Energy news in general

debitcardmayhem

matt_drummer said:

QrizB said:

Scot_39 said:

And thats still the problem with far too many green initiatives.
Putting low carbon above low energy prices.

Low carbon, however, is more important than low prices and should be above it.

That's the international political and scientific consensus.

I agree completely.

It's not necessarily meant to be cheaper, the idea is to look after the planet we live on and improve our health.

We can't just keep burning stuff forever because it's the cheapest option.

I agree we can’t, albeit for a small drop in the ocean of global emissions, but why do we have to pay so much to achieve so little, we pay far more for energy relative to other advanced nations.

Miliband says will cut 300 from bills by 2030, yes but at this rate we will be paying 400 more by 2029;

matt_drummer

debitcardmayhem said:

I agree we can’t, albeit for a small drop in the ocean of global emissions, but why do we have to pay so much to achieve so little, we pay far more for energy relative to other advanced nations.

I don't know but will make some general guesses.

As a nation, we put stuff off to make now look better.

As a nation, we prefer cheap over quality, although ideally we like cheap but expect the best!

We're selfish.

Corruption.

Stupidity

Laziness

QrizB

debitcardmayhem said:

I agree we can’t, albeit for a small drop in the ocean of global emissions, but why do we have to pay so much to achieve so little, we pay far more for energy relative to other advanced nations.

Adding to matt_d's post above, and picking up one of Matt^3's regular observations, we had a lack of investment in energy generation & transmission (along with other utilities) during the "free market years" of the early-1990s to the late-2010s.

So we're making up for 20+ years of under-investment, plus all the stuff we'd have had to do anyway.

You might begin to think we would be better off bringing back the CEGB, much as France has EDF, so we could fund all this investment at Government rates rather than commercial ones.

debitcardmayhem

@matt_drummer six guesses, summed up in one word Government. 😎
EDIT we forgot vanity

MattMattMattUK

debitcardmayhem said:

matt_drummer said:

QrizB said:

Scot_39 said:

And thats still the problem with far too many green initiatives.
Putting low carbon above low energy prices.

Low carbon, however, is more important than low prices and should be above it.

That's the international political and scientific consensus.

I agree completely.

It's not necessarily meant to be cheaper, the idea is to look after the planet we live on and improve our health.

We can't just keep burning stuff forever because it's the cheapest option.

I agree we can’t, albeit for a small drop in the ocean of global emissions, but why do we have to pay so much to achieve so little, we pay far more for energy relative to other advanced nations.

Miliband says will cut 300 from bills by 2030, yes but at this rate we will be paying 400 more by 2029;

Shorttermism mostly, governments are not willing to invest so everything is either pushed to private finance, PFI, PPI that Brown used to keep a huge amount of government debt off book for example. Sale and lease back which was common for hospitals and school, no upfront cost, but the five year cost exceeds the cost of build and the ten and twenty year costs are 5-20 times the cost of the government doing it itself. 

If one looks at our water bills for example, they were kept very low for decades, too low to support investment in infrastructure at the rate it was needed, now the need to rise significantly to keep up with decades of underinvestment and again, for a private monopoly they are going to be even more expensive. 

We pay more for our energy for various reasons, more vs France because they invested in nuclear, upfront cost but very cheap long term, cheaper than Norway, because they invested the profit of their fossil fuel windfall rather than using it to lower tax bills, cheaper than the US because they do not care about climate change, cheaper than China because whilst they used coal they also have invested in energy supply, cheaper than many other countries because they invested, the key is that we fail to invest. Invest up front and save long term, or refuse to invest and long term (and often even medium and sometimes short term) cost far outstrip the cost of the initial investment. 

Taxpayers want lots of stuff, they want it cheaper, they refuse to pay enough tax to cover current expenditure let alone invest, every government promises that "someone else" can pay, things keep falling apart. 

matt_drummer

debitcardmayhem said:

@matt_drummer six guesses, summed up in one word Government. 😎
EDIT we forgot vanity

That's the trouble though, we vote for our governments.

If somebody stood up and said that they were going to raise taxes and invest for the future we wouldn't vote for them.

We have voted for those people that make us better off now with little regard for the future. All live for today and worry about tomorrow when it comes.

We have wasted and continue to waste so much money, it is incredible.

And then complain when our energy costs more than it could have done.

It's all our own fault.

spot1034

debitcardmayhem said:

matt_drummer said:

QrizB said:

Scot_39 said:

And thats still the problem with far too many green initiatives.
Putting low carbon above low energy prices.

Low carbon, however, is more important than low prices and should be above it.

That's the international political and scientific consensus.

I agree completely.

It's not necessarily meant to be cheaper, the idea is to look after the planet we live on and improve our health.

We can't just keep burning stuff forever because it's the cheapest option.

I agree we can’t, albeit for a small drop in the ocean of global emissions, but why do we have to pay so much to achieve so little, we pay far more for energy relative to other advanced nations.

Miliband says will cut 300 from bills by 2030, yes but at this rate we will be paying 400 more by 2029;

It's open to various interpretations - did he mean a £300 reduction from the level of bills at the time he made the announcement, or (much more likely IMO) £300 less than bills would have risen to had they followed an alternative path - i.e. your bill is actually £500 more but we've made great progress and done a fantastic job which has stopped your bill from being £800 more. 

[Deleted User]

QrizB said:

victor2 said:

QrizB said:

Scot_39 said:

And thats still the problem with far too many green initiatives.
Putting low carbon above low energy prices.

Low carbon, however, is more important than low prices and should be above it.

That's the international political and scientific consensus.

Not the political opinion of the US and China, among others, though...

China is definitely inside the tent on this. They're meeting or exceeding their treaty obligations. See for example:

https://theconversation.com/china-leads-the-net-zero-transition-heres-what-we-can-learn-from-its-progress-in-beijing-and-hong-kong-237075

The US is a bit of an outlier on this.

Not the place for a debate on US politics but suffice to say I think describing US as a "bit of an outlier" is quite generous   Personally I'm far from convinced that the current US administration is a shining example of anything I'd like us to be emulating in the UK. 

MattMattMattUK

matt_drummer said:

debitcardmayhem said:

@matt_drummer six guesses, summed up in one word Government. 😎
EDIT we forgot vanity

That's the trouble though, we vote for our governments.

If somebody stood up and said that they were going to raise taxes and invest for the future we wouldn't vote for them.

It depends on the "we", I would, but there has never been a political party that has offered that in my lifetime, they either want to slash taxes to benefit those with very high wealth or they want to tax people like me to spent it on handouts. I am fully prepared to pay more but I want it invested in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, education, childcare, defence, policing etc. not just given out as handouts to people who earn less than me. I want to build society, not subsidise laziness. 

matt_drummer said:

We have voted for those people that make us better off now with little regard for the future. All live for today and worry about tomorrow when it comes.

There has been no opportunity to vote for anyone else, no political party offers long term investment, they all pander to their chosen demographic, short term gain for long term pain, "someone else" can pay.

matt_drummer said:

We have wasted and continue to waste so much money, it is incredible.

And then complain when our energy costs more than it could have done.

It's all our own fault.

We have a huge problem with our tax system, we might be paying historically high taxes (as a percentage of GDP) by UK standards, but they are still low by European standards. We also have a very uneven spread of taxation, we have the largest tax free allowance of any major economy, the EU average is around €3,200, we have the lowest effective rate of income taxation (IT and NI) of any EU economy for the bottom two thirds of earners, the top third pay the fifth highest effective rate of income taxation. Income taxation in the UK is too low, somewhat for everyone, but especially for anyone earning less than £60k pa, in work benefits are too high (in reality they should not exist at all), disability benefits are too low, Corporation tax is about the right rate, but incredibly badly structured in terms of allowance, we need a disbursement tax on dividend rather than a personal dividend tax etc. 

matt_drummer

MattMattMattUK said:

matt_drummer said:

debitcardmayhem said:

@matt_drummer six guesses, summed up in one word Government. 😎
EDIT we forgot vanity

That's the trouble though, we vote for our governments.

If somebody stood up and said that they were going to raise taxes and invest for the future we wouldn't vote for them.

It depends on the "we", I would, but there has never been a political party that has offered that in my lifetime, they either want to slash taxes to benefit those with very high wealth or they want to tax people like me to spent it on handouts. I am fully prepared to pay more but I want it invested in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, education, childcare, defence, policing etc. not just given out as handouts to people who earn less than me. I want to build society, not subsidise laziness. 

matt_drummer said:

We have voted for those people that make us better off now with little regard for the future. All live for today and worry about tomorrow when it comes.

There has been no opportunity to vote for anyone else, no political party offers long term investment, they all pander to their chosen demographic, short term gain for long term pain, "someone else" can pay.

matt_drummer said:

We have wasted and continue to waste so much money, it is incredible.

And then complain when our energy costs more than it could have done.

It's all our own fault.

We have a huge problem with our tax system, we might be paying historically high taxes (as a percentage of GDP) by UK standards, but they are still low by European standards. We also have a very uneven spread of taxation, we have the largest tax free allowance of any major economy, the EU average is around €3,200, we have the lowest effective rate of income taxation (IT and NI) of any EU economy for the bottom two thirds of earners, the top third pay the fifth highest effective rate of income taxation. Income taxation in the UK is too low, somewhat for everyone, but especially for anyone earning less than £60k pa, in work benefits are too high (in reality they should not exist at all), disability benefits are too low, Corporation tax is about the right rate, but incredibly badly structured in terms of allowance, we need a disbursement tax on dividend rather than a personal dividend tax etc. 

My `we' is the majority, that is enough to get somebody elected.

I think the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats do offer an alternative to some extent.

`We' don't vote for them, or perhaps I should say, not enough voters choose them.

I am a net contributor yet I would still be happy to pay more, but like you, I want to see something for it.

I agree with most of the things you ever post.

And I speak as somebody who is married to somebody from an EU member state, life is very different where she comes from.