George Monbiot is Right/Wrong

tunnel

Cardew wrote: »

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.

I do realise that someone with all leccy will pay a little more than someone with gas for heating. How much that is I don't know? But i'd bet my bottom dollar that the person with gas is paying a damn site more towards the benefits of the poor, whether it be through direct taxation or indirect taxes.

Its a very one sided argument as far as I can see. The less well off can't have it all their own way, we all have to chip in, its not just for the more well off now but more for future generations, fossil fuels won't last forever.

In 20-25 years the FITs for most will stop, then we'll hopefully have a large influx of cheap energy which should help lower the cost for the less well off. No pain no gain as body builders like to say.

spgsc531

Cardew wrote: »

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:



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.

Here we go again....

Yet another sweeping statement from cardew designed to mislead.

care to actually put numbers to your 'claim'?

Let me take a wild guess, that you won't.

EricMears

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Those of us of a certain age will well remember the constant typos from a certain newspaper that prompted us to call it the 'Grauniad'. Not sure whether it was our mockery or just the implementation of modern technology but somehow or another its print accuracy has improved out of all recognition. It's likely therefore that the hack in question is actually called 'Monbiot' (as invariably shown in his header) rather than the 'near misses' appearing here.

Alas, it's only the print accuracy that seems to have improved; accuracy of content remains as dismal as ever.

And how many more times do we have to point out that 'the poor' aren't 'giving money' to 'the rich' ?

It's a government policy that all electricity consumers have their bills surcharged in order to discourage consumption. What could be fairer than calculating that surcharge on the amount of electricity used ? In the main, rich people will use a lot of electricity; poorer folk rather less.

A slightly different government policy uses the money thus collected to fund 'renewable' methods of generation. Some of that goes to huge enterprises sticking up multi-million pound wind turbine schemes; somewhat less to small investors with a few bob put aside who have put solar panels on their properties.

Before anyone rushes to confront their MP about the 'evils of the system', they really need to have some alternative schemes in mind.

Excusing the 'poor' from such a levy would simply give them less encouragement than anyone else to reduce consumption. Even trying to find out who is 'poor' and who 'rich' would probably involve admin charges out of all proportion to the scheme's budget.

Giving some of the money back to 'the poor' to help them invest in measures to reduce their consumption is already happening.

No real need to give money back to 'the rich' for the same purpose - if they appreciate that investing in insulation or more efficient appliances is worthwhile than the 'magic' of Economics will see that they do just that.

Giving a bit less to the individual householders and a lot more to the industrial giants doesn't sound very 'progressive'.

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

.... 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.

Hi Cardew

Regarding the above extract, agreed, they could, but that's not really what the statistics say ....

Moving back to an official source ... ( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/79092/5648-trends-deployment-domestic-solar-pv.pdf ) ... looking at Chart 3 (p6) we can see that the highest concentration of pv installations is actually within the decile groups which consume the most electricity. However, contrary to many previous posts on this forum concerning electricity consumption (remember the recent heating source discussions?), these groups also reflect the highest proportion ratio of outright ownership to aggregated systems (Social & RAR). The areas analysed as having the highest proportion of aggregated systems also constitute the lowest decile groups of electricity usage ...

Chart 4 (p7) provides analysis of average electric consumption for properties in decile groups which represent the percentage of social housing. As can be seen, the decile groups with the highest electricity consumption are the ones with the lowest proportion of social housing, which, considering that previous arguments have been based on 'the poor' using electricity for heating whilst the 'rich' use gas seems to place yet another supposition into context. This is also fully supported by the analysis provided in both Charts 5 & 6, the variances likely being related more to property size (/volume) than any other factor (Note previous discussion on analysis of EER by tenure .. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=60418851&postcount=247 ).

The rest of the report makes decent reading too for anyone willing to take the time to understand what is actually being presented (it does take a little time !) as it addressed many other points which are often raised on this forum .... Installations by IMD, tenure & dwelling type (including 'flats') would particularly be of interest to counter much supposition based argument ....

Subjective vs Objective ? ..... a subjective argument can always be supported by example, however an objective viewpoint is normally supportable by considerably more data and logical analysis.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Strange that you acknowledge 'The Green Man' said such things, now that he (or she) has been banned, but here:

Cardew wrote: »

I don't know 'The Green Man's' views, but I don't think I have read anywhere on this forum a criticism of individuals who have taken advantage of the FIT scheme

you are still denying it, despite many of the statements being prior to this post, though some (not all) have now been deleted/removed.

You appear to have a selective viewpoint.


Moving on:

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Regarding the above, I note that you have made a statement (factual - in fact) but have drawn no conclusions.

May I join you and say:

'The FIT levy is paid in proportion to electricity consumption. So someone in an all-electric flat on high income could well pay a considerably higher contribution to the FIT subsidy pot than the not well off with, say, gas heating and a lower electrical consumption.'

Both statements appear factual, and might I say quite reasonable. The consumer pays for the product they are using, and for the future supply / development of said product, in proportion to their use. Thank you for pointing this out.


Hiya Eric,

EricMears wrote: »

It's likely therefore that the hack in question is actually called 'Monbiot' (as invariably shown in his header) rather than the 'near misses' appearing here.

I was also wondering why cardew always spelt it 'Monboit', hadn't thought about it being a homage to the Grauniad.

EricMears wrote: »

Giving some of the money back to 'the poor' to help them invest in measures to reduce their consumption is already happening.

Too true, for comparison to the FIT (PV element), let's consider the free or heavily discounted CFL bulbs that were being given away, or sold in supermarkets (for 10p to 50p) over the last 10 years.

Replacing a high use 100W bulb with a 20W CFL = 80W*4hrs*365days = 116.8kWh's @ (a low) 12p = £14pa saving

Replacing a low use 60W bulb with a 12W CFL = 48W*1.5hrs*365days = 26.3kWh's @ (a low) 12p = £3pa saving

Replacing the 10 highest use bulbs, for a grand total of £1, will probably show savings of £30 to £50 pa.

Always a good idea to look at the big picture, and put things into context.

Mart.

albyota

Cardew wrote: »

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.

Isn't that a natural balance then? The rich paying more tax than the poor!

Ok, if I were rich (which I'm not), wouldn't I think that was unfair?

And why is it we are only discussing the rich or the poor?

So because I am in an all electric house, c8500kWh/yr. (using air source heat pump) and I paid for my Solar PV system and I am claiming PV FITS, and I'm certainly not rich and Thankfully not 'poor' and pay my income tax and don't claim benefits........where should I send my complaints to?

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi Cardew

Regarding the above extract, agreed, they could, but that's not really what the statistics say ....

HTH
Z

Someone's on a roll! :):D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE

Mart.

zeupater

albyota wrote: »

... And why is it we are only discussing the rich or the poor?

Hi albyota

Introducing an emotive division into a debate is a well known diversionary tactic as is steering discussion toward the current prevailing situation or 'short-termism' .... political parties do this all of the time knowing that their natural supporters will accept the position without question and that the 'emotive' element will gather a certain level of additional support based on the headline, not the detail ....

Has anyone noticed the recent trend amongst politicians towards inserting the phrase "the truth is ..." into any live interview before providing unsupported supposition .... the use of the word 'truth' introduces an emotive element into whatever is being said ... whenever hearing the phrase being used I simply wonder how desperate the individual being interviewed must be in order to resort to using it - watch the face of any decent interviewer whenever it's used ...

HTH
Z

EricMears

Fruit_and_Nut_Case wrote: »

I've created this thread so that people who want to discuss the rightness or wrongness of George Monbiot (who he?) can bicker amongst themselves and leave the rest of the forum for useful information.

When a thread gets bogged down in trivia, it's always interesting to go pack to Post #1 and see where we started from.

With all this talk of Monboit says this , Monbiot said that, he really meant the other etc. . I've realised I never really knew just who the chap is so I've been doing a bit of research.

Fascinating results !

So who did you think he was ? Some internationally known professor of economics jet-setting around the world's major capitals where his advice on running other countries is eagerly sought ? Could he be a renowned author of economic text books ? Perhaps a former head of the World Bank ? Maybe a European Commissioner ?

No, no, no & no. He's just a freelance reporter who writes for the Guardian. Some idea of his reputation for professionalism can be gleaned from this report where he's had to apologise to Lord McAlpine for blackening his name without any proper evidence. That of course is particularly amusing when you realise that Lord McAlpine's big claim to fame was being a former treasurer of the Conservative party (1975-90).

'Our ' Monbiot's father was deputy chairman of the Conservative party (2003–06). Did he have some inside knowledge about his dad's mate ? Or was he just hoping people might think he had ? It's always a good defence against libel to prove the facts were true; but that hasn't happened.

He has in fact written a few books although the titles don't indicate any link with economics.

The heading of his Twitter page is quite interesting too

(Presumably by man himself)
Unreconstructed idealist, professional trouble-maker

That page even includes the line "Some people can never admit they got it wrong . . " Pot calling kettle ?


Do we really want to waste more time discussing this guy's views ?

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

... Do we really want to waste more time discussing this guy's views ?

Hi Eric

Personally, I don't, but as his articles & viewpoints are upheld as being a definitive source and constantly raised as one of the few (/recently the only ?) references made to uphold ideological, as opposed to logical, views against pv, FiTs, Green Deal and many other issues, it unfortunately becomes necessary ....

I agree with your analysis regarding the author and have held this view since I checked out his website ages ago. Also, there have been a few TV appearances which I have seen which have been really uninformative !!

HTH
Z