Money Moral Dilemma: Should I still put up my Christmas lights display given the energy crisis?

MattMattMattUK

donkeyk22 said:

Deleted_User said:

donkeyk22 said:

Given the very real possibility that load shedding will be required at some point this winter, I personally can't see the justification in wasting energy on outdoor Xmas lighting - even for a justifiable cause such as charity. (And before anyone jumps on me for being a grinch - I normally put lights outside at Xmas.) I'd have banned them this winter, personally - but that would of course be political suicide.

With the added factor that it is the poorest and most vulnerable that suffer from increased energy prices, I dread to think how bad load shedding would affect them. I simply can't make a good moral argument for putting Xmas lights outside this year.

If you are going to do it, I would suggest using timers to automatically limit the number of hours they are on each evening.

Keeping lights on when load shedding is actually happening - some might disagree with.

Removing lights because at some unspecified point in the future there is a chance that someone might wish to think about doing some load shedding?  Seems like a massive over-reaction.

I'd like to think most would agree keeping Xmas lights (along with our trivial electricity usages) on during periods of load shedding would be morally unacceptable, no?

I take the point that load shedding happening during the festive period is unlikely - it'd probably be during the new year. And that there are much more effective ways of reducing electricity if there was a need to legally enforce such a measure.

One thing I forgot mention previously is that all our energy is currently being subsidized by the government: the more that is used, the higher the burden placed on public spending - that in turn reduces spending in other areas. Are Xmas lights the best use of that government money?

I am a net taxpayer, that means that I am one of the ones actually paying for the EPG, rather than those who just gain the benefit, and I have no problem with people putting up Christmas lights, especially for charity. 

donkeyk22 said:

I guess I was trying to address the moral question posed by the OP - we as a society have become profligate with our electricity consumption. During a time when people are struggling to make ends meet and/or heat their homes, is it morally acceptable to use electricity on such trivial things? Yes, there is a certain 'thin end of the wedge' element to that argument, but I would hope this energy crisis would encourage people to think differently about their energy consumption and ask themselves whether all of it is justifiable - whether they can afford it or not.

There has always been differences between people's income, wealth, life circumstances etc. Should I not be allowed to buy a beer in a pub where it costs £6 a pint because someone else can only afford to drink at home? Should I not be allowed to wear Levi's jeans because someone else can only afford Primark? Should I not be allowed to treat my family at Christmas because other people cannot afford to? You can take a harsh utilitarian view that most of us actually need very little and certainly no luxuries, or you can take a libertarian view that so long as it does not cause wider harm then individuals should be free to spend their income as they choose. I am not one to be wasteful, I find ostentatious displays of wealth tacky at best, large displays of Christmas lights at domestic premises are not my thing, but I do not think that those that do enjoy them should be denied the right*, either legally or socially, to enjoy them. A tumble dryer is far more wasteful, or people who run the heating with the windows open, those who heat their house above 18c, those with multiple fridges or freezers, etc. There are too many non-essentials that we could choose to moralise over, things which in general use a lot more power. 

*Apart from people who put flashing blue lights near roads, which can seem as if they are emergency vehicles, causing confusion for pedestrians and road users. 

donkeyk22 said:

I'm certainly not going to accost my neighbors if they elect to put Xmas lights up, and ultimately it is for each individual to decide - but I feel uneasy that people still seem to be taking our energy security for granted. 

People are continuing to take our energy security for granted regardless of whether or not they use Christmas lights. The major issue being that the majority of the public has little or not appetite for the kind of investment that would be required to secure our energy supply, so we will largely be reliant on international markets and the good will of friendly nations (such as Norway for gas and France for electricity).

donkeyk22

[Deleted User] said:

Load shedding is rotated by area - remember all those letter codes and tables that were being discussed here a few weeks ago?

What level of use is "morally unacceptable" when it is not your area's turn on the schedule?  50W of Christmas lights is apparently unacceptable, so what about the 200W of television or the 3000W of kettle?  After all, you could listen to the 20W radio instead, or play a 0W board game, so using that television is clearly four times as immoral.

We're now saying, in the unlikely event of load shedding, that when it is your turn to have power, you have a moral duty not to use it because some other people do not?

Well both the television and the kettle have a tangible benefit to their electricity use (the television arguably less so than the kettle.) My point is (IMO - and that's all it is) both have a considerably larger tangible benefit than Xmas lights do, which from reading previous replies is mostly that they provide joy, comfort and well-being to the inhabitants and passers-by. And to go back to the moral question - does that benefit to you outweigh the knowledge on your conscience that others are going without cooking or heating due to energy prices? Again, that's for each person to decide.

I get the impression it is the symbolism of having lights on "unnecessarily" during these times that is more the issue for the OP, rather than whether it would make any difference to global wholesale energy prices and people's struggle to pay their energy costs (I am not naive enough to think it would.) I guess it depends on what Xmas means to you. I think (and could be very wrong on this) for a lot of people that it is not just a time to give and receive presents and spend with family, but also a time for reflection and being grateful for what you have  - A lot of people at this time of year give to charity, for example. I would guess it is this thinking that has prompted the OP to re-assess their priorities when it comes to Xmas lighting.

Ultimately if load shedding is required then to a certain extent we collectively have failed to to reduce demand to meet what can be generated at that time. Yes, Xmas lights are only 50 Watts - but if 10,000 homes have a set of 50W lights on at the same time, that's 0.5MW of demand that has to be satisfied. According to Ofgem https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2006/04/13537-elecgenfactsfs.pdf that's enough to satisfy the average demand of 1,000 homes (appreciate that at peak time when shedding is likely to occur, the actual number of households would be less.)

So to answer your final question - yes, I would keep energy usage to a minimum during a period when load shedding may be required: in the hope it would reduce the likelihood of it happening at all and if it did, that it would be reciprocated by others not cut-off and therefore reduce the number of homes/businesses that are affected.

And I reply with a question to yourself: hypothetically speaking, is it morally acceptable for 10,000 homes to continue using their Xmas lights whilst 1,000 homes have to go without power, with all the problems that would entail to the most vulnerable in our society?

(Note: I appreciate that is not how load shedding works - the arguments I make are strictly moral, not practical. The numbers given are illustrative, given this is a discussion about a moral dilemma.)

donkeyk22

MattMattMattUK said:

donkeyk22 said:

I guess I was trying to address the moral question posed by the OP - we as a society have become profligate with our electricity consumption. During a time when people are struggling to make ends meet and/or heat their homes, is it morally acceptable to use electricity on such trivial things? Yes, there is a certain 'thin end of the wedge' element to that argument, but I would hope this energy crisis would encourage people to think differently about their energy consumption and ask themselves whether all of it is justifiable - whether they can afford it or not.

There has always been differences between people's income, wealth, life circumstances etc. Should I not be allowed to buy a beer in a pub where it costs £6 a pint because someone else can only afford to drink at home? Should I not be allowed to wear Levi's jeans because someone else can only afford Primark? Should I not be allowed to treat my family at Christmas because other people cannot afford to? You can take a harsh utilitarian view that most of us actually need very little and certainly no luxuries, or you can take a libertarian view that so long as it does not cause wider harm then individuals should be free to spend their income as they choose. I am not one to be wasteful, I find ostentatious displays of wealth tacky at best, large displays of Christmas lights at domestic premises are not my thing, but I do not think that those that do enjoy them should be denied the right*, either legally or socially, to enjoy them. A tumble dryer is far more wasteful, or people who run the heating with the windows open, those who heat their house above 18c, those with multiple fridges or freezers, etc. There are too many non-essentials that we could choose to moralise over, things which in general use a lot more power. 

*Apart from people who put flashing blue lights near roads, which can seem as if they are emergency vehicles, causing confusion for pedestrians and road users.

(Concentrating on this part of your response - I think the Government funding issue is a separate discussion to the moral dilemma posed by the OP.)

I acknowledged there is a 'thin end of the wedge' argument to be made - which you are correct to point out: where does it end? It's a fair question to ask, and ultimately a person's opinion is going to vary based on socio-political outlook, role of the state, etc.

Like you, I think the harm principal is a reasonable way to assess 'reasonableness' of the energy use. So I could make the case that current energy demand creates harm on the basis that it pushes up wholesale energy prices and places a high burden on those least able to afford the costs. Whether that is the 'fault' of individuals 'wasting' energy or failures of Government(s) to increase energy security can be debated (I'd suggest it's a mixture of the two, but mostly the laissez-faire attitude to energy security/inter-dependency taken by successive governments over the past 20 years or so.)

Certainly there are other sources of energy wastage that are far more concerning. Again, I stress I have put up Xmas lights outside previously - it was no less a 'waste' of energy then than it is now: so there is a certain element of hypocrisy to my position. All I would hope is that we collectively learn from this energy crisis and put measures in place to reduce the likelihood of it happening again - which may involve a realignment of what we as a society consider acceptable uses of electricity. Idealistic, I know - but moral arguments invariably are.

MattMattMattUK

donkeyk22 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

donkeyk22 said:

I guess I was trying to address the moral question posed by the OP - we as a society have become profligate with our electricity consumption. During a time when people are struggling to make ends meet and/or heat their homes, is it morally acceptable to use electricity on such trivial things? Yes, there is a certain 'thin end of the wedge' element to that argument, but I would hope this energy crisis would encourage people to think differently about their energy consumption and ask themselves whether all of it is justifiable - whether they can afford it or not.

There has always been differences between people's income, wealth, life circumstances etc. Should I not be allowed to buy a beer in a pub where it costs £6 a pint because someone else can only afford to drink at home? Should I not be allowed to wear Levi's jeans because someone else can only afford Primark? Should I not be allowed to treat my family at Christmas because other people cannot afford to? You can take a harsh utilitarian view that most of us actually need very little and certainly no luxuries, or you can take a libertarian view that so long as it does not cause wider harm then individuals should be free to spend their income as they choose. I am not one to be wasteful, I find ostentatious displays of wealth tacky at best, large displays of Christmas lights at domestic premises are not my thing, but I do not think that those that do enjoy them should be denied the right*, either legally or socially, to enjoy them. A tumble dryer is far more wasteful, or people who run the heating with the windows open, those who heat their house above 18c, those with multiple fridges or freezers, etc. There are too many non-essentials that we could choose to moralise over, things which in general use a lot more power. 

*Apart from people who put flashing blue lights near roads, which can seem as if they are emergency vehicles, causing confusion for pedestrians and road users.

(Concentrating on this part of your response - I think the Government funding issue is a separate discussion to the moral dilemma posed by the OP.)

It is, although no less part of what becomes the wider question when some people have to pay for a think others use.

donkeyk22 said:

I acknowledged there is a 'thin end of the wedge' argument to be made - which you are correct to point out: where does it end? It's a fair question to ask, and ultimately a person's opinion is going to vary based on socio-political outlook, role of the state, etc.

I agree and the problem is that the thin end will likely get thick very quickly if we start to bring puritanical beliefs into the equation, as long as it is legal and does real harm to others then I am generally of the view that things should be allowed. I would be tacky and tasteless beyond belief, but if someone with the money to afford it wanted to walk around in a suit of armour made from gold I think that they should be allowed. So long as their money is legally earned, so long as they have paid tax on it at the correct rates and so long as they are not expecting the state to support them then I do not want to even start the thin edge, even if I do disagree with their personal choices. 

donkeyk22 said:

Like you, I think the harm principal is a reasonable way to assess 'reasonableness' of the energy use. So I could make the case that current energy demand creates harm on the basis that it pushes up wholesale energy prices and places a high burden on those least able to afford the costs. Whether that is the 'fault' of individuals 'wasting' energy or failures of Government(s) to increase energy security can be debated (I'd suggest it's a mixture of the two, but mostly the laissez-faire attitude to energy security/inter-dependency taken by successive governments over the past 20 years or so.)

It is a fairly sound principal and one I think we should all aim to stick to in most elements of life, if one spends one's live doing no harm then that is a good start. There is going to be an the impact of price being pushed up by non-essential usage, but the reality is that even if the UK stopped using all gas immediately it would have minimal impact on the global price, so even substantial drops in demand in the UK are probably not going to make a noticeable difference, let alone a few people not putting up Christmas lights. I would split it two ways, it is an individual's fault for being wasteful, it is successive government's faults that the UK energy policy has been an abject failure as far as energy security is concerned for at least forty years and it is the current government's fault that they have proposed nothing that will improve that situation. 

donkeyk22 said:

Certainly there are other sources of energy wastage that are far more concerning. Again, I stress I have put up Xmas lights outside previously - it was no less a 'waste' of energy then than it is now: so there is a certain element of hypocrisy to my position. All I would hope is that we collectively learn from this energy crisis and put measures in place to reduce the likelihood of it happening again - which may involve a realignment of what we as a society consider acceptable uses of electricity. Idealistic, I know - but moral arguments invariably are.

Again I think the moral argument is difficult, if we were to have one then hot tubs should not be allowed, energy usage should be higher to cover the carbon cost, petrol, diesel and international travel should be substantially more expensive, almost all single use glass should be banned (recycling glass is hugely energy intensive and results in a lot of waste, as well as increased wastage due to the increased cost of transport) so all wine should come in mylar bags, all pets should be banned etc. 

I know moral arguments are complicated, far more than we could ever cover on here, I have real issues with the government's complete lack of a policy on energy security, but even if we were at potential risk of supply issues I cannot see how Christmas lights should be the thing that has to be stopped when we allow other things which are vastly more wasteful. 

MoonbowDerby

If you're also adding to it this year as you say you always do and haven't already, could your new additions be non-electric? I've some displays near me that are mainly non-electric decorations, some with solar spotlights, and they can be just as lovely as a lot of twinkly lights. 

I agree with the concerns others mentioned that if we get to the point of energy restrictions because of too much load on the grid with the resources we have then I can see the moral concern and it just being sensible to not run at those times, but other than that, well, I don't do Christmas, but it's always nice when walking or riding the bus to see people clearly enjoying the season and festivities and have made a cheery display for everyone even if I wouldn't whether it's Christmas light displays at this time of year or flowery displays in the spring. 

Brie

I'm going to make sure our tiddly display is out at there at some point.  It is all run on a couple of batteries and just makes things a little friendlier looking.  I'm hoping some of the more extravagant displays are up again this year as I really enjoy them.

dander

[Deleted User] said:

Load shedding is rotated by area - remember all those letter codes and tables that were being discussed here a few weeks ago?

What level of use is "morally unacceptable" when it is not your area's turn on the schedule?  50W of Christmas lights is apparently unacceptable, so what about the 200W of television or the 3000W of kettle?  After all, you could listen to the 20W radio instead, or play a 0W board game, so using that television is clearly four times as immoral.

We're now saying, in the unlikely event of load shedding, that when it is your turn to have power, you have a moral duty not to use it because some other people do not?

Absolutely agree with you here. Even if electricity supplies got so dire that each household was rationed to a certain KWH per day, you can't say someone who chose to spend some of their allowance on lights is morally inferior to someone who chose to spend their allowance entirely on boiling the kettle. 
This simply isn't a moral issue. 

[Deleted User]

donkeyk22 said:

And I reply with a question to yourself: hypothetically speaking, is it morally acceptable for 10,000 homes to continue using their Xmas lights whilst 1,000 homes have to go without power, with all the problems that would entail to the most vulnerable in our society?

Yes.  It is completely acceptable.

My central heating is set at 16.5C maximum, ever.  I would, therefore, use a lot less energy for heating than most other households.  If everyone set their heating to the same as mine, we would need a lot less energy and there would be much less chance of problems of insufficient supply.  If I heated my house to 22C like many other seem to do, I'd be sat in my pants with a fan running.

Should I now suggest that it is morally unacceptable for people to use energy in this "wasteful" manner?  Put a cap on central heating temperatures?  

Babsiebaby882

JaneHenery said:

Yes, you should absolutely do it, but take your costs out of the donations and then donate the surplus. You are perfectly entitled to do this as you are still donating money; it's only fair you are recompensed for the cost of electricity. People need things like this, especially just now. Don't do yourself and them out of some much needed fun and wonder. If you end up donating less than normal just explain why. They're not going to judge you for contributing less, and if they do, change the charity you donate to to one which is more grateful. 

Absolutely this. 

Even if you want to split it 50/50 then that would be more than acceptable; it’s for you to balance the costs versus the joy that both you and those who come to see your lights get. There is a house in our town who does this and the kids love it, he has raised ££££’s for charity over the years. People travel to see them and his are already switched on. It’s a joy to drive past so if you’re happy with the costs then go for it. 

Merry Christmas and thank you for spreading a little happiness in a dark and gloomy world xxx

jenniewb

MSE_Kelvin said:

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

For many years I've been putting up a display of Christmas lights in my garden, and I invite people in to see it in return for a voluntary donation, which I give to charity. I add to the display each year, so it's quite large and well known now, but I don't know whether to do it this year, as I'm worried about the cost [see MSE's Christmas lights cost analysis] and whether it's appropriate when some people can't afford to heat their homes. But if I don't, the families who come to see it and the charity will miss out.

Unfortunately the MSE team can't answer Money Moral Dilemma questions as contributions are emailed in or suggested in person. They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value. Remember that behind each dilemma there is a real person so, as the forum rules say, please keep it kind and keep it clean.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

Got a Money Moral Dilemma of your own? Suggest an MMD.

As someone who this year is unable to afford the electricity full stop I wont be having any lights because I both need a new set and will need to use electricity to have them run. I'm basically running scared and cutting every cost I can. 

But I'd feel so sad if I felt others were going against what they could and wanted to afford just because of people like me. One of the best few cheap/free joys there is during this time of the year is sitting on a bus home and travelling past houses who've lit up their homes or even better; gardens for everyone to see! Seeing the lights really cheers me up and I always look forward to it every year. I'd feel really sad if that all stopped for some sort of maître system. Put your lights on if you can (and want to) because it does an awful lot in terms of moral boosting for many of us who just cannot see the lights otherwise. February is a bleak month, please don't expand it to start in early December!