A research manager for Age UK once asked why excess deaths due to cold in the UK were not a national scandal. At the time (2013), energy prices were a fraction of what they were but green levies had added considerably to them, most affecting those least able to pay, with the extra revenues funding feed in tariffs for those who could spend many thousands on renewable energy installations.
I'm left wondering how many of the hospital beds taken this winter are in part due to people living in damper, colder properties than should be acceptable in a nation where there is so much comfortable living.
roubaixtuesday wrote: 12 Jan 2025, 8:26am
In which case, why you continually advocate for said reduction is a mystery
The mystery is how you've convinced yourself to believe this.
Biospace wrote: 12 Jan 2025, 12:10pm
At the time (2013), energy prices were a fraction of what they were but green levies had added considerably to them, most affecting those least able to pay, with the extra revenues funding feed in tariffs for those who could spend many thousands on renewable energy installations.
The extra revenues have also funded a lot of free and grant-assisted upgrades for those least able to pay high energy prices, so let's not pretend it was all bad.
That's not as bizarre as the "green" levies being added to electricity including renewables that should be encouraged, instead of gas, oil, petrol and so on which should be discouraged.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Biospace wrote: 12 Jan 2025, 12:10pm
At the time (2013), energy prices were a fraction of what they were but green levies had added considerably to them, most affecting those least able to pay, with the extra revenues funding feed in tariffs for those who could spend many thousands on renewable energy installations.
The extra revenues have also funded a lot of free and grant-assisted upgrades for those least able to pay high energy prices, so let's not pretend it was all bad.
Have you looked to see how many times more is/has been channelled for RHI and FiTs than for social Support (WHD and ECO)?
The government has also used levies to support contentious business like Drax.
Biospace wrote: 12 Jan 2025, 12:10pm
At the time (2013), energy prices were a fraction of what they were but green levies had added considerably to them, most affecting those least able to pay, with the extra revenues funding feed in tariffs for those who could spend many thousands on renewable energy installations.
The extra revenues have also funded a lot of free and grant-assisted upgrades for those least able to pay high energy prices, so let's not pretend it was all bad.
Have you looked to see how many times more is/has been channelled for RHI and FiTs than for social Support (WHD and ECO)?
The government has also used levies to support contentious business like Drax.
No, have you?
Isn't part of that due to low take up of social support because of a combination of scare stories fuelled by fossil industry and the unwillingness of some older people to change unless it's definitely financially beneficial to them, no matter the benefit for later generations?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
mjr wrote: 12 Jan 2025, 5:18pm
That's not as bizarre as the "green" levies being added to electricity including renewables that should be encouraged, instead of gas, oil, petrol and so on which should be discouraged.
100%
There are a number of perverse market conditions at the moment, which we could, and should remove/rework to give everyone cheaper and more intelligent supply, as well as incentivise transitioning away from fossil fuel use as much as possible.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Biospace wrote: 12 Jan 2025, 8:14pm
As above, where is my continual advocacy for free trade reduction?
It might help to study the differences between Free Trade and Unrestricted Trade.
Ah, OK, so you're in favour of trade, but it should be restricted. And free.
And as per your every post on the matter, there should be less than there is now.
Makes perfect sense. Got it.
Those who appreciate the difference between the two definitions might understand better.
Choosing to import from a broader base of nations than a small number does not imply less trading. But making a positive choice to manufacture domestically when overall costs are not so much greater would seem to make sense to me.
Choosing to import from a broader base of nations than a small number does not imply less trading. But making a positive choice to manufacture domestically when overall costs are not so much greater would seem to make sense to me.
As I wrote above, despite your subsequent denial:
Biospace wrote: 12 Jan 2025, 12:36pm
I'm more interested in where my continual advocacy for free trade reduction can be found!
you continually advocate to reduce trade, across multiple threads on diverse topics. Here, you do it yet again.
By all means, justify such a policy, and share how you'd practically go about forcing people to pay more, but please don't deny it again.
Biospace wrote: 12 Jan 2025, 8:17pm
Have you looked to see how many times more is/has been channelled for RHI and FiTs than for social Support (WHD and ECO)?
The government has also used levies to support contentious business like Drax.
No, have you?
Isn't part of that due to low take up of social support because of a combination of scare stories fuelled by fossil industry and the unwillingness of some older people to change unless it's definitely financially beneficial to them, no matter the benefit for later generations?
The reasons for Drax benefitting from Green Levies are complex and contentious. If the poor and needy haven't claimed what they're due because of scare stories then that's a pretty grim state of affairs. I had a quick look earlier and from what I could tell FiT and RHI claimants had benefitted around 1.5x to 2x more than those from ECO and WHD.
The contrast with how poorer sections of society in Germany have taken up solar compared with those in the UK is stark. We're even still debating whether or not new builds should be solar equipped by default.
[XAP]Bob wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 1:00pm
There are a number of perverse market conditions at the moment, which we could, and should remove/rework to give everyone cheaper and more intelligent supply, as well as incentivise transitioning away from fossil fuel use as much as possible.
Is there much pressure to rebalance these conditions, or are too many political party donors benefitting from the high bills?
Biospace wrote: 13 Jan 2025, 6:33pm
So you believe that if we manufactured more in the UK, we would trade less?
Depends *how* you propose to achieve the "manufacture more".
So far, you've written that we should domestically source when it's cheaper to trade. If that's achieved through compulsion, then obviously, yes, we'd trade less. Probably a lot less, as we'd induce the people on the other end to retaliate with their own trade barriers too...
