Brits torn between desire to be green and financial prudence

Consumers who are otherwise unresponsive to environmental issues are willing to go green if the price is right, according to an online survey by Fool.co.uk.

David Kuo, Head of Personal Finance at Fool.co.uk is calling on the Government to take note of consumer attitudes regarding personal levels of greenness. This is vital when it studies the implications of the Stern report in respect of HM Treasury policy on tax and the environment.

The survey found that even amongst steadfast non-green consumers, there is some evidence of greenness, provided financial benefits are tangible. Six out of ten non-green consumers claim that over a quarter of the lighting in their homes is energy saving. More than 75% of non-green consumers also switch off electrical appliances completely rather than leave them in stand-by mode because it saves them money.

That said, diehard, non-green consumers fare badly when measurable financial payback is absent. One in four of them do not recycle any of their household waste, and just 4% use green energy tariffs. What’s more, non-green consumers admit that they are only prepared to consider green solutions if it makes sound financial sense.

Additionally, a high proportion of unswervingly, non-green consumers recycle unwanted mobile phones. Just one in seven admit that they throw away unneeded mobile phones. The rest give their mobiles to friends, or sell or recycle them.

David Kuo comments: “Consumers are frequently torn between a desire to help the environment and a need to be financially prudent. Sadly the two are often diametrically opposed.

“But the Government should use the widespread use of energy-saving lighting in our homes as an important light-bulb moment. It is a good example of how we can easily save money and be ecologically friendly without need for penal green taxes that hurt those who can least afford it.

“The Government can help by addressing issues that affect ordinary people without using a sledgehammer approach through green taxes. For instance, why does it cost twice as much to travel from London to Manchester by train than by air despite huge public and private investments in Britain’s railways? Furthermore, slapping on green taxes to deter air travel is unlikely to level the playing field - it will only breed greater complacency amongst rail operators.”

David adds: ”Ideally, we should not expect to be financially compensated for saving our planet. After all, it’s the only one we have, and it is in all our interests to keep it habitable. But killing good trees to print bad legislation is not the answer – the Government can certainly do better.”