The parallels in nature are easy to see, just look at deer, you have a choice, cull to retain a suitable environment for a reduced population to live happily healthily in harmony, increase the environment size in proportion to the herd or allow uncontrolled increase in population and reduce the quality of life, health, in fighting in the herd. This is a principle that can be directly applied to the human race.I prefer cull to reducing health and standards.
Population reduction looks really likely when most governments pay and subsidise their citizens to have more children - somehow population size has often been seen as a mark of strength of a country.
I am now from yesterday the proud owner of a solar panel system One of the last before the Govt scraps its payments for inputting power into the grid
Just wait until the maintenance kicks in Part of the system taking money from the poor to feed the rich, nice to put that income into subsidizing old peoples energy bills who can't afford to heat, oh that's not an option with the subsidies quelle surprise.
I have never understood the argument... and was waiting for someone to bring it up.... please enlighten me.... I have just paid my own money to buy a system that gives me some power without buying from the grid and also sells some surplus back to the grid.
The winter fuel payment is made to all people over 60 and costs the country about £2.3 billion a year. A stupid idea as it is given to everybody irrespective of their earnings or wealth. Another crazy scheme brought in by people adept at spending other people's money
Which one? Maintenance or fuel subsidies? On the first point one can expect the panels to need regular cleaning and maintenance throughout their lifespan which will add to the costs in an as yet unknown amount but should be factored into the economics and environmental cost of the panels (along with manufacturing, installation etc.) On the subsidy front the payments made are made by consumers on their bills (general public) not being a direct government tax sourced subsidy. As such every consumer pays for your income there but gets no benefit. It would be good if people had an efficient option to pay teir feed in tarrifs into a fund that was distributed to needy consumers (elderly and infirm on poor means who haven't squandered their cash in life choices).
My mum's payment is very helpful in helping our bills which have soared since she moved in.. I think the elderly should all have this benefit. My mum paid her taxes all her working life. I would vote for it again and again...
maintenance of course... in any case we bought a deal. In relation to payment why should I not sell my surplus back to the grid for a fee? The companies sell it to us in any case.
No reason not to sell it back for a fee but it should be a free market rate not one artificially imposed by government....
I have no real thought of 'profit' for my investment . Not sure I totally agree..... a free market ultimately cannot perpetuate itself....... there need to be controls etc. The fact that we let providers make free market profits out of our basic needs such as energy and water is daft anyway. I would be quite happy to invest in suitable batteries once the technology is developed which it will be quite soon. I have no issue in a society where individuals profit for their efforts. Successive Govts have made a real mess out of what probs is the most important issue for our planet.... the environment and our resources. IMO we need to invest in these areas for our children's children. The so called subsidies of today will become the norm in the future. You can be pretty sure that sun, wind,water etc will be major sources of energy in the future and that the energy companies will do their best to profit from them at our expense.... PS I have no issue in a society where individuals profit for their efforts.
Tesla already do a battery pack. Direct Sun and Wind will be obsolete for all but domestic generation in the very near future. They are hopeless at industrial scale and will always be intermittent. We cannot build effective storage in the UK without massive environmental damage. It's horses for courses, small scale solar though massively damaging to the guys mining the rare minerals required for efficient panels has a place, wind will be consigned to the same status as the old flour milling mills, nuclear is the future, modular then fusion will be the development through this century. Of course people should profit from their efforts but I disagree with falsely created markets through subsidies and mechanisms such as carbon trading designed to skew the market for profit.
Time will tell eh.... Not sure that the Tesla battery is that useful just yet.. .have been following. I think as colonialist 'we' falsely create markets at every turn.....and the indigenous peoples gave up their own farming etc to produce produce for our whims BTW There is a splendid film called Salt of the Earth about a photographer who filmed environment, wars and wildlife before reinvesting his wealth in a natural park in S America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salt_of_the_Earth_(2014_film)
Her taxes bought her all the things taxes get spent on throughout her life.- police, health, education etc. I do not accept an argument that says "I paid taxes so am entitled to something". The people have to decide how to spend other people's money - that is what taxes are - other people's money. My point is twofold. 1) giving fuel benefit to everyone over 60 is a disgusting waste of benefits - it includes many wealthy people and millions still at work - why on earth does a 60 year old need a fuel payment if a 59 year old does not? 2) The state pension should be the payment to older people -not a raft of one off and special payments that are usually brought in (often as a result of a media campaign) to deal with something exceptional like a severe winter. Scrap the winter fuel payment and use it to increase the state pension perhaps for those over 80 - or other good causes. It is muddled thinking that brings in a raft of one off benefits that people become dependent on and then need sorting out -like child credits. Who says a free market cannot perpetuate itself? Why not? There will always be controls on free - and non-free markets. Why pick on water and energy - why not include a basic need such as food -or clothing -or housing? Energy and water do not just appear at no cost from nowhere. Somebody has to get them useably to you - and if they make a fair profit in so doing then good for them. Same as for every commodity.
Actually you have to be born on or before 5 January 1953 Well yes increase the pension proportionately..... I dont disagree..... but there is a potential issue that old people may be confused etc..... Many die of hypothermia every winter As for the second para..... I also agree re food, clothing and housing.... basic necessities of life. How a big corp should be making billions out of it.. .and my local butcher, greengrocers and flower shops all be forced to close.. is very difficult for me to accept. Accept the free market argument and those that control/own make more and more profit.... but the ultimate situation is that society can not function in this way indefinitely which is why the thatcherite free market failed. The banks too are an example.. .and then they get bailed out with 'our' money. I would rather my taxes went to an OAP. Or would you prefer a two tier society with a poor and alienated underclass with all that goes with that? I am sure not.
The rules are changing as pension age changes - I qualifed at 60 as did all those before me - I suspect you did too Yorkie - but there again you may be a junior Would you go back to the days I was glad to leave behind? Tescos and others revolutionised our food useage - your corner shops used to be rubbish and would be again left without real competition. The profit drive efficiency and is the old argument between those who feel the state and little ol' ma and pa are good and efficient capitalists are bad. I go with the capitalists. I like profit and the profit motive and abhor organisations run by people who have no realistic means of testing how they perform. It is why governments and local authorities, those in education and health run such poor services. The Thatcherite free market did not fail at all. It succeeded so well it took over Labour and became called Blairite -which also succeeded until Brown ruined everything and mealy mouthed MIliband succeeded him. The banks were deregulated stupidly - however the long term effect has been positive- there were many more good years before the crash came and the Us exported a lot of that. Had Brown and co followed sensible Blairite policies the recession in the UKwould not have been so severe. But if you create a benefit system that goes on to cost over £30 billion per year you get what you deserve - and now the weepies won't let that monster be disassembled. People need to work for what they want not demand and get it on a plate. HOwever this is more relevant to the politics thread than environment
I have lost my winter fuel payment, because some clever clogs decided that France was warmer than Spain or Italy. It was nice to have, but it will not mean that I cannot have a bottle of wine with my meal tonight. On Thursday I have a meeting with an Inspector when I will express strongly my opposition to a scheme to cover our area with wind turbines. We have little wind here in comparison with the rest of the country, yet that doesn't matter because the company erecting the things will be getting a subsidy from government every time the sails fail to turn. Who pays for the subsidy? Well I do of course through taxes. It is a good job we will not rely on them to power my computer, but I am saved because we have a nuclear power station 20kms away that will fill in for them. One farmer I know was told he would get vast wealth by having them on his land, but when he looked at the contract found the money only flowed if his land was twice as windy as some parts of Scotland. Fortunately he is a bit brighter than some farmers in the area.
