As pollution and climate change grow ever more pressing, some contend that the most effective remedy is to raise the price of fuel. Although I accept that dearer fuel could contribute to a solution, I am not persuaded that such a measure, taken in isolation, would suffice.
The rationale is not without force. Costlier petrol and diesel would discourage private motoring, nudging people towards walking, cycling and public transport and thereby curbing the vehicle emissions that so heavily pollute urban air. Rising prices would simultaneously incentivise businesses to invest in cleaner technologies and more efficient machinery in order to contain their expenses. To this extent, a fuel levy could genuinely alter the behaviour of individuals and enterprises alike in an environmentally beneficial direction.
Yet to treat it as a panacea would be mistaken on two counts. First, the burden would fall disproportionately on the poor, who must still travel to work and move goods but can least afford the surcharge, rendering the policy regressive. Second, environmental degradation springs from a host of sources beyond transport, industrial emissions, plastic waste and deforestation among them, against which higher pump prices would achieve little or nothing.
In my view, therefore, raising the cost of fuel may serve as one constituent of a comprehensive environmental strategy, but it cannot bear the weight alone. It must be accompanied by sustained investment in public transport and renewable energy, alongside firm action on industrial pollution and waste. I thus agree only in part: the proposal has merit, but solely as one element within a broader and more equitable programme.