Abolish standing charges

MattMattMattUK

sevenhills said:

MattMattMattUK said:

That would be onerous and bureaucratic to administer, just apply the carbon tax direct to the product or service if you want a carbon tax.

As I see it, we need to tax carbon, because higher prices dissuade its use. As can be seen from taxing smoking.

We need to significantly cut carbon year on year until we reach net zero, that is going to mean many changes for nearly everyone.

sevenhills said:

MattMattMattUK said:

That would be onerous and bureaucratic to administer, just apply the carbon tax direct to the product or service if you want a carbon tax.

So how do we make sure the poor are not disadvantaged?

That is not really important, "the poor" as you put it will have to consume lower carbon goods and services the same as the rest of us, we will all need to eat less meat, drive EVs, fly less and offset as well. The true cost of all items, which includes carbon, will have to be paid and that will sculpt consumption, if the only way to fly is with carbon offsetting and true biofuels and that doubles the cost then so be it, usage will be reduced. 

sevenhills said:

As can be seen from council tax, taxing houses is more straightforward than taxing people. We would then need to bring in allowances for how many people per house, but not overcomplicate it.

Or, just add the carbon cost to the product, no need to mess around with allowances, per person or per household, the more complicated a system is made the more loopholes exist and the easier it is to game. The carbon cost is then represented in the price, plain and simple for all to see.

sevenhills

MattMattMattUK said:

We need to significantly cut carbon year on year until we reach net zero, that is going to mean many changes for nearly everyone.

But you wouldn't suggest that we bring in taxes straight away to achieve that?

We had the poll tax riots, which suggested that abrupt change is not welcome.

So we need a tax that doesn't upset the masses? People complain about 'green' taxes, but around 50% of taxes are income-based. Taxing work, who ever thought that was a good idea?

MultiFuelBurner

Is there the appetite to riot over saving the planet? 

ArbitraryRandom

MultiFuelBurner said:

Is there the appetite to riot over saving the planet? 

The issue is (IMO) raising the needed funds by tucking it into the standing charge obscures the intended purpose AND harms some of the most vulnerable by causing them to do without an essential service (or when support is offered to those specific groups, fuelling resentment amid those who are feeling the pinch but don't get the same support*). 

We see repeatedly on here the number of people who think energy suppliers decide what to charge and keep the money for themselves... and yes, I think there is growing appetite to riot over 'greedy energy suppliers'. 

So I say again the cost of the shift to a carbon neutral grid/UK should be funded via taxation, not the standing charge - politicians should front up and say this is what we want to do, this how we intend to do it, this is what it will cost, so we're raising the rate of income tax by x amount to fund it. 

But of course they won't - because it suits them to have the frustration aimed at the energy suppliers while the wring their hands and say how sympathetic they feel for those struggling with CoL. 


*Which IMO should also be funded via general taxation the same as any other welfare support... the cost of these government policies should not be hidden from the general public. 

Scot_39

Qyburn said:

Scot_39 said:
Last year - according to gridiamkate - c55% of all electricity generated in UK was from non fossil fuels 

What's that going look like after 23 million houses have switched from gas to ASHP, and 30 million cars replaced with electric. I did a rough calculation suggesting the cars would add 18% to UK total consumption. ASHP? I don't know what they use annually but 6,000kWh each adds another 43%

Scot_39 said:
Are you ready to apply the same to domestic gas - and it's 100% carbon emitting energy.

Domestic gas hearing's carbon impact is not much different to mains electricity. A couple of years ago it was higher, now it maybe above or below depending on the generation mix. That's before adding the extra 60% that will mostly be gas fired.

Its really not as simple as saying "use electricity for everything and don't worry about energy saving"

There have been licenses sold for c17GW of renewables generation - in round 3 for 2023 - 2025 delivery - and round 4 for 2025 - 2027 delivery. 

Another 3.7GW was licensed in round 5 - delivery similar in theory - the headlines focused on the failure of offshore wind offering - the 3.7GW almost ignored by some articales - but still c10% of UK typical demand (less of winter peaks, more of summer lows) - if could be relied upon.  

And in part - the grid connections to connect all of those new fields - is fast taking over from other components of the electric standing charge - getting back to the thread topic - like the IMO scandalous SoLR levy.

 

I don't see any such large scale plans to scale up gas.

MattMattMattUK

sevenhills said:

MattMattMattUK said:

We need to significantly cut carbon year on year until we reach net zero, that is going to mean many changes for nearly everyone.

But you wouldn't suggest that we bring in taxes straight away to achieve that?

Yes I would, but at a low level, at a low level on the highest polluting things first, adding them to everything by the end of the decade and significantly ramping them up, with the revenue used to build nuclear power plants, other green tech, food production etc. and likely with much left over, as the rates needed to discourage certain behaviours as well as offset emissions would be quite high.

sevenhills said:

We had the poll tax riots, which suggested that abrupt change is not welcome.

We had the poll tax riots, which suggest that there was a small but vocal minority of idiots. It was a much more rational, sensible and fair (not that I am, really a fan of "fair" as it can be subjective) system, that rates that went before it or council tax that came after it.

sevenhills said:

So we need a tax that doesn't upset the masses? 

We need a tax that there is a majority will to impose, I suspect that a carbon tax would be acceptable to the majority, especially if tied with education and a readjustment of some existing taxes.

sevenhills said:
People complain about 'green' taxes, but around 50% of taxes are income-based. Taxing work, who ever thought that was a good idea?

Some people complain about green taxes, but the vast majority do not. Around 60% of people support green taxes on products, service, road pricing etc. with another 20% being neutral and only 20% against, there is more than enough support to impose carbon taxes and ramp them up over time. Taxing income is perfectly reasonable, as is taxing consumption, ideally a balanced mix of both, as well as other taxes designed to sculpt behaviour. 

MattMattMattUK

MultiFuelBurner said:

Is there the appetite to riot over saving the planet? 

I agree that there is unlikely to be riots over green policy, anyone with more than a few brain cells to rub together recognises the importance. Even those who drag the likes of Extinction Rebellion out of the roads generally are not against environmental policies, they do just not agree that blocking traffic is a useful action, which it almost certainly is not, and is likely detrimental.

MultiFuelBurner

ArbitraryRandom said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

Is there the appetite to riot over saving the planet? 

The issue is (IMO) raising the needed funds by tucking it into the standing charge obscures the intended purpose AND harms some of the most vulnerable by causing them to do without an essential service (or when support is offered to those specific groups, fuelling resentment amid those who are feeling the pinch but don't get the same support*). 

We see repeatedly on here the number of people who think energy suppliers decide what to charge and keep the money for themselves... and yes, I think there is growing appetite to riot over 'greedy energy suppliers'. 

So I say again the cost of the shift to a carbon neutral grid/UK should be funded via taxation, not the standing charge - politicians should front up and say this is what we want to do, this how we intend to do it, this is what it will cost, so we're raising the rate of income tax by x amount to fund it. 

But of course they won't - because it suits them to have the frustration aimed at the energy suppliers while the wring their hands and say how sympathetic they feel for those struggling with CoL. 


*Which IMO should also be funded via general taxation the same as any other welfare support... the cost of these government policies should not be hidden from the general public. 

I believe the most vulnerable are in the main well cared for with payments to help with fuel bills. Some exceptions will always apply but the handouts during COVID and after have been far and above anything that came before. I can see why they make everyone pay for it through the SC so that they can recoup some of the excess amount of money sent out. I don't mind that as it's obvious and not disguised. Here's money to pay for your energy and from that when you pay your energy bill (don't forget £6billion owing in debt currently) some of it will make energy greener, pay of some customers debt and mean we don't destroy the planet quicker.

Only the misinformed aim their frustration at energy suppliers, those easily persuaded by social media.

The phrase CoL or Cost of Living has been banded about so much in the media now it's actually become a depressing tool for those on a budget. They have a name for everything that is that little bit too much trouble or effort and why they can't afford the next thing. Oh it's Col. (Exceptions apply) I heard neighbours saying it the other day 5 bedroom house, very small mortgage left, they have 2 good over average salary jobs, 2 newish cars all but paid for. The phrase has got out of hand and an easy blame imo for having to save up for things or delay the next holiday.

housebuyer143

MultiFuelBurner said:

ArbitraryRandom said:

MultiFuelBurner said:

Is there the appetite to riot over saving the planet? 

The issue is (IMO) raising the needed funds by tucking it into the standing charge obscures the intended purpose AND harms some of the most vulnerable by causing them to do without an essential service (or when support is offered to those specific groups, fuelling resentment amid those who are feeling the pinch but don't get the same support*). 

We see repeatedly on here the number of people who think energy suppliers decide what to charge and keep the money for themselves... and yes, I think there is growing appetite to riot over 'greedy energy suppliers'. 

So I say again the cost of the shift to a carbon neutral grid/UK should be funded via taxation, not the standing charge - politicians should front up and say this is what we want to do, this how we intend to do it, this is what it will cost, so we're raising the rate of income tax by x amount to fund it. 

But of course they won't - because it suits them to have the frustration aimed at the energy suppliers while the wring their hands and say how sympathetic they feel for those struggling with CoL. 


*Which IMO should also be funded via general taxation the same as any other welfare support... the cost of these government policies should not be hidden from the general public. 

I believe the most vulnerable are in the main well cared for with payments to help with fuel bills. Some exceptions will always apply but the handouts during COVID and after have been far and above anything that came before. I can see why they make everyone pay for it through the SC so that they can recoup some of the excess amount of money sent out. I don't mind that as it's obvious and not disguised. Here's money to pay for your energy and from that when you pay your energy bill (don't forget £6billion owing in debt currently) some of it will make energy greener, pay of some customers debt and mean we don't destroy the planet quicker.

Only the misinformed aim their frustration at energy suppliers, those easily persuaded by social media.

The phrase CoL or Cost of Living has been banded about so much in the media now it's actually become a depressing tool for those on a budget. They have a name for everything that is that little bit too much trouble or effort and why they can't afford the next thing. Oh it's Col. (Exceptions apply) I heard neighbours saying it the other day 5 bedroom house, very small mortgage left, they have 2 good over average salary jobs, 2 newish cars all but paid for. The phrase has got out of hand and an easy blame imo for having to save up for things or delay the next holiday.

Ha ha completely off the topic but this gets me, COL.. people complaining about the cost of gas and how they can't afford to heat their home while driving around in two £50k electric cars bought on finance, going off on holiday to Australia, eating out all the time. 
I think people are completely detached from reality sometimes. 

MikeJXE

It's hard to believe the is a cost of living crises from what I see every day

 I am a pensioner and live on the state pension and a few savings in a rented flat and I'm not feeling the pinch 

I live in a small market town centre of England

The pubs are rammed so are the cafes and restaurants 

Last Friday i had never seen Tesco Extra car park so full, shoppers coming out with 2 trollies each 

Lots of Tesla cars about so someone has some money