Okay this is a genuine question but why are the G7 not backing down when clearly their populations are the ones suffering? It feels strange to me living in the UK that the sanctions have been spearheaded by the US when they are mostly shielded from Russia. Whereas for European countries, it is obvious that they are dependent on Russian gas and yet they are not willing to negotiate. The average citizen cares about the…
> The average citizen cares about their energy bill and putting food on the table more than some idealistic notion of standing up to bullies.
Britain has for a long time neglected energy efficiency improvements and investment in renewable energy. The houses are the worst insulated in Europe [1].
UK has extremely good wind resources, very mild winters, bearable summers, a lot of capital available, a generally organized society. As a starting point, from energy point of view, it is extremely advantageous compared to say Finland or Germany.
Now vote someone who will act on it. Insulate the houses, build the windmills and nuclear plants. Stop complaining.
> Come on France, 'do yer thang' (riots), we'll follow suit. Somewhat unlikely for now. The government is shielding the population from the worst, as they should, by capping electricity prices and with grants/loans to those worst impacted. The average Brit is being hit much worse than the average French.
You are not shielding the country. By printing money to pay for high energy cost, you maintain demand high when there is scarcity (instead of letting the demand adjust, people using heating as little as they can, companies finding substitute for gas, etc), that's a recipe for making the problem worse.
The free market excuses work for luxury goods but they don't work for necessities. Prices have already reached the point where a large percentage of the population will not be able to afford any form of heating whatsoever over the winter. As a country we already know that a non-insignificant number of people develop serious illness or die because of a lack of heating.
Making the choice to take no action further compounds the issue as you deepen the coming recession and create more people who cannot pay to heat their homes or keep the economy going.
The answer to a crisis like this is price caps, investment in alternatives, taxes on profits, and if necessary targeted restrictions on energy use.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with covering a situation like this with debt in order to keep people and the economy alive.
Also in the UK. Personally I'm sick of seeing our government cosy up to authoritarian regimes because they have something we happen to want. In the UK we're particularly unlucky in that the people currently in charge don't really care if the poor in our society freeze or starve as they've stated so astutely in the recent leadership contest. The rest of the G7 at least seem prepared to shield their population as much…
>alternatives that don't require us to prop up quasi-dictatorships in order to keep the lights on But how? The entire economy of the city of London is based on being the word's money laundering capital, vacation playground and best buddy for Russian Oligarchs, Saudi Royals, CCP big shots and other wealthy dictators and warlords. It's Thacher's legacy.
Why Thatcher and not Blair? His reforms have a more direct influence on the situation we find ourselves in. After all, it was Mandelson who said "We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich."
Here is part of a WSJ editorial backing up my statement. https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-bankrupts-britain-hous... Net-Zero Emissions Policy Bankrupts Britain And it could do the same to the U.S., which is following a similar path. Updated Aug. 26, 2022 7:01 pm ET Americans who fancy themselves net-zero climate advocates might want to take a look at Britain for a guide to the future. Household energy bills were…
This article basically says that £153 out of £3539 is green levies, and the cause of the price increase was Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
No, the green levies are on top of the effects of the other policies that discourage hydrocarbon production, described in the article.
Here is part of a WSJ editorial backing up my statement. https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-bankrupts-britain-hous... Net-Zero Emissions Policy Bankrupts Britain And it could do the same to the U.S., which is following a similar path. Updated Aug. 26, 2022 7:01 pm ET Americans who fancy themselves net-zero climate advocates might want to take a look at Britain for a guide to the future. Household energy bills were…
Frankly speaking, this is a load of shit. It's an embarrassingly transparent attempt at pushing an anti-renewable agenda onto a situation that has absolutely nothing to do with renewables.
You are not shielding the country. By printing money to pay for high energy cost, you maintain demand high when there is scarcity (instead of letting the demand adjust, people using heating as little as they can, companies finding substitute for gas, etc), that's a recipe for making the problem worse.
The free market excuses work for luxury goods but they don't work for necessities. Prices have already reached the point where a large percentage of the population will not be able to afford any form of heating whatsoever over the winter. As a country we already know that a non-insignificant number of people develop serious illness or die because of a lack of heating. Making the choice to take no action further compo…
They will afford heating, only they will heat just the room they need at the temperature they need rather than heating to comfort. And keep in mind, if demand goes down, prices go down.
Here is part of a WSJ editorial backing up my statement. https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-bankrupts-britain-hous... Net-Zero Emissions Policy Bankrupts Britain And it could do the same to the U.S., which is following a similar path. Updated Aug. 26, 2022 7:01 pm ET Americans who fancy themselves net-zero climate advocates might want to take a look at Britain for a guide to the future. Household energy bills were…
This source says the exact opposite. Investment in energy efficiency and renewables have been cut for years. If the insulation and wind power for example was installed, now it would be extremely useful.
I am extremely comfortable with people having to suffer the obvious consequences of their choicse, it only bothers me hearing them moan about it.
> I am extremely comfortable with people having to suffer the obvious consequences of their choicse [sic] Of course, because you probably don't have to live with any serious consequences of your choices, and you're most likely unaffected by these ones either. Almost half if not more than half of the population in a democracy usually doesn't get to make a realistic choice, they voted for the losers without enough powe…
> Then realistically you probably didn't get to "suffer" the real consequences from most of your democratic process related choices.
An example of this that I have heard many times is that of Blair and Iraq.
However now the situation is more interesting as Brexit was done to themselves, not others (though that does not make any suffering ok).
Agree, the people pushing the line that it makes little or no difference are the ones who swallow the line that it's cheaper to generate electricity from wind than fossil. Subsidies distort the economics and the press selectively represents the case because of the "net zero" religion, as it's become. The technology doesn't exist yet, but lemmmings want to lead us off a cliff in order to "be on the right side of history."
Don't get me wrong, I wish it were that case that we could abandon all our environmentally destructive ways, but imo, there has been a distinct lack of second order thinking when it comes to energy policy, certainly in the UK, and don't get me started on Germany. France, at least, have had successive governments who appear to care more about their citizens' wellbeing than shareholders and asset strippers.