Two (contraversial) ways to reduce fuel bills

[????]

1) Remove green tarrifs

2) Stop moaning about fracking

PS - good luck to the Green Party in their stated aim of 'braodening their appeal' and getting working class support whilst having policies that'll push fuel bills into the stratosphere

[Jeremy]

The drawing room is a bit too highbrow for me... I'm off back to the lounge...

[Loz]

Interesting point just made on the BBC news.

"In truth politicians of all colours are having to grapple with not one energy crisis but three: rising bills, climate change and the very real threat of blackouts. It's easy to say that you'll cut bills at the same time as putting pressure on them to rise to pay for greener energy and greater investment in new power stations to stop the lights going out.

If you're the politician who can convince voters you can actually do it you're on to a winner."

[right-clicking]

What I fail to comprehend is why there is a "green Levy" attached to our bills? Surely it's the responsibility of the energy companies whose business is energy production to swallow the investment costs even if it initially effects their profits, eventually the fossil fuels will either choke the planet or finally be used up?

Then where will their business stand?

[AbDabs]

right-clicking Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What I fail to comprehend is why there is a "green

> Levy" attached to our bills? Surely it's the

> responsibility of the energy companies whose

> business is energy production to swallow the

> investment costs even if it initially effects

> their profits, eventually the fossil fuels will

> either choke the planet or finally be used up?

>

> Then where will their business stand?

I'm guessing that your tongue is sticking out of your cheek right now so I shouldn't take the bait.

But hey ho.

Energy companies are just another business; their 'job' is to make money by selling something people want. If they could be certain that their efforts to find alternative energy would finally be rewarded then they'd invest but they can't be certain so they don't. We 'choose' to accept an energy levy because we insist upon using so much energy. If you don't want the levy then it's your (and mine, and everybody else's) responsibility to use less of it and think of how we'll live when it's all gone.

I'm sure the last Dodo salesman made a packet from the final bird, then he went off and found something else to sell.

[Loz]

Basic business: How to establish your price.

1) Add up your expected costs

2) Apply a profit margin

3) There is your price

The green responsibilities adds to costs. Therefore price will reflect this.

[????]

Out of intersest anyone know the answer to which of the biggest economies has reduced emmissions the fastest over recent years? (and why? for bonus points)

*hint, Guardian readers aren't going to like either answer.

[Loz]

I suspect it is whichever one has embraced the most nuclear power.

[StraferJack]

USA?

Fracking?

[StraferJack]

China?

Nuclear?

[uncleglen]

The French has banned fracking so everyone who invested in the companies who were going to do it in France are now trying to get them to frack in the UK. It is successful in the US but then the US is so large that it is unlikely that the pollution of the water table would be much of a problem. When there were less people and less industry woodland was managed very well to supply energy needs. I can't believe the totally irresponsible way that oil has been used without any thought for the future- madness.

[????]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> USA?

>

> Fracking?

Correct. 2 points

[????]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The French has banned fracking so everyone who

> invested in the companies who were going to do it

> in France are now trying to get them to frack in

> the UK. It is successful in the US but then the US

> is so large that it is unlikely that the pollution

> of the water table would be much of a problem.

> When there were less people and less industry

> woodland was managed very well to supply energy

> needs. I can't believe the totally irresponsible

> way that oil has been used without any thought for

> the future- madness.

Woodland was managed fantastically in Easter Island

[david_carnell]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> StraferJack Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > USA?

> >

> > Fracking?

>

>

> Correct. 2 points

And you do understand why just because it works in the US of A doesn't mean it would or we would want it to here?

Unless of course you too believe the North East to be a desolate waste land that can be exploited?

[Loz]

Why has that reduced their carbon emissions so much? Surely it's just another fossil fuel being burnt?

[????]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > StraferJack Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > USA?

> > >

> > > Fracking?

> >

> >

> > Correct. 2 points

>

> And you do understand why just because it works in

> the US of A doesn't mean it would or we would want

> it to here?

>

> Unless of course you too believe the North East to

> be a desolate waste land that can be exploited?

Nope. i believe in trying to get some facts rather than towing out tediouse cliches and screaming at anyone i disagree with on it not being what i read about in *that place*.

I presume you and others have made up your mind about it wit no reference to facts or some kind of you know, science (see also Nuclear Power) based on it doesn't fit within your 'Liberal* (stifles laugh) narrative.

What exactly are you going to do to power our 21st economy?....becuase manufacturing 1.5 million cars on windfarms is sure not going to work well.

[El Pibe]

So screw the 22nd century climate for the sake of the 21st centruy economy? Nice. Baby boomer debt will have nothing on the debt we leave future generations then.

Those Amazonian loggers gotta make a living too you know!!!

[????]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why has that reduced their carbon emissions so

> much? Surely it's just another fossil fuel being

> burnt?

Gas, and in the US shale gas, and gas genertaed electricty creates significantly less emmissions than coal powered electricity. So in the US energy costs and emisisons have fallen actually quite dramatically and in deep contrast to the EU.

Personally, I don't want to go back to the stone age, and am favour in doing whatever is both pratical and helps reduce emmission. So i'd like to allow grown ups to actulaly be allowed to do a bit more work on the science (see also GM) without being shouted and screamed up by luddite idiots who make their mind up on these thing on god knows what basis, er maybe the papers they read and website they visit? or what sounds cool uin their circles...cos I don't fooking know.

Hopefully we can create some 'bridging' energy (ie less damaging) until technology and science 9and the market) solve the issue. the tokenism efforts of the EU, the last govt and thus far this one are just petty sops to middle class guilt, so don't complain about your bills going up, you know it's just a meal for two in Frankllins with some wine....sod the poor eh

[????]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So screw the 22nd century climate for the sake of

> the 21st centruy economy? Nice. Baby boomer debt

> will have nothing on the debt we leave future

> generations then.

> Those Amazonian loggers gotta make a living too

> you know!!!

Been on many flights in the last few months? Talking the talk is sooo easy.

So we stop aerospace and car manufacturing, say, oh and tablest/smartphones manufacturer etc...do you know how much energy it takes to extract a ton of copper from rock say?

fair do's if you really believe that's what we should do, i don't, but screaming about it, global warming, whilst living a 21st Century life is such a fooking cop out. and hypocritical beyond belief. Sounds right on tho, so good for your cred.

[El Pibe]

I didn't say it was easy but I do believe that spending money to do something about it while we have the chance is infintely preferable to going

'ooh look at me, I'm pragmatic, noone else is doing anything and it costs money so we shouldn't do anything'

Nice of you to be so condescending to anyone who actually thinks doing something is desirable by dismissing them out of hand as 'left', 'liberal' and/or 'right on' all equally derogatory terms doubtless.

I still can't work you out as you're a clever well informed chap.

I know you like to have a bit of an alterego on here, but this one's too consistent to be artifice.

So, either you're a climate change denier, which makes you an idiot, or you know full well it's true, but you think that spending money on it isn't worth doing which makes you selfish, or you beleive that somehow living hypocritically whilst trying to do what one can to overcome this huge inertia is actually a greater sin than not doing anything about it, which makes you dangerously solipsitic.

For the record no flights for a while, and yes in building a house we've spent about triple the budget for a standard build of an equivalent property on eco right-on elements to the house such as air tightness, insulation and solar thermal, pv and biomass energy.

So yes I've put my money (to the tune of hundreds of thousands) where my mouth is, what are you doing about it apart from campaigning to leave the financial burden in increased energy costs/investment and huge food price rises, as the climate wipes out crops with increasing ferocity, to our grandchildren.

Have you been drinking the denial juice with the Cuadrilla folk again?

[El Pibe]

It's kind of like the smoking gives you cancer thing isn't it.

You've the extreme denialists who say it's a conspiracy by gov't/scientists to hike up taxes and so they can tell you what to do.

There's the 'my grandad had 30 a day and never go it' denialists, who may or may not get cancer but if they don't are statistically exceptional.

There's those that just don't think about the future and consequences at all

And of course there's those who are just too addicted to give it up.

The world mostly falls into the latter camp.

Is the world better or worse off for some people trying to force the use of expensive electronic cigarettes that just about sate an addiction, but can't really fix things, yet don't pollute the system as much (yeah my analogy is stretching thin here), or should we all just puff madly until we're dead telling anyone trying to give up that they're fools?

[????]

And shale gas is a potential electronic cigarette in your analogy. My point, if you read it 4 post up, is all about bridging etc rather than doing nothing. To be frank giving grants to insulate homes and taking the money from green tariffs put on fuel bills is pissing in the wind as well as being regressive.

[El Pibe]

I received no grants.

[uncleglen]

Reducing emissions is a tiny problem compared with the wholesale wastage of finite fuel reserves and other resources.

[????]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I received no grants.

Why do you take it so personally?. I have been banging on about the green tax on our energy bills in the UK inflating fuel prices at the expense of the poor to appease green middle class conscious all over the forum, and yet you seem to think I am having a dig at you, personally. I haven,t a clue what they do in Ireland nor wether you got grants or anything, a bit paranoid if you think this is all somehow personal but to a degree that,s. Problem I,ve always found on this forum and by no means unique to you! The personalisation of these arguments, me I just stick to my own oft repeated societal stereotypes but that seems to be taken personally by many....