We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Green, ethical, energy issues in the news
Options
Comments
-
Alas, in every single facet of life the 'lower paid' bear a larger burden.Indeed, but the responsibility should be shared fairly, instead of putting a larger burden on the lower paid.
It happens with other taxes such as vat or even TV licences; you might even consider it unfair that the 'lower paid' have to spend a higher proportion of their income on buying a loaf of bread. If indeed electricity bills were to be restructured to give the 'lower paid' some advantage it would probably be the only example of such a policy.NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
Alas, in every single facet of life the 'lower paid' bear a larger burden.
It happens with other taxes such as vat or even TV licences; you might even consider it unfair that the 'lower paid' have to spend a higher proportion of their income on buying a loaf of bread. If indeed electricity bills were to be restructured to give the 'lower paid' some advantage it would probably be the only example of such a policy.
Whilst I agree with your post, I fear it isn't relevant to the issue under discussion.
I think few would argue against the fact that the FIT scheme was extraordinarily generous and enjoyed mainly by house owners.(middle class in Monboit speak!)
It is not a question of 'restructuring' electricity bills; but simply that the existing system means that often the poor (e.g. OAP's in all-electric council houses) using 3 or 4 times more electricity than us with gas/oil CH, are paying 3 or 4 times more of the levy going to fund the FIT subsidy.0 -
Alas, in every single facet of life the 'lower paid' bear a larger burden.
It happens with other taxes such as vat or even TV licences; you might even consider it unfair that the 'lower paid' have to spend a higher proportion of their income on buying a loaf of bread. If indeed electricity bills were to be restructured to give the 'lower paid' some advantage it would probably be the only example of such a policy.
True, and successive governments have used these unfair stealth taxes to raise revenue instead of putting up the much fairer income tax. I guess increasing income taxes hits the rich and as they bankroll the politicians....
However, that doesn't make it OK to add to this burden, especially when you consider that food, energy, rent/mortgage, travel costs are a necessity whereas paying a levy on your electricity bill to help make middle class investments pay off certainly isn't....0 -
It is not a question of 'restructuring' electricity bills; but simply that the existing system means that often the poor (e.g. OAP's in all-electric council houses) using 3 or 4 times more electricity than us with gas/oil CH, are paying 3 or 4 times more of the levy going to fund the FIT subsidy.
Often you find that lower paid households have those pre-payment meters installed which already add a levy to their bills before they then have to pay extra to fund middle class investment returns...0 -
whereas paying a levy on your electricity bill to help make middle class investments pay off certainly isn't....before they then have to pay extra to fund middle class investment returns...
And you're calling Mart?Wash and repeat, wash and repeat.2 kWp SEbE , 2kWp SSW & 2.5kWp NWbW.....in sunny North Derbyshire17.7kWh Givenergy battery added(for the power hungry kids)0 -
Yes, I'd rather pay £80 to a PV farm to supply me and my neighbours (and perhaps a significant part of our village) with clean energy than to pay £69 to my neighbour for him to supply himself with clean energy.
And there we have it, you simply don't understand how 'it all' works.
The effect on the grid of supply side generation, or demand side generation is the same. All demand side generation is felt by the grid*, either as export or offset. So there is no difference.
Yet you'd rather pay a supply side company £80 than your demand side neighbours £69.
As I've been pointing out to you, over and over, your position is irrational.
I'll repeat, your position is irrational!
*The exception would be diversionary switches, which don't waste energy, but offset it in a lower value form (such as gas). The % of demand side PV generation that goes into diversionary switches (but still offsets) is probably about equal to supply side distribution losses on the grid. Let's say 50% of houses have hot water tanks, 50% install a diversionary switch, and 25-30% of generation is diverted = 7.5%.Oh, and as to your green party statements. Your links simply stated that the green party is in favour of subsidizing renewables. It mentions using feed in tariffs to provide the subsidy.
They do not say that they will fund the feed in tariffs by adding it to energy bills, with no accounting for people's financial circumstances. Indeed the Greens state that they will reduce energy bills for everyone, especially those who are in fuel poverty.
The current FIT funding structure is nothing like this. I'm not opposed to feed in tarrifs to support renewables, I'm opposed to the way those feed in tariffs are funded.
Of course, you'll now forget that I posted this, slope off from the discussion and pop up in a new one spouting the same nonsense as though this post never happened. You're priceless mart. :rotfl:
I shouldn't feed your denial, but I'll repeat:
Green Party Keep FiT campaign
Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP response to FiT cuts
Clearly, the Green party support FiTs, you abuse people for taking part in FiTs.
Your position is the exact opposite of your very own metric on Green & Ethical.
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
The thrust of Monboit's article was that middle class home owners are making big profits from subsidies, and those subsidies are funded directly by a levy on all electricity users - including the poor.
Each time you quote Monbiot's article you quote his first paragraph:Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives and no one notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes.
You are fully aware that at the time of his article, the stated FiT budget was £8.6bn. Therefore Monbiot claimed that the whole cost would fall on poor households.
Assuming 10% of households are poor, and households account for 30% of electricity consumption (supply different figures if you want), then the burden on poor households would be ~3%.
So Monbiot overstated the impact on the poor by 30+ times. And that's before we consider the huge number of PV installs on council/social housing, which may well exceed 10% of installs.
So Monbiot lied. He set out an article designed to mislead, offend, and cause division.
But far more importantly, you've been aware that that statement was false for a number of years, yet you keep posting it.
Why do you keep posting a false statement that will only mislead and cause offence and division.
Lastly, for 6? years now you've been complaining that all bill payers pay for PV, but only some (the investors in a power station) receive it. [obviously the exact same applies to supply side generation where the subsidies go to powerstation owners.]
Yet you support nuclear which is funded by all, yet nobody ...... nobody has a domestic nuclear powerstation, and nuclear is to be funded by the same levy on energy bills as the FiT. So it appears your argument is hypocritical - especially now that PV and domestic PV is already cheaper than new nuclear, despite not having received 60 years of support (only 6 years).
Dress it up any way you want, but your objections don't stand up to rational debate.
Yes you may have fallen for Monbiot's article, but that's your fault, and having realised it was nonsense you could have revised your position, rather than entrenched it, leaving you now in an undefensible face saving position.
Mart.Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.
For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.0 -
Much as I agree that governments of all persuasions have been getting more and more of their revenue from non-income related taxes, that's not altogether their 'fault'; membership of the Common Market, EEC, EU (or whatever they want to call themselves this week) is the main driver. But that's really not relevant to this discussion: we are where we are, not where we think we should be. Why not start a new thread complaining about the unfair burden placed by bakers on the poor ?True, and successive governments have used these unfair stealth taxes to raise revenue instead of putting up the much fairer income tax. I guess increasing income taxes hits the rich and as they bankroll the politicians....
However, that doesn't make it OK to add to this burden, especially when you consider that food, energy, rent/mortgage, travel costs are a necessity whereas paying a levy on your electricity bill to help make middle class investments pay off certainly isn't....
The levy is actually to fund government subsidies on all 'non-carbon' forms of generation. FIT payments are a very small proportion of those subsidies and even they are not exclusively the preserve of the 'middle classes'. There may well be an argument for exempting the very poor from paying part of their electricity bills (or even their grocery bills) but it's unlikely that anyone reading this page will be able to expedite such a scheme.NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »And there we have it, you simply don't understand how 'it all' works.
The effect on the grid of supply side generation, or demand side generation is the same. All demand side generation is felt by the grid*, either as export or offset. So there is no difference.
No, you don't get it Mart. There is no difference if all energy was generated by clean, renewable means. As you know, it's not.
My choice is therefore to subsidise my neightbour so that he generates clean energy for himself, leaving more grid energy for the rest of us (grid energy that is predominantly 'dirty') or I can subsidize commercial renewables that supply myself and my neighbours with more clean energy. As I said, I'd rather do the latter.
I noticed you cut out the bit where I said that I'd rather invest monies into large scale renewables because of the better 'bang for the buck'. You always ignore that....Martyn1981 wrote: »
I shouldn't feed your denial, but I'll repeat:
Green Party Keep FiT campaign
Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP response to FiT cuts
Clearly, the Green party support FiTs, you abuse people for taking part in FiTs.
Your position is the exact opposite of your very own metric on Green & Ethical.
Mart.
and so we go around and around again....
I am not against FIT payments and neither are the Greens. I'm against the way they are funded. As are the Greens, if they were in power they would ensure that the lower paid are not disproportionately impacted by green levy's (as they are now).0 -
Martyn1981 wrote: »Assuming 10% of households are poor, and households account for 30% of electricity consumption (supply different figures if you want), then the burden on poor households would be ~3%.
According to government figures, 17% of the UK population is in 'absolute low income'*
That's not just poor, but in poverty.
*someone is considered to be in absolute low income if they receive less than 60 per cent of average income.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards