I submitted my TGO Challenge route sheet on Monday. I now wait nervously to see what comes back. TBH it’s not very controversial, but I won’t share it until it’s been vetted. With the exception of about two miles, it’s all completely new to me. I’m still chewing over gear choices.
Slideshow (in order): Aether 60, Exos 58, Mariposa Plus, Ohm, Quest, Trek, Ultrahike 60
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Just as I went through an evolutionary process choosing tents, rucksacks have also been a journey of discovery. When I started backpacking again I made the classic mistake of buying a bombproof heavy rucksack, the Lowe Alpine Appalachian. It only took a couple of miles to realise I’d made a dreadful mistake. It was too heavy, unstable and the hip belt was too fat. It got passed on quickly.
The next pack was an Osprey Aether 60. This had a delrin frame and an excellent hip belt. At 1.5kg, it wasn’t heavy, but, equally it wasn’t light. I used it on a couple of short trips and it was fine. Very comfortable, but it wasn’t very water resistant.
Trying to reduce my base weight, I then bought a much lighter pack, the Golite Trek, which I used on my first proper trip, Blair Atholl to Aviemore. Although it was not a bad sack, the back length was not quite right and the hip belt didn’t fit well. I wasn’t very keen on the lack of a frame, either.
Next I tried another Golite pack, the Quest, which was a bit heavier than the Trek. I really liked the design. It had a nice simple frame. However, the shoulder straps were a bit hard. I used this pack on another Cairngorms trip. It could have been a disaster, but I cut up a foam sit mat and put some strips under the shoulder straps secured with shock cord. Hey presto, comfort. Unfortunately, yet again the hip belt didn’t really fit properly. It wasn’t too bad, but just not right. I was beginning to get frustrated.
It was then I came across Gossamer Gear and the Mariposa Plus. Colin Ibbotson used one for a TGOC. It was such a different design that I had to get one. Fortunately, Winwood Outdoor stocked them, so I bought one without the hassle of ordering from the US and custom and handling charges.
The first serious use was a very wet trip to the Lakes. Considering how simple it is, I was blown away by the comfort. The wide shoulder straps spread the load well. The two simples carbon fibre stays give it enough rigidity but also allow some flexibility. I really thought the hip belt might be too flimsy, but it works well. It really shouldn’t as it sits a bit low, below the iliac crest, but it works.
It is surprising how much gear it can hold. It just seems to swallow everything. The mesh pockets on the outside allow quite a lot of storage on the outside, which is handy for snacks, water, waterproofs, hats, gloves and other bits and pieces. The large side pocket is also big enough for a tent like the Scarp.
The Y strap is a neat touch, making storage on top of the pack for a tent or drybag much more secure. I use a two section GG nightlite pad for a back pad, slotted into the two stretch mesh pockets. I have added a small piece of fleece (Vet Bed!) in the bottom pocket, which I find helps with ventilation and avoids a sweaty lower back. The nightlite pad also has a home made mesh sleeve which, again, helps ventilate my back.
I find the carry of the Mariposa Plus the best of any rucksack I’ve used. Because the frame is just two vertical carbon fibre rods, the sack moves with my body much more than other framed sacks.
Like all gear, there are some negatives. Firstly the mesh pockets are not that robust. I’ve made a couple of holes in them, although I’ve made a rough repair with some thread. I’ve also pulled some of the stitching at the top of one shoulder strap. The bar tack is still OK, but I’ve re-stitched a small section. The main pack material is not very water resistant, so using a pack liner is necessary. I also broke a prong on the hip belt buckle, which I’ve now replaced.
Overall I think the Mariposa Plus is the best rucksack I own. Considering the lightweight materials, it has been reasonably robust, despite the odd issue here and there. Some tweaks would improve it. The shoulder straps could be angled where they meet the body. Daisy chain loops on the shoulders straps would be useful. I would prefer a drybag style closure instead of a draw string on the top.
Mariposas are now shipped with a one piece aluminium stay and it would be interesting to see what difference that makes. It can easily handle a 12kg load. In summary, I’ve found myself returning more often to my Mariposa than other sacks and I’d say it’s my favourite option for most of the time.
Having sung the praises of the Mariposa, I did briefly fall out of love with it, when I discovered the stitching issue (which turned out to be mainly cosmetic) and the holes in the mesh pockets. Looking at alternative, the ULA Ohm seemed similar but made out of more robust materials, so I ordered one. I had three packs before I got the right size back and hip belt.
ULA have a reputation for quality and from what I can see it’s well deserved. The quality of the workmanship is superb. It’s also a tough pack, made mainly out of Dyneema Gridstop fabric. The side pockets are capacious but only extend part way up the pack. On the front, there is a stretch mesh pocket. The frame is an inverted U mainly made of carbon fibre. Unlike the Mariposa it is external and follows the edge of the pack. The shoulder straps are nicely contoured.
While I like the Ohm, I’ve not found it as comfortable as the Mariposa. It has to be packed more carefully to ensure that hard objects don’t dig into your back. The back panel of Dyneema Gridstop is a bit sweaty. I’ve also found the hipbelt less comfortable, mainly because the buckles extend slightly beyond the hip belt padding. I’ve cured this using some thin foam loops.
Interestingly, ULA have launched an Ohm 2.0 with a removable hip belt, so you can use belts from the Catayst pack. It also gives some torso adjustment and the frame is located inside the pack, so this may address the issues I’ve outlined. The Ohm is a fine pack and carries well, just not as well as the Mariposa, so I’ve not used it as much.
In addition to the Mariposa and the Ohm, I have an Osprey Exos 58 and a Lightwave Ultrahike 60. In their way, both are good packs but a bit heavier, both weighing about 1.2kg. The more rigid frames and substantial hipbelts make these packs more capable of carrying heavy loads.
Taking the Exos first, in many ways this is a good pack. The trampoline back is very comfortable and gives good ventilation. The downside though is that the load is carried slightly away from your back, so there’s a noticeable feeling of being pulled backwards. After a while it becomes a bit wearing leaning forward to compensate. For me it was a bit of a deal breaker.
The rest of the features are good with a very comfortable harness, good pockets and features. If I was being picky, the fabric could be a bit more water resistant, which is why I bought the Lightwave Ultrahike 60.
The Ultrahike is supposedly almost waterproof, but, amazingly, it’s hardly rained when I’ve been using it. I really like the Ultrahike. I’ve found it very comfortable, although I did have to tweak the hipbelt to achieve perfection. For heavier or bulkier loads, it’s ideal.
The main compartment simply swallows loads. The lid pocket is a good size. It’s a shame it hasn’t got a valuables pocket. The two mesh side pockets are surprisingly capacious and robust. I’ve replaced the cord compression system with shock cord, which is better for lashing a tent or trekking poles.
Of all the “conventional” rucksacks I’ve used, the Ultrahike is the pick. I think for a winter rucksack or for heavier loads on extended trips, it’s hard to beat. It also seems quite robust. Again, if I was being picky, I would like a secure pocket for valuables and daisy chains on the shoulder straps.
I think I’ve arrived at a point where I have two packs, the Mariposa and the Ultrahike, which cover all of my needs. Most of the time, the Mariposa is ideal and I’ve come to miss it when I’m not using it. The Ultrahike is really good, especially for bulkier gear, like a winter sleeping bag. Both sacks are higher volume than many lightweighters would use, but I don’t like cramming gear in and I like the flexibility of a bit of extra volume.
Will anything change in the future? If GG upgrade the Mariposa with the materials they use on the new Murmur, it could become irresistible, especially as my Mariposa doesn’t have the more recent aluminium curved stay. I’ve also toyed with getting a cuben pack from Z-packs, but I like the Mariposa too much.
l to r: Tarptent Scarp1, MLD silnylon Duomid with OookWorks nest, MLD cuben Duomid
This is the start of a new series. Inspired by Hendrik’s idea of living reviews, I though I’d cast the net wider and do a living review on all (well most) of my gear.
Before we start, I want to make a few disclaimers. It is not my intention to set myself as some kind of gear guru, handing down my views on tablets of stone from the mountain. I’m just an ordinary Joe, who’s bought a load of gear and wants to share what I’ve found. This is a personal view and I’m not suggesting that what’s right for me is necessarily right for you. My priorities and compromises may not suit you.
With that in mind let’s dive into the subject of tents, a topic close to my heart. Along with footwear and rucksacks, shelters are something that you need to get right or you can have a miserable time. Unlike footwear and rucksacks, you can get away with a poor shelter choice until the weather gets bad. Only when it’s pouring with rain and blowing a gale will you know whether your shelter is any good.
I don’t want to get into a debate about the merits of tarps vs. tents or single skin vs. double skin. For me, I want the protection of a double skin tent. I like having both the security and comfort. That’s my choice. It may not be yours.
Until about seven years ago, since leaving university, my camping had been mainly base camping, doing day walks. Around 2006, my interest in wild camping and backpacking was rekindled.
Before I stopped backpacking, I had a Saunders Backpacker S and then a Phoenix Phreeranger. Neither were still available, so my first tent was Vango TBS 100, which was a good tent but too small and heavy. Next up was a ME AR Ultralite, which was too unstable.
I then bought an Akto, which I liked, but was slightly heavy and a bit bulky. As many have done, I progressed to a TN Laser Competition. I preferred this to the Akto as it was lighter, less bulky and somehow felt right. It needed extensive tweaking but worked well. However, its Achilles heel is that it is very noisy in wind and it feels a bit cramped at either end.
When the Scarp came on the scene, its first iteration had a high cut fly sheet, which was not ideal for British weather. It is to Henry’s credit that he listened to users and lowered the hem of the fly in the second version.
So I bought a Scarp 1. The Scarp is the first tent that I’ve been really happy with, although it’s not perfect. Even without the crossing poles, it’s very stable, able to stand high winds. For a one man tent, it’s very spacious. Not only is the inner palatial, but having two porches gives huge flexibility to store wet gear and to cook. It’s very easy to pitch.
I was a bit dubious about the silnylon groundsheet but it’s been perfectly watertight. I still put a space blanket under it, but it’s not strictly necessary. The roof vents make it one of the best tents I’ve owned when it comes to condensation. Both the Akto and the Comp were terrible, but the Scarp is much better.
I’ve changed the end guying system to mimic the Akto and reduce the pegging points, but it’s a choice rather than necessity. I’ve also put some silicone sealant stripes on the inside floor of the groundsheet to prevent my sleeping mat from slipping. Silnylon is very slippery and if you are on a slope, everything keeps sliding downhill.
There are things I’d change. I’d like some large mesh pockets. The ones supplied are too small and in the wrong place (by the door). I would prefer inverted T zip doors on the inner. I’d like opposing doors rather than the doors being at one end. The pole arch material is a bit sticky to insert the pole and the grosgrain loops for the side guys are at the wrong angle.
Also the grosgrain loop for the crossing poles is awkward for inserting both poles and needs to be sealed or it will leak. In fact, the whole pole arch needs to be sealed. The clips to secure the crossing poles to the roof could also be improved.
However, all in all, these are relatively minor things. Overall, the Scarp is a terrific tent and has never let me down. I feel totally safe in it, whatever the weather. It is superbly spacious, even if you are holed up for a day with bad weather. To my mind, it beats the Akto and the Comp hands down. If I had to be restricted to one tent, this would be it. I know that I can rely on it, whatever the weather throws at me.
Despite its brilliance, the Scarp is not ultralight, being only slightly lighter than an Akto, so I bought a Mountain Laurel Designs Duomid. While the quality of the workmanship of the Scarp is OK, the Duomid is superbly made. I didn’t like the white cuben version as it looked a bit like a glorified plastic bag, so I went for the silnylon one in a very attractive olive brown.
The Duomid reminds me a bit of a smaller and lighter version of the old Blacks Good Companion. As well as the Duomid I bought a MLD mesh inner. While I liked the Duomid, I was underwhelmed by the inner. It is like a glorified mosquito net. I would be happier if the whole front could be opened, but the J zip means half the porch area is inaccessible from the inside.
It felt like the Duomid was a mistake, as I was reluctant to use just the fly. Fortunately, Sean started OookWorks and was able to make a bespoke inner. Although slightly heavier than anticipated, it was the missing piece of he jigsaw. The Duomid now felt like a real tent.
The Duomid/OookWorks combo is superb. The sleeping area is a similar size to the Scarp, but with more headroom. Tying back both doors makes it feel like a palace. The porch is huge. It’s great for storage and cooking. It’s so large that I can change out of wet clothes in it.
I was concerned about high winds but so far, it’s stood up much better than expected. It certainly doesn’t flap as much as a Laser Comp and feels pretty solid. I don’t think it’s a high mountain tent like the Scarp, but it’s not just a lowland tent.
As I mentioned, I didn’t buy the cuben version because it was white. MLD changed the colour to green, so I gave into temptation and bought one. I’ve not taken it on a trip yet, so I can’t tell you how it performs in the field. The cut seems slightly different compared with the silnylon version. In particular, the door seems lower. The silnylon version has a large gap between the ground and the bottom of the door. The other noticeable difference is that the seams are glued, so no seam sealing is necessary.
At the moment Sean at OookWorks has it and will add a couple of tweaks, which I will share with you when he’s finished. He is also making a hybrid mesh/cuben/Chikara inner for me. When he’s finished I will have a superbly spacious lightweight tent.
The Duomid is not for everyone. If you don’t carry trekking poles, then the weight advantage disappears. If you want a more stable storm proof tent then the Trailstar is probably more suitable. Every tent has compromises. I love the headroom and space of the Duomid.
What of the future? With the Scarp and the Duomid, I feel I’ve got most bases covered. I rejected the original Trailstar for two reasons. It is single skinned and headroom is a bit low.
However, the new Oookstar addresses the first issue. I’m still not sure that I want to be on my hands and knees to get into the tent, but the TS is growing on me, especially as there is a cuben version. If I were going somewhere like Scandinavia or Alaska, I would be more motivated. I won’t buy it this year, but maybe as a birthday present to myself in 2013.
I do have two radical tent designs in my head for the future. Whether they will ever see the light of day depends whether there is anyone out there foolhardy enough to take them on. One is a variation on the pyramid theme. The other draws from the designs of a couple of other tents but is unique and would be very strong.
The next topic will be rucksacks.
I think Rohan have upped their game over the past few years and are starting to produce some interesting products. They have improved their styling and functionality. I like the way they have technical features but the clothes don’t look technical. You can wear them on the hills or the high street.
I took advantage of the recent sale to buy some more. I bought another Beacon shirt (reviewed recently), a Windshadow jacket, Trailblazer trousers and a Cool Silver T. None of these have been out on a trip yet, so these are just some first impressions.
Windshadow jacket. It has a nice matt, slightly stretchy fabric, in contrast to the many shiny Pertex based wind shirts/jackets of other manufacturers. The sizing (M) is spot on for me. Joy of joys, it has velcro adjustable cuffs. The two hand pockets and chest pocket are meshed lined, so they can be used as vents. The hood is rolled away into the collar. The hood is not so good as it has an elastic hem rather than a draw cord, which is a shame. The overall design is nice and understated. I’m very tempted to use this with a fleece instead of a Paramo jacket.
Cool Silver T Shirt. This is an update of the orignal silver T that I used for ages. It has a very nice feel and manages to be cool and warm as needed. Although I’ve not tested the odour resistance, my guess is that it will be good. I will use it instead of a merino T as it’s much faster drying. The weight is wrong on the website, it’s 155g not 55g, but it’s still light.
Trailblazer trousers. I didn’t buy these in the sale as the sale ones were in a different colour. In many ways these are the most intriguing. The cloth is like supplex but is very stretchy. I’m not sure how windproof they are, so I’ll test them in the spring. It’s a personal view, but I quite like the styling. The hand pockets have mesh backs, so help with venting. The thigh pockets are slightly higher and more to the front than normal “combat” trousers.
I also bought an Envoy watch. The original price was £150, but it was reduced to £75. Annoyingly, it’s now £60. I wouldn’t normally spend so much on a watch as I usually trash them. I’m forever scratching the face, so most watches last a year or so. However, this one’s got a sapphire crystal face, which is supposed to be highly scratch resistant. It’s a very nice watch.
Tents and boats
Firstly, I’d like to say a big thank you to Tim at Aquapac for his hospitality. Renewing our friendship made the show worthwhile. My overwhelming impression is the Outdoors Show is a bit of an after thought besides the Boat Show and the Cycle Show.
Clearly there is significantly more money in boats than walking. However, Tim was saying that the attendance at the Boat Show had been steadily declining over recent years. It certainly wasn’t very busy on Friday. The stands seemed to be populated with rather seedy gents in blue jackets and some attractive but bored girls. The thing that surprised most me was the size of some of the boats.
The cycling section appeared to be doing brisk business and I should have spent a bit more time having a gander. Not that I want to get more into mountain biking as its an expensive hobby. Carbon fibre frames make cuben look cheap.
The Outdoors Show itself is a bit disappointing. I was prepared for that as I had seen the exhibitor list. If you were interested in finding out about travel, there were a reasonable number of stands to look at. There was very little in the way of gear to look at.
The retail offering was dominated by Field & Trek (Sport Direct). While prices were good, it was all fairly standard stuff and I wasn’t tempted. It was interesting talking to Tim about Sports Direct’s aggressive business model, which makes me rather less inclined to buy from them.
The next biggest retail stand was Paramo, which seemed to be doing good trade. I had a look at the Quito jacket but kept my wallet in my pocket. There was also a special edition of the Quito which didn’t interest me. The Velez Adventure Light trouser had a slightly odd styling which made them look like track suit bottoms. The Aspira colours were “interesting”. I bought some Nikwax wool wash from the separate Nikwax stand.
The Hilleberg stand was a big disappointment, with just a Nallo and the new Rogen on display. I guess tents take up too much room. The Rogen looked nice, but it doesn’t offer much for me. The Scarp is a much better tent for my purposes. The Nordic Outdoors stand had some very expensive Klattermusen outer wear and some attractive Aclima base layers.
EDZ seemed to have attracted a reasonable number of people with their good value base layers. Trekmates were showing their flameless cooking system, but it’s too heavy for me . The TGO stand was a bit on the periphery. I did spot Cameron briefly, but by the time I had a wander round he was gone. Outdoors Enthusiast magazine was also there.
The Cicerone stall was quite large but I avoided it as I didn’t want to buy any more guide books! If Paddy had been there I might have tried to collar him. The only other stand of interest was Buff, where I bought a Buff visor, something I had wanted for a while.
I wandered around for the best part of an hour and a half, but, truthfully, it was quite uninspiring. If you were only here for The Outdoors Show, twenty quid is a lot to pay for what was on offer. I hope they can attract a better selection for next year. I thought Excel was a very good place to hold it, though. It didn’t feel like an aircraft hangar. The catering was also good.
Let’s talk a bit about my hosts, Aquapac. It was really interesting talking to Tim about the challenges of being a small manufacturer in the UK. Aquapac still manufacture most of their range in the UK, which was pleasing to hear. However, like a lot of other small businesses, the burden of red tape from government, especially the EU is a significant problem.
Aquapac sells around most of the world. The biggest challenges are finding the right partners and distributors and defending themselves against other companies ripping off their designs. Surprisingly, the Americans are the worst culprits for ripoffs.
I must confess I haven’t seen much Aquapac product before. I was very impressed by the feel and the quality of the product on display, which felt almost German. Their market is much broader than lightweight backpacking, so some of it is not really for me. However, I bought a small roll top bag for my iPhone and a map case. I’ll report on those at a later date, but they are both nicely made.
One thing that caught my eye, but I didn’t buy was their dry bag day sack. It’s similar to the Exped Cloudburst bag I already have but a bit larger (25l). However, it has tall mesh side pockets and a brilliant wet and dry bag system inside the pack. There are two separate watertight compartments inside the sack so you can keep the wet and dry gear separate. There’s also a decent sized clear valuables pocket. I like it a lot, although it would need a couple of tweaks for me. I reckon a larger 40–45l version would be extremely interesting for backpacking. Perhaps I’ll persuade Tim to develop one.
The camera bags were also interesting although more geared to the pro-market than me as they are more bulky than I’d like. The totally waterproof range is also a bit beyond what I need. If you are interested in Aquapac products, they have a good website and you can buy direct if you can’t find what you want in the shops. I’ve asked Tim to put weights on the descriptions as I know us backpackers are obsessive about it.
So, there we are. Its a shame that there weren’t more gear manufacturers at the show. It’s certainly nothing like the really big shows in Friedrichshafen or the Outdoor Retailers Summer Market in the US. To be fair, TOS is not aiming for that, but I think to justify the entry fee for people like me, it needs to get a few more big hitters to exhibit.
Tomorrow I shall be going to The Outdoors Show in London’s Docklands. I shall be renewing a friendship with the CEO of Aquapac who I lost contact with a some time ago. I’m looking forward to catching up with Tim. I might even ask him for his perspective of the outdoors market. In truth there’s not a huge number of stands that enthuse me, but I shall try to see TGOC, OE Magazine, Paramo, Cicerone, Hilleberg and Trekmates. I’ve never been to a show like this before so it’s a new experience for me. It’s a shame there’s not a few more interesting manufacturers present. I’ll find out from Tim why he thinks so few think it worthwhile. For my Twitter followers I might even do a few tweets!
Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum are at it again. If you want my take on the never-ending eurozone tragicomedy it’s here.
Telegraph article on Civitas report suggesting that wind power doesn’t save CO2.
Dr C le Pair report referred to in the article.
For balance, Action for Renewables questioning the le Pair report (and others).
You make your mind up.
The whole wind power debate has bubbled to the surface again. I thought it would be useful to repeat the post that I made back in June 2011. One of the things that rarely seems to be commented on is the vast amount of land that would be needed to be sacrificed if wind power were to contribute significantly to our energy needs (leaving aside any technical issues, such as intermittency). Below I give you some idea of the scale.
I thought readers might be interested in a contribution I made to a rather fractious thread on OM about wind farms.
The background is that I asked a pro-wind farmer for his estimate of the amount of land that would be used to supply one-sixth of the UK’s electricity. A Telegraph article a while ago suggested that an area the size of Wales would be needed. His suggestion (in the light of other commentators) was that it could be overstated by a factor of five. Here’s my reply:
Let’s assume that Prof MacKay’s assertions are too high by a factor of 5 and that the area needed to supply 16.7% of the UK’s power requirement is “only” 20% of the land area of Wales.
The recent UK National Ecosystem Assessment gives land usage figures for the UK. In the case of Wales, land use is as follows: mountains, moorlands and heaths 11.8%, semi natural grasslands 22.8%, farmland 40.9%, woodlands 13.4%, urban 4.2% (see page 60).
Therefore to supply one-sixth of the UK’s electricity through wind power (leaving aside its intermittency), it would require wind turbines to be built on an area five times the current size of urban usage in Wales or virtually the entire area of grasslands or 80% of its mountains/moorlands/woodland.
However, it would be unfair to load all our “renewable” energy generation requirements on Wales alone.
Let’s look at the UK as a whole. Here we have to understand that Scotland is very different as 43.6% of its area is mountains etc. (England has only 5.3%).
20% of the land area of Wales is 416,200 ha. The total amount of land devoted to urban development in the UK is 1,675,000 ha. Hence we would have to devote land area equivalent to one quarter of all the currently urbanised land to wind turbines.
If we were to raise this to meet 45%* of our needs, then it would be equivalent to slightly less than the entire urbanised area of England or the entire area of woodland in England or 60% of all the grassland in England.
That’s the size of the sacrifice in terms of land usage. Clearly, urban areas, farm land and woodland generally can’t be used for wind farms; it is not surprising that these developments are pushed into our undeveloped wild lands.
I want to leave aside all the arguments about whether wind power is viable and whether it will destabilise the National Grid; the size of the land sacrifice needed for wind power to contribute a significant proportion of our energy needs is absolutely HUGE. The key question that you, as a lover of our wild lands, need to ask yourself is: are you willing to sacrifice a substantial proportion of our hills to this project?
Some will come back and say that we can use offshore wind farms. Even if half of the development was offshore, to satisfy 45% of our energy needs with wind power would require building onshore wind farms covering the equivalent of half the current urbanised land or all the mountains, moorlands and heaths in England. These wind farms will be built in the hills, because that’s where the undeveloped land is.
Is it so surprising that many of us passionately oppose wind farms and the despoilation of our wild lands? Many of us have come to the conclusion that nuclear, for all its drawbacks, is a better option as its land footprint is a fraction of that required by wind turbines.
If you are a lover of the outdoors and a supporter of wind farms, I hope you carefully consider the consequences of your position in the light of the figures I’ve given you. You may decide the sacrifice is worthwhile. In which case you may want to reconsider your “green” credentials as you will be supporting the biggest destruction of wild habitats this country has ever seen.
If you wish to comment on this post, please have the courtesy to keep remarks temperate. I’ve had my fill of rants and insults from OM.
Note: * 45% was a figure suggested as a level that wouldn’t cause problems for the National Grid.
Even if you are a supporter of wind power, one of the most disturbing aspects of the development of windfarms is that the wishes of local people are persistently and consistently ignored. Inquiries and consultations are set up only for the politicians to ignore them or overturn recommendations. The whole process is sham. What we have is an elected dictatorship. Thanks to David Lintern of the John Muir Trust for drawing my attention to these.
Latest examples:
East extension to the Muaitheabhal wind farm in South Lewis
Cambrian Mountains Society response to the Welsh Government’s consultation process
A very dispiriting interview with the Scottish Energy Minister.
SCOTTISH ENERGY MINISTER FERGUS EWING’s OVERVIEW ON WINDFARMS, DECEMBER 2011,
INTERVIEW WITH FREELANCE REPORTER, IAIN RAMAGE.
(Story in Press & Journal, Dec 23, 2011). The full Q & A follows. Ewing (and his press team) failed to answer some questions, and grouped others together.
IAIN RAMAGE: Windfarms are less efficient than developers claim – according to National Grid data – producing less than a fifth of capacity, half the time. Extensive research covering a two-year period of data for the John Muir Trust showed that half the time onshore windfarms produced less than 20% of their capacity and on an average of one day a month fed virtually nothing to the grid. In increasing numbers, objectors conclude that developers are only in it for the sweeteners funded by the customers – which amounted to £1.1 billion last year, and the cost is rising. Armed with all that knowledge, why are we considering more onshore windfarm applications?
The First Minister recently stated: “Guess what, the wind comes for free.” It clearly doesn’t. It costs more than £3million per day in charges on our electricity bills (£1.1billion per year) and has occasionally cost customers to have windfarmers shut down their machines. Highland economist Tony Mackay reckons only 39% of Scotland’s electricity generation will come from renewables by 2020. How does Alex Salmond justify his claim?
The letters pages of the P&J (among others) feature anti windfarm sentiment on an almost daily basis these days, so angry are consumers about the ineffectiveness and vision of giant turbines and the fact that they add significantly to electricity bills. What is your message to those letter writers?
FERGUS EWING: We have significant onshore wind resources – onshore wind now generates more of our green electricity than our hydro stations. Wind farms, through their highs and lows, produced a huge amount of electricity in 2009 – 11 per cent of Scottish electricity demand.
The effect over a year is less need for ever more expensive fossil fuels. Wind farms reduce the need for power from conventional energy sources and all forms of renewables are greening up our energy supply – electricity from renewables met 27.4% of Scotland’s electricity use in 2009.
Any attempt to focus on wind output for a short time is clearly misguided. The wind continues to blow, creating new jobs, cutting emissions and helping Scotland secure its place as the green energy powerhouse of Europe.
The Renewables Obligation is likely to add around £15 to consumers’ annual bills in Scotland – while every increase matters, the cost is small in comparison with what recent price hikes are adding to energy bills, where extremely volatile wholesale energy prices are largely driven by the dominance of fossil fuels in the energy mix.
It may appear cheaper to build a gas or coal-fired power station, but let’s not forget it will need to pay for every unit of fuel it uses or wastes for the rest of its life, and its efficiency at converting fuel to electricity will be about the same as a wind turbine converting wind to electricity. The fuel used by wind generators is renewable, abundant and without cost whereas fossil fuels are increasingly needing to be imported and are subject to extremely volatile pricing. We need a balanced energy mix and onshore wind has a role in that. But we have never said that wind power should be the only form of electricity generation in Scotland.
I understand there are mixed views on wind farms – some are for, some against and many more are arguably are in the middle. I want a planning process that is as open, clear and transparent as possible with industry delivering the highest standards of information to communities and the wider public.
IR: Huge bonuses to power firm bosses at a time of rising electricity bills doesn’t go down well with customers. Anything the Scottish Government can do about that, or are you as helpless as the customers on that issue?
FE: The electricity market is regulated by Ofgem to ensure the market is competitive. A fair deal for consumers is therefore reliant on strong competition in the market place. Ofgem has recently identified a series of proposals to make the market work better for consumers, improving competition and transparency.
Improving energy efficiency is one of the most effective ways to reduce household energy bills. The Scottish Government’s Fuel Poverty and Energy efficiency programmes have helped almost 200,000 households, including some of the most vulnerable in our communities, to reduce their heating bills. The recently launched boiler scrappage scheme will also help over 6,000 people replace old, inefficient boilers.
Under the current constitutional settlement many of the levers which could address fuel poverty are reserved. The transfer of all energy and economic powers would significantly enhance the ability of the Scottish Government to address fuel poverty in Scotland and we will continue to pursue that outcome.
IR: As electricity bills rise, National Grid – the customer – has paid windfarm operators to shut down turbines in recent months when “less power is needed” because it’s been warmer, costing more than £1 million over a period of less than six months. Surely, this is ridiculous and irresponsible?
FE: National Grid must balance – exactly – supply with demand on a second-by-second basis. In the Balancing Mechanism, generators submit offers to increase their output and bids to reduce it. National Grid then accepts these bids/offers in the most economic manner to match supply and demand. In 2010, National Grid incurred costs of £169 million in managing network system constraints. None of this was paid to renewable generators.
This year for the first time (in April and then again in May), National Grid constrained Scottish wind generation. This was due to a combination of factors, including heavy rain, high winds, and a fault on the Scotland-England circuit which affected Scotland’s ability to export its renewable energy. National Grid is currently planning how it will incorporate increasing amounts of wind onto the grid, but it is clear that dealing with the grid congestion in Scotland must be a fundamental part of this planning. Building a transmission system fit for purpose that can connect Scotland’s vast resources of renewable energy, transport it to the centres of demand in the south of the UK and continental Europe, and that will connect us to the hydro pump storage capacity of the Norwegian network will ensure that Scottish renewable generation meets its full and undoubted potential.
IR: The SNP previously set a target of achieving “100% of electricity demand from renewables by 2020”. That was later amended to the “equivalent” of 100% of electricity demand from renewables by 2020. Can you explain why the wording was revised?
FE: It’s the same thing. In May, the First Minister announced the Scottish Government’s new target. He said “we can now commit to generating the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland’s own electricity demand from renewable resources by 2020. By then we intend to be generating twice as much electricity as Scotland needs – just over half of it from renewables, and just under half from other conventional sources.”
Scotland is already delivering – renewables projects already in operation, under construction or consented would provide almost 60% of our electricity needs – but we now need to go further and faster.
IR: Will you support the inevitable flow of onshore windfarm planning applications that come your way? What factors would dissuade you from approving an onshore windfarm application?
I have witnessed public anger and amazement that VisitScotland is not a statutory consultee on windfarm applications, particularly in the north where tourism is the lifeline industry. Will you add the agency to the list, to allow it a proper input in local debate on future planning submissions?
What of the Dava Moor windfarm plans, which you spoke out against a few years ago? According to the P&J (in August last year), you lodged an objection to some of the Dava plans because of the growing number of complaints from constituents and because you believed the significant historical and heritage value of Lochindorb and the surrounding peatland did not appear to have been recognised by the (former) Scottish Executive or SNH. You said: “It is absolutely clear that the opposition to this application is supported by virtually everyone who has ever visited Dava Moor. No-one supports it and it would therefore be running contrary to the overwhelming opinion of my constituents in the area that Dava Moor should be subject to the massive turbines.” ot long before that you spoke of your “huge frustration” that SNH was allowed by the (former) Scottish Executive to “wave through three-quarters of all windfarm applications in the Highlands, despite mounting opposition to despoliation of our beautiful landscape and damage to tourism.” What is your thinking now about onshore windfarms in general – and at Dava Moor in particular?
Many thousands of people will testify that “consultation” ending with mass objection to windfarms – and the Beauly-Denny power line – has been ignored. For that reason, what action is the Scottish Government taking to restore public faith and fairness in the planning system?
FE: As Energy Minister, I will determine applications to the Scottish Government for onshore wind farms over 50 Megawatts – under 50 MW are a matter for councils. Of course, I cannot determine applications in this constituency – decisions will be taken by John Swinney as Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for energy.
It is open to any person or body to make representations to a planning authority on the preparation of a development plan or a planning application . A final decision will only be taken after careful and thorough consideration of all material issues, including all representations and consultees’ advice.
I believe that effective engagement with the public can lead to better plans, better decisions and more satisfactory outcomes and can help to avoid delays in the planning process. It also improves confidence in the fairness of the planning system. Successful operation of the planning system will only be achieved if those involved commit themselves to engaging as constructively as possible in the process.
IR: In response to your renewables statement at a conference in Glasgow on June 16, Stuart Young of the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum asks: What market research has been done to identify who will buy the electricity produced by Scottish onshore windfarm companies? And who is going to pay for the transmission reinforcement south of Denny to ensure that the identified customers get Scottish electricity as far as Continental Europe?
FE: Scotland is playing a key role in the development and deployment of an interconnected offshore grid in the North Sea. This has been highlighted as a European Union priority project – an offshore grid will allow Scotland to export its vast renewable electricity surplus to the UK and Europe, help cut emissions and ensure the future security of European energy supplies.
Scottish Power (the transmission system owner in southern Scotland) and National Grid (transmission system owner in England and Wales) will deliver the necessary network reinforcements south of Denny and interconnection between European networks will be delivered by a range of system owners across Europe.
IR: Electricity engineer Jim Hall, based in Newtonmore, is concerned that no conventional power stations are planned to replace those that we will lose over the next few years – leaving Scotland having to import more energy. He says the renewables industry has persuaded governments we don’t need base-load power stations when, clearly, we do because wind is unpredictable and sometimes produces no energy. What is your response to those concerns?
FE: There is an underlying requirement for new efficient thermal capacity in this low carbon generation portfolio. The market will continue to bring forward proposals for new or upgraded thermal electricity baseload generation capacity in Scotland – applications for developments at Hunterston and Cockenzie currently going through energy consent procedures and we are expecting an application for Longannet carbon capture and storage later this year.
IR: Denise Davis from Kiltarlity, who opposes the Druim Ba windfarm proposal, says “Jim Mather didn’t care about the north as he lives far away” and asks: Will your actions be more sympathetic to the concerns of many in the Highlands angry and upset by what is happening?
FE: Proposals are subject to fullest possible consultation involving wide range of stakeholders and to which all parties including members of the public with an interest can contribute. We want a vibrant renewables industry in Scotland.
I welcome the economic contribution that renewable energy makes, bringing jobs and investment while securing new green energy infrastructure and tackle climate change. The Highlands is at the heart of these new economic opportunities and is the clear location of choice for testing and deploying technologies in marine energy, with an estimated £6 billion of investment over the next decade from developing 1.6 Gigawatts of wave and tidal renewables projects in the Pentland Firth.
We need more renewables but not at any price – the best applications are those that take care to resolve environmental and planning concerns in advance. We are committed to realising good quality renewable energy projects in harmony with the relevant planning and EU environmental interests.
IR: In Laggan, Jo Cumming of the campaign group Cairngorms Revolt Against Pylons, says: “The winter before last we had very cold weather for three months and no wind across Scotland.” he asks: When the wind does not provide enough power for the wind factories what other source of energy will be used?
Sue Hopkinson of the Highlands Before Pylons campaign group is intrigued by Scottish and Southern Energy’s decision to sell several of its windfarms. he asks: Do you feel that’s because of the growing perception that the technology is not trusted?
Finally, Highland councillor Jim Crawford is interested to know how you balance the issue of massive public subsidies being paid to windfarm developers when those payments have added to electricity costs and pushed more and more people – especially the elderly – into fuel poverty.
FE: Our balanced energy policy will ensure a range of other generating sources are available.
It’s a fact that energy prices will have to rise in the medium to long term in order to fund the required investment to move to a low carbon economy. However, we will see far greater price hikes and volatility if energy supplies are more reliant on fossil fuels than low carbon sources. Significant upfront investment in renewables over the period might lead to cheaper energy bills later, since customers will to some extent avoid paying for potentially increasingly expensive fossil fuels.
Such market trends highlight the need to ensure fuel poverty and energy efficiency support focuses on reducing overall energy consumption and therefore bills, in the face of likely rises in the unit cost of electricity.
We do face difficult decisions – for example I supported the decision to grant consent for the Beauly-Denny line which many in the Highlands opposed. I supported it because it struck the right balance between developing and delivering Scotland’s energy future and protecting environmental, cultural heritage, economic and community issues.
Our commitment to meeting 100% of Scottish electricity demand from renewables by 2020 is one of the most testing and demanding anywhere in world – but it is necessary to ensure that the Highlands shares in the wealth and job opportunities.
Let’s kick off the year with a gear review, but a slightly unusual one. I’ve been struggling a bit with extender/charging options for my iPhone. While I love the iPhone (mine’s a 3G), it’s battery life is not great, especially if you use the Internet or GPS. I’ve tried a number of battery extenders that use ordinary batteries, but they don’t seem to be powerful enough to recharge the iPhone.
I saw the TeckNet iEP387 7000mAh USB Battery Bank on Amazon for a modest £23 and thought I’d give it a go. It’s a neat little package, marginally bigger than an iPhone and weighs a very reasonable 177g. It has two USB outputs. The input is a micro USB for charging but no three pin plug is provided. This is not a problem for me, as I have a USB three pin plug for my Kindle. On the top plate there is a silver push button to initiate a charge. It also lights up the four blue LEDs which indicate the battery charge level.
The advantage of a device like this over a battery caddy is that I can not only charge my iPhone but my Kindle and my SatMap as well. It takes about 8 hours to fully charge the battery pack from flat. A full charge will re-charge the iPhone three or four times. Not only that, it re-charges it remarkably quickly. It’s a shame I can’t recharge my camera as well.
Overall, I think it’s a neat device. For a relatively modest cost it is a great way of ensuring that you won’t run out of juice for your electronics on multi-day trips.
Wishing everyone a happy and prosperous New Year.
With each succeeding Christmas, the number of presents diminishes, but the quality improves. This year I received two books. The first is “Vanished Kingdoms” by Norman Davies. There’s a good review in the Telegraph. This is the kind of book that wouldn’t translate very well to a kindle as it has quite a number of colour photos and it is a book that benefits from a skim before reading. It looks fascinating. At over 800 pages, it’s going to need a bit of time and I’m still only half way through “The Fabric of the Cosmos” by Brian Greene.
The second book I received was Chris Townsend’s “Scotland”. Again, I’ve only skimmed it so far, but it looks excellent. Andy Howell has written a comprehensive review on his blog. So far I’ve only dipped into it, but I’m impressed. There’s some lovely photos. I’ve identified all the tents except for the one on page 65 
. Seriously, it’s a very useful guide and pen picture to the Highlands. The layout is very clear. I’m looking forward to many hours of pleasurable browsing. I’m also looking forward the Chris’s next book “Grizzly Bears and Razor Clams” in 2012. If it’s the same standard as his books on his treks in Arizona and the Yukon, we’re in for a treat!
Here’s a short slide show of some photos I took in Epping Forest one golden autumn afternoon a few years ago with accompanying music from Harold Budd. Three minutes of pleasure.
Don’t know why, but I like this picture from our Peddars Way walk.
When I was a teenager I bought records. I still miss the sleeves and the pride of ownership. I held out against owning a CD player for a long time. In the end, I relented. The only way I could match the quality of a record was to buy a top end Arcam transport and DAC. As CD players improved, I bought an AVI one box player. The next step was to buy an SACD player. SACD was a bit hit and miss. Some SACDs were superb, others indifferent. SACDs never really made the mainstream, though.
Then I progressed to a Denon player that would play every kind of disc from CDs through SACDs to DVDs, although I routed the digital feed through the DAC of my Lyngdorf amp for decoding CDs. The next step was to go network server based distributed through a Sonos wireless network. It took ages to rip about 700 odd CDs. I carried on buying and ripping CDs, though. All this time I owned the music.
This year I started subscribing to Napster. For £100 a year I could stream as much music as I wanted plus store tracks on three mobile devices to play offline. I was now renting music. However, I still bought some CDs as the 128k bit rate on Napster is a bit low for decent HiFi. It’s ideal for the rest of the family who are not so bothered but not quite good enough for me.
I was going to try Spotify as they stream most (though not all) at 320k. Unfortunately they require a Facebook account which I don’t have and don’t want. Along comes Deezer. For £5 a month, they stream at 320k. The difference between 320k and 128k is noticeable to my ears, but the step up to CD ripped FLAC files is subtle.
320k services are going kill the CD market. For most people the quality is more than adequate. Even for people like me with expensive HiFis, it’s pretty good. For me it’s a huge paradigm shift to rent music rather than buy it. The only downside to Deezer is the catalogue is more limited than Napster (and probably Spotify) and it has very little classical music. Other than that, it’s great and you don’t have to sell your soul to Facebook. Buying a CD is likely to be a rarity for me from now on.
OK, returning from our little diversion into economic policy, in common with many retailers, Rohan have been bombarding me with pre-Christmas offers. Looking through their offers, there was nothing that particularly appealed, but I spotted their Equator Shirt, which was still full price (£55). I’ve been looking for a lightweight shirt for a while and thought this fitted the bill so I ordered one.
I’ve been wearing it off and on for the past three weeks and really like it. The material feels like a very soft cotton (actually a mix of Supplex polyamide and CoolMax polyester). Although it the material is thin, it still feel quite substantial, which is odd given that it weighs just 168g (M). It also manages the trick of feeling both warm and cool at the same time.
Although it’s probably the lightest shirt I own, it has two decent sized zipped chest pockets and a natty microfibre lens cleaning cloth sewn into the hem. The styling is a neat compromise between technical and casual. Personally I like to have a shirt for hot sunny days rather than a conventional base layer. It looks like the Equator Shirt might be ideal. Judgement will have to wait until I’ve taken it on the trail and tested how it works when I’m sweaty and whether it is smell resistant. However, early impressions are favourable.
While it’s not my intention to turn this blog into an economics blog, a lot of my readers have expressed an interest in economic matters, particularly where comment from the mainstream media is deficient. My last post on the “Robin Hood Tax” (Financial Transactions Tax/Tobin Tax), garnered some favourable comments. To show that it’s not just little old me, below I produce some commentary that appeared on the Zero Hedge website today on a recent US Congressional Budget Office report on the impacts of a Tobin Tax.
I think the implications are obvious in terms of the recent spat in the EU. If the EU imposes a Tobin Tax, most of the transactions will migrate to New York. London property prices would collapse. The UK banking system would implode and the UK would face a depression. Perhaps that’s what Sarkozy and Merkel really want.
Next time someone in the pub spouts on about what a great idea a Robin Hood Tax is, you might want to politely point out that the idea doesn’t even get past first base. Anywhere or anyhow.
From Zero Hedge:
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) explored the consequences of a Tobin tax, after it was asked to throw in its two cents in regarding proposed legislation, H.R. 3313 / S. 1787. The proposed new law has a very catchy title:
“Wall Street Trading and Speculators Tax Act”
Who wouldn’t like something like that? For a country that (A) is desperate for revenue and (B) whose populous hates financial fat cats, speculators, monstrously paid bankers, and ridiculously paid hedge fund execs, a transaction tax is an easy sell.
I’ve taken grief on these pages with my position that taxes are a necessity. “Zero” is not the right number. The only questions are who pays and how much. With that said, it’s hard for me to push against a transaction tax. But I’m against this. The costs will outweigh any benefits that are created. I think the CBO agrees. Some bits from the report (Link):
For a transaction involving a stock, bond, or other debt obligation, the tax would be 0.03 percent of the value of the security.
Gee! Only .03%! Hardly worth noticing! Actually it is. Based on recent turnover the cost of the tax would be $1.7mm every day for those trading AAPL. For GE and BAC, it comes to a rake of $327k and $425k, respectively. That’s real money.
The argument will be put forth that the tax is only a few pennies. A long-term buyer of AAPL would have to pay a total of only 24 cents to buy/hold/sell a share. For BAC, it’s only 3/8th of a cent (.0032).
The transaction tax on Government bonds will only be applied to maturities over 100 days and not applicable to any new issuance. So if you were looking to park $100k in T notes for a year, you could avoid the tax by participating in the government’s auctions. That’s stupid. No one will do that. People will call their brokers and it will cost them an extra 30 bucks to own the Note.
The US bond market is very complex. It has nothing to do with retail demand. A substantial portion of the $10T of Treasury plus $7T of Agency paper is in perpetual float. I estimate that at least one-third of the outstandings have no permanent home. It sloshes about the globe based on a variety of macro forces. How many times do they “slosh” in a year? Much more than you might think. The number is a minimum of 5Xs. (I think it is around 7Xs, it could be as high as 10Xs) Using the low estimate, the annual float turnover impacted by the tax equals $25T. That teeny weeny tax would therefore suck $8 billion out of the market. That’s a very big deal. The CBO sees this pretty clearly:
Securities that are traded frequently, such as Treasury securities, would be more affected than securities that are traded less frequently.
The proposed transaction tax would lay waste to the HFT (High Frequency Trading) crowd. Their spreads are far too small and their volumes too high, to not have their business models get crushed by a Tobin tax. Many will cheer, myself included. But a sudden death of the algo computers would be very destructive.
The tax would also decrease the volume of transactions and would make some types of trading activity—such as derivatives transactions to manage risk and computer-assisted high-frequency trading—unprofitable.
This is about the money and how much one keeps. So every effort will be made to divert trading activities outside of US tax jurisdictions.
Traders would have incentives to avoid the tax either by trading offshore or by creating new financial instruments that were not subject to the tax.
As the trading activity goes outside of our borders, so will all those traders and their high paying jobs. Also would go the thousands of back office/ support staff that goes with this.
As foreign holders of U.S. securities moved their transactions abroad, more of the market could go with them, which could diminish the importance of the United States as a major global financial market
All taxes have consequences. A Tobin transaction tax would be no exception:
In the short term, imposing the transaction tax would probably reduce output and employment.
Beyond the first few years the tax’s net impact on the economy is unclear.
Unclear? This is pretty clear:
The transaction tax would raise the costs of financing investments to the extent that it made transactions more expensive, financial markets less liquid, and management of financial risk more costly.
A net change in the amount of investment would in turn affect GDP and employment. In the short term, a decrease in investment would lower demand for goods and services and thus reduce output and employment.
Reduce output and employment? Just what we need.
These consequences are not the ones that worry me. I’m concerned with liquidity. What will happen when 50% of short-term trading is eliminated? The CBO has an answer for that:
The tax might discourage short-term speculation, which can destabilize markets and lead to disruptive events (such as the October 1987 stock market crash and the more recent “flash crash,” when the stock market temporarily plunged on May 6, 2010)
How might the markets welcome a transaction tax? I say this would get a huge thumb’s down. If you believe that wealth in 401Ks drives the economy (I do), then this will bring (another) recession. The CBO agrees, sort of.
Initially, the transaction tax would reduce the value of existing financial assets, because investors would not be willing to pay as much for assets that had become more costly to trade. That reduction would produce an immediate—though probably small—decline in wealth for people who owned financial assets when the policy was enacted.
Note: The CBO are a bunch of bean counters. They have not the slightest idea what the markets may do if this tax was enacted. When they say the consequence to assets values will “probably be small” they are making it up. (A Wall Street broker is not allowed to say things like this. The outcome is not predictable)
This is not a tax on speculators and guys who wear white spats on Wall Street. This will impact all the pension and savings plans:
The transaction tax would also affect the funding of state and local pension plans ($3 trillion as of June 2011). Besides initially reducing the value of their existing assets slightly, the tax would raise transaction costs for pension plans. Both of those effects would increase required contributions to the plans.
Note: There’s that “slightly” thing again. Shame on the CBO for soft peddling the risks.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see that a transaction tax becomes a political football in the next election. Obama will support it. The Republican candidate will oppose it. If the election were tomorrow, Obama would handily beat either Newt the Fool or Mitt the Suit. Unfortunately, I think a transaction tax, and all the bad things it will bring, is in our future.
Copyright: Zero Hedge
Having been a professional economist for the last seven years of my career until I retired, I am continually frustrated by the disinformation and dissembling of politicians on matters of economic policy. It is also disturbing that the press coverage and analysis is so poor in the non-specialist press, especially the broadsheets, who should know better. In an attempt to counter this lack of proper information and analysis I am starting an occasional series on this blog to help readers who do not have any specialist knowledge in economics. I will try to keep these relatively short and simple and apologise if topics are not always covered in the depth they deserve.
Today, I want to look at the so-called Robin Hood Tax or Financial Transactions Tax (FTT). In economic circles, this is also known as the Tobin Tax, after the economist who first proposed it. Initially it was proposed as a transaction tax on foreign currency deals to dampen volatility and deter speculation. Later this idea was extended to other financial transactions.
The fact that it has been dubbed the Robin Hood Tax gives it a spurious legitimacy as it implies that it applies to the rich and benefits the poor. At best this is disingenuous and at worst deception. It is also worth bearing in mind the standard “economic” tests for a good tax. It must be fair, easy to collect, difficult to avoid or evade, transparent (i.e. obvious to the payer) and not produce perverse effects. The FTT fails in almost every respect.
That’s quite a long list and I could include some more technical reasons, but you get the idea. It is not surprising that FTT taxes are rare and often repealed. They are ineffective and have perverse effects. It is a reflection of the economic illiteracy of Merkel, Sarkozy and Barroso that they have persisted with this idea long after countries like the US have rejected it. It certainly won’t work unless it is adopted globally and even then has significant drawbacks.
From a purely UK perspective, it is estimated that an EU FTT would raise approximately 80% of its revenues from London. It would wipe out the derivatives market in the UK and cost £25.5bn. Ask yourself whether Merkel or Sarkozy would agree to an additional tax on Mercedes or Citroen cars. Further you might question Sarkozy’s motives when not long ago he was trying to woo HSBC to relocate its HQ to Paris with tax incentives.
Lastly, even interest groups as wide apart on the spectrum as the IMF and the Socialist Worker have admitted that a FTT is unworkable.
Hopefully, you can now exercise a bit of scepticism when you encounter some of the twaddle about a Robin Hood Tax.
