Energy news in general

Scot_39

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.

For literally millions of ordinary folk they simply cannot afford tbe costs of such lofty concerns.

For the rich libral elites dragging us down that path maybe. MPs, highly paid advisors and of course ministers  c150k plus expenses can probably afford double or treble even current bills to match their eco beliefs / credentials.

Someone living alone on £12k pension credit, £25k minimum wage or even potentially less in adult means tested benefits, including all too often a rent offset that undercontributes and so eats into other funds cannot.


So for the poor unable to heat their homes and even feed themselves adequately a lot less so.

Even those on moderate incomes are struggling.

This isnt about whether climate change is real or even as 67m in 8bn global and growing we can meaningfully influence it - it is about who pays - and who doesnt - as can afford to buy their way out of it.

Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot - I suggest those already using food banks - 2.8m did so in 23/24 , the nearly 2m homes in electric debt repayment or 91 day arrears in Ofgems Q1 2025 update - already £100s if not £1000s when add in gas  behind on payments - would strongly disagree.


Their was in Ofgems last update £4.15bn owed to energy companies - debt repayment plan and 91d arrears - and when all drbt costs lumped together - added up to £50 in April cap to pay for that too. 
With green costs and levies - including policy costs - and taxes - adding literally £100s to our bills - you have to wonder how much lower both those figures could be without them.


As to climate opinions.  Well those are perhaps shifting against the orthodoxy.

There are now as of recent yougov polls c10% fewer  people in the UK who believe climate change is not being exagerated. 

High energy prices are IMO potentially helping drive what you might think of cynicism.

Another 10% shift - and the rapid rises forecast in balancing and curtailment are likely to accelerate such concerns IMO - and that may soon become tge majority view.

And its certainly being played to great effect by one populist party - leading currently by a massive margin in the polls.   It can be dangerous to presume too much about ordinary voters beliefs in your beliefs,  2016 vote and 2019 vote distributions shows what happens when you do.

Energy bills for the poor should not IMO be carrying the can under any just system of transition.

Green leadership of old stood up boldly for supporting the transition via progressive taxation.

I may not have voted for them - but at least they recognised the poor and many working class earners even above median salaries - weren't going to be able to afford it on their own.  And last year c2m - 6.7% did.

MattMattMattUK

Scot_39 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.

For literally millions of ordinary folk they simply cannot afford tbe costs of such lofty concerns.

They can, the long term cost will far outstrip any short term saving.

Scot_39 said:

For the rich libral elites dragging us down that path maybe. MPs, highly paid advisors and of course ministers  c150k plus expenses can probably afford double or treble even current bills to match their eco beliefs / credentials.

Anyone who starts out banging on about "liberal elites" or variants of that has already lost the argument. Many already will have, solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, etc. Up front cost for long term saving. 

Scot_39 said:

Someone living alone on £12k pension credit, £25k minimum wage or even potentially less in adult means tested benefits, including all too often a rent offset that undercontributes and so eats into other funds cannot.


So for the poor unable to heat their homes and even feed themselves adequately a lot less so.

Even those on moderate incomes are struggling.

They generally are not, they are just prioritising other things, the prioritise fast fashion, new cars on finance, holidays, smoking etc.

I have looked at what benefits pay, I could survive on those and still have money to spare, eg. rent paid, other benefits to live off, I would have to be careful, but it would certainly be doable. I would rather not live on benefits, which is why I do what I do, it is also why I feel that disabled people should be supported more, because disabled people have no choice about being disabled. 

Scot_39 said:

This isnt about whether climate change is real or even as 67m in 8bn global and growing we can meaningfully influence it - it is about who pays - and who doesnt - as can afford to buy their way out of it.

We can meaningfully influence it, sure we cannot fix it on our own, but even the biggest emitters cannot do that, we all need to cut down, it does not work if only some people bother because they claim it is too hard.

Scot_39 said:

Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot - I suggest those already using food banks - 2.8m did so in 23/24 ,

Food bank use tells us very little about anything other than how many people use food banks. I used to help out in one, I helped people with budgeting as well. Many people did not want help budgeting, they were happy with the "free" food provided, they could afford to buy food, but they prioritised other things such as cigarettes, streaming, alcohol, entertainment etc. because they had no alternatives for those things, but could get free food in the food banks. Those who genuinely needed help were mostly people with disabilities who not only had limitations on what they could do work wise, but often faced additional costs from their disability, they could not make their budget balance no matter how much they cut back because their essential outgoings exceeded their income.

Scot_39 said:
the nearly 2m homes in electric debt repayment or 91 day arrears in Ofgems Q1 2025 update - already £100s if not £1000s when add in gas  behind on payments - would strongly disagree.

Again a meaningless statistic, it does not tell us why they are in arrears, it does not tell us if they can afford to pay, it just tells us that they have not.

Scot_39 said:

Their was in Ofgems last update £4.15bn owed to energy companies - debt repayment plan and 91d arrears - and when all drbt costs lumped together - added up to £50 in April cap to pay for that too. 
With green costs and levies - including policy costs - and taxes - adding literally £100s to our bills - you have to wonder how much lower both those figures could be without them.

The issue is energy suppliers are not allowed to effectively recover debts, they are not allowed to cut off non-payers, many people know that they can choose not to pay, move house and disappear.

Scot_39 said:

As to climate opinions.  Well those are perhaps shifting against the orthodoxy.

There are now as of recent yougov polls c10% fewer  people in the UK who believe climate change is not being exagerated. 

High energy prices are IMO potentially helping drive what you might think of cynicism.

Another 10% shift - and the rapid rises forecast in balancing and curtailment are likely to accelerate such concerns IMO - and that may soon become tge majority view.

So what you have established is that greater than 90% of people lack the intellect to understand climate science, or choose to believe populist opportunists over actual scientists. Again, that proves nothing about climate change, it just evidences that there are a lot of stupid people.

Scot_39 said:

And its certainly being played to great effect by one populist party - leading currently by a massive margin in the polls.   It can be dangerous to presume too much about ordinary voters beliefs in your beliefs,  2016 vote and 2019 vote distributions shows what happens when you do.

Populists will say anything, promise anything, lie about anything to get elected, it is what they do, unfortunately we allow gullible people to vote.

Scot_39 said:

Energy bills for the poor should not IMO be carrying the can under any just system of transition.

The idea of a claim of a "just" transition is farcical, we should all carry the cost of fixing the problem, not just "someone else".

Scot_39 said:

Green leadership of old stood up boldly for supporting the transition via progressive taxation.

Aggressively progressive taxation does not generally work, as evidenced by all the countries who make taxation work properly, such as Scandinavia. If green parties concentrated more on green issues, rather than petty squabbling over identity politics and economic illiteracy. 

Scot_39 said:

I may not have voted for them - but at least they recognised the poor and many working class earners even above median salaries - weren't going to be able to afford it on their own.  And last year c2m - 6.7% did.

I would not vote for them because they are not a green party, they are a hard left party obsessed with identity politics and their proposals are economically illiterate. I would vote for a genuine environmental party proposing tax reform and overall tax increases, something on the Scandinavian model would be ideal, but instead we will get more short termism. 

mmmmikey

Scot_39 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.

For literally millions of ordinary folk they simply cannot afford tbe costs of such lofty concerns.

For the rich libral elites dragging us down that path maybe. MPs, highly paid advisors and of course ministers  c150k plus expenses can probably afford double or treble even current bills to match their eco beliefs / credentials.

Someone living alone on £12k pension credit, £25k minimum wage or even potentially less in adult means tested benefits, including all too often a rent offset that undercontributes and so eats into other funds cannot.


So for the poor unable to heat their homes and even feed themselves adequately a lot less so.

Even those on moderate incomes are struggling.

This isnt about whether climate change is real or even as 67m in 8bn global and growing we can meaningfully influence it - it is about who pays - and who doesnt - as can afford to buy their way out of it.

Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot - I suggest those already using food banks - 2.8m did so in 23/24 , the nearly 2m homes in electric debt repayment or 91 day arrears in Ofgems Q1 2025 update - already £100s if not £1000s when add in gas  behind on payments - would strongly disagree.


Their was in Ofgems last update £4.15bn owed to energy companies - debt repayment plan and 91d arrears - and when all drbt costs lumped together - added up to £50 in April cap to pay for that too. 
With green costs and levies - including policy costs - and taxes - adding literally £100s to our bills - you have to wonder how much lower both those figures could be without them.


As to climate opinions.  Well those are perhaps shifting against the orthodoxy.

There are now as of recent yougov polls c10% fewer  people in the UK who believe climate change is not being exagerated. 

High energy prices are IMO potentially helping drive what you might think of cynicism.

Another 10% shift - and the rapid rises forecast in balancing and curtailment are likely to accelerate such concerns IMO - and that may soon become tge majority view.

And its certainly being played to great effect by one populist party - leading currently by a massive margin in the polls.   It can be dangerous to presume too much about ordinary voters beliefs in your beliefs,  2016 vote and 2019 vote distributions shows what happens when you do.

Energy bills for the poor should not IMO be carrying the can under any just system of transition.

Green leadership of old stood up boldly for supporting the transition via progressive taxation.

I may not have voted for them - but at least they recognised the poor and many working class earners even above median salaries - weren't going to be able to afford it on their own.  And last year c2m - 6.7% did.

@Scot_39 you appear to have lost any sense of balance or objectivity. If you want to believe the world is flat you can spend an evening browsing and find all the information you want to prove that's the case. If you want to believe that green energy is bad you can spend an evening broswing the internet that proves that beyond any doubt in your mind. That is what you seem to be doing in missive after missive in a series of posts that have become so lacking in balance, consistency and reasoning that they now (IMHO) lack any credibility. 

You fail to mention the costs to future generations of not addressing pollution of the atmosphere. You describe people who are concerned about this as having "lofty ideals" whilst presenting yourself as a champion of the poor downtrodden masses which strikes me as being a "lofty ideal" in itself and somewhat ironic. You complain about lack of strategy and long term thinking when it comes to energy investment and seem to have completely forgotten that the move to green energy was very widely supported when it took hold to the point it wasn't really a political issue - all parties recognised the importance. You make no distinction between people who can't afford their electricity because they've just been on holiday and people who can't afford their electricity because they really are "bouncing along the bottom". You fail to acknowledge that many of the poorest in society are supported by benefits. And so on, and so on, and so on.

If I was going to buy double glazing I would take what a double glazing saleman said with a pinch of salt - it may be largely true but it's hardly balanced and representative as clearly there's an agenda so best treated with caution. In a similar way, you have started to use this forum as a platform to post propoganda to promote your extreme anti-green agenda. As such, your contributions in this area have become questionable to the extent that I now ignore the facts and figures in the same way I would ignore a double glazing salesman's facts and figures. Not because I beleive your figures to be untrue but because they are underpinned by a political agenda that is lacking in any kind of balance.

JKenH

mmmmikey said:

Scot_39 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.

For literally millions of ordinary folk they simply cannot afford tbe costs of such lofty concerns.

For the rich libral elites dragging us down that path maybe. MPs, highly paid advisors and of course ministers  c150k plus expenses can probably afford double or treble even current bills to match their eco beliefs / credentials.

Someone living alone on £12k pension credit, £25k minimum wage or even potentially less in adult means tested benefits, including all too often a rent offset that undercontributes and so eats into other funds cannot.


So for the poor unable to heat their homes and even feed themselves adequately a lot less so.

Even those on moderate incomes are struggling.

This isnt about whether climate change is real or even as 67m in 8bn global and growing we can meaningfully influence it - it is about who pays - and who doesnt - as can afford to buy their way out of it.

Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot - I suggest those already using food banks - 2.8m did so in 23/24 , the nearly 2m homes in electric debt repayment or 91 day arrears in Ofgems Q1 2025 update - already £100s if not £1000s when add in gas  behind on payments - would strongly disagree.


Their was in Ofgems last update £4.15bn owed to energy companies - debt repayment plan and 91d arrears - and when all drbt costs lumped together - added up to £50 in April cap to pay for that too. 
With green costs and levies - including policy costs - and taxes - adding literally £100s to our bills - you have to wonder how much lower both those figures could be without them.


As to climate opinions.  Well those are perhaps shifting against the orthodoxy.

There are now as of recent yougov polls c10% fewer  people in the UK who believe climate change is not being exagerated. 

High energy prices are IMO potentially helping drive what you might think of cynicism.

Another 10% shift - and the rapid rises forecast in balancing and curtailment are likely to accelerate such concerns IMO - and that may soon become tge majority view.

And its certainly being played to great effect by one populist party - leading currently by a massive margin in the polls.   It can be dangerous to presume too much about ordinary voters beliefs in your beliefs,  2016 vote and 2019 vote distributions shows what happens when you do.

Energy bills for the poor should not IMO be carrying the can under any just system of transition.

Green leadership of old stood up boldly for supporting the transition via progressive taxation.

I may not have voted for them - but at least they recognised the poor and many working class earners even above median salaries - weren't going to be able to afford it on their own.  And last year c2m - 6.7% did.

@Scot_39 you appear to have lost any sense of balance or objectivity. If you want to believe the world is flat you can spend an evening browsing and find all the information you want to prove that's the case. If you want to believe that green energy is bad you can spend an evening broswing the internet that proves that beyond any doubt in your mind. That is what you seem to be doing in missive after missive in a series of posts that have become so lacking in balance, consistency and reasoning that they now (IMHO) lack any credibility. 

You fail to mention the costs to future generations of not addressing pollution of the atmosphere. You describe people who are concerned about this as having "lofty ideals" whilst presenting yourself as a champion of the poor downtrodden masses which strikes me as being a "lofty ideal" in itself and somewhat ironic. You complain about lack of strategy and long term thinking when it comes to energy investment and seem to have completely forgotten that the move to green energy was very widely supported when it took hold to the point it wasn't really a political issue - all parties recognised the importance. You make no distinction between people who can't afford their electricity because they've just been on holiday and people who can't afford their electricity because they really are "bouncing along the bottom". You fail to acknowledge that many of the poorest in society are supported by benefits. And so on, and so on, and so on.

If I was going to buy double glazing I would take what a double glazing saleman said with a pinch of salt - it may be largely true but it's hardly balanced and representative as clearly there's an agenda so best treated with caution. In a similar way, you have started to use this forum as a platform to post propoganda to promote your extreme anti-green agenda. As such, your contributions in this area have become questionable to the extent that I now ignore the facts and figures in the same way I would ignore a double glazing salesman's facts and figures. Not because I beleive your figures to be untrue but because they are underpinned by a political agenda that is lacking in any kind of balance.

Just so I have understood this, you are saying to @Scot39. 

I ignore the facts and figures, not because I believe them to be untrue but because they are underpinned by a political agenda that lacks any kind of  balance.

Hmmm.

mmmmikey

JKenH said:

mmmmikey said:

Scot_39 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.

For literally millions of ordinary folk they simply cannot afford tbe costs of such lofty concerns.

For the rich libral elites dragging us down that path maybe. MPs, highly paid advisors and of course ministers  c150k plus expenses can probably afford double or treble even current bills to match their eco beliefs / credentials.

Someone living alone on £12k pension credit, £25k minimum wage or even potentially less in adult means tested benefits, including all too often a rent offset that undercontributes and so eats into other funds cannot.


So for the poor unable to heat their homes and even feed themselves adequately a lot less so.

Even those on moderate incomes are struggling.

This isnt about whether climate change is real or even as 67m in 8bn global and growing we can meaningfully influence it - it is about who pays - and who doesnt - as can afford to buy their way out of it.

Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot - I suggest those already using food banks - 2.8m did so in 23/24 , the nearly 2m homes in electric debt repayment or 91 day arrears in Ofgems Q1 2025 update - already £100s if not £1000s when add in gas  behind on payments - would strongly disagree.


Their was in Ofgems last update £4.15bn owed to energy companies - debt repayment plan and 91d arrears - and when all drbt costs lumped together - added up to £50 in April cap to pay for that too. 
With green costs and levies - including policy costs - and taxes - adding literally £100s to our bills - you have to wonder how much lower both those figures could be without them.


As to climate opinions.  Well those are perhaps shifting against the orthodoxy.

There are now as of recent yougov polls c10% fewer  people in the UK who believe climate change is not being exagerated. 

High energy prices are IMO potentially helping drive what you might think of cynicism.

Another 10% shift - and the rapid rises forecast in balancing and curtailment are likely to accelerate such concerns IMO - and that may soon become tge majority view.

And its certainly being played to great effect by one populist party - leading currently by a massive margin in the polls.   It can be dangerous to presume too much about ordinary voters beliefs in your beliefs,  2016 vote and 2019 vote distributions shows what happens when you do.

Energy bills for the poor should not IMO be carrying the can under any just system of transition.

Green leadership of old stood up boldly for supporting the transition via progressive taxation.

I may not have voted for them - but at least they recognised the poor and many working class earners even above median salaries - weren't going to be able to afford it on their own.  And last year c2m - 6.7% did.

@Scot_39 you appear to have lost any sense of balance or objectivity. If you want to believe the world is flat you can spend an evening browsing and find all the information you want to prove that's the case. If you want to believe that green energy is bad you can spend an evening broswing the internet that proves that beyond any doubt in your mind. That is what you seem to be doing in missive after missive in a series of posts that have become so lacking in balance, consistency and reasoning that they now (IMHO) lack any credibility. 

You fail to mention the costs to future generations of not addressing pollution of the atmosphere. You describe people who are concerned about this as having "lofty ideals" whilst presenting yourself as a champion of the poor downtrodden masses which strikes me as being a "lofty ideal" in itself and somewhat ironic. You complain about lack of strategy and long term thinking when it comes to energy investment and seem to have completely forgotten that the move to green energy was very widely supported when it took hold to the point it wasn't really a political issue - all parties recognised the importance. You make no distinction between people who can't afford their electricity because they've just been on holiday and people who can't afford their electricity because they really are "bouncing along the bottom". You fail to acknowledge that many of the poorest in society are supported by benefits. And so on, and so on, and so on.

If I was going to buy double glazing I would take what a double glazing saleman said with a pinch of salt - it may be largely true but it's hardly balanced and representative as clearly there's an agenda so best treated with caution. In a similar way, you have started to use this forum as a platform to post propoganda to promote your extreme anti-green agenda. As such, your contributions in this area have become questionable to the extent that I now ignore the facts and figures in the same way I would ignore a double glazing salesman's facts and figures. Not because I beleive your figures to be untrue but because they are underpinned by a political agenda that is lacking in any kind of balance.

Just so I have understood this, you are saying to @Scot39. 

I ignore the facts and figures, not because I believe them to be untrue but because they are underpinned by a political agenda that lacks any kind of  balance.

Hmmm.

For clarity, this would have been better expressed as "I now ignore the facts and figures that you have chosen to present for the same reason I ignore the facts and figures a double-glazing salesman chooses to present, preferring to do my own research."

Edit: @Scot_39- it seems more appropriate and respectful to address you directly. To give you an example of a selective misquote, in your most recent post you said:

"Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot".

I am assuming this refers to a comment I made:

"£3000 for the battery is not a trivial expense but well within reach for a huge number of homeowners who make it a priority".

It's this kind of blatant misrepresentation that makes me suspicious of your other facts and figures in this particular area. (Or is this just an unfortunate coincidence and you were referring to something else?) I do not for one minute believe that you are intentionally trying to mislead anyone, and I'm basing this belief on your many, many other helpful posts on other threads. For some reason you seem to have got a bee in your bonnet about various issues and are seeing and reading things that just aren't there and then presenting them as facts in support of what I believe is an excessively negative view. Google "confirmaton bias".

p.s. note the highlighting which mirrors the highlighting I used before

JKenH

MattMattMattUK said:

Scot_39 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.

For literally millions of ordinary folk they simply cannot afford tbe costs of such lofty concerns.

They can, the long term cost will far outstrip any short term saving.

Scot_39 said:

For the rich libral elites dragging us down that path maybe. MPs, highly paid advisors and of course ministers  c150k plus expenses can probably afford double or treble even current bills to match their eco beliefs / credentials.

Anyone who starts out banging on about "liberal elites" or variants of that has already lost the argument. Many already will have, solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, etc. Up front cost for long term saving. 

Scot_39 said:

Someone living alone on £12k pension credit, £25k minimum wage or even potentially less in adult means tested benefits, including all too often a rent offset that undercontributes and so eats into other funds cannot.


So for the poor unable to heat their homes and even feed themselves adequately a lot less so.

Even those on moderate incomes are struggling.

They generally are not, they are just prioritising other things, the prioritise fast fashion, new cars on finance, holidays, smoking etc.

I have looked at what benefits pay, I could survive on those and still have money to spare, eg. rent paid, other benefits to live off, I would have to be careful, but it would certainly be doable. I would rather not live on benefits, which is why I do what I do, it is also why I feel that disabled people should be supported more, because disabled people have no choice about being disabled. 

Scot_39 said:

This isnt about whether climate change is real or even as 67m in 8bn global and growing we can meaningfully influence it - it is about who pays - and who doesnt - as can afford to buy their way out of it.

We can meaningfully influence it, sure we cannot fix it on our own, but even the biggest emitters cannot do that, we all need to cut down, it does not work if only some people bother because they claim it is too hard.

Scot_39 said:

Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot - I suggest those already using food banks - 2.8m did so in 23/24 ,

Food bank use tells us very little about anything other than how many people use food banks. I used to help out in one, I helped people with budgeting as well. Many people did not want help budgeting, they were happy with the "free" food provided, they could afford to buy food, but they prioritised other things such as cigarettes, streaming, alcohol, entertainment etc. because they had no alternatives for those things, but could get free food in the food banks. Those who genuinely needed help were mostly people with disabilities who not only had limitations on what they could do work wise, but often faced additional costs from their disability, they could not make their budget balance no matter how much they cut back because their essential outgoings exceeded their income.

Scot_39 said:
the nearly 2m homes in electric debt repayment or 91 day arrears in Ofgems Q1 2025 update - already £100s if not £1000s when add in gas  behind on payments - would strongly disagree.

Again a meaningless statistic, it does not tell us why they are in arrears, it does not tell us if they can afford to pay, it just tells us that they have not.

Scot_39 said:

Their was in Ofgems last update £4.15bn owed to energy companies - debt repayment plan and 91d arrears - and when all drbt costs lumped together - added up to £50 in April cap to pay for that too. 
With green costs and levies - including policy costs - and taxes - adding literally £100s to our bills - you have to wonder how much lower both those figures could be without them.

The issue is energy suppliers are not allowed to effectively recover debts, they are not allowed to cut off non-payers, many people know that they can choose not to pay, move house and disappear.

Scot_39 said:

As to climate opinions.  Well those are perhaps shifting against the orthodoxy.

There are now as of recent yougov polls c10% fewer  people in the UK who believe climate change is not being exagerated. 

High energy prices are IMO potentially helping drive what you might think of cynicism.

Another 10% shift - and the rapid rises forecast in balancing and curtailment are likely to accelerate such concerns IMO - and that may soon become tge majority view.

So what you have established is that greater than 90% of people lack the intellect to understand climate science, or choose to believe populist opportunists over actual scientists. Again, that proves nothing about climate change, it just evidences that there are a lot of stupid people.

Scot_39 said:

And its certainly being played to great effect by one populist party - leading currently by a massive margin in the polls.   It can be dangerous to presume too much about ordinary voters beliefs in your beliefs,  2016 vote and 2019 vote distributions shows what happens when you do.

Populists will say anything, promise anything, lie about anything to get elected, it is what they do, unfortunately we allow gullible people to vote.

Scot_39 said:

Energy bills for the poor should not IMO be carrying the can under any just system of transition.

The idea of a claim of a "just" transition is farcical, we should all carry the cost of fixing the problem, not just "someone else".

Scot_39 said:

Green leadership of old stood up boldly for supporting the transition via progressive taxation.

Aggressively progressive taxation does not generally work, as evidenced by all the countries who make taxation work properly, such as Scandinavia. If green parties concentrated more on green issues, rather than petty squabbling over identity politics and economic illiteracy. 

Scot_39 said:

I may not have voted for them - but at least they recognised the poor and many working class earners even above median salaries - weren't going to be able to afford it on their own.  And last year c2m - 6.7% did.

I would not vote for them because they are not a green party, they are a hard left party obsessed with identity politics and their proposals are economically illiterate. I would vote for a genuine environmental party proposing tax reform and overall tax increases, something on the Scandinavian model would be ideal, but instead we will get more short termism. 

So what you have established is that greater than 90% of people lack the intellect to understand climate science, or choose to believe populist opportunists over actual scientists. Again, that proves nothing about climate change, it just evidences that there are a lot of stupid people. 

Populists will say anything, promise anything, lie about anything to get elected, it is what they do, unfortunately we allow gullible people to vote.

Those sentiments sound as though they come straight from the liberal elites that you don’t want us to mention.

Getting back on topic there are numerous voices in industry calling for a more balanced approach to energy policy rather than putting all our eggs in the Renewables basket. It makes little sense to ignore our own offshore oil and gas - yes the price, and hence cost to the consumer, is driven by international energy markets - current policy ignores the tax, foreign exchange and employment benefits of continuing to utilise our own fossil fuel resources. 

Fine, you may not agree, but it is still a valid point of view and we should not dismiss those who support continuing to exploit our existing resources to varying degrees as being stupid. We all have different priorities and each of us is entitled to our own point of view and to express it whether on social media or at the ballot box. 

mmmmikey

I'm conscious this has the potential to move from "robust expression of strongly held views" and "spirited debate" to all out political warfare Let's try and keep the discussion going in a way that avoids being "moderated out"......

victor2

MSE_ForumTeam5 said:

We've removed some posts from this thread. A gentle reminder, please, to keep to the MoneySaving aspects of energy news in this thread, rather than politics and geopolitics.

Above is from last June. 

Politics does inevitably come into this thread, but once again the MoneySaving aspects are being replaced by a discussion not really suited to this environment. Just my opinion of course.

Scot_39

@mmmmikey

I suggest you re-familiarize yourself with section 1 in the rules of this forum. Your abusive posts are getting beyond tiresome.

I will try to do likewise

@MattMattMattUK

This is not an environmental debating forum - this is a forum about energy - and as its hosted by MSE - about energy costs.

And just for balance on costs

Whether some here like it or not - for all of those basking in savings from more flexible tariffs like agile or say SMART TOU, for everyone gaining - others - millions of others are paying more - possibly even 10+ millions in fact.

By Ofgem's estimate as of Oct last year 26m went to SVT tariffs - so at one stage at least for part of the year - upto 90% of households - more likely closer to half allowinf for duel fuel homes - were on SVT tariffs and 7m - more likely closer to half homes - on or been on fixes (the wording needs some thought - I didnt read it thew way google AI when searched Ofgem site for:-

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/energy-price-cap-will-rise-12-january

The fix level is increasing - upto 20m (min 10m if all DF) had or have fix contracts upto this cap announcement

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/energy-price-cap-will-rise-2-percent-october

But of course fixes reflect current levies and network costs at the time entered - they only delay rises and for some with exit fees even moderate falls if they happen - and the rises - like Octs £35 net, £51 policy -  likely to be there come renewal time.

Of course some can still save - by cutting use - by time shifting if multirate - by taking part in demand price management - or by investing in technology.

But as to how many have, will do or even can ?

MattMattMattUK

JKenH said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Scot_39 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.

For literally millions of ordinary folk they simply cannot afford tbe costs of such lofty concerns.

They can, the long term cost will far outstrip any short term saving.

Scot_39 said:

For the rich libral elites dragging us down that path maybe. MPs, highly paid advisors and of course ministers  c150k plus expenses can probably afford double or treble even current bills to match their eco beliefs / credentials.

Anyone who starts out banging on about "liberal elites" or variants of that has already lost the argument. Many already will have, solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, etc. Up front cost for long term saving. 

Scot_39 said:

Someone living alone on £12k pension credit, £25k minimum wage or even potentially less in adult means tested benefits, including all too often a rent offset that undercontributes and so eats into other funds cannot.


So for the poor unable to heat their homes and even feed themselves adequately a lot less so.

Even those on moderate incomes are struggling.

They generally are not, they are just prioritising other things, the prioritise fast fashion, new cars on finance, holidays, smoking etc.

I have looked at what benefits pay, I could survive on those and still have money to spare, eg. rent paid, other benefits to live off, I would have to be careful, but it would certainly be doable. I would rather not live on benefits, which is why I do what I do, it is also why I feel that disabled people should be supported more, because disabled people have no choice about being disabled. 

Scot_39 said:

This isnt about whether climate change is real or even as 67m in 8bn global and growing we can meaningfully influence it - it is about who pays - and who doesnt - as can afford to buy their way out of it.

We can meaningfully influence it, sure we cannot fix it on our own, but even the biggest emitters cannot do that, we all need to cut down, it does not work if only some people bother because they claim it is too hard.

Scot_39 said:

Even if in one such recent thread OPs opinion £3k is not a lot - I suggest those already using food banks - 2.8m did so in 23/24 ,

Food bank use tells us very little about anything other than how many people use food banks. I used to help out in one, I helped people with budgeting as well. Many people did not want help budgeting, they were happy with the "free" food provided, they could afford to buy food, but they prioritised other things such as cigarettes, streaming, alcohol, entertainment etc. because they had no alternatives for those things, but could get free food in the food banks. Those who genuinely needed help were mostly people with disabilities who not only had limitations on what they could do work wise, but often faced additional costs from their disability, they could not make their budget balance no matter how much they cut back because their essential outgoings exceeded their income.

Scot_39 said:
the nearly 2m homes in electric debt repayment or 91 day arrears in Ofgems Q1 2025 update - already £100s if not £1000s when add in gas  behind on payments - would strongly disagree.

Again a meaningless statistic, it does not tell us why they are in arrears, it does not tell us if they can afford to pay, it just tells us that they have not.

Scot_39 said:

Their was in Ofgems last update £4.15bn owed to energy companies - debt repayment plan and 91d arrears - and when all drbt costs lumped together - added up to £50 in April cap to pay for that too. 
With green costs and levies - including policy costs - and taxes - adding literally £100s to our bills - you have to wonder how much lower both those figures could be without them.

The issue is energy suppliers are not allowed to effectively recover debts, they are not allowed to cut off non-payers, many people know that they can choose not to pay, move house and disappear.

Scot_39 said:

As to climate opinions.  Well those are perhaps shifting against the orthodoxy.

There are now as of recent yougov polls c10% fewer  people in the UK who believe climate change is not being exagerated. 

High energy prices are IMO potentially helping drive what you might think of cynicism.

Another 10% shift - and the rapid rises forecast in balancing and curtailment are likely to accelerate such concerns IMO - and that may soon become tge majority view.

So what you have established is that greater than 90% of people lack the intellect to understand climate science, or choose to believe populist opportunists over actual scientists. Again, that proves nothing about climate change, it just evidences that there are a lot of stupid people.

Scot_39 said:

And its certainly being played to great effect by one populist party - leading currently by a massive margin in the polls.   It can be dangerous to presume too much about ordinary voters beliefs in your beliefs,  2016 vote and 2019 vote distributions shows what happens when you do.

Populists will say anything, promise anything, lie about anything to get elected, it is what they do, unfortunately we allow gullible people to vote.

Scot_39 said:

Energy bills for the poor should not IMO be carrying the can under any just system of transition.

The idea of a claim of a "just" transition is farcical, we should all carry the cost of fixing the problem, not just "someone else".

Scot_39 said:

Green leadership of old stood up boldly for supporting the transition via progressive taxation.

Aggressively progressive taxation does not generally work, as evidenced by all the countries who make taxation work properly, such as Scandinavia. If green parties concentrated more on green issues, rather than petty squabbling over identity politics and economic illiteracy. 

Scot_39 said:

I may not have voted for them - but at least they recognised the poor and many working class earners even above median salaries - weren't going to be able to afford it on their own.  And last year c2m - 6.7% did.

I would not vote for them because they are not a green party, they are a hard left party obsessed with identity politics and their proposals are economically illiterate. I would vote for a genuine environmental party proposing tax reform and overall tax increases, something on the Scandinavian model would be ideal, but instead we will get more short termism. 

So what you have established is that greater than 90% of people lack the intellect to understand climate science, or choose to believe populist opportunists over actual scientists. Again, that proves nothing about climate change, it just evidences that there are a lot of stupid people. 

Populists will say anything, promise anything, lie about anything to get elected, it is what they do, unfortunately we allow gullible people to vote.

Those sentiments sound as though they come straight from the liberal elites that you don’t want us to mention.

People who bang on about "liberal elites", "elites", and other such terms are generally of a certain persuasion, mostly lacking any element of critical thinking.

JKenH said:

Getting back on topic there are numerous voices in industry calling for a more balanced approach to energy policy rather than putting all our eggs in the Renewables basket. It makes little sense to ignore our own offshore oil and gas - yes the price, and hence cost to the consumer, is driven by international energy markets - current policy ignores the tax, foreign exchange and employment benefits of continuing to utilise our own fossil fuel resources. 

I am not proposing "putting all our eggs in the renewables basket", that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said so you can create a straw man. I am a huge proponent of nuclear, I am in favour of a managed transition away from fossil fuels, I also recognise that we need to move to a net zero position, not just abandon it and be a climate change denier. Additionally, even if one is a conspiracy theorist and has decided to believe climate denial theories there is still a huge reason to transition away from fossil fuels and that is energy security, with large scale nuclear and renewable energy generation we could be independent of global energy price fluctuations, we could be independent of needing to import energy, it would ensure security if supply, as well as being better for the environment. 

JKenH said:

Fine, you may not agree, but it is still a valid point of view and we should not dismiss those who support continuing to exploit our existing resources to varying degrees as being stupid. We all have different priorities and each of us is entitled to our own point of view and to express it whether on social media or at the ballot box. 

Just to be clear, climate change denial is not a valid point of view and those who believe in that conspiracy theory are stupid. The scientific evidence is overwhelming, amongst scientists, rather than populists and conspiracy theorists masquerading as scientists, the matter is as settled as anything can be. People are entitled to hold a stupid point of view, it does not stop that point of view being stupid, it does not mean that others cannot point that out.