New Energy Bill Is A Disaster
Press Release from The Global Warming Policy Foundation
London, 23 May: With the publication of its draft Energy Bill, the government has announced its intention to reverse the course of energy deregulation.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation warns that any attempt to turn back the clock to the dark period of centralised energy planning will not only damage Britain’s economy, but will almost certainly end in failure, just like other attempts to impose a centralised system of energy controls have failed in the past.
Nigel Lawson, the GWPF’s Chairman, who as Energy Secretary was the architect of Britain’s energy market deregulation in the 1980s, warned:
“The Energy Bill constitutes a disastrous move towards a centrally planed energy economy with a high level of control over which forms of energy generation will be favoured and which will be stifled. The government even seeks to regulate the prices and profits of energy generation.”
The government bases the case for green – and more expensive – energy in large part on the assumption that gas prices will significantly rise in the future. This argument is no longer credible in the light of the growing international abundance of shale gas, not to mention the likely shale gas potential in Britain itself.
North American gas prices have dropped from $15 per million British thermal units to below $2 in just 7 years. This price collapse is an indication of things to come in Europe, once its own vast shale deposits are allowed to be extracted.
“At a time when most major economies are gradually returning to cheap and abundant fossil fuels, mainly in form of coal and natural gas, Britain alone seems prepared to sacrifice its economic competitiveness and recovery by opting for the most expensive forms of energy,” said Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director.
In any case, the complex and inconsistent measures of the draft Energy Bill are unlikely to provide investors with the certainty they require to make substantial investments.
The proposed contracts for difference (CfDs) are extremely complex and convoluted. Neither the profit guarantees offered for different technologies nor the duration of CfDs is known. The government has not provided any numbers and price guarantees for its favoured green technologies. Investors are therefore thrown into limbo since they cannot calculate whether expensive renewables or nuclear reactors are viable and can compete with less expensive conventional power plants.
This lack of clarity will inevitably lead to constant government amendments and continual intervention, which will act as additional barriers to new entrants in the UK electricity market.
In light of government indecision and investors’ uncertainty, the Energy Bill proposes to give the Secretary of State the exclusive authority to offer green energy companies ‘letters of comfort,’ promising them that they will be guaranteed profits once the specifics of CfDs are finalised and introduced. This is both arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Moreover, it is doubtful that what is proposed is actually workable, let alone economically viable. After all, similar interventions in the past have proved inept and uneconomic. They will almost certainly prove to be highly unpopular when the costs of these measures are reflected in energy bills.
richardscourtney says:
“…on this occasion you ‘have come to the party late’.”
No, Richard, my first comment was made shortly after your first comment a couple of days ago, and I have read every comment in this entire thread. My first comment to ‘youngleftie’ was never answered, although it generated about a half-dozen comments by others. I had asked ‘youngleftie’:
In the U.S. the top 5% of taxpayers paid 59% of all federal income taxes. Question: how much is enough? You want the government to have it all? How much is enough? Give me a number.
I’m still waiting to hear what a ‘fair’ number is. How much is enough? And when ‘the rich’ have had their assets confiscated to pay for one more year of government profligacy, who will pay for the year after that? The Socialists will insist on making others pay, until the money runs out. Then what? Equal poverty? Is that what you are advocating? If not, give me a number: how much is enough, if the 5% paying 59% of all federal taxes is not enough? Give me your number. Be specific. How much is enough?
As Frederic Bastiat wrote: See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay…
Is there any doubt that the Government is acting immorally when it forcibly expropriates the property earned by one citizen, and hands over that property to another citizen as a reward for political support, and for which there is no real survival need?
I will not argue against government action in fairly and equally regulating commerce. There are some legitimate functions of governments. But governmental power is now completely out of control. One example out of many is the Obama Administration’s arbitrarily forcing out of business almost all the registered Republican owners of G.M. car dealerships in the U.S., based on it’s claim to be supporting General Motors [which the government now largely owns].
Likewise, the Administration has broken with more than two centuries of established precedent, and stiffed G.M. bondholders — while handing over $billions in GM stock to the United Auto Workers union. This is nothing but official government gangsterism; it is officially sanctioned public theft.
Solyndra is another example out of many. I can drive to it’s one single building in 5 minutes and see the empty parking lots. Obama’s cronies took more than $550 million of taxpayer loot, and ran. No one is being prosecuted for that theft of taxpayer money. That is where Socialism and Marxism lead: the excuse for theft from taxpayers is always ‘to each according to his need’. But it always morphs into legalized theft from the productive working class.
I suspect that things are even more corrupt in the UK. And I stand by my view that Communism and Socialism are essentially the same, based on Bastiat’s example. Every self-serving action by government and it’s favored special interests is based on one overriding principle: to shield favored groups and individuals from competition.
That goes against the way the Universe is designed. Competition is the basic force that drives all progress, whether it is biological competition, or business competition, or the competition for an electron based on an atom’s valence. To the extent that society allows competition to be smothered, society is poorer and worse off; and immorality thrives. I didn’t make those rules. The Universe did.
Smokey:
To my surprise, the moderators have not stopped this political discussion.
[REPLY – Yet, if you put you ear to the frozen ground, you will hear the rumbling of an approaching armor column. ~ Evan]
I apologise if I missed a post from you which you feel I should have answered, but I think I have replied to each post addressed to me in terms appropriate to each of them. So, to show good faith, I am responding to points in your post at May 27, 2012 at 1:12 pm. Much of what you say (e.g. about excessive and/or silly regulation) has been addressed in my previous responses above. I will try to give brief answers to your other points, but I am sure you know that many books have been written about each of the points so I do not claim my responses are complete and definitive.
You say
Much of that is irrelevant. For example, what is “fair” is asserted by children in school playgrounds and is not relevant to serious discussion of the subject. Please remember my explanation to Vince that socialism does not decree a “system” but asserts pragmatism and democracy. And socialism is an extreme form of individualism which says each individual should be assisted to fulfil his or her potential so people should not be treated equally.
If the “rich” are taxed too much then they will leave and take their money with them (I note that some Americans – e.g. George Soros – have done that). Clearly, one of their ‘needs’ is an ability to grow their wealth. And society as a whole would be poorer if they chose to depart because they were denied that ‘need’ . Hence, your questions are pointless because they are based on a denial of socialism.
What is “enough” taxation of the rich is a practical consideration based on existing circumstances at any time and place. So, no socialist can define a specific answer to your question. If the rich start to leave then it is far “too much”. And if their ability to grow their wealth is curtailed then it is too much.
Indeed, the error of your understanding is exemplified by your question asking me if I want “equal poverty”. I remind that socialism was developed in England when the French were devising republicanism and beheading their “rich” (i.e, their aristochrats). England had – and still has – a ruling monarch. HRH Queen Elizabeth II is one of the richest people on Earth. When the ‘Diana Affair’ threatened the popularity of the Monarchy in 1997 then a socialist Prime Minister, Tony Blair, came to the rescue. (As an aside, I note that socialist PM Blair had a very good personal – as well as professional – relationship with Republican President Bush).
Bastiat was plain wrong. For example, he says public education is a drain on the economy. Try operating a modern economy with an illiterate and innumerate workforce then see how the economy performs. I could continue to demolish his assertions, but that illustration is sufficient.
Socialism works because it attempts to provide everyone with the ability to fulfil their potential then attempts to obtain the benefits of the greater potential they each achieve (to each … and from each …).
And you ask
There is no doubt of any kind. That is the antithesis of socialism.
It is clear that you have not read my previous comments in this thread and I considered ignoring that question because I have already answered it. But on reflection it is so very, very misguided that I think an explicit answer is needed.
There is no ‘need’ provided and there is no ‘ability’ recovered in that scenario. It is pure political corruption. Indeed, in the UK the law defines maximum expenditure on elections by individuals and by political parties. But the problem blatantly exists in the US because the US is devoid of socialist principles.
Of course competition is good. As I explained to Curiousgeorge, socialism enables many more to compete so enables the best available winners.
And I really, really do wish American right-wingers would at least learn enough to understand that communism and socialism are opposites.
Richard
Evan:
Thanks for your interjection and for your correcting my error.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm
For example, in your response to curious george, your quotation of “each according to his needs, from each according to his ability” tells us nothing about how either of these goals is to be acheived. That is the problem with socialism as far as I see it – nobody has successfully taken these goals and engineered them into a working system.
There is no overall “system”. There is only recognition that individuals have different needs and abilities. Hence, socialism decrees that – in so far as is possible – each individual is entitled to what he or she needs to flourish in society and is expected to contribute what he or she can for society to flourish.
———————————————-
Richard, statism, of all kinds, is simply put an abuse of power. “Govt is a necessary evil.” Who are you or any one group to decide what I need. It is thought by many that Max Weber’s main ideals mostly closely reflect what Europe has become today, but he never achieved much influence during his time, being somewhat between various extremes, and so had little practical applications of his social ideals. Weber’s writings were however actually used by Adolf Hitler to institute rule by decree, allowing Hitler’s government to suppress opposition and obtain dictatorial powers.
And thus Weber and you also, fail to understand human nature, and so set up a sytem whereby power is given to central authority. The US system WAS designed to prevent any group, be it religious, coorporate (here they intitially did a poor jop, Robber Barons and all) or goverment from having to much power.
In “Science of Religion” Partamahansa Yogananda stated that there is an inescapable form of selfish desire in the actions of all men. The removal of pain and suffering and the attainment of lasting happiness. “Someone may say I do not care anything about pleasure or happiness. I live life to accomplish something, to achieve success.” Another says : I want to do good in the world, I do not care weather I am in pain or not.” But if you look into the minds of these people, you will find the same working toward the goal of happiness. Does the first man want a success that has in it’s achievement no pleasure or happiness? Does the second want to do good to others, yet himself get no happiness in doing it? Obviously not. They may not mind a thousand and one physical pains or mental sufferings inflicted by others, or arising out of situations incidental to the pursuit of success or the doing of good to others; but because the one finds great satisfaction in success, and the other intensely enjoys the happiness of doing good to others’ the former seeks success, and the ladder seeks others good, in spite of incidental troubles.
Even the most altruistic motive and the sincerest intention of advancing the good of humanity, for its own sake, have sprung from the basic urge for a chastened personal happiness approaching bliss.”
Capitalism is in many respects fundamentally honest, and a reflection of the above. It is an admittance that personal gain is never absent, even in the most altruistic, and so capitalism makes no pretense of removing personal gain. It also makes no moral judgment of personal gain being bad. It is a neutral admittance that desire for personal gain exists, and cannot be legislated away. Social systems that vainly seek to legislate selflessness only condense the personal gain aspect into the most powerful people within the government, and in removing liberty and personal power from the common man, engender helplessness in the masses. The one who prospers in capitalism has the freedom to become a philanthropist, or the freedom to use his wealth in a narrow selfish way. Capitalism however has a basic tenant stating that even the purely selfish accumulation of material goods, if acquired in the honest production of a good or service of value to others in society, produces good for that society.
It is stated by many “Power corrupts”. This also is fundamentally flawed. No reasonable persons seek to be powerless, to be a victim subject to the discretion of others; to have no control over there own lives and decisions. So others refine this saying, “The love of power corrupts” Yet this has the same problem. All love to feel empowered. Even the one who willfully submits to one in authority wishes to feel that it is both their choice, and that in that submission, they will gain the power to attain some end, either personal or to some benefit of society. The one who submits within a system does not mean he wishes to have no power or influence. All seek power, and in some ways all love power. A far better statement is that “Power reveals corruption” or alternatively, “love of power over the free will of others is corruption.” The corruption that power reveals is the use of power to compel others against their will, the desire to exercise tyrannical control of other people to accomplish some objective.
So in this sense we see that both the desire to have power, and the desire to achieve personal gain are not inherently evil. It is the desire to exercise tyrannical power over others in connection with the desire for personal gain (even if one portends it is only for the protection of the less fortunate) that is fundamentally immoral or dishonest and which is evil and destructive to a society. “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” (Plato) Almost always the manifestation of seeking power in an immoral way involves exercising a form of tyranny, however petty it may be, over someone else or some other group. Thus what is immoral is the practice of seeking gain via an expression of tyranny over another person. Murder, as a blatant example, involves both the removal of another’s same right for seeking self gain, and is an expression of tyranny over another person. Almost all crimes which are common to societies are a reflection of this fundamental abuse of power which can manifest in either a personal or group expression.
Those social systems which mostly easily engender tyranny should be rated poorly in their chance of producing a prosperous and happy society. To try to enforce selflessness, requires a strict application of the verb in this sentence, force. A society that so fundamentally distrusts the common people of the governed that strict central planning of economies and wealth is required, is in high danger (100%) of eventually falling victim to the revelation of the corruption which such consolidated power reveals, as well as becoming overburdened with inefficient bureaucracy. The current British threatened prosecution (because the were not licensed care providers) of two professionals who were each taking care of the other’s child while the other was at work, is a literal example of “The Nanny State” , and such examples will only get far worse with the environmental fascists recently trying for one world government in Copenhagen.
The love of power for the purpose of subjugating others for one’s own end cannot be removed by any system. It just operates less effectively within a system built expressly for protection from such tyranny. The responsibility of the US form of government is to prevent the formation of such tyrannies: Corporate monopolies that unfairly drive out competition, lobby groups looking for special privileges, banking methods that rig the monetary system and allow leverage of assets tantamount to gambling, fractional reserve banking on steroids, government decisions making risk public but profit private, government sponsored enterprises that, under direct supervision of government regulators do all of the above, are not caused by a capitalist / republic, but are a sick perversion of it caused by the love of power over others, and the lack of wisdom as revealed by satama dharma. It is the failure of the US government to police the above which is dereliction of their primary responsibility, the protection of individual freedom and power, from the tyranny of those with group power.
No form of government can be free from intrinsic ignorance, but the evaluation of all systems should be based on their ability to resist the corruptions power reveal. Since WWII the US has been the most powerful nation on this planet. Despite its flaws, the US has demonstrated a far greater resistance to exerting tyranny over others then any other nation, relative to the power possessed. Remember that if power reveals corruption, the US has passed this test far better then any other nation. Many on the left often repeat the mantra, “live and let live,“ but remain ignorant of the danger of the system they wish to implement which is inherently duplicit to this maxim. The US system is the best “live and let live” system, specifically due to its republic / capitalist system, and within any society but particularly a large non-homogenous society this has many advantages. The “let live” part is easily forgotten in socialism, and both the “let live” and the “live” part are discarded in murderous communism.
David,
that was an interesting response to Richard’s points on socialism. However, with your descriptions of governments forcing this or that behaviour, I think you may be barking up the wrong tree.
As far as I can ascertain, Richard is talking only about ideals – the ideal that each individual is free to achieve his or her potentials for example – and emphatically rejects any talk that tries to pin these ideals down to concrete systems for acheivement thereof. Even the iconic “from each . . . to each” is an unsubstantiated statement, and is left to the reader to fill in his or her inferences – usually that it is an advocation of some form of government coercion. This may or may not be true, but there is no way of knowing for sure.
Indeed, without further information, I cannot see what the great difference between these ideals and capitalism is, and there is certainly not enough substance in them to enter into any kind of debate – which is one of the reasons I ceased to add comments – thread dilution not withstanding.
Of course, I am making these deductions based only on what Richard has said, and have no great knowledge of Socialism or how it is supposed to work. You may be correct in your assumptions, but I will have to admit to my own ignorance on this matter.
Vince Causey and David:
I confirm that, have in his post at May 28, 2012 at 8:53 am, Vince has given a probably better answer to David than I could. Vince, thankyou.
This pleases me not least because it confirms that what I have tried to say has been understood by at least one person; viz. Vince.
I have only one addition – really, a clarification – I wish to add.
Vince says;
Actually, there is a big difference between socialism and what Americans like to call ‘capitalism’ which directly affects government. I addressed it in my answer to Smokey at May 27, 2012 at 2:13 pm and your conversation indicates that I need to expand on that. I do that here.
American ‘capitalism’ sees free and unfettered competition as desirable in all things including democracy. But socialism sees competition as a useful tool to provide the needs of people.
Therefore, in the US there is no constraint on moneys that can be expended by candidates and political parties when campaigning for elections. Socialism sees this as a constraint on the ability to compete in the election by those with less than average wealth. And, socialism desires the ability for ideas – not money – to be the major factor competing in elections.
Different countries endeavour to achieve this desire in different ways.
As I told Smokey, the desire is addressed in the UK by the law setting a maximum limit on the moneys that can be expended by candidates and political parties when campaigning for elections. One candidate in our last General Election overspent significantly: the election had to be re-held for that constituency, the offender was prevented from standing in that re-held election, and he was fined. The maximum possible penalty for this offence is a jail sentence.
I recognise that similar constraint on election expenditure is culturally unacceptable for American ‘capitalists’. However, it inhibits political corruption of the kind that Smokey so clearly explained happens in the US.
Please note that such corruption is inhibited but is not not prevented by the constraint. This is because e.g. industrialists find other ways to influence politicians who use other ways to re-pay their benefactors (e.g. by providing Honours and Titles which don’t exist in the US). A well-known example is Sir Alex Ferguson who is Manager of Manchester United Football Club (ManU). Sir Alex was awarded his knighthood for services to charity, but most people think it was really a reward for services to the Labour Party (n.b. a socialist party) by being a high-profile socialist with a large following (i.e. ManU supporters).
Socialists see the award of Titles as preferable to the financial corruption so clearly related by Smokey. Of course such corruption can happen. In the context of this thread, the privatisations of the electricity and gas industries in the 1980s being by far the greatest example of such corruption in the UK in recent decades. But such financial corruption is relatively rare and at a much reduced rate from when e.g. industrialists can invest much money in a political campaign with a view to gaining a financial reward from the winner of an election.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 27, 2012 at 2:13 pm
“Smokey:
“To my surprise, the moderators have not stopped this political discussion.”
Following your comment, moderator Evan Jones warned:
[REPLY – Yet, if you put you ear to the frozen ground, you will hear the rumbling of an approaching armor column. ~ Evan]
Following the moderator’s warning, I ceased commenting here entirely. So why are you continuing to argue with my post from two days ago? Four times in your post above you unnecessarily cited me by name, continuing to argue with what I had written [and which I would not change]. You seem to be goading me.
I’ll turn the other cheek. This time.
Smokey:
I apologise that I have offended you. I have not “goaded” you and I AGREED with what you said: I did not “argue” with it.
Richard
Richard,
My apologies if you were agreeing. I always thought we agreed on most things anyway. Sorry for any misunderstanding.