<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/12/paying-price-rampant-eco-hypocrisy/>

An interesting poke at the greens and some common sense questions for all
political parties.
Who allegedly work for us.

--
US civil defence guidelines advise against using hair conditioner after a nuclear strike.

On 12/01/2022 08:36, Ray wrote:
> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/12/paying-price-rampant-eco-hypocrisy/>
>
> An interesting poke at the greens and some common sense questions for all
> political parties.
> Who allegedly work for us.
>

It probably is interesting, but you need a subscription to get past the
first couple of sentences.

--
random signature text inserted here

On 12 Jan 2022 at 09:16:17 GMT, "Abandoned_Trolley" <fred@fred-smith.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 12/01/2022 08:36, Ray wrote:
>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/12/paying-price-rampant-eco-hypocrisy/>
>>
>> An interesting poke at the greens and some common sense questions for all
>> political parties.
>> Who allegedly work for us.
>>
>
>
> It probably is interesting, but you need a subscription to get past the
> first couple of sentences.

Erm, not here and I don't subscribe.
The only nonsense that pops up is about cookies and I allwys accept them all.
The browser disses them all when I close it.

--
A closed mouth gathers no foot.

On 13/01/2022 09:14, Ray wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2022 at 09:16:17 GMT, "Abandoned_Trolley" <fred@fred-smith.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/01/2022 08:36, Ray wrote:
>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/12/paying-price-rampant-eco-hypocrisy/>
>>>
>>> An interesting poke at the greens and some common sense questions for all
>>> political parties.
>>> Who allegedly work for us.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It probably is interesting, but you need a subscription to get past the
>> first couple of sentences.
>
> Erm, not here and I don't subscribe.
> The only nonsense that pops up is about cookies and I allwys accept them all.
> The browser disses them all when I close it.
>

Same here - asks to subscribe - but I can read it all if I turn off
javascript.

--

boggy

>
> Erm, not here and I don't subscribe.
> The only nonsense that pops up is about cookies and I allwys accept them all.
> The browser disses them all when I close it.
>

ok

Over here I have tried 4 different browsers on Windows, another 2
browsers on Ubuntu, and the one built in to my Android phone.
In all 7 cases I am unable to get past the first couple of sentences
without starting my one month "free" trial - which requires a credit
card and email address

--
random signature text inserted here

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 09:35:23 +0000, Abandoned_Trolley wrote:

>> Erm, not here and I don't subscribe.
>> The only nonsense that pops up is about cookies and I allwys accept
>> them all.
>> The browser disses them all when I close it.
>>
>>
>
> ok
>
> Over here I have tried 4 different browsers on Windows, another 2
> browsers on Ubuntu, and the one built in to my Android phone.
> In all 7 cases I am unable to get past the first couple of sentences
> without starting my one month "free" trial - which requires a credit
> card and email address

Using Opera on Ubuntu...if javascript is turned off before you access the
link you can read the full article. HTH

--
david

>
> Using Opera on Ubuntu...if javascript is turned off before you access the
> link you can read the full article. HTH
>

Mine is a virtual machine, but I will start it up later and have a look

In the meantime, I don't suppose it wopuld be that difficult to just
post the text in here

--
random signature text inserted here

On 13 Jan 2022 at 15:22:34 GMT, "Abandoned_Trolley" <fred@fred-smith.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>>
>> Using Opera on Ubuntu...if javascript is turned off before you access the
>> link you can read the full article. HTH
>>
>
> Mine is a virtual machine, but I will start it up later and have a look
>
> In the meantime, I don't suppose it wopuld be that difficult to just
> post the text in here

We British specialise in holding two contradictory positions at once,
especially when it comes to politics. Avowed NHS-lovers will grumble
incessantly about its lengthy waiting-lists. We dislike part-time politicians
– but somehow loathe career politicians even more. The sagas of Pen Farthing
and Geronimo the Alpaca strongly suggest that we’ve pioneered a way of being
sentimental to the point of soppiness about animals, while showing a
noticeable disregard for humans in a similar plight. No one does cognitive
dissonance quite like us – an intellectually cost-free way of having our cake
and eating it.

Yesterday provided another salient example in the form of the green agenda and
the cost-of-living crisis – two utterly contradictory conversations which are
happening at once, each without reference to the other. While Labour led a
parliamentary debate about cutting VAT on fuel bills in the Commons, Shadow
Chancellor Rachel Reeves berated the Government for failing to prioritise UK
energy security and called on ministers to do more for struggling consumers.
Many of her points were correct; and for the Government to face any kind of
pressure to reduce taxes must surely be a good thing. Yet there was also a
substantial elephant in the Commons.

The consumer benefits of reducing VAT by 5 per cent would be paltry compared
to the potential gains of reducing the various green levies which make up a
significant proportion of electricity bills, and depending on the level Ofgem
sets the price cap when it is tweaked in April, energy firms might well absorb
some of the future VAT cuts. Yet Labour daren’t target the cost of green
levies, because this would undermine another key aspect of their agenda;
out-flanking the Tories on the environment, so they opt for the lower-hanging
fruit of VAT while congratulating themselves for being such valiant defenders
of the poor.

It’s not just Labour either. Despite the surging costs facing consumers, the
PM held firm on green levies when pushed on the subject last week, citing
their importance in sustaining Britain’s renewables industry.

On the same day as Labour’s debate, Ovo Energy was forced to apologise for
issuing customers of one of its subsidiaries with deliciously simplistic
advice for keeping warm in their chilly homes, worthy of Pippa Middleton’s
infamous book on throwing parties. Try “a cuddle with your pets and loved ones
to help stay cosy”, they said, a “hula-hoop contest” or cheeky bowl of
porridge rather than switching on those pesky radiators.

All this attracted rightful ridicule, but the hula-hoop contest arguably seems
an unavoidable outcome of the rapid transformation in our energy use which
every major party has signed up to. Hiking prices to discourage use is an
explicit aim of many green policies; such as air passenger duty. For all but
the most insulated homes, mandatory heat pumps will almost certainly mean
cooler temperatures.

Expressions of outrage from Labour and Tory environmentalists about bills are
a bad case of “too little too late” when they’ve ignored or opposed viable
forms of energy for some time – in their opposition to fracking, and, in the
case of the Government, its long-term ambivalence towards nuclear power.
Labour has only very recently warmed towards the idea, following a string of
2019 losses in seats like Workington and Barrow-and-Furness with nuclear power
stations (indeed, with the Hartlepool by-election, all “nuclear” seats are now
represented by a Tory MP).

Certainly, our current energy crisis owes much to worldwide pressures – low
renewable generation over the summer, the surging global demand for gas, a
deliberate attempt by Russia to exert leverage (potentially to weaken Europe’s
response if they invade Ukraine). But we are not just suffering at the whim of
international markets. Consider what our Government has done with what is in
its remit. We are now paying as much as 10 times more for natural gas than US
consumers, partly due to our failure to tap into shale reserves. And still,
even in the midst of a consumer crunch, the Government seems reluctant to
sanction even a temporary rethink of green levies. When questioned about
mounting energy costs, ministers will usually respond by referencing some
government subsidy or scheme, never any of the underlying causes.

This reflects a depressing shift in Tory thinking; from supply-side to
demand-side. But the entire national conversation operates in a similar
vacuum, and such self-contradictory thinking is directly reflected in our
policies. Instead of opting for simpler ways of targeting environmental
footprints, such as a border-adjusted carbon levy – politicians invariably
favour some complex round of taxes and exemptions, inflating bills via green
levies; then subsidising the bills of those on low incomes.

As such, energy policy ends up operating a bit like the water cycle, a
self-perpetuating round of tariffs, caps and subsidies. At the centre of these
ever-decreasing circles of ever-increasing prices is, of course, the consumer.
Perhaps cognitive dissonance does have a cost after all.
--
A celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness.