Should solar discussions be moved to the Energy board?

MFW_ASAP

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You are still avoiding the elephant in the room. You clearly and specifically asked for the PV FiT threads to be moved from the green & ethical board, because you claim they are not ethical.

Your claim is based on the out of context argument, put about mainly by anti-renewable or pro-nuclear spin doctors, that a subsidy financed by all, that is only paid to some is unfair. So let’s place it back in context:

1. Do we need to change the way we generate electricity, clean it up, and reduce carbon emissions – Yes?

2. Should all consumers of energy pay for this, either directly through their energy bills or indirectly through general taxation – Yes?

3. Should the subsidies then be paid to the owners of the power stations that generate the clean leccy – Yes?

4. Under the FiTs subsidy (as opposed to the ROC or CfD subsidies) those owners are primarily households – Yes?

5. So why is it ethical and acceptable to you, to pay the subsidies to a small number of large supply side generators, but unethical to pay it to a vast number of demand side generators?

Why are you still avoiding this particular elephant?

Mart.

Will my answers to any of the above have an impact on the MSE Administration team's decision on whether or not to move this particular board to the Energy forum? I dunno Martyn, it seems a lot of information to provide, and I have to admit that I'm scratching my head at the relevence?

When they created the House Price and Economy Discussion Board to move those discussion topics out of the House Buying and Renting board, I don;t recall them giving us all a form to fill in askign us about our views of the likelyhood of a housing crash, whether we feel houses were overpriced or what our views were on the London Housing shortage?

p.s. you do realise that this isn't your board and so my views are therefore just as valid as yours and that I am entitled to lodge a suggestion with MSE about this or any other board on the forum ? (they like suggestions about the formal of the MSE forum, they have a whole board dedicated to it)

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I cut out the irrelevent portions of your verbose post.

Thanks for your input to the debate. Your disinterest is duly noted, shame it took you pages and pages of yet more verbose posts to get there! :rotfl:

It's an interesting (albeit unethical) technique to copy half a sentence from a longer posting and then pretend it was representative of the whole.

Can we assume you're an MP ?

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I dunno Martyn, it seems a lot of information to provide, and I have to admit that I'm scratching my head at the relevence?

Why are you still avoiding the question?

Your first post claimed that the FiT is unethical. But you are happy for energy generation subsidies to go to ‘no’ households. Since the FiT scheme appears to be the fairest distribution, how do you justify your request/position?

If your request is based on a false argument, and the true position is the exact opposite of what you are claiming, then why should it be taken seriously?

Mart.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

It's an interesting (albeit unethical) technique to copy half a sentence from a longer posting and then pretend it was representative of the whole.

Can we assume you're an MP ?

Thank you Eric, I did spot this, but chose to ignore it, since it is the standard debating tactic of those that attack FiTs on ethical grounds. They just take cheap shots, without ever justifying their position with a fair and ethical explanation.

My only real complaint about the G&E board is the way it is used un-ethically to post false arguments and spin.

Mart.

EricMears

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

This says it all really:
Energy (169 Viewing)
Green & Ethical MoneySaving (18 Viewing)

It certainly does ! If you want to find a particular topic on the energy forum that you remember being discussed a couple of days ago you'll probably have to scroll back four or five pages before you can find it.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

It's the Mears and Martyn 'tag team' bullying tactic. Instead of discussing why they don't think the board should be changed, they gang up and attack the person who suggested it.

I understand why you two (and perhaps others in your clique) wouldnt want this board to be opened up to more people by raising its profile in a more frequented part of the board, it might dilute your influence. I can understand you both feeling threatened by your loss of 'ownership' of this board, but you cant halt progress, nor will I be brow beaten by your bullying.

This says it all really:
Energy (169 Viewing)
Green & Ethical MoneySaving (18 Viewing)

This is getting utterly ridiculous. You just keep throwing more and more abuse about. Why is it bullying to ask you to justify your opening statement. Your statements now suggest that your request is based on some personal agenda.

And I have been discussing why it shouldn't be moved since the very start, since I've clearly stated that your argument is based on a false premise. All I'm doing is asking (over and over) for you to justify your claim that solar should be moved from this board because you claim it isn't ethical. Why won't you answer?

So once again,

Why are you still avoiding the question?

Your first post claimed that the FiT is unethical. But you are happy for energy generation subsidies to go to ‘no’ households. Since the FiT scheme appears to be the fairest distribution, how do you justify your request/position?

If your request is based on a false argument, and the true position is the exact opposite of what you are claiming, then why should it be taken seriously?

Mart.

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

I understand why you two (and perhaps others in your clique) wouldnt want this board to be opened up to more people by raising its profile in a more frequented part of the board, it might dilute your influence. I can understand you both feeling threatened by your loss of 'ownership' of this board, but you cant halt progress, nor will I be brow beaten by your bullying.

Can I just add, that if you want solar moved as a way to attack me, then fine, that argument doesn't bother me.

If you want solar moved because you feel it swamps other subjects on the G&E board, then I completely disagree with your argument, but fine, ask away.

But you requested it be moved because it's unethical, and as as far as I can see it's wholly ethical to try to distribute generation and generation subsidies to the demand side, and away from the supply side. You appear to point blank refuse to support your claim, but have plenty of time to keep posting abuse!

Mart.

MFW_ASAP

EricMears wrote: »

It certainly does ! If you want to find a particular topic on the energy forum that you remember being discussed a couple of days ago you'll probably have to scroll back four or five pages before you can find it.

Just as you do on here when you want to find non-solar discussions? Thanks Eric, you just helped prove my point.

However, this wouldn't be the case for solar as I have suggested moving solar to its own board under the umbrella of the Energy Board. Therefore only solar PV / Thermal discussions will be posted into that board.

Incidently the Energy board already has some sub-boards within it (I'm guessing you haven't even bothered to look at that board before you rushed on here to disparage the idea?) The sub-boards are:

Energy (167 Viewing)
Sub-boards: Water Bills, LPG, Heating Oil, Solid & Other Fuels

I can see 'Solar PV and Thermal' fitting logically in there, opening up the solar board to a much wider audience (167 vs 18 currently)....

Martyn1981

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Aside from the fact that I persoanlly think FIT payments are not ethical,

Yet more personal attacks on me, but you still haven't answered the question and justified your claim, you've simply repeated it.

Please answer the question as it relates to your first post, and your argument as to why solar should be moved:

Your first post claimed that the FiT is unethical. But you are happy for energy generation subsidies to go to ‘no’ households. Since the FiT scheme appears to be the fairest distribution, how do you justify your request/position?

Mart.

MFW_ASAP

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yet more personal attacks on me, but you still haven't answered the question and justified your claim, you've simply repeated it.

Please answer the question as it relates to your first post, and your argument as to why solar should be moved:



Mart.

I've already said why I think fits are unethical, I suggest you look at the start of this thread. No matter how many times you ask the question, the answer will be the same.

If you have no interest in the debate about moving solar to its own board, or you feel you've already expressed yourself, then how about letting other people have a say on the matter? Everyone's opinion matters, not just yours.....