21–30 of 82 posts
I still don’t get why countries such as the Netherlands and Germany started to subsidise fossil fuels by reducing the taxes on them. They claimed this was to help poor people. However, rich people benefit more since they typically have a car and a bigger one.
Things are looking pretty brutal in southern Sweden for the coming winter. I have some acquaintances who are on thermal and who usually get pretty steep bills in December and January and they ain't just looking at a 7% increase that's for sure...
What's "on thermal?" Geothermal? Why would that go up (significantly)? Seems like geothermal would be pretty resistant? IE, the cost to run things like pumps should still be a fraction of the cost to heat using gas.
Things are looking pretty brutal in southern Sweden for the coming winter. I have some acquaintances who are on thermal and who usually get pretty steep bills in December and January and they ain't just looking at a 7% increase that's for sure...
If prices rise 5x as is expected, we're looking at ~8000€ for a single month. (1€/KwH x 5)
I still don’t get why countries such as the Netherlands and Germany started to subsidise fossil fuels by reducing the taxes on them. They claimed this was to help poor people. However, rich people benefit more since they typically have a car and a bigger one.
Every good a poor person buys is shipped by fuel though? Edit: And the rich are more likely to be able to afford electric vehicles and appliances _and_ they of course are more likely to be able to take a hit to their finances and an upsurge in costs. The difference between going to the movies less and having to weigh getting all the food you need or all the toiletries you need is obviously quite large.
The question is whether there exist alternative solutions that help the poor a lot more by not wasting so much helping the rich (or especially in this case - those buying and selling fossil fuels, industries we'd prefer to be slowing down rather than encouraging with tax breaks).
Eg if the same money "spent" on this tax break had instead been a invested in raising the minimum income tax ceiling, benefits, and pensions (by equivalent amounts), it would presumably have gotten more money into the pockets of those most hurt by fuel inflation, which was the claimed goal of the change, but done less to benefit the fossil fuel industry and those who don't really need tax breaks.
Or to go more extreme you could add an untaxed fuel ration (there is a shortage after all), paid for by higher taxes on extreme usage, thus reducing overuse and increasing affordability at the same time. But that's practically communism, so can't possibly be done (to be fair, it'd be very expensive to implement, so not sure it's a serious suggestion).
It's easy to pivot to "the aftermath of war", but plenty, PLENTY of people and organizations pointed out that reliance on imported energy, especially from Russia, was not a great idea.
I was in no position to make any decisions related to energy politics (except voting), and energy politics isn't my strong suit either, but I always thought that the "mutual dependency" sounded like a good argument against a war; much better than MAD or other militaristic options. But, unlike policy makers, I didn't grasp the extend of the dependency on gas in our country. Though not preparing a backup plan after the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's "on thermal?" Geothermal? Why would that go up (significantly)? Seems like geothermal would be pretty resistant? IE, the cost to run things like pumps should still be a fraction of the cost to heat using gas.
From what I've understood once you go below a certain temperature you can no longer pump and start heating using electricity instead. Which gets expensive as fuck. I have several friends in this situation. Sounds like something you'd think about in a country that gets cold every winter but I don't know. One explanation I've heard is that they didn't use to drill as deep as they do nowadays (I think most of my friends…
Update: He drilled 160 meters into mountain.
It's easy to pivot to "the aftermath of war", but plenty, PLENTY of people and organizations pointed out that reliance on imported energy, especially from Russia, was not a great idea.
We've learned that war can disrupt the flow of energy. For renewable energies in the U.S., would the U.S. be considered reliant on places like China for the batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, etc?
Moreover, turbine part transportation is such a logistical challenge that manufacturers are always trying to set up assembly facilities near their customers. All four of those companies are shopping for factory space in the American Midwest for that reason.
Batteries and solar panels are impossible to really monopolize. Yes, Lithium comes from a constrained list of places, but for grid-linked power storage you don't need lithium. Space and weight are not as big a concern for stationary installed facilities, so you have lots of other options.
I still don’t get why countries such as the Netherlands and Germany started to subsidise fossil fuels by reducing the taxes on them. They claimed this was to help poor people. However, rich people benefit more since they typically have a car and a bigger one.
I'm all for using fuel taxes to subsidize clean energy and electrical cars though
I still don’t get why countries such as the Netherlands and Germany started to subsidise fossil fuels by reducing the taxes on them. They claimed this was to help poor people. However, rich people benefit more since they typically have a car and a bigger one.
A ton of other reasons where added transport costs add to increased life expenditures. It's not about the private car