Bolitics The New Condem Government

[tonyh29]

Jon, on 22 Oct 2013 - 1:02 PM, said:

 

MakemineVanilla, on 22 Oct 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 21 Oct 2013 - 8:18 PM, said:

 

MakemineVanilla, on 21 Oct 2013 - 7:54 PM, said:

 

 

 

Famously, the Germans have invested €80 bn in Green energy generation, which it is said (Bjorn Lomborg) will delay global warming by 37 hours.

 

 

 

Sounds worth it then.

 

 

I'm surprised Ze Germans don't have it more precise than that  .. 37 hours , 26  mins and 12 seconds  or something

[blandy]

 

.. Yes the profits will go to foreign firms but EDF already supply a good chunk of UK electricity and I didn't see anyone wailing about that when Labour structured the market to enable that through the merger of electricity generators and suppliers. Strange that is now an issue when the coalition follows similar policy? As Mr Tony would say, the H word springs to mind...

 

I'll have to respond in little bits, due to time and size.

Firstly, I may or may not be a hypocrit ion wider life, but on this thing, I'm definitely not.

I was opposed to the privatisation of the energy companies to start with. I don't think anything that has followed has benefitted the people of this country.

My philosophy is that essentials - water, heating, lighting, transport infrastucture (roads, rail, airports, post office/royal mail, hospitals, schools and so on) should be owned by the country, not by private funds and profiteers.

If they are run well (East Coast Main line & Post Office in recent times), then they both give a good service, and return money to the exchequer. Win win. But even then the idea that everything should be and only can ever be done "for a profit" as if that's the only reason ever to do anything. It's bonkers. The purpose of stuff is not merely to make a profit for someone, somewhere.

If you look at everything through pound note signs, you get a very distorted and obscured view.

 

So getting back to the point, the energy companies should not have been sold off, Labour should not have compunded the crime and control of another part of our energy generating capability should not be passed to the French Chinese Gov'ts.

[Awol]

Blandy, I in no way intended to call you personally a hypocrite, it was a comment on the broader line being taken in the thread towards the issue.

 

As for the rest, standing by...

 

EDIT: Just on public ownership of utilities, I understand the principle but the idea is undermined by what a spectacular f'up used to be made of it when they were. Taking BT as just one example, could you imagine now in the competitive telco market waiting 6 months to get a land line put in? In the pre-privatisation environment of the 1980's that was exactly what used happen. 

 

I agree that the profit motive is at least partly to blame for the current mess across the critical infrastructure environment but given the issues prevalent under the state owned system, I'm not sure that either delivers a "fit for purpose" solution. 

Edited October 22, 2013 by Awol

[blandy]

Currently our energy security relies on an unbroken chain of LNG tankers carrying gas to our shores from autocratic and increasingly unstable regimes. That should be of greater concern than whether or not a French company increases its market share of the UK domestic energy infrastructure, after all, they can't simply get the arse and walk off with a nuclear power station and possession is 9/10ths of the law..

 

I was going to say that achieving a fixed rate for 10 years hence that was double the current rate was actually pretty canny business.....but then I read that it was actually index linked.  That is indefensible madness. Osborne, who I've never rated, deserves a bloody good shoeing for that, but he may argue that they have us over a barrel.

 

Why? Due to the virtually glacial speed of progress made in recent decades towards updating the national energy infrastructure (shame on both Labour and Tory parties for that), it now requires massive investment and the UK is still far too broke to be able to stump up for it ourselves. One could take the PMS view that high debt levels are either not a concern or actually a badge of social honour, but if it was that simple I suspect his view would be more widely held. So assuming that cost is an issue, we want to increase domestic energy security, but we can't simply borrow 100's billions more to fund it, we are left with two main options:

 

1) Seek foreign investment into the sector, in areas such as nuclear

2) Alter the restrictions under which the energy sector is operating, specifically the targets for reducing carbon emissions..

 

Obviously, it goes without saying that Gideon deserves a shoeing of the highest degree. The index linking of a guaranteed price is a huge burden on future bill payers, and is being done solely for party political reasons. 

 

I agree that we should be aiming for self sufficiency in energy generation, but I differ from you on the rest of it.

It is now an established fact that climate change is caused by our CO2 emissions. It is also the case that in order not to wreck the planet further, invoke flooding, water shortages, crop failures, food shortages and the like, we all have to significantly reduce CO2 emmissions.

The idea of burning more fossil fuels (shale gas) while at the same time poisoning water supplies, causing earth quakes and so on is lunacy, akin to serving an alchoholic a vodka.

 

So then if we're going to need to use non fossil fuel means of energy generation, and if we decide nuclear ios part of that, then there's your point about  "but we can't simply borrow 100's billions more to fund it,"

Yes we can. Indeed yes we should. We should have been spending on infrastructure, green energy, maybe nuclear if that was the way to go, roads, rail, hospitals, hosuing and the like. We'd have created, or be creating, jobs, tax revenue, cutting benefits, and providing the infrastructure to benefit the nation for the next 50 years.

We seem unconcerned about Trident Submarines, bailing out banks and the like.

[blandy]

Blandy, I in no way intended to call you personally a hypocrite, it was a comment on the broader line being taken in the thread towards the issue.

 

As for the rest, standing by...

 

EDIT: Just on public ownership of utilities, I understand the principle but the idea is undermined by what a spectacular f'up used to be made of it when they were. Taking BT as just one example, could you imagine now in the competitive telco market waiting 6 months to get a land line put in? In the pre-privatisation environment of the 1980's that was exactly what used happen. 

 

I agree that the profit motive is at least partly to blame for the current mess across the critical infrastructure environment but given the issues prevalent under the state owned system, I'm not sure that either delivers a "fit for purpose" solution. 

S'alright, no need to expand. I didn't take it as personal, and I probably am from time to time.

 

re BT - yes, I was less bothered about that when it was privatised, as it seemed (then) less of an "essential". Perhaps that's unimaginable now, where broadbean internet is considered essential by all and sundry. But back then was simple, happy times - even if it took ages to get a line put in.

 

GCHQ seems to manage to stay at the front of technological advances in telecoms etc. and that's a Gov't agency, but I take your point on telecoms.

[Awol]

 

Currently our energy security relies on an unbroken chain of LNG tankers carrying gas to our shores from autocratic and increasingly unstable regimes. That should be of greater concern than whether or not a French company increases its market share of the UK domestic energy infrastructure, after all, they can't simply get the arse and walk off with a nuclear power station and possession is 9/10ths of the law..

 

I was going to say that achieving a fixed rate for 10 years hence that was double the current rate was actually pretty canny business.....but then I read that it was actually index linked.  That is indefensible madness. Osborne, who I've never rated, deserves a bloody good shoeing for that, but he may argue that they have us over a barrel.

 

Why? Due to the virtually glacial speed of progress made in recent decades towards updating the national energy infrastructure (shame on both Labour and Tory parties for that), it now requires massive investment and the UK is still far too broke to be able to stump up for it ourselves. One could take the PMS view that high debt levels are either not a concern or actually a badge of social honour, but if it was that simple I suspect his view would be more widely held. So assuming that cost is an issue, we want to increase domestic energy security, but we can't simply borrow 100's billions more to fund it, we are left with two main options:

 

1) Seek foreign investment into the sector, in areas such as nuclear

2) Alter the restrictions under which the energy sector is operating, specifically the targets for reducing carbon emissions..

 

Obviously, it goes without saying that Gideon deserves a shoeing of the highest degree. The index linking of a guaranteed price is a huge burden on future bill payers, and is being done solely for party political reasons. 

 

I agree that we should be aiming for self sufficiency in energy generation, but I differ from you on the rest of it.

It is now an established fact that climate change is caused by our CO2 emissions. It is also the case that in order not to wreck the planet further, invoke flooding, water shortages, crop failures, food shortages and the like, we all have to significantly reduce CO2 emmissions.

The idea of burning more fossil fuels (shale gas) while at the same time poisoning water supplies, causing earth quakes and so on is lunacy, akin to serving an alchoholic a vodka.

 

So then if we're going to need to use non fossil fuel means of energy generation, and if we decide nuclear ios part of that, then there's your point about  "but we can't simply borrow 100's billions more to fund it,"

Yes we can. Indeed yes we should. We should have been spending on infrastructure, green energy, maybe nuclear if that was the way to go, roads, rail, hospitals, hosuing and the like. We'd have created, or be creating, jobs, tax revenue, cutting benefits, and providing the infrastructure to benefit the nation for the next 50 years.

We seem unconcerned about Trident Submarines, bailing out banks and the like.

 

I'm not disputing the science of climate change, merely suggesting that the UK's contribution to it is so marginal that self imposed restrictions over using fossil fuels to generate power are masochistic in the extreme, making our businesses uncompetitive and our domestic energy bills barely affordable?  To what end, when the rest of the world (mostly) is cheerfully switching on new coal power stations almost daily?

 

As for fracking and the opposition to it, my understanding is that the geology of UK differs significantly to that of the US and the dangers you highlight are not likely to afflict the UK. Saying fracking causes "earthquakes" is an effective means of frightening people, being more candid and saying "fracking may result in the odd minor earth tremor that you may, or may not even notice" isn't quite as alarmist but probably closer to the truth.

 

As for poisoning the water table, did that happen in Blackpool? The gas and the operation to extract it is so far below the water table (literally, miles below) there is no evidence to suggest it's anything more than another green scare story.

 

Fair enough if you think the UK can bare the cost of borrowing 100's of billions more now (what should or shouldn't have happened in the past is pretty irrelevant at this point), but I'd disagree with that.   

 

EDIT: And for the record I was in favour of letting the banks get spanked and rebuilding from the ashes. We'd have been well n the way to recovery now if that bad debt had been cleansed from the system.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Awol

[bickster]

As for fracking and the opposition to it, my understanding is that the geology of UK differs significantly to that of the US and the dangers you highlight are not likely to afflict the UK. Saying fracking causes "earthquakes" is an effective means of frightening people, being more candid and saying "fracking may result in the odd minor earth tremor that you may, or may not even notice" isn't quite as alarmist but probably closer to the truth.

Any chance of a link to your understanding of the geology of the UK?

Maybe you could send it to the British Geological Survey too, they don't even seem to be sure as to its distribution right now, they are still exploring. You could save them an awful lot of time and effort

[Awol]

 

As for fracking and the opposition to it, my understanding is that the geology of UK differs significantly to that of the US and the dangers you highlight are not likely to afflict the UK. Saying fracking causes "earthquakes" is an effective means of frightening people, being more candid and saying "fracking may result in the odd minor earth tremor that you may, or may not even notice" isn't quite as alarmist but probably closer to the truth.

Any chance of a link to your understanding of the geology of the UK?

Maybe you could send it to the British Geological Survey too, they don't even seem to be sure as to its distribution right now, they are still exploring. You could save them an awful lot of time and effort

 

They haven't fully mapped the distribution of shale gas yet as your link states, but they have a fairly good grasp of the UK's geology!

 

That said, I know a man, who's got a thing, so if they are interested, we could talk. It'll cost 'em though..

Edited October 22, 2013 by Awol

[blandy]

I'm not disputing the science of climate change, merely suggesting that the UK's contribution to it is so marginal that self imposed restrictions over using fossil fuels to generate power are masochistic in the extreme, making our businesses uncompetitive and our domestic energy bills barely affordable?  To what end, when the rest of the world (mostly) is cheerfully switching on new coal power stations almost daily?

 

 

As for fracking and the opposition to it, my understanding is that the geology of UK differs significantly to that of the US and the dangers you highlight are not likely to afflict the UK. Saying fracking causes "earthquakes" is an effective means of frightening people, being more candid and saying "fracking may result in the odd minor earth tremor that you may, or may not even notice" isn't quite as alarmist but probably closer to the truth.

 

As for poisoning the water table, did that happen in Blackpool? The gas and the operation to extract it is so far below the water table (literally, miles below) there is no evidence to suggest it's anything more than another green scare story.

 

Fair enough if you think the UK can bare the cost of borrowing 100's of billions more now (what should or shouldn't have happened in the past is pretty irrelevant at this point), but I'd disagree with that.   

 

EDIT: And for the record I was in favour of letting the banks get spanked and rebuilding from the ashes. We'd have been well n the way to recovery now if that bad debt had been cleansed from the system.

 

On the fracking, in terms of the small exploratory fracking Cuadrilla did near Lytham, it wasn't a case of "may cause" - it was a case of did cause 2 earth tremors/quakes. No they weren't like californian ones. But the earth did move.

If they are allowed to do full scale fracking, then the expectation, the probability is that there will be more and larger ones. The probability is they will cause damage to property, perhaps injury, maybe death.

As for the toxic chemicals that they inject into the ground, into the rocks at ultra high pressure, they cannot control where they end up. They do not all get recovered.

But aside from the local concern about piolution, damage and the like, my objection to fracking anywhere is that it is better to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, and use other sources of energy generation and energy saving.

Of course the UK "only" accounts for a small percent of the total CO2 emissions. But if a wealthy western country declines to take actin it can afford on emmissions, steps that the world agreed to do, what chance is there of perusading, cajoling, arguing that other nations should also do the same?

Aside from that, there's a lot of potential good in terms of jobs, technology and so on to come from a proper buy in to renewable energy. It's mad for the ideologically driven, climate change denying tories to turn against that opportunity. it ought to be the sort of thing that the more sane of the conservative MPs would be grabbing with both hands - supporting British businesses, entrepreneurship, innovation, hi-tech industry and all that. But no, they all seem set on helping a US corporation despoil the countryside, posion the environment and take the profits back to the US.

[Awol]

 

I'm not disputing the science of climate change, merely suggesting that the UK's contribution to it is so marginal that self imposed restrictions over using fossil fuels to generate power are masochistic in the extreme, making our businesses uncompetitive and our domestic energy bills barely affordable?  To what end, when the rest of the world (mostly) is cheerfully switching on new coal power stations almost daily?

 

 

As for fracking and the opposition to it, my understanding is that the geology of UK differs significantly to that of the US and the dangers you highlight are not likely to afflict the UK. Saying fracking causes "earthquakes" is an effective means of frightening people, being more candid and saying "fracking may result in the odd minor earth tremor that you may, or may not even notice" isn't quite as alarmist but probably closer to the truth.

 

As for poisoning the water table, did that happen in Blackpool? The gas and the operation to extract it is so far below the water table (literally, miles below) there is no evidence to suggest it's anything more than another green scare story.

 

Fair enough if you think the UK can bare the cost of borrowing 100's of billions more now (what should or shouldn't have happened in the past is pretty irrelevant at this point), but I'd disagree with that.   

 

EDIT: And for the record I was in favour of letting the banks get spanked and rebuilding from the ashes. We'd have been well n the way to recovery now if that bad debt had been cleansed from the system.

 

On the fracking, in terms of the small exploratory fracking Cuadrilla did near Lytham, it wasn't a case of "may cause" - it was a case of did cause 2 earth tremors/quakes. No they weren't like californian ones. But the earth did move.If they are allowed to do full scale fracking, then the expectation, the probability is that there will be more and larger ones. The probability is they will cause damage to property, perhaps injury, maybe death.

Link

It’s “highly probable” that fracking, as the process is known, at the Preese Hall-1 site caused the quakes, U.K.-based shale explorer Cuadrilla Resources Ltd. said in a report published today. The geological circumstances were “rare” and the strongest possible tremor, of a magnitude of 3, wouldn’t be a risk to safety or property on the surface, it said.

 

Now I'll grant that is taken from Cuadrilla's own report, but, is there a credible rebutal that a magnitude 3 tremor miles under ground would cause damage or injury at the surface? Where are the scientific projections that increased levels of fracking repeated over a wide area would cause larger and more dangerous earthquakes? I'm asking because I'd be genuinely interested to see it if it's there, but if it's not that would also be good to know because then we could ask where these hypothesis' are coming from?

As for the toxic chemicals that they inject into the ground, into the rocks at ultra high pressure, they cannot control where they end up. They do not all get recovered.

 

True, but even if they fester miles below the water table, as do the toxic fluids currently injected into existing oil fields, there is no evidence that they harm the eco-system.

But aside from the local concern about piolution, damage and the like, my objection to fracking anywhere is that it is better to leave the fossil fuels in the ground, and use other sources of energy generation and energy saving.

Fair enough. Given that renewable technologies are neither mature nor efficient enough to meet the UK's energy needs that leaves nuclear. Either we borrow bucket loads of cash to pay for it (which an argument could be made for) or we get someone else to pay for it, even foreign types.

Of course the UK "only" accounts for a small percent of the total CO2 emissions. But if a wealthy western country declines to take actin it can afford on emmissions, steps that the world agreed to do, what chance is there of perusading, cajoling, arguing that other nations should also do the same?

They are not listening. No one is listening. We are, metaphorically speaking, pissing in the wind.  The UK, for all it's good intentions cannot and will not make a blind bit of difference to global climate change. The sensible thing would be to start planning to mitigate its effects locally rather than trying to prevent others from industrialising using the same methods we ourselves pioneered.

Aside from that, there's a lot of potential good in terms of jobs, technology and so on to come from a proper buy in to renewable energy. It's mad for the ideologically driven, climate change denying tories to turn against that opportunity.

Again it's not about denying climate change, that is science fact. The problem is that renewables aren't ready to take the burden and no responsible government can take the risk of hoping a major break through happens before current infrastructure reaches its end of life. 

it ought to be the sort of thing that the more sane of the conservative MPs would be grabbing with both hands - supporting British businesses, entrepreneurship, innovation, hi-tech industry and all that.

I'm all for state funded investment into R & D, if it were up to me I'd put 10-20 billion into a fund to develop workable cold fusion/hydrogen based energy, but that's for the future and we need to replacing existing infrastructure now with proven technology that is available now. With the best will in the world, that isn't windmills.

But no, they all seem set on helping a US corporation despoil the countryside, posion the environment and take the profits back to the US.

Gas works and is at the lower end of the pollution scale, plus we've got lots and lots of it. There are no good choices any more, decades of buck passing have ensured that.

[TrentVilla]

Your are right about the buck passing AWOL, sadly though I would say this government is doing exactly the same.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

John Major calling for windfall tax on energy companies. Bloody lefty Labou... oh.

[tonyh29]

CarewsEyebrowDesigner, on 22 Oct 2013 - 3:07 PM, said:

John Major calling for windfall tax on energy companies. Bloody lefty Labou... oh.

 

I met him in a lift when he was a Senior Advisor  for Credit Suisse .. nowhere near as grey as spitting image made him appear

 

 

anyway ...carry on

 

sounds like he stuck the knife in to IDS a bit as well ... personally I liked his mention of New labour  "Never was so much spent to achieve so little."

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I used to get him and Gerry Adams mixed up when I was a kid. No idea why. Probably the glasses.

[Jon]

Props to grey major here.

[Jon]

I used to get him and Gerry Adams mixed up when I was a kid. No idea why. Probably the glasses.

Must've been the accent ;-)

[snowychap]

...when Labour structured the market to enable that through the merger of electricity generators and suppliers.

I've seen and heard this claim made a few times recently (including on QT last week), wasn't this a natural progression in the privatization and deregulation of the energy 'markets'? Was there anything in place to actually prevent EdF, for example, becoming an electricity generator in 2000?

[coda]

privatization

 

[snowychap]

 

privatization

 

 

I know, it's a pretty dirty word even when spelt correctly as above.

[mockingbird_franklin]

‘Go home’ vans deemed failure after only one UKIP voter agrees to go back to voting Tory

22 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by Tom Pride in cynicism

(satire?)

Theresa May yesterday admitted that the Home Office’s controversial “go home” vans had been “too much of a blunt instrument”, as she confirmed the campaign had not persuaded enough UKIP voters to go back to voting Conservative.

The Home Office came under fire for using the ads, displayed on billboards carried by vans in six London boroughs, reading, “Voting UKIP? But we hate foreigners too!”

In comments to MPs, May said she had studied an evaluation of the campaign and concluded that only one ex-Conservative UKIP voter had agreed to go back to the party as a result of the campaign – and that was only after reading about the vans in the Guardian.

She said the experiment trialled in parts of London in July was not going to be extended during the second reading of the government’s controversial ‘We Hate Immigrants Just As Much As Farage (No Really We Do)‘ bill.

 

http://tompride.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/go-home-vans-deemed-failure-after-only-one-ukip-voter-agrees-to-go-back-to-voting-tory/

Edited October 23, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin