George Monbiot is Right/Wrong

Martyn1981

spgsc531 wrote: »

Hi M

I don't know why you keep asking cardew for an response

He is never going to answer your questions,

Good morning. Fair question, maybe I should explain a bit further.

I noticed a year or so back, that Cardew never offered constructive comments, only the obvious negative remarks. I then quickly realised that he was extremely keen to avoid stating any position on energy generation. Having asked him for his views, I got nowhere - fair enough.

Then I noticed exactly the same attitude from 'The Green Man' [note that I do not believe that they are the same person, just similarly minded].

When I asked GM for an answer I was first ignored, then abused (called pathetic) then abused and ignored by my requests being discussed between C & GM. I was struck by the identical avoidance and obfuscation.

I fully appreciate that no answer has to be given, but I felt it fair to push the point with GM since he (or she) was demanding answers from others (even if the info had already been supplied) and was not shy about answering any other question (even if the responses were almost as error riddled as George Monbiot's articles).

So why is it so important not to answer this question, simple:-

1. If the answer is that they don't want renewables and/or low/zero CO2 generation, then that would place them in an awkward position on a green and ethical forum. The green bit, being obvious, and the ethical bit looking towards ever increasing FF prices, and the impact of our actions on the poor both within and without our national borders.

2. If the answer is that they want these technologies, then they will be fully aware that renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are all more expensive than FF generation, and that therefore price rises/levies and subsidies are unavoidable.

Once you accept that the subsidies are unavoidable, but impact everyone, then a subsidy that favours households 'must' be equally or more fair than one that doesn't.

Therefore at this stage the only option left is to maintain, even demand, focus on 'the small picture', and try to save face.

Avoiding 'the big picture' is essential, since it would appear that all roads lead to hypocrisy.

Mart.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

... Therefore at this stage the only option left is to maintain, even demand, focus on 'the small picture' ....

Hi

This really follows one of the main strategies which we learned through membership of debating societies many years ago (do these still exist ?) ....

One of the most commonly used tactics when defending a pretty weak position is to move the debate to a position where either circular reasoning, an illogical assertion or a pure fallacy is intentionally inserted to become the major point of contention instead of the initial subject of the debate in order to move the discussion to a position which is extremely likely to result in stalemate, not the originally anticipated loss. Most would recognise this as being a 'red-herring' strategy and would normally consider it as being a negative approach to any debate/discussion as it makes no attempt to discover the 'truth' or find 'consensus', just to prevent loosing, which, considering that the original position would likely be considered untenable would be considered as being a personal 'win' ..... for some, it's 'winning' and 'face' that matters more than 'logic' and 'truth' ....

Then, of course, there's the usual 'Ad Hominem' approach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) which is used by many as an intentional diversion through inflaming the personal nature of exchanges, usually as a last resort, but for some as a natural position from which to argue ...

When you are in a position to recognise the main debating strategies, which include the above, and when/where they are likely to be used, there will be a natural understanding of where the balance of the debate lies .... unfortunately, where in a debating chamber the process is motion/debate/vote, this forum can't resolve the motion because there is no vote, hence the continual circular issues we experience whenever a new and inexperienced member arrives on the scene ....

Anyway, the motion in this debate is "George Monbiot is Right/Wrong" and that should be the main point of discussion under consideration, so now we have looked at the reasoning for a particular debating strategy which is often employed, perhaps we can return to debating the wider subject through macro-analysis, not diversionary micro-analysis ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

Hi Z,

1. You asked me a question in another thread and moved the discussion here as it was more suitable.

You are now not prepared to discuss that issue and instead want to move the discussion away - on the pretext that 'macro analysis' is required.

So why did you ask the question?

2. Secondly in discussing the 'macro' issue you invent frankly stupid scenarios which you attribute to Monboit and expect them to be taken seriously as the basis of a debate.

As stated above, how on earth can you expect such nonsense to be the subject of a debate.

considering that most who would have the financial ability to purchase the systems outright would likely be defined by Monbiot as 'The Rich', and therefore, following his logic, 'The Rich' would more likely purchase systems (or finance them) outright than have a RAR system installed, it would stand that any aggregated systems would be installed on properties occupied by the less well off - shall we say 'the Poor' for the sake of this discussion ...

i.e. You are saying that in his articles of the subject of FIT, Monboit's definition of 'poor' include houseowners with RAR PV on their roof.

You are fully aware of Monboit's position on PV and FIT.

Approx 2% of houses have PV fitted to their roofs, yet all electricity customers pay toward the the subsidy that the 2% collect. The 98% without PV will include the poor who are paying money to people considerably better off than themselves.

albyota

There are people in my family who would be described as 'poor'
There are also people in my family who are 'old'

None of them feel the slightest bit guilty for claiming JSA, income support, child tax credits, council tax benefits, free TV license, winter weather fuel allowance, etc.....etc......etc

All paid for from the other people in my family that work hard, pay tax and national insurance and all of us have utility bills that are constantly rising, either due to profits to be made for their shareholders and for reinvesting in the infrastructure and technologies required for the future, it is widely excepted that fossil fuels prices keep rising......if we build nuclear power stations, PV solar farms, wind turbines etc. we will all have to pay for them.
Now, whether that cost is hidden in general taxes, or in our utility bills, or via rising gas prices, or a levy.....we still have to pay........everybody will.......

That's why I don't feel the slightest bit guilty for claiming PV FITs:eek:

Why argue over one mans views, that is way out of date, look around your own families and analyse that.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

1. You asked me a question in another thread and moved the discussion here as it was more suitable.

You are now not prepared to discuss that issue and instead want to move the discussion away - on the pretext that 'macro analysis' is required.

So why did you ask the question?

2. Secondly in discussing the 'macro' issue you invent frankly stupid scenarios which you attribute to Monboit and expect them to be taken seriously as the basis of a debate.

As stated above, how on earth can you expect such nonsense to be the subject of a debate.


i.e. You are saying that in his articles of the subject of FIT, Monboit's definition of 'poor' include houseowners with RAR PV on their roof.

You are fully aware of Monboit's position on PV and FIT.

Approx 2% of houses have PV fitted to their roofs, yet all electricity customers pay toward the the subsidy that the 2% collect. The 98% without PV will include the poor who are paying money to people considerably better off than themselves.

Hi Cardew

In order, again to maintain context ....

Point 1 ... The question was asked in another thread, however it was also answered in that same thread as being 'No idea ..." ( http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=60557775&postcount=123 ), with an additional vague supposition regarding the 'poor' with no supporting source, evidence or anything .... the actual question related to 'rented accommodation' because you had previously attempted to create a diversion by asking ....

Cardew wrote: »

The report was 16 months ago and the newspaper article 15 months old.

A question! Do you consider the fitting of PV to social projects and council tenants justifies the FIT scheme?

.... Firstly, the social projects were not considered relevant as they would likely be used to create a circular reference to the flawed interpretation in the Monbiot article in order to defend the Monbiot article, and secondly, it is well known that defining only 'council tenants' as being the poor discounts the entire private rental sector and therefore a considerable proportion of the socio-economic group which should be included .... That is why the question was asked, because it's relevant ...

Point 2 ... This is totally irrelevant. Monbiot created a deliberately divisive viewpoint which was designed to set 'Rich' against 'Poor', a typical ideological ploy used by political activists for their own ends - it is this ideological viewpoint which forms the crux of his argument, the article being published under the headline "The green deal is a useless, middle-class subsidy" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/13/green-deal ) . However, with there being no definition of 'rich' or 'poor' there is a contrived 'get-out' for anyone arguing in support of the point. To be able to debate the 'macro' elements of the article and much of what is posted on this forum regarding the continual photovoltaic 'rich' vs 'poor' outbursts it makes perfect sense to firstly define what constitutes each camp, so why not simplify the issue and base it on an occupier owned property being a financial asset and the installed system ownership .... a logical approach for many which allows the debate to move to consider the 'big-picture' (macro-analysis) as opposed to concentrating on a multitude of small, mostly irrelevant points (micro-analysis) .... this makes it extremely relevant to the debate, if not the single most important element yet discussed ....

Now, regarding Monbiot's definition of 'the poor' .... that's what the recent discussion has been about ... the article has no definition of what constitutes 'the poor', so what is it ? ... without definition how can we debate? , without definition how can the article be seen to be right or wrong ? .... without definition the thrust of the article (the macro-analysis) must therefore simply be seen as being purely to create division, an approach which a 'political activist' would naturally be expected to take.

HTH
Z

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

Do you think that the 36% figure for tenants has any validity?

I have given my reasoning to substantiate a very low percentage of PV on rented council properties.

Are you questioning what I said is true?

spgsc531 wrote: »

Update, after getting some more accurate information from my local borough council:

6200 social houses (50% flats, 50% houses)
2000 suitable properties for solar panels, although more are being identified with advances in technology.
562 to date have solar panels fitted.
Council manifesto committed to doing more, depending on funding issues.

That's 1 out of 11,000 councils.

Was posted just about a month ago, and information obtained from a phone call to the Council, yes I was genuinely interested to know.

The 1562 number was obtained from:

http://www.ref.org.uk/fits/search.php

data they say current as of Sept 2012 (which they state is the latest info). Not easy to post as it 'prints' in 8 pages. Any readers feel free to do what I did (and cardew never does).

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

This really follows one of the main strategies which we learned through membership of debating societies many years ago (do these still exist ?) ....

HTH
Z

Hiya Zeup, if I can be excused for digressing for a moment. I was invited to join our schools debating team, but declined, as I was too shy (hard to believe). They only asked me, as my sister (2 years older) had been their star.

About 6 months ago, she popped round, and I mentioned the ongoing domestic PV v's farm PV discussion. Before I could explain my counter arguments to her, and her knowing nothing about PV or leccy, she listed:

but isn't using a unit instead of buying a unit in, the same as export,

aren't they the same panels, wiping out efficiencies of scale,

how are panels fitted in fields, doesn't the equipment and costs work out the same as scaffolding,

won't the land costs wipe out any economies of scale,

what are the price differences between export and buying leccy.

At this point she got angry and stopped, as I had gone from smiling, to chuckling, to laughing, and she thought I was laughing at her.

I explained that in less than 5 mins, and with no prior or specialist knowledge, she had completely dismantled an argument that had been 'pushed' for more than a year.

The only thing I think she missed was infrastructure upgrading costs - but I think we can excuse her for that one?

I'm always proud of her, but that evening was something special!

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Anyway, the motion in this debate is "George Monbiot is Right/Wrong" and that should be the main point of discussion under consideration, so now we have looked at the reasoning for a particular debating strategy which is often employed, perhaps we can return to debating the wider subject through macro-analysis, not diversionary micro-analysis ....

HTH
Z

Ok, back on thread.

Looking at George Monbiot's views, from a macro angle, was the reason I posted this very recently:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Looking at comments from silverwhistle and Cardew on the ‘Cold called re free solar panels.’ Thread.

I find this article by GM interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/04/end-of-nuclear-careful-what-you-wish-for

In brief, he says that whilst nuclear isn’t great, it’s needed to combat CO2 emissions. Effectively nuclear is the lesser evil.

Just to compare and contrast again, briefly. He recognises the need to spend money (subsidies) on nuclear, even if he doesn't like it, to combat CO2 emissions.

Both nuclear and PV will be subsidised by householders, but no household will be able to build a nuclear powerstation, whether rich or poor.

So it appears that GM's anti PV/FITs rantings are contrary (hypocritical?) to his pro nuclear views.

I would suggest that he simply failed to see the long-term possibilities of PV, jumped in all guns blazing and now needs to continue a face-saving exercise as he has 'no exit strategy'.

Mart.

[Deleted User]

albyota wrote: »

There are people in my family who would be described as 'poor'
There are also people in my family who are 'old'

None of them feel the slightest bit guilty for claiming JSA, income support, child tax credits, council tax benefits, free TV license, winter weather fuel allowance, etc.....etc......etc

All paid for from the other people in my family that work hard, pay tax and national insurance and all of us have utility bills that are constantly rising, either due to profits to be made for their shareholders and for reinvesting in the infrastructure and technologies required for the future, it is widely excepted that fossil fuels prices keep rising......if we build nuclear power stations, PV solar farms, wind turbines etc. we will all have to pay for them.
Now, whether that cost is hidden in general taxes, or in our utility bills, or via rising gas prices, or a levy.....we still have to pay........everybody will.......

That's why I don't feel the slightest bit guilty for claiming PV FITs:eek:

Why argue over one mans views, that is way out of date, look around your own families and analyse that.

Indeed this site is generally about 'what you are entitled to...' typically from the state. Also people up to their eyeballs in debt looking for a cheap way out... At the end of the day it's all the hard working people that pay through the nose in higher taxes, interest rates and utilities. At least with FITs people who have bought solar pv have invested heavily into the local community.

I cannot for the life of me see the point of all these arguments.

PS I had a nightmare last night... Cardew phoned me up to discuss our disagreements :eek:

tunnel

albyota wrote: »

There are people in my family who would be described as 'poor'
There are also people in my family who are 'old'

None of them feel the slightest bit guilty for claiming JSA, income support, child tax credits, council tax benefits, free TV license, winter weather fuel allowance, etc.....etc......etc

All paid for from the other people in my family that work hard, pay tax and national insurance and all of us have utility bills that are constantly rising, either due to profits to be made for their shareholders and for reinvesting in the infrastructure and technologies required for the future, it is widely excepted that fossil fuels prices keep rising......if we build nuclear power stations, PV solar farms, wind turbines etc. we will all have to pay for them.
Now, whether that cost is hidden in general taxes, or in our utility bills, or via rising gas prices, or a levy.....we still have to pay........everybody will.......

That's why I don't feel the slightest bit guilty for claiming PV FITs:eek:

Why argue over one mans views, that is way out of date, look around your own families and analyse that.

I'm not entitled to any benefits whatsoever, even classed as "rich" by Cardews methods for buying my own panels. But hey, I couldn't have wrote that any better.

Why should PV owners feel guilty over FITS, As Albyota quite rightly says, I'm sure as hell that the poor don't give a second thought to claiming every benefit they're entitled to and I bet its a damn site more than the few quid a year put on their leccy bills to pay for "renewables"

Cardew

tunnel wrote: »

I'm not entitled to any benefits whatsoever, even classed as "rich" by Cardews methods for buying my own panels. But hey, I couldn't have wrote that any better.

Why should PV owners feel guilty over FITS, As Albyota quite rightly says, I'm sure as hell that the poor don't give a second thought to claiming every benefit they're entitled to and I bet its a damn site more than the few quid a year put on their leccy bills to pay for "renewables"

Agreed, and if you look at a number of my posts over the past 3 years, I have always maintained that, on my part, there is no criticism of people cashing in on an opportunity to make some financial gain.

In fact the only person I can recall on this forum who has made such criticism is/was The Green Man.

My criticism is aimed at Governments who introduced and continue the the FIT scheme.

I note you are completely in agreement with Albyota on this statement:

None of them feel the slightest bit guilty for claiming JSA, income support, child tax credits, council tax benefits, free TV license, winter weather fuel allowance, etc.....etc......etc

Surely you should appreciate, that those benefits are funded from general taxation. The rich paying more tax than the poor.

The FIT levy is paid in proportion to electricity consumption. So someone in an all-electric flat on low income could well pay a considerably higher contribution to the FIT subsidy pot than the well off with, say, gas heating and a lower electrical consumption.