Environmentalism is undoubtedly the defining European political trend of recent years. From a new radicalism, started by hippies and tree-huggers, associated with narcotics and dropouts, it is now the political mainstream. We have a multinational (certainly within Western Europe at least), and a multiparty consensus that social, housing and transport policy should be firmly rooted in green credentials.

This is only the beginning, with former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore suggesting that the basis of taxation should soon shift from being based on income to carbon footprints. In short, government intervention on environmentalism is so widely accepted as legitimate, there has recently been almost no argument to the contrary. Those that have argued against this paradigm have frequently been denounced as extremists or nutcases.

Tree hugging, wealth hating

At the risk, then, of public evisceration, we are falling into a great trap to force on us the same pressure for equality, the hatred of prosperity and the disregard for individuality that socialists have always held. By playing on our fear and blinding us with science proving world oblivion, we have come to accept their agenda. New Labour has been known for stealth taxes and disguised regulation. It is clear that the banner of environmentalism has been one of their best shrouds in order to force on us a much less reformed re-distributive agenda than we’d like to imagine.

The current Labour government has made a (probably correct) assumption that we care about where we live, we care about our children’s future and that we want, generally, to do the right thing. They are using this fact to emotionally blackmail us into living our lives in the manner they want us to. Things have changed since the 1970s: the politics of envy has been replaced by the politics of guilt. Former Czech President Vaclav Klaus has stated, "I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism. Communism has been replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism."

London serves as a good example. Before Boris’s victory in the mayoral election it was proposed that owners of vehicles that produce the most emissions would pay £25 per day and lose their right to a resident discount if they lived within the charging zone. Why exactly should a car that produces only several grams of pollution per km suddenly be more than four times as expensive to drive into London? It is true that these vehicles tend to be expensive 4x4s or sports cars. Yet by definition this means that their use is restricted to a small minority. How can the net carbon reduction in this case be a justification for a punitive tax that restricts people’s personal choice?

The implementation of any tax must weigh the gains against the negative effect it has on personal liberty and the distortion it creates in the market. Ken Livingstone hates people who drive big cars because they are wealthy. If Livingstone was as committed to this agenda as he says, we would have seen him trying to make public transport greener rather than ingratiating himself with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to gain cheap fuel for London’s buses. He would have come up with creative solutions to incentivise green behaviour such as personal carbon quotas than could be traded from cyclists to motorists, rather than aggressive taxation on those who are least likely to change their behaviour no matter how extortionate the charges.

Britain contributes about 2% of world CO₂ emissions. Of that, about a fifth comes from road transport. Break that down further and you find most is caused by road haulage, buses and other commercial users. The detrimental environmental effect of Aston Martins and Range Rovers is miniscule. This begs the question: who is Britain’s biggest polluter? The answer: the public sector. Energy production itself creates 37% of the UK’s carbon dioxide. Is the responsibility not on the government to seek alternative sources of energy, whether it is nuclear or some other cleaner option? It doesn’t seem to think so.

The dreaded energy efficient light bulb saga proves this. The proponents of these devices forced on the public claim that they reduce energy use over the product’s life cycle by 80%. The government does not mention, however, that unlike conventional light bulbs, they are produced in China and not in Europe, they have to be imported by sea, and they contain hazardous mercury. With the re-opening of old mercury pits there have been a number of reported deaths from water contamination in China. Homeowners also now have to satisfy an expensive and frustrating regulation by providing information on, among other things, the environmental impact of their property. In a time when the nation is facing a housing slump, to increase transaction costs and complicate conveyance is economically irresponsible.

The threat of environmentalism is not only to economic freedom, but sets out to infringe upon our greatest personal choices. The Optimum Population Trust states that each Briton creates nearly 750 tonnes of carbon dioxide in a lifetime and warns that birth rates must be drastically reduced to avoid Britain "sleep walking into environmental nightmare." It suggests that having more than two children is environmentally irresponsible. This is not the ranting of fringe radicals: the OPT includes the Chancellor of Kent University, former journalists and other influential academics.

How long, therefore, before we join China in limiting families’ right to reproduce? How long before we see plans to make families carbon neutral? "Plant a forest to have child" legislation is unlikely to be announced any time soon, but if we consider how much things have changed in the last decade on this issue, is it really that far off?

Similarities to Marxism-Leninism are evident in the almost religious credence that the theory of global warming and predictive powers is accorded. As Marx’s followers refused to question his predictions, people are neglecting to question the predictions of climate scientists. Marx prophesised the downfall of capitalism, and that communism would originate in Britain or Germany. Stalin predicted that Great Britain and the United States would go to war in 1945. Climate scientists predicted that the world would eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 and that by 1995 between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals would be extinct.

The spectre of energy efficient light bulbs is haunting Europe

Assuming for a moment that global warming does exist, and it is a manmade threat, then if not underhanded socialism, what should be our reaction? Firstly, every environmental improvement we make is outpaced by a much greater increase in worldwide pollution. China's thirst for energy requires the constuction of a new power plant every week. Soon the country will be the world's biggest polluter and will dramatically offset any meagre reductions achieved by the UK. Unless we place economic development second to environmental preservation by telling the developing world they can’t grow because we’ve got there first, global warming will be an impossible trend to reverse.

It can still be argued we should take action, and in doing so we can be a positive example. This should focus on where emission savings can be made without imposing new taxes or regulations that restrict choice or economic progress. We should embrace new sources of power, whether it be nuclear or, less controversially, clean coal. I doubt many will lament the loss of the standby function on electronic products or consider it an infringement of their freedom. Perhaps most of all, we should use the faculty that this government assumes we lack, our common sense. Most of us know to turn a light off when leaving a room.