‘The Testicle Shadow’ – should we be compensating people in China?

Having seen the relatively recent changes in attitude towards the environment and the introduction of off-setting carbon impacts through payment into a fund which would support development work, presumably overseas, to offset the carbon impacts of travel, it has crossed my mind what real changes are likely to result from this action. What seems likely to be the major qualm I would have about these means of generating revenue is that this is a further means of taxing those who are probably conscientious enough not to cause unnecessary pollution through leisure driving whilst those who maybe do take a lot of leisure trips don’t get penalised. Others may criticise the project work undertaken as being unlikely to achieve the objectives that need to be met in terms of carbon balancing. But as an extra 'conscience tax' it is not suitable and could be incorporated into tax which is already paid on fuel - the government could offset carbon use for us without extra voluntary contributions and spread the burden.

Carbon off-setting as a concept is interesting. Perhaps there could be some change through having the right concepts in society which can lead to major changes in ‘culture’ and to an extent can change the way that we live and use resources. This to an extent does reflect the notion that if we change language we will change the way we think and act as a result which isn’t necessarily correct. However, having the right terminology in place may assist with saving the planet. The ‘ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT’ appealed to me to a degree when I was reading social policy several years ago, because it is a means of assessing environmental impact of individuals and areas perhaps even the size of London, which have an ecological footprint the size of the UK. There may have been a long history of selecting linguistic terms which were aimed at promoting greater care for the environment and were dropped into life through the mass media and the etymology of the situation may be interesting. The role of the government in supporting notions of equality despite differences in material wealth and reduction of environmentally degrading action is significant in this position and they may be in a position to sponsor the development of concepts through academic funding and then to develop links between academia and the media allowing an illusion of non-state-dominated social management to emerge. Having said that I tend only to come across the term in the Guardian and on Radio 4 so I presume that there aren't many page 3 girls offsetting their carbon impacts through their overseas photoshoots.

Off-setting carbon use may not be that poor an idea if only there were some way to get those who undertake leisure travel to pay up. Arguably, there is a meaningless distinction between work and leisure travel – leisure travel is important to our well-being to a great extent and maybe shouldn’t be taxed. It should perhaps be excessive leisure travel and excessive work travel when there was no alternative to the means of fossil-fuel driven transport used. Should an average family expect weekends away five times over the course of the year and do some carbon off-setting on trips that they take above this level? Maybe one overseas family holiday every year and then off-set carbon use above this level? Will this actually appeal to the self-crucifying middle classes who wish to thank the individuals overseas who they will never meet or know – how poetic. Perhaps what is wrong with most of this is that it’s all too nice. It needs national government action.

If there were greater threat relating to the role that we all play in environmental degradation then perhaps there could be a greater response. One means of doing this may be to consider the sacrifices that are put upon the population of China. The restrictions that limit family size may have a significant bearing on the impact of environmental damage each family inflicts. If you value your testicles, or those of your partner, then perhaps you should consider your civil liberties and the liberties that others are denied for the sake of maintaining environmental quality. You may think this is only a racist joke, however, there could be some very significant aspects to the need to consider the freedoms that we may experience in the west. Perhaps this is another reservation that I should state over this type of action – that the underlying issue in Britain of the government having fostered as sense of racial supremacy has not been dealt with and we get opportunity to ‘sponsor’ those who are less well off financially than our-British-selves. The multi-dimensionality of social exclusion does give some implication that the resource-poor/time-rich may have some approaches to living that we may benefit from as their resource-rich/time-poor counterparts. This implies that there could be means for a non-financial payback through spiritual growth or other means of relating to the world through expertise thatmay be gained from counterparts.

Maybe there could be a testicle tax on the types who have blatant disregard for the pollution they cause? We offer payment because of the size of our carbon emissions and the size of our ecological footprint and we should not perhaps be too ashamed of covering the cost of our testicle shadows. Perhaps one of the Blair Babes could suggest this to the likes of Jeremy Clarkson who appears to have little regard for the environment and the self-indulgent leisure driving habits. Maybe I should be given government sponsorship to sire some children owing to massive amount of cycling I’ve done….

Perhaps a Western man who can’t cycle should have a vasectomy at the age of twenty-one? Maybe this is one way of stopping parents doing the ‘school run’ and getting kids cycling again. I don’t know about you but I’m going to get my bicycle clips out early this year. Maybe the political parties should get on with offering to offset carbon use without any further voluntary contributions?