Excuses not good enough

tberry6686

MillicentBystander wrote: »

Millions of available customers, not any real competition then just price your product (a product your company actually wholesales anyway) to make £50 per household. No stresses, no strains, no cost cutting required (BG's last computer system reportedly cost £500 MILLION yet was so poor they sued the suppliers!). Yeah, it's such a hard business that 4 of the Big 6 have been swallowed up by foreign companies. Did we force these companies to buy our companies??

If they make £50 per customer per year how does that compare with the big supermarkets etc. Perhaps we should go down the route of price controls to eliminate (so called) excessive profits but do this for all industries just to keep a level playing field.

The fact is that 5-7% or £50 per year per customer is a relatively low profit margin in any industry.

MillicentBystander

tberry6686 wrote: »

If they make £50 per customer per year how does that compare with the big supermarkets etc. Perhaps we should go down the route of price controls to eliminate (so called) excessive profits but do this for all industries just to keep a level playing field.

The fact is that 5-7% or £50 per year per customer is a relatively low profit margin in any industry.

But this is such a tired argument often put out by industry shills (as well as the 'cheapest prices in Europe' nonsense). AFAIAA none of the supermarkets 'inherited' millions of customers. Plus should I wish to start shopping at Asda instead of Tesco do I need to apply to Tesco and wait 6 weeks? And pay an exit fee? I'm by no means a defender of companies like Tesco but at least they really do have to compete for customers and they can't exactly lock them in for a year or 2.

societys_child

Saw a news item recently, Australia (who never suffered a recession) have said stuff the green taxes and abolished 'em.

We were then shown a shipping port where 1.5 Billion tons of coal a year are exported world wide and told they are planning to double this by opening three new super pits.

Meanwhile we're peeing about with things like expensive power production that only works when the wind blows . . .

tberry6686

MillicentBystander wrote: »

But this is such a tired argument often put out by industry shills (as well as the 'cheapest prices in Europe' nonsense - 5th lowest price for electricity and I believe lowest for gas, not nonsense (latest figures I have seen so may be out of date)). AFAIAA none of the supermarkets 'inherited' millions of customers. Plus should I wish to start shopping at Asda instead of Tesco do I need to apply to Tesco and wait 6 weeks? And pay an exit fee? not all deals have an exit fee, don't want to pay these fee's sign up for a deal that doesn't have one. I'm by no means a defender of companies like Tesco but at least they really do have to compete for customers and they can't exactly lock them in for a year or 2.

From a profit margin side of things a comparison is reasonable, but, until you can go to a power station or gas terminal and collect your supplies there, then a comparison of moving between suppliers is not valid (although I do agree that a 6 week switchover time is taking the p, should be no more than 2 weeks at most and preferably one week)

DragonQ

societys_child wrote: »

Saw a news item recently, Australia (who never suffered a recession) have said stuff the green taxes and abolished 'em.

We were then shown a shipping port where 1.5 Billion tons of coal a year are exported world wide and told they are planning to double this by opening three new super pits.

Meanwhile we're peeing about with things like expensive power production that only works when the wind blows . . .

And they're harming the environment. Your point? There's no escaping the fact that preserving the only planet we have will cost us money.

tberry6686

DragonQ wrote: »

And they're harming the environment. Your point? There's no escaping the fact that preserving the only planet we have will cost us money.

Just by existing we are harming the environment (if you listen to the green loonies). The facts are that any difference we are making to climate change is likely to be miniscule compared to natural climate variation, but natural climate change cannot be accepted by the numerous self interest groups as that would drop their funding off a cliff while removing the excuse for all the so called green taxes.

MillicentBystander

The global warming conundrum has led to a whole new lucrative industry in itself. Physically, the earth has apparently gone through peaks and troughs through millions of years and seems to have repaired itself very well so far...

DragonQ

It's very true that there's a whole new industry surrounding "green" movements and a lot of what green campaigners claim isn't based on good science, e.g. nuclear power has often been a bone of contention yet remains the most efficient, cleanest form of energy we have on a large scale. I'm sure when fusion power is viable there'll be something wrong with it.

That doesn't change the fact that the evidence clearly points to the current bout of warming (from the last 50 years or so) being mostly man-made. I suppose there's nothing to say that the planet "should" be a certain temperature but in the past, large changes have brought about totally different ecosystems and dominant species. Presumably most humans would prefer things to stay roughly as they are so we can continue enjoying life.

There's no need to be an "extremist" green campaigner to want to protect the planet as best you can. Obviously using less energy is the best way for individuals to do this but governments and corporations have the ability, and duty IMO, to do more.

vassa

MillicentBystander wrote: »

The global warming conundrum has led to a whole new lucrative industry in itself. Physically, the earth has apparently gone through peaks and troughs through millions of years and seems to have repaired itself very well so far...

It's not even 'apparently'...in fact, the earth before humans existed was so climatically volatile that hardly anything would survive for more than a few thousand years. To think that we can affect something as powerful as mother nature to such an extent that we're going to completely ruin the planet, within 200 years is completely laughable.

It's no coincidence that the solution to this is to implement taxation. There are hundreds of scientists (we're talking doctors, professors, geo-physicists and the like, not random internet 'conspiracy' theorists) who have put forward incredibly credible research which says contrary to the 'official' report, but they can't get onto media controlled by the powers that be most of the time, that's why they rely on getting their work out via the internet. This practice of airing your publications though instantly gives people reason to doubt that what you're doing is kosher.

One quote from one such person was something like 'If climate change as a whole is a bicycle, the part humans are directly responsible for constitutes the plastic part of the pedal. That's how small and insignificant it is.'

societys_child

DragonQ wrote: »

And they're harming the environment. Your point? There's no escaping the fact that preserving the only planet we have will cost us money.

My point is (obviously) that whilst we're paying green taxes to "save the world", the rest of the world say sod it.

Seems to be a British thing that we think anything we do is going to make any difference. How many new coal powered stations have China brought on line recently?

btw, have you seen todays news - some very large rocks heading our way over the next few years . . suppose if we pay enough green taxes they'll go round us:rotfl: