More stories

  • in

    The Guardian view on Boris Johnson's Cop26: ask if GDP growth is sustainable | Editorial

    Saving the planet ought to be a goal for, not a cost to, humanity. Yet this insight appears lost in the discussion about the climate emergency. Last week, it emerged that the Treasury was thinking about levying a UK-wide carbon tax. This approach, it was suggested, could be sold as a way of “raising revenue while cutting emissions”. Properly targeted taxes can change behaviour. But “revenue raising” green policies invariably end up being valued by the amount of taxes they produce rather than on their effectiveness in combating the climate crisis. UK governments have frozen fuel duties for a decade because it is politically easier to rake in cash than deter driving.A carbon tax is superficially appealing. The Treasury desires taxes to offset government spending. No 10 would like to align, rhetorically, with the green agenda. But without careful thought a carbon levy could backfire. A maladroit attempt to tax fuel on environmental grounds kindled France’s gilets jaunes (yellow vests) protests.By law, Britain has to reduce its net carbon emissions to zero by 2050. To get there, life in the country will have to change. For example, for the next stage of a net-zero transition, the public should shift away from heating their homes with gas boilers. Raising taxes on voters until they squeal and switch to lower carbon intensive heating systems would not be popular or necessarily progressive. A better strategy would be for the state to finance new green technologies and to regulate energy companies to recoup the investment. The Treasury dislikes spending and then taxing. Rightwing governments resist interfering in markets. But a focus on ecological sustainability would provide a reason to act in such a way.The UK government requires an environmental sense of purpose that specifies the appropriate ends for economic activity. The economist Kate Raworth has pointed out that a failure to do so has left a gap, which politicians fill by maximising national income. They are not obliged to ask if additional economic growth is sustainable. Governments ought to confront whether the growth of real GDP is too destabilising for global ecosystems. For decades the planetary boundary for resource use has been exceeded because conventional economics has encouraged political leaders to concentrate on goals that are largely irrelevant to human welfare.A confluence of world events provides a rare opportunity to change such thinking. Owing to the pandemic, global greenhouse emissions are forecast to drop by about 5% this year, compared with 2019. If sustained this would be the largest year-to-year drop since the second world war, and it could mark a turning point. If Joe Biden wins the US presidential election the world’s top three emitters, China, the US and the EU, which account for nearly half of global emissions, should all have mid-century net-zero targets, placing the 1.5˚C warming limit of the Paris agreement within reach. Preparations for the postponed Cop26 climate summit, to be held in Glasgow, are the ideal way for Britain to take a lead in a global discussion. Boris Johnson should use the platform to frame UK policy proposals boldly in terms of their impact on people and the planet, not just the economy. More

  • in

    Biden tells Trump 'you are the worst president America has ever had' in battle over taxes – video

    Play Video

    2:59

    During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump was pressed on the New York Times story over his tax returns, which showed he paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017. The president claimed he had paid “millions” in income taxes and said he would release his tax returns soon, which he has been saying since 2015. 
    Joe Biden said Trump ‘does take advantage of the tax code’ and ‘pays less tax than a schoolteacher’. Trump shrugged off the criticism, saying all business leaders do the same ‘unless they are stupid’. The exchange escalated with Biden telling his rival: ‘You are the worst president America has ever had’
    Donald Trump refuses to condemn white supremacists at presidential debate
    Moderator Chris Wallace criticised as Trump derails debate

    Topics

    US elections 2020

    Donald Trump

    Trump administration

    Joe Biden

    US taxation

    Tax and spending

    US politics More

  • in

    The Guardian view on Trump’s tax take: only for the little people | Editorial

    The emperor’s new clothes is a cautionary tale that politicians know well. A vain ruler who cannot resist buying new garments is sold an imaginary new suit. Out on a stroll in this “magical” attire, he is revealed to be naked by a little boy. Hans Christian Andersen’s exercise in groupthink has the emperor, despite the obvious, continuing to claim that he is garbed in finery. It is a subversive message; that power can bend the truth. Donald Trump thinks himself such a ruler.According to the New York Times, President Trump paid minuscule amounts of federal income tax – $750 in 2016 and 2017, and nothing in 10 of the previous 15 years. That’s because he had a reverse Midas touch with business. Rather than the self-made-billionaire image honed by The Apprentice, Mr Trump excelled at losing, not making, money. Mr Trump’s golf courses have lost $315m since 2000. This time it was the Old Grey Lady, not a child, who showed how Mr Trump was, figuratively, naked.The president’s reaction was to call the story “totally fake news”. He hopes this language resonates with his base and causes them to identify with him rather than listen to the facts. Mr Trump built a coalition by appealing more to conspiracy theory than to partisanship; and his strategy has been to supply his supporters with conspiracy theories to fight what they see as a conspiracy against them. He lies outrageously and often. His supporters may even appreciate his deceits. Many think all politicians are liars and consider those outraged by Mr Trump’s falsehoods to be hypocrites.But the New York Times story carries a sting in its long tail. Should Mr Trump win, he is liable for $300m in loans that will come due within four years. “His lenders could be placed,” the paper notes dryly, “in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.” Being in hock to foreign entities would surely pose a major security risk. As the story is unfolding, its impact on the most important election in modern US history cannot be easily judged. The news arrived on the eve of the first presidential debate between the Democrats’ Joe Biden and Mr Trump. Mr Biden’s campaign was quick to cast the president as a leader who thought taxes were just for the little people, pointing out that teachers, nurses and firefighters all paid a lot more to the government than Mr Trump does.America seems broken by Covid-19 after four years of Mr Trump. Almost 30 million are claiming unemployment insurance. Hunger is growing. Two-thirds of households hit by coronavirus face financial hardship. Decades of worshipping greed has destabilised society. The lack of political pressure to compel Congress to extend the $600 per week additional jobless benefit when it expired in July was shocking – especially considering the Republican rush to push through Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s supreme court confirmation hearings. Inequality is a US national emergency. It ought to be addressed by increased taxes on the wealthy. Mr Trump won in 2016 by making promises to voters he was not going to keep. He cheated his working-class supporters, suggesting that many of their fears cannot be of concern. Mr Trump probably believed his own story. One hopes for the US’s sake that come November fewer people will trust him again. More