<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gordon Brown&#8217;s Broken Wind Promise</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/business/gordon-brown-breaks-wind-promise/367/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/business/gordon-brown-breaks-wind-promise/367</link>
	<description>for environmentalists who don't take themselves too seriously</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:41:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Upaya</title>
		<link>http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/business/gordon-brown-breaks-wind-promise/367/comment-page-1#comment-2167</link>
		<dc:creator>Upaya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:36:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/?p=367#comment-2167</guid>
		<description>would it really cost just £4bn to raise the level by 7%. does that include consultancy fees? considering the 54 richest people in britain earnt an estimated £126bn last financial year yet paid a staggering 0.14 per cent in tax. if for just one year we closed these &#039;loopholes&#039; that only the fattest of cats fit through we would be a good deal closer to recovering the governments estimation of between £97bn and £150bn in lost tax revenue. At the estimated rate of £600million for every percentage increase in renewably sourced energy then it would cost just £60bn to achieve 100%. - clearly one should not assume that if a 7% rise costs £4bn that it would cost the same for every 7% increase i am just trying to put into perspective that not achieving ecological goals is not a question of inability but rather, lack of desire or economic interest or some other twisted motive. luckily in my democracy i can choose between two sides of the same coin or between positive images without too much substance. 
interestingly the independents main story today reads &#039;Over the past 20 years, almost every index of the planet&#039;s health has worsened. At the same time, personal wealth in the richest countries has grown by a third.&#039;

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mark_steel/article2439509.ece</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>would it really cost just £4bn to raise the level by 7%. does that include consultancy fees? considering the 54 richest people in britain earnt an estimated £126bn last financial year yet paid a staggering 0.14 per cent in tax. if for just one year we closed these &#8216;loopholes&#8217; that only the fattest of cats fit through we would be a good deal closer to recovering the governments estimation of between £97bn and £150bn in lost tax revenue. At the estimated rate of £600million for every percentage increase in renewably sourced energy then it would cost just £60bn to achieve 100%. &#8211; clearly one should not assume that if a 7% rise costs £4bn that it would cost the same for every 7% increase i am just trying to put into perspective that not achieving ecological goals is not a question of inability but rather, lack of desire or economic interest or some other twisted motive. luckily in my democracy i can choose between two sides of the same coin or between positive images without too much substance.<br />
interestingly the independents main story today reads &#8216;Over the past 20 years, almost every index of the planet&#8217;s health has worsened. At the same time, personal wealth in the richest countries has grown by a third.&#8217;</p>
<p><a href="http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mark_steel/article2439509.ece" rel="nofollow">http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mark_steel/article2439509.ece</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
