First we banned smoking in pubs, and there was general gratitude. Liberals, in fighting this particular battle, had won the case for all around liberty, not only in that of the smokers rights but also the rights of those around them. So why is it then that the so-called "liberals" of the Lib Dems are now trying to ban something else in way that acts so contradictorily to that previous philosophy of liberalism, patio heaters?

On paper it makes sense to look at legislating against products such as patio heaters, certainly perhaps for those that now don't venture outside of a pub to stay away from the smoke and stay inside in the warm. In reality this is a stance that can be easily perceived as illiberal. What is most surprising is that there are some that are trying to argue that such prohibition is conducive with a liberal attitude.

So let's get this straight, and to do so we need to actually lay the groundwork. What is the damage caused by patio heaters and therefore what are we gaining through a ban? For a start, lets listen to an expert

The overall impact of outdoor heaters on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions is very minimal, and once you look at the domestic models used in homes, the impact is almost non-existent

The statement is simple, domestic use patio heaters are not a viable target for the green campaigners to pin any real crime on, not while other items in the home do more damage on a real use basis. So already we have a distinction that is lacking, the difference between patio heaters in the home and patio heaters at licensed establishments. Yet what is the damage all of them combined cause? Currently it is estimated to be at 160,000 tonnes for commercial use and 22,000 tonnes for domestic. What is certainly clear is that on one hand you have a practice being condemned as being worse than driving a 4x4 springing up in the wake of the smoking ban, while on the other hand you have homes barely using their heater but doing so in such a way that, as our expert has concluded, is little more impact on the Earth than using a TV.

Surely then we have a clause in the voting? No, alas it is not to be. Not recognising the difference in domestic patterns the household patio heaters are lumped in with the black sheep of commercial heaters, as well as with air conditioning (wonder what those in Spain will think of such a move) and standby on TV's, for the big legislative chop. This alone is the first part of where liberals start becoming illiberal.

If I were to even own a garden I might have a patio heater...if I were to also own a secure shed. The Lib Dem MEP and Europe, as well as a few blind supporters of the party in gold, would rather that I was told that I can't use it. Now, I am a conscientious user of goods when it comes to energy and carbon emissions. I track my household carbon footprint as closely as I'm allowed on a tracking website and I'm reliably informed that my household falls under what can be deemed "sustainable" household emissions for the UK. I could actually go on and use my hypothetical patio heater quite a few times and still not reach that ceiling of sin. I personally don't drive and my girlfriend and I both cycle, walk or use public transport wherever it is most viable. We've bought special little plugs that mean when certain appliances are turned off all of those appliances that would usually sit on standby (freeview box, signal booster, games console, etc) are cut off from the mains, and when it comes to heating we prefer to keep the place from icing up but will resort to a blanket rather than using up gas where it feels comfortable.

Is it really the government's place to tell me that despite this level of concern for the environment, and all that I am doing to keep emissions down below the sustainability ceiling, I am not allowed to offset my own emissions in this manner? Surely Europe can't believe that climate change is going to be reversed by relying on the truly proactive in society to make so much of a reduction in their lifestyle to reduce emissions that they offset another households lack of care?

But this is the crux of the problem, there is no strategy here, there is nothing that is set by governments to gauge whether or not households are "doing their bit" individually. We are being viewed as a group of people with one aim in sight instead of having the freedom to pick and choose our extravagances based on our thrift in other areas. Without understanding that some people have the ability to weigh their own impact on the world this kind of legislation has no place in a liberal society.

One particular argument on LibDemVoice struck out at me as showing just how fine the line is between liberal and illiberal policy when it comes to this kind of micromanagement of our lives...

If we see a young child running into a busy road, we do not say "as a liberal that child should have freedom of choice to kill himself". Instead we would physically stop that child running into the road.

In simple terms the comparison is clear, the child is everyone on the planet, the car is climate change and we are the way about we change (or don't change) the situation. And of course the man is right, a liberal would never just let the kid die willingly as there is actually a lack of liberalism shown in that act, choosing to follow a path that harms someone else is an illiberal action. So, I guess it would be logical to say then that it is illiberal for us to not ban patio heaters? Quite aside from the logical extension of where that takes us, it is not really the whole picture, and the analogy is ultimately flawed.

Let's just see that logical extension for a second though. If climate change is happening and we are to choose to ban patio heaters then what comes next? Cars would be the first obvious choice, along with plane travel. While freight transport would still need to exist we could technically walk anywhere, or cycle...or use existing public transport if no system was made better. Next on the list of big hitters would be household heating and hot water. We certainly don't need to drink hot drinks, and showers don't necessarily need to be hot. While there are plenty of blankets around and layers of clothing heating is over-rated anyway, just look at the Inuit! Yet to argue in any way that the case is "different" for these is false, it is ultimately the logic of banning something we can technically live without to make the world "a better place." It's also a bollocks argument which completely misses the social and economic value of things with not so pleasant side effects as well as missing how suddenly the choice to legislate isn't the same "save the child" scenario

Indeed saving the child gives us benefit assuming we're not hurt in the process, and it gives the child nothing but benefit. Banning patio heaters benefits marginally for carbon reduction, but it also forces a tough lifestyle choice on those with an addiction and undermines the ability for households to manage their own carbon footprint. What is really happening in the scenario with the child is that the child was banned from going near the road in the first place, and you weren't saving him you were reprimanding him for thinking of breaking the rules. This is the second manner in which such prohibitive tacts become illiberal, not only because they take control away from the individual, but they also confer a specifically negative result on a person as a result

Now don't worry, I know what your argument will be oh zealous cult of the green brigade, utilitarianism states that you are fine to infringe on a person one way if it means he is much more benefited in another, say for example by not dying of heatstroke. Right? I agree completely, but this isn't liberal for the sole reason that the person you're denying the effects of the patio heater to could have already done enough as an individual to be well below the sustainable level for carbon emissions. You're denying a landlord profits that would be lost on the assumption that they have not done anything themselves to offset that impact. To use the analogy again, you could be "saving" (I still say reprimanding is more apt) a child that is mysteriously able to dodge traffic at ease.

It's about time people started realising that the aim of reducing emissions is not to become carbon neutral, the world has an ecosystem and the planet has survived even huge industrialisation by man kind. Putting some carbon dioxide in to the air does not matter, it is when those levels are too high and stay too high for too long. If you're going to start assuming that people are not taking responsibility then you are turning in to an authoritarian who can only be seen as attempting to micromanage millions of individuals lives on a mass level. People deserve the basic respect and trust of their governments to do the right thing and manage their own lives, while being influenced by duties and educational material. Painting all patio heater users as inconsiderate world killers is not necessarily the truth and it undermines the message that we should all be sending out about reducing our emissions.

To be taken truly seriously, and without being able to be accused of progressing the "nanny state", the debate to be had must be around disincentivising use of high emission utilities while recognising and supporting those that wish to make lifestyle compromises to choose to still use such products. Taxes can be talked about, incentives for green energy supplies, home insulation and personal carbon offsetting should be increased, and finally investment should continue to go in to new technologies to limit our dependance on dirty energy. Jumping to prohibition before thoroughly reviewing all of these steps is lazy and self-serving.