The social cost of carbon emissions is $85 per tonne. This equates to £72 per person flying to New York or 9p per litre of petrol. This doesn't seem an awful lot. If the purpose of green taxes is to correct externalities, it would seem that petrol tax has overshot quite badly. Yes, I know it covers other things, and that there are non-carbon externalities, but nonetheless it suggests that perhaps motoring has acquired a totemic status among carbon-emitting behaviours. If we have any economists reading perhaps they can explain whether a social cost of $85 means a tax of $85 is correct, or whether and why the two figures should differ.

The other good headline figures to come out of the report are that at a cost of 1% of GDP (which is a huge cost), we can save 20% of GDP in economic decline and equivalent (somehow) loss of health and well being. This is a great expense and a great bargain.

The Lib Dems Green Tax Switch policy, which is perhaps in the process of being copied by the other parties meets the first of Stern's policy challenges: that of setting a price for carbon.

The second challenge is to support the urgent development of low-carbon and high efficiency technologies. I suspect that when the government publishes its proposals, this section will focus on nuclear power. That is, of course, a debate all of its own. But in any case there should be serious money going into offshore wind, tidal lagoons, CHP, transport solutions and so forth.

The third challenge is tackling the barriers to take up of efficient and low carbon technologies. Better product labelling, standards for energy efficiency and that sort of thing.

Stern also mentions the importance of adapting to the consequences of global warming. This is important. It is not a question of stopping warming altogether, but stopping it from being too severe, and adapting to the changes that do happen.

The point is well made that uncertainty over the figures is a reason for more action rather than less. We should act today on the best estimates we have today, and we can always move policy incrementally in response to new evidence.

I think the biggest obstacle we face to progress is the problem of freeloading, and the perception of the problem of freeloading. I will say two things against the problem of the perception.

Firstly, the costs of many of the measures discussed are very low or zero. Green taxes raise revenue and allow low carbon sectors to be taxed less and prosper. Having the carbon pricing infrastructure in place earlier and implementing it, even at a lower than desirable level can mean gaining a lead in low carbon technologies and practises that will pay dividends in future.

Secondly, it is a mistake to think there is a binary divide between tree-huggers and freeloaders. There is a continuum. China, India, the USA, they are all doing more than nothing. And the UK is doing rather less than some other countries. Yes, we want to say to the international community "come on chaps, we can do this" but to say it effectively we have to show some enthusiasm to do our part. Let's not sit on our arses complaining that somebody else is even lazier.

The BBC are reporting that police chiefs are 'urging' the government to make flag-burning a criminal offence. They claim that this will form a necessary part of a 'crack down on Islamic extremists and others preaching violence and religious hate'.

There are numerous problems with this suggestion. Firstly, is flag-burning such a problem? How many incidents of flag-burning have there been in the last five years? The BBC piece gives no figures and I can't recall the last time I saw pictures of flags burning on TV or in the newspapers. Whilst that's not a scientific study, it does rather suggest that the problem is being overblown.

Secondly, who does flag-burning actually harm? A flag is just another piece of property which an owner can do with as they please. Setting fire to things in a public place may be dangerous, but surely this is covered by existing laws? When this is considered, it becomes apparent that this is just another proposal designed to 'send a message' rather than actually achieve anything. It addresses a symptom, rather than the cause of the problem. Flag-burning is, in itself, an irrelevance; if a person has done nothing worse than burn a flag, then they really do not deserve punishment. If they have done worse than burn a flag, then we need to be asking why such people are at liberty to do so. Arresting people for flag-burning makes it look like the police are 'doing something' without any clear indication of how this is of benefit to anyone.

There is a further problem; flag-burning is a very public demonstration of hatred. Is suppressing such expressions really such a good idea? Visual images are very powerful, and as a person who believes in peaceful, reasonable discourse I would find it quite useful for flag-burning to be allowed; it would make it very easy for me to identify precisely who the hateful bigots are. Suppressing the expression of hatred simply forces the 'preachers of hate' to put their message forward in a different way, perhaps a way less easy to observe.

Thirdly, most people know that flag-burning is wrong. They know that people burning flags are people who are not interested in rational discourse. Why not trust people to deal with the sight of burning flags for themselves?

Finally, making flag-burning illegal provides a very simple means by which any protester can provoke the police into making a forced arrest in a dangerous situation. Once such a law is passed, the police will not be able to exercise restraint against a group of people burning a flag; they will have to wade in, in full riot gear, into a situation involving a group of people and burning objects. The risk of injury is high, and for what benefit? If we truly wished to treat flag-burning with the contempt it deserves, we would ignore it as the childish behaviour that it is.

You'll find it this way

I wasn't going to comment on the Barker affair, but then an ad in a magazine brought the memories floodling back.

This is the way the Mirror describes his guilty secret

He drives a silver Lexus RX400-h car which has been designed to emit fewer damaging emissions and was carefully chosen to fit his green political image.

OK I'll fess up. I went as far as looking at one myself. It was a bit out of my price range, but to feel good about the planet I was prepared to consider spending the money.

The problem is that the Lexus 400h does not deliver. The version Barker appears to drive pumps out around 192g/km.

Worse still, for a (sorry) family driver, it has the internal dimensions of a much smaller car. When I looked there was no seven-seater option. A Volvo XC90 diesel is equally efficient - and fits two extra passengers.

Now I don´t care what sort of car people drive. The impact on the environment is not really as dramatic as people assume. But putting pictures all over your website of a "green" vehicle when you know it is just a sham - that really gets me.

All these league tables confuse me, to be honest. But it is good to make a top 100, even if only by a margin of 9.

Here is PRBlogger´s list.

And here is an extract

86. Open (finds, minds, conversations)… Rank: 12,556 (503 links from 203 blogs)
87. .: ShaolinTiger - Kung-Fu Geekery :. Rank: 13,310 (424 links from 193 blogs)
88. TechCrunch UK Rank: 13,384 (391 links from 185 blogs)
89. The Obvious? Rank: 13,384 (1,484 links from 192 blogs)
90. Spy Blog Rank: 13,459 (452 links from 191 blogs)
91. Liberal Review Rank: 13,862 (628 links from 186 blogs)
92. A PR Guru’s Musings - Stuart Bruce Rank: 14,025 (486 links from 184 blogs)
93. An Englishman’s Castle Rank: 14,025 (572 links from 184 blogs)
94. CoolSmartPhone.com Rank: 14,188 (726 links from 182 blogs)
95. Neil’s World Rank: 14,546 (540 links from 178 blogs)
96. edublogs Rank: 15,272 (598 links from 170 blogs)
97. politicalbetting.com Rank: 15,665 (686 links from 166 blogs)

All links gratefully received...

A crack Lib dem manifesto team has been assembled to write the programme that will capture the imagination of the nation and lead us to the victory - well, probably.

According to Politics.co.uk.

The Liberal Democrats have started preparing their manifesto in anticipation of a snap election this time next year.

Health spokesman Steve Webb will lead a team including leader Menzies Campbell, campaign chief Ed Davey, work and pensions spokesman David Laws and Treasury spokesman Vince Cable.

The party has already proposed an increase in green taxes and a 2p cut in the basic rate of income tax, and has stressed the need for more devolution in public services.

Sir Menzies said the manifesto process would be "started immediately, be fully costed and will consult with all sections of the party". Mr Webb said the Lib Dems would show other parties how to create a "free, fair and green society in the 21st century".

Today's announcement suggests the Lib Dems expect Tony Blair's successor, likely to be Gordon Brown, to call an election within months of taking over. The prime minister has said he will quit by next September.

It will be a tough job. The economics chapter of Britain after Blair is competent and should give us more credibility than we have had in the past.

As for the rest of it, we have a lot of work to do.

Green Taxation is our most interesting policy area, and the focus of our attention at present. But there is certainly a danger that our Green Taxation proposals will be out of date before we get to an election. Labour's road pricing proposals could steal some thunder on this. We must keep the principle, but the details will need to be reconsidered, and the approach is probably gong to be less distinctive.

Where do we stand on the other big issues? Steve Webb's line on the NHS has been that "reforms are okay but should be slower". This may well be correct but is hardly a great rallying cry. I imagine that we will come up with a "scrap PFI line" on health. On balance I think this is a good thing.

Om Education we seem to have swallowed Tomlinson whole. Our line on post-19 education is good. On Schools we don't have such a striking message. We float a lot of ideas on using resources better (but who believes politicians can achieve this?). And of course there is our fine stance on the fourth R.

My personal manfesto would probably be for more parental choice in cities, a focus on Maths and English, a revival in school sports, fewer targets, fewer tests, but tough exams and no assessed coursework unless absolutely necessay. Not very trendy.

We should promote more housebuilding, a better mix of housing, and better energy efficiency (heating and transport) from the outset. Regional policy should be part of the policy mix, and I'd like to see a role for a land tax in this.

There is a big challenge on the constitution: STV, an English chamber as a temporary measure, and devolution to counties for many of the services devolved to Wales and Scotland might be the way forward. I'm not much bothered on the Lords personally.
A Speaker's Conference on a British Bill of rights to entrench our rights to drive a 4x4 to Tesco's without an ID card might be worthwhile, but the ECHR should be non-negotiable.

On Foreign Affairs we are best placed (perhaps not surprisingly). On Iraq we are saying the right things. On Europe, we need a realistic line on the Euro (we will continue to monitor whether it is in the UK interest to join and hold a referendum if it is). On Europe we need to strike the sort of note provided by Michael Moore (and Nick Clegg) rather than Andrew Duff.

Speaking of Clegg, he has been doing a good job on Home Affairs, and the Repeal Act should certainly feature on the Billboards rather than the small print. A big idea on crime wouldn't come amiss.

What should we get rid of?

We have dumped the "votes for murderers" policy. We should do the same with our "16 is old enough for everything" approach.

That will do for now. I only switched on the computer to check the weather forecast...

The UK-US Extradition deal continues to bring fear to British businessmen. But now that Congress has ratified surely it will be used to bring a few Americans to face justice here. Ming tried to find out at Prime Minister's Questions today. Here is how the BBC reported it:

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell once again proved he was also back to his old, sure-footed self with a well-aimed attack on the extradition deal between the UK and the US which, he claimed, was a one way street.

Sir Menzies demanded to know when moves would be taken to extradite American soldiers allegedly responsible for the death of ITN reporter Terry Lloyd in Iraq.

Mr Blair avoided an answer, allowing the Lib Dem leader a despairing "Not much comfort there".

There is a longer report on ePolitix and elsewhere on the BBC.

ICM puts the parties at

Tories 39%
Labour 29%
Lib Dems 22%.

Apparently this is hung parliament territory.

Google shows a new kind of headline for Cameron

Cameron's approval ratings slide
Guardian Unlimited, UK - 4 hours ago
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, during a visit to Hackney, east London, on Monday October 23 2006. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/WPA rota/PA. ...

Poll shows Cameron losing his shine
Scotsman, United Kingdom - 5 hours ago
THE gloss is coming off David Cameron ten months after he became Tory Leader just like his three predecessors, a new poll reveals today. ...

Poll: Britain's new Conservative Party leader sags in popularity
International Herald Tribune, France - 8 hours ago
AP. LONDON Opposition Conservative Party leader David Cameron's approval rating has sagged in Britain, according to a poll published ...

Labour retakes lead over Conservatives: poll
Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates - 13 hours ago
LONDON - Britain’s ruling Labour Party has retaken the lead in a poll for the first time in six months, as the leader of the main opposition Conservative ...

Just a poll - but taking David Cameron into uncharted territory. Suddenly he is just another politician, and with the negative popularity figures to prove it.

The truth is that he never was as popular or successful as the press suggested. Now the headlines are changing too.

What this implies is that Cameron will have less leeway to modernise the Tories.

Not that he has got very far. The headlines about his "brave" A-list (and B-list) proposals have turned into the selection of a brace of Rees Moggs and and Sandys. This is scarcely a stepping stone to a new, more inclusive Tory party.

Tory tax proposals have revealed the truth of Cameron´s "NHS" slogan (it means No Hospital Safe).

Personally I blame the conference. What people saw of the Tories and of Cameron confirmed their worst fears. No one is arguing that he is finished. But after a year in which both Lib Dems and Labour have been playing with the self-destruct button, Cameron has little to show. Not even good headlines

...that the Joseph Rowntree Trust is giving us two million.

The bad news is that we can´t use it to pay back HSBC/5th Avenue.

If we do have to repay that donation (and I suppose it is possible - if unlikely) then I will sell my HSBC shares and donate the profit to the Lib Dems. Sadly that will leave quite a lot for the rest of you to sort out.

That pillar of the Lib dem establishment, Rob Fenwick, has been fretting about the destination of Clare Short over at Liberal Democrat Voice.

I noted months ago that Clare was making a point of saying nice things about Ming.

Her objective is to promote electoral reform, balanced parliament, and thus the effective scrutiny of Parliament. This makes her a potential fellow traveller rather than member. In practice it probably leads her to the familiar Guardian position of telling people to vote Labour where this is needed to keep out the Tories, and Lib Dem, PC and SNP anywhere else.

Party members have to support their party everywhere, and work for an overall majority. So I doubt that she would ever be comfortable in Lib Dem colours.

But reading around the papers there are a few straws in the wind.

The Times has a list of her rebellions - and I was surprised to see how often I had agreed with her:

WHAT SHE HAS TOLD THE COUNTRY

In 1995 she suggested that the decriminalisation of cannabis should be discussed, a move that was condemned by other leading Labour Party figures

In July 1997 she refered to the Millennium Dome, then new Labour’s pet project, as “a silly, temporary building”

She attacked government proposals to withhold aid from countries that refuse to take back illegal immigrants as “repugnant” in June 2002

She denounced university top-up fees in November 2002 as “a really bad idea”

She accused France of a conspiracy to keep Africa in poverty while Tony Blair was attempting to gain French approval for an agreement on African development in 2002

In January 2003, she criticised government “control freakery” over target setting

In the build-up to the Iraq war she repeatedly called Tony Blair reckless and threatened to resign from the Cabinet in the event of the Government taking Britain to war with Iraq without a clear mandate from the United Nations. Unlike her Cabinet colleague Robin Cook, she did not immediately resign when British troops were sent to Iraq

She resigned over the Iraq war in May 2003

The Guardian meanwhile fingers the Lib Dems as trggering the move:

It is possible the news leaked after the Liberal Democrats tried to persuade her to follow the leftwing former Labour MP Brian Sedgemore and join them. She said pointedly in her resignation letter that she would remain a social democrat.

Interesting.

The Wall Street Journal reports poll figures to die for for the Democrats.

Republicans are at a greater disadvantage heading toward Election Day than Democrats were 12 years ago just before voters ended their 40-year reign in Congress.

In October 1994, with the public fed up with scandals and the failure of President Clinton and his party's lawmakers to deliver in key areas such as health care, voters said by a nine-point margin -- 46% to 37% -- that they wanted Republicans to take control. That compares with the 15-point margin today in favor of Democrats' taking the reins.

This midterm, like 1994, is shaping up as a referendum on an unpopular president who isn't on the ballot, leaving his party to bear the brunt of voters' wrath. Mr. Bush, however, is even less popular than Mr. Clinton was as Election Day approached. Back then, 45% disapproved of Mr. Clinton's job performance, compared with Mr. Bush's 57% disapproval rating.

The new poll also suggests the advantages that have helped Republicans sustain their majority in Congress -- gerrymandered House districts, a well-oiled turnout machine and the national-security issue -- all have been somewhat neutralized by the political winds buffeting the party. Democrats need to gain a net 15 seats for a House majority, and they now have polls showing leads in about 40 Republican-held districts from New England through the Mountain West -- with none of their own in serious jeopardy.

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The Democrats have a great record on turning good polls into poor results. But the polls never have been this good for them before.

The Democrats look better from a distance. Up close their protectionism and economic nationalism is less attractive than their environmentalism and progressive rhetoric. But there is no doubt who Europeans would choose (Adlai Stevenson famously said that he carried Europe on both his presidential bids - it was America that was the problem. And I would have had no problem voting for Stevenson.)

Hopefully this time they will pull it off - and Bush will become as lame a duck as Blair.