Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

Piddles wrote: »

That's hasn't been everyone's actual experience though, has is it?

The Green Levy is a highly regressive tax isn't it?

Energy to cook our food and heat our home is pretty much an essential need.

We as a country got rich the dirty way. Much of that wealth is still sitting in assets that the rich are leveraging into the UK's ever growing wealth inequality.

It seems a little obscene that the bill for cleaning up the pollution (or at least stopping it from getting even worse) is falling so disproportionately on those who least profited from it and can least afford it. This isn't lost on the people at the bottom of the pile and green taxes do have a serious credibility problem. The government has had to freeze the fuel duty for what is it, ten years? And when a government does try to increase fuel taxes it ends up with the Les Gilets Jaunes.

So, yes, the task of getting the masses on board is gargantuan. Lecturing them with facts in this age of fake news just doesn't cut it any more. It needs a far more nuanced approach that doesn't include getting the poorest and most vulnerable to turn down their heating to unacceptable levels.

We need another tranche of green levies to complete the renewable picture, storage. That needs to be raised from assets, not the poor.

I'm struggling to see how most of that relates to what I believe, or have been saying.

Throwing the costs/impacts of green levies on the poor - at me - seems like a cheap shot. In the past I've explained why I believe we should all pay a levy based on our energy consumption, as we are ultimately the polluter, but that doesn't mean I have anything against changing the way funds are raised - though I am against reducing energy costs due to the counter-productive problems increased demand could cause. I've expressed a view that raising VAT to 20%, and ring-fencing the +15% for energy efficiency and fuel poverty would be a good idea. The poor would benefit from both better housing, and reduced bills from reduced energy consumption, hopefully exceeding the 15% increase - effectively then, it would be the 'rich' paying the increase.

All of us, especially the poor, will be impacted by AGW, and are already impacted by health issues from pollution.


Sadly, I read this post after responding to JKenH, so I see you are sticking with your 'gargantuan' task view. So can you explain why you believe this if they appear to already be on-board? And also how large you expect the next tranche of green levies to be? Remember these already exist on our bills, and some of the earlier and higher subsidies for 15yr wind farms will start to drop off in the next 5-10yrs, so wouldn't those (existing) levies re-cycle into new schemes, rather than needing to increase the green levy more?

When you say the monies should be raised from assets not the poor (not sure who is suggesting the poor should pay!) what do you mean, I'm not clear what these assets are, but it could be an interesting idea, so I'd like to learn more.

JKenH

Mart, I have not mastered the art of inserting multiple quotes on this website so forgive me if I just use inserted quotes.

Are all views truly equal?

Yes, I am afraid so in a democracy. We cannot deny the flat earther’s their vote.

I may be wrong, but I thought WT's were supported by all groups in the UK, including those living in the countryside? I'd genuinely be interested to see any reports, articles etc you can find on this.

As there has effectively been a moratorium on onshore wind farms in England over the last 5 years most of the protest has died down but leading up to this policy change there was considerable resistance.

http://www.warmwell.com/windfarms.html

Anticipating that you will suggest bias I should point out that most of the pro wind farm articles I see are from organisations promoting RE.

I totally agree that for some people other issues are more important than going green, but if you think about that, it's not really relevant to this board, nor this thread, as we are talking about green issues specifically.

It is relevant if using limited state resources to go green means the money cannot be spent elsewhere on cancer treatment, policing etc. To someone who has a dying relative or lives in an area riddled with knife crime spending money on green iniatives is not a priority. You cannot suggest that the government should spend money on green policies and then reject any counter argument because it is not green.

. The US has pulled out of the Paris Accord as a result of the opinion of some. Do we sit back and respect their 'opinion' or fight back with 'facts'?

It’s their country and I suspect it has happened because the man in the street has voted for a president that is kicking back against the lecturing from well meaning liberals about AGW. It may happen here yet unless the Climate Change lobby adopt a less patronising approach. Emma Thompson flying halfway round the world to support the Extinction Rebellion protest is likely to alienate more than impress when the UK is already one of the world leaders in the race to go carbon neutral.

Fight back with facts by all means but fighting with facts doesn’t win hearts.

This is a green and ethical forum and your devotion to the cause will be generally well received on here but even so some of us may feel enthusiasm to win every battle may eventually lose the war. I for one value some of the recent arguments put forward by Great Ape, Piddles, Nick1961 and others that have received such opprobrium. God forbid that the forum should succumb to group think but at there at times it seems like that.

None of this is personal by the way. I still hugely respect your knowledge, the amount of research you undertake, the facts you dig up and publish and the enthusiasm with which you answer my technical questions.

I honestly believe that everybody who posts on here has the same long term desire to see a greener, cleaner future but has different views on the way forward and the choices that have to be made in the real world.

And finally in answer to your question
. So, to clear this matter up, do you believe the government has a gargantuan task ahead to convince us?

Yes I do. The more we are pushed into something the more we push back. That is what is so refreshing about the plastics campaign. It hasn’t come from some government or quasi government body like the IPCC, nor has it been pushed by individuals or organisations looking for funding. It has come from the heart and is winning hearts and minds. Even that may go horribly wrong yet, though, once governments get their claws into it and see it as a way of raising more taxes.

Piddles

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Throwing the costs/impacts of green levies on the poor - at me - seems like a cheap shot.

Yes, I did quote you, but the point was more general. Sorry, a bit clumsy. As I've said, I suspect we don't disagree about much when it comes to tackling climate change. Reading it over, it was quite strong (especially for a new guy on the block.....), but I do get hot under the collar about injustice. And the green levy is a particularly unjust regressive tax that is likely to prove counter productive to the very necessary buy-in of large swathes of society. Your Wave polling data is good news. But they not asking the questions like "do you agree or disagree that the green levy for cleaning up the pollution (or at least stopping it from getting even worse) should fall disproportionately on those who least profited from it and can least afford it?" or "Are you prepared to pay a carbon tax on your gas that reflects your carbon dioxide emissions and that'll increase your gas bill by 50%". You'd then get a very different set of facts.

As youngsters we get pieces of advice from wise older people that help form our views of the world. One of mine was from a bank manager (remember those...?) who said "Perception IS reality". In this case, the perception and the reality are the same in that the those on the lower rungs of society are having the !!!! taken out them by the bigoted urban liberal elite (sorry, I don't possess JKenH's eloquence). Which in broader terms has lead us to Brexit. Lecturing them with your facts will have little effect, they've not unreasonably stopped listening. So, yes, the government does have a gargantuan task to get their buy-in.

What we really need is another 10 years out of David Attenborough....

This may all sound a bit "Leftie". But I consider myself a believer in democracy and capitalism. In my book, the asset rich urban liberal elite of all political colours have broken both of them and are in complete denial about it.

When you say the monies should be raised from assets not the poor (not sure who is suggesting the poor should pay!) what do you mean

Well, they are paying. I was thinking a levy on Capital Gains Tax, but that's one for the experts (definitely not me).

Martyn1981

Piddles wrote: »

Yes, I did quote you, but the point was more general. Sorry, a bit clumsy. As I've said, I suspect we don't disagree about much when it comes to tackling climate change. Reading it over, it was quite strong (especially for a new guy on the block.....), but I do get hot under the collar about injustice. And the green levy is a particularly unjust regressive tax that is likely to prove counter productive to the very necessary buy-in of large swathes of society. Your Wave polling data is good news. But they not asking the questions like "do you agree or disagree that the green levy for cleaning up the pollution (or at least stopping it from getting even worse) should fall disproportionately on those who least profited from it and can least afford it?" or "Are you prepared to pay a carbon tax on your gas that reflects your carbon dioxide emissions and that'll increase your gas bill by 50%". You'd then get a very different set of facts.

As youngsters we get pieces of advice from wise older people that help form our views of the world. One of mine was from a bank manager (remember those...?) who said "Perception IS reality". In this case, the perception and the reality are the same in that the those on the lower rungs of society are having the !!!! taken out them by the bigoted urban liberal elite (sorry, I don't possess JKenH's eloquence). Which in broader terms has lead us to Brexit. Lecturing them with your facts will have little effect, they've not unreasonably stopped listening. So, yes, the government does have a gargantuan task to get their buy-in.

What we really need is another 10 years out of David Attenborough....

This may all sound a bit "Leftie". But I consider myself a believer in democracy and capitalism. In my book, the asset rich urban liberal elite of all political colours have broken both of them and are in complete denial about it.

Well, they are paying. I was thinking a levy on Capital Gains Tax, but that's one for the experts (definitely not me).

Thanks, that helps calm thing down a lot.

Starting backwards, shifting the levies to capital gains etc, sounds fine to me, as per my comments supporting a no standing charge model, I actually put a lot of thought into trying to make things fairer. Unfortunately every suggestion will have some losers, and I can then be blamed for the hardships they would incur instead of the net reduction in hardship.

But, and I do feel very strongly about this, I'm against any move to make energy cheaper. I know that sounds contradictory to my earlier comment, but that's because cheaper energy will make the problem worse, and I don't really believe that our energy costs are high today, leccy and gas seem very reasonable to me, and higher costs to fund reduced consumption would be net beneficial I believe, but that is only an opinion.

Now, on to the big one. I appreciate that the survey questions may not ask exactly the question you want, but isn't it fair to assume, that if people felt really angry about the levies they would transpose that anger onto their overall support?

Plus, and apologies for not linking it (I'll look later) but I recall (several years ago) surveys on people's willingness to pay green levies and their support was very high despite ...... and here's the kicker ...... people on average thinking the levies/subsidies were about 14x greater than they are.

Combine the Public Attitude surveys with this information, and it seems to me that we have already gained massive majority support for renewables and their funding.

From there I simply can't see how the task of convincing them can be gargantuan, when they are already convinced, we are there, task complete. It's a bit like saying climbing Mt Everest is going to be a gargantuan task for someone only one step away from the summit - the task might 'have been' gargantuan, but going forward it's minuscule.

NigeWick

pile-o-stone wrote: »

There are huge health benefits from breathing clean air, drinking clean water and eating less meat.

What exactly are the health benefits of eating less meat? Bearing in mind that liver is one of the most nutritious foods available to us.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Mart, I have not mastered the art of inserting multiple quotes on this website so forgive me if I just use inserted quotes.

Are all views truly equal?

Yes, I am afraid so in a democracy. We cannot deny the flat earther’s their vote.

I may be wrong, but I thought WT's were supported by all groups in the UK, including those living in the countryside? I'd genuinely be interested to see any reports, articles etc you can find on this.

As there has effectively been a moratorium on onshore wind farms in England over the last 5 years most of the protest has died down but leading up to this policy change there was considerable resistance.

http://www.warmwell.com/windfarms.html

Anticipating that you will suggest bias I should point out that most of the pro wind farm articles I see are from organisations promoting RE.

I totally agree that for some people other issues are more important than going green, but if you think about that, it's not really relevant to this board, nor this thread, as we are talking about green issues specifically.

It is relevant if using limited state resources to go green means the money cannot be spent elsewhere on cancer treatment, policing etc. To someone who has a dying relative or lives in an area riddled with knife crime spending money on green iniatives is not a priority. You cannot suggest that the government should spend money on green policies and then reject any counter argument because it is not green.

. The US has pulled out of the Paris Accord as a result of the opinion of some. Do we sit back and respect their 'opinion' or fight back with 'facts'?

It’s their country and I suspect it has happened because the man in the street has voted for a president that is kicking back against the lecturing from well meaning liberals about AGW. It may happen here yet unless the Climate Change lobby adopt a less patronising approach. Emma Thompson flying halfway round the world to support the Extinction Rebellion protest is likely to alienate more than impress when the UK is already one of the world leaders in the race to go carbon neutral.

Fight back with facts by all means but fighting with facts doesn’t win hearts.

This is a green and ethical forum and your devotion to the cause will be generally well received on here but even so some of us may feel enthusiasm to win every battle may eventually lose the war. I for one value some of the recent arguments put forward by Great Ape, Piddles, Nick1961 and others that have received such opprobrium. God forbid that the forum should succumb to group think but at there at times it seems like that.

None of this is personal by the way. I still hugely respect your knowledge, the amount of research you undertake, the facts you dig up and publish and the enthusiasm with which you answer my technical questions.

I honestly believe that everybody who posts on here has the same long term desire to see a greener, cleaner future but has different views on the way forward and the choices that have to be made in the real world.

And finally in answer to your question
. So, to clear this matter up, do you believe the government has a gargantuan task ahead to convince us?

Yes I do. The more we are pushed into something the more we push back. That is what is so refreshing about the plastics campaign. It hasn’t come from some government or quasi government body like the IPCC, nor has it been pushed by individuals or organisations looking for funding. It has come from the heart and is winning hearts and minds. Even that may go horribly wrong yet, though, once governments get their claws into it and see it as a way of raising more taxes.

To save time arguing the same point over and over, and having you place views/opinions above facts, let's switch roles, and let you provide facts instead.

So, we have three recent arguments raised (2 plus a fun one), so:

1. With citations and facts show that - The government has a truly gargantuan task to convince the wider public that fighting climate change is such a good idea.

To be clear, you'll need to show that the public therefore doesn't support this currently, and is actually strongly opposed.

2. With citations and facts show that - What this means is a country has to accept a decrease in the standard of living if they deploy 'green technology'.

Again to be clear, you'll need to show that the switch to green technologies will actually reduce our living standards.

3. (the fun one) With citations and facts show that - the flat earthers have a genuine and scientific argument to support their claims.

Without strong arguments to support these positions, I'm sorry but I don't know how you demand I show them respect. I'm all for thought exercises etc, but if we are discussing reality, then the arguments/positions have to be real too.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Are all views truly equal?

Yes, I am afraid so in a democracy. We cannot deny the flat earther’s their vote.

Just wanted to pick up on this point to highlight most of what you are saying, and how it keeps altering what I'm actually saying.

I actually said:

Are all views truly equal? Is it fair and equal to argue that the Earth is flat ...... as a fact?

You responded with 'we cannot deny the flat earther's their vote'.

But I never suggested they don't get a say, I asked if their position should be treated equally and fairly when it is factless.

At the very least would you consider a 'weighting', or should we treat factless negative or even anti-RE claims with the same level of importance as reality?

Personally, I want to get to grips with these issues, and dig down for the truth, I don't want to waste time and effort pandering to claims that fly in the face of evidence and reality.

1961Nick

Piddles wrote: »

.......Your Wave polling data is good news. But they not asking the questions like "do you agree or disagree that the green levy for cleaning up the pollution (or at least stopping it from getting even worse) should fall disproportionately on those who least profited from it and can least afford it?" or "Are you prepared to pay a carbon tax on your gas that reflects your carbon dioxide emissions and that'll increase your gas bill by 50%". You'd then get a very different set of facts......

I was also a bit stunned when I read the questions. Considering how they were phrased, it was actually quite surprising that the positive responses were so low.

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Plus, and apologies for not linking it (I'll look later) but I recall (several years ago) surveys on people's willingness to pay green levies and their support was very high despite ...... and here's the kicker ...... people on average thinking the levies/subsidies were about 14x greater than they are.

Here we go, the public on average thought that wind costs were 14x greater than they were, but were still highly supportive of the policy. [I'm impressed that four and a third years later I still got the number right, yet I typically can't remember why, on my arrival, I went upstairs!]

British public thinks wind power subsidies are 14 times higher than reality

So combine the support, with the misconception that costs were far greater, and I simply have to say that public support is already there, task complete, not gargantuan.

It's from there that I said we have to be careful listening to loud negative voices as that can muddy the waters and give people a false impression of the overall position. I hope this is uplifting, it's not about arguing, it's about spreading positive news and correcting misconceptions that are easily gained from listening to some media.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

I may be wrong, but I thought WT's were supported by all groups in the UK, including those living in the countryside? I'd genuinely be interested to see any reports, articles etc you can find on this.

As there has effectively been a moratorium on onshore wind farms in England over the last 5 years most of the protest has died down but leading up to this policy change there was considerable resistance.

http://www.warmwell.com/windfarms.html

Anticipating that you will suggest bias I should point out that most of the pro wind farm articles I see are from organisations promoting RE.

None of this sounded quite right based on what I've read and seen over the years, so I've done some more digging.

And yes, taking a look at that website, I would suggest very strong bias.

So I've done some digging back and found a few interesting articles, but they kinda go in a circle saying what I've already said about support for WT's nationally:

The Tories are planning to halt onshore wind farm production, despite most people supporting it

It’s time to bring onshore wind back to England

but then I found what I was looking for:

Majority of voters say Government should lift onshore wind ban - YouGov poll

66% say they would support a change in Government policy so that onshore wind farms can be built in places where they have local backing, to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and tackle climate change. Support for the move is high among Conservative voters, 61% of whom say the exclusion of onshore wind should end - 65% of people in rural areas agree. Just 15% of people oppose the change.

So it seems that where WT's exist, they have been warmly accepted, and the rural community also strongly support their deployment.

Again, this has nothing to do with individuals opinions, I'm simply looking at whether RE (in this case on-shore wind) has UK public support, and if it's widespread.

Fun fact - many years ago an argument against WT's (and PV farms) was that they would damage tourism for the area(s). A poll was taken, I think for Cornwall, of visitors asking about the impact of RE on their plans to return. The result showed that the impact was absolutely tiny something like 2 or 3%, the majority saying they simply didn't care (no surprises there). But was really interesting was that the tiny percentage who said it would encourage them to return, was greater than the tiny percentage who said it would put them off.