George Monbiot is Right/Wrong

Cardew

1. Are you concluding that those that have RaR systems are not poor? Are rich? Are something in-between? As always, you appear to being making grand statements, without ever committing yourself.

Do you really not understand that the question Zeupater posed was about about tenants. The RAR recipients(from RAR companies) are house owners.

It is therefore irrelevant if they are poorer than those who have purchased PV, they are house-owners with RAR PV on their roofs.

What kicked off the latest exchange was a justification of FIT because those in social housing benefitted.

The essential point that Monboit makes is:

'The transfer of money from the poor to the middle classes and the rich engineered by the feed-in tariff will do almost nothing to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.'

In that context a 'poor' OAP scraping by on a pension and living in an all electric council flat is paying toward a subsidy for people far better off than him/her.


As per usual the rest of your post is a meaningless distraction. It matters not if RAR PV clients are rich or poor - why get into a meaningless discussion other than to obfuscate.

Lastly, I am not in the slightest bit interested in you 'understanding' my position on renewables.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

. . . why get into a meaningless discussion other than to obfuscate.

For once I find myself in wholehearted agreement with Cardew !

Far too many of these threads get bogged down in trivia and must make it really hard for newcomers to follow the threads.

The FIT scheme has been implemented. It is helpful to explain to people how it works; it's a complete waste of effort on the part of both writer and reader to discuss here whether or not we ought to have it or how we might modify it in the future. Such concerns would be far better expressed elsewhere - e.g. by writing to one's MP or joining an appropriate pressure group.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

In that context a 'poor' OAP scraping by on a pension and living in an all electric council flat is paying toward a subsidy for people far better off than him/her.(1)
Lastly, I am not in the slightest bit interested in you 'understanding' my position on renewables.(2) [/QUOTE]

(1) Just for 'context', that OAP will receive £100-£300 a year winter fuel payment (which the majority of people DO NOT receive), and currently pays approx. £2-£3 a year for Solar PV FiT payments.

(2) Read Cardew won't state anything because he is scared to.

OffGridLiving

EricMears wrote: »

For once I find myself in wholehearted agreement with Cardew !

Far too many of these threads get bogged down in trivia and must make it really hard for newcomers to follow the threads.

The FIT scheme has been implemented. It is helpful to explain to people how it works; it's a complete waste of effort on the part of both writer and reader to discuss here whether or not we ought to have it or how we might modify it in the future. Such concerns would be far better expressed elsewhere - e.g. by writing to one's MP or joining an appropriate pressure group.

I agree as well, though with a caveat. I think threads where people have asked direct questions such as "how much electricity can a 2KW solar array produce over a 12 month period, and what would be the investment return including FIT payments" shouldn't be sidetracked into arguments/discussions.

However I do feel that pure discussion threads do also have their place and help educate and inform everyone who participates or reads the discussion. I'm currently enjoying reading (and now participating) in a discussion about what the UK energy policies should be in 25 to 50 years. Clearly whatever we discuss will have zero impact on the real world, but it is very interesting and informative nontheless.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

3. I have never linked RAR installations to social housing.RAR companies only installed on privately owned houses - for the 25 year lease- albeit there doubtless will be some of those houses let.

Oh dear cardew....really???

Cardew

spgsc531 wrote: »

Oh dear cardew....really???

Your sole purpose on this section of MSE is trying, and failing miserably, to pick wholes* in posts. You have nothing of any interest to say.

* I deliberately spelt it incorrectly so you can delight in a red ink correction.

P.S.

I assume you were addressing your remarks to myself - Cardew? There is a 'cardew' who posts from time to time.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Your sole purpose on this section of MSE is trying, and failing miserably, to pick wholes* in posts. You have nothing of any interest to say.

* I deliberately spelt it incorrectly so you can delight in a red ink correction.

P.S.

I assume you were addressing your remarks to myself - Cardew? There is a 'cardew' who posts from time to time.

It's clear to everyone it's YOU who has nothing of interest to say.

It's also clear you avoid stating facts (for obvious reasons).

Care to prove this

Cardew wrote: »

3. I have never linked RAR installations to social housing.RAR companies only installed on privately owned houses - for the 25 year lease- albeit there doubtless will be some of those houses let.

is the case?

EricMears

Play nicely children !

Cardew

EricMears wrote: »

For once I find myself in wholehearted agreement with Cardew !

Far too many of these threads get bogged down in trivia and must make it really hard for newcomers to follow the threads.

The FIT scheme has been implemented. It is helpful to explain to people how it works; it's a complete waste of effort on the part of both writer and reader to discuss here whether or not we ought to have it or how we might modify it in the future. Such concerns would be far better expressed elsewhere - e.g. by writing to one's MP or joining an appropriate pressure group.

Whilst I understand the point you are making, I cannot agree with you.

This whole section of MSE is dominated by a 'cabal' of PV owners who attempt to justify PV and FIT simply because they have a system on their roof.

This is an internet discussion forum, and it is perfectly valid to present an opposing view. Namely that PV has severe limitations and that FIT is iniquitous.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Whilst I understand the point you are making, I cannot agree with you.

This whole section of MSE is dominated by a 'cabal' of PV owners who attempt to justify PV and FIT simply because they have a system on their roof.

This is an internet discussion forum, and it is perfectly valid to present an opposing view. Namely that PV has severe limitations and that FIT is iniquitous.

FiT is Ungodly, a new low for you cardew.