vehicle Excise Duty changes have for example, that support tends to turn into opposition. Equally, theoretical questions about green taxes substituting for other sources of revenue are pretty irrelevant when the public, correctly, see green taxes as a device to increase revenue instead of reducing emissions.

For a more even handed analysis of the public’s attitude to green policy, take a look at YouGov’s poll for the Economist, page 20 of this PDF:
http://www.yougov.co.uk/extranets/ygarchives/content/pdf/UK%20US%20topline%20comparison.pdf

It finds net opposition to higher taxes on petrol, airline fares or to subsidise “clean energy” such as solar power and wind farms. The only policy to see net support was building more nuclear power stations.

Apart from that, with regard to the above story, the Archbishop was advocating higher taxes as a means of redistribution, he was not talking specifically about green taxes in the story we were asked to comment on.

Best,
Matt