The Conversation: Poor Getting Slammed by UK Climate Levy

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Conversation has noticed that climate taxes on energy used for home heating hurts poor people.

Poorest households hit hardest by UK climate change levy despite using least energy

March 2, 2018 10.58pm AEDT
John Barrett
Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Leeds
Anne Owen
Research Fellow in Sustainable Consumption, University of Leeds

The UK is one of the leading countries in addressing climate change. As well as signing international agreements, the country has its own target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. And as part of the effort to meet that target, the government has added a levy to business and household energy bills. The average household energy bill is around £1,030 a year and the levy costs an average of £132 (2016 figures).

The good news is that the levy is working. About 20% of the levy is spent on improving the efficiency of homes. This is done by funding schemes such as the Energy Company Obligation, which provides insulation and other energy-saving measures to low-income households. The average household energy bill would be £490 higher without these improvements. The money is also spent on research to improve renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, and help bring down their cost.

But is this really a fair way to raise the money? Our new research shows that the poorest households not only are hit hardest by the levy but also receive less money back in the form of home improvements than they contribute in the first place.

We found that, in a year, the richest households each consumed on average the same amount of energy that would be produced by 12.7 tonnes of oil, compared to 3.3 tonnes for the poorest households. But the poorest spent a much greater proportion of their income (10%) on energy than the richest (3%). And the energy used for heating and powering their homes – the part that their climate change levy bill is measured on – represented a much greater proportion of their overall energy use.

This means that adding the climate change levy to household energy bills hits the poorest households hardest. Energy bills account for a much greater share of their household income and more of their energy use is charged. In fact, the levy only affects a quarter of the total energy consumption of the richest households, compared to 53% for the poorest households. As a result, the richest homes use nearly four times more total energy than the poorest but only pay 1.8 times more towards energy policy costs.

Read more:

The full research paper is available here.

This research echoes similar research in the USA, research which suggests California’s regressive climate taxes are hurting poor people – an issue covered by WUWT a few days ago.

This issue really upsets me. I’m not a fan of big government, but green socialists pushing policies which actually hurt poor people seems insanely cruel.

As a child and young adult I could always relate to the objectives of my socialist friends – better opportunities, helping the poor and vulnerable – even though as a right winger I thought their policy ideas and methods, their plan to rely on governments to do the right thing, was implausible and counterproductive.

Then something monstrous happened – the gentle socialists I knew suddenly stopped caring about the here and now, they became fixated on a hypothetical distant future none of them would ever live to see. They started demanding policies they knew would hurt the people they claimed to care about, but waved away all and any objections in the name of saving the world.


162 thoughts on “The Conversation: Poor Getting Slammed by UK Climate Levy

  1. That’s Marxists for you. Utopian idiots with contempt for the weak and the poor.

    • Exactly!
      Make the poor poorer. Then declare that their suffering is somehow in contrast to the evil corporations so you can assault them with higher taxes. The corporations dry up and blow away. More unemployment and a loss of the business tax base which leaves governments with more support to pay and more borrowing required. The people suffer more. More blame on corporations and the wealthy. More dependence on government handouts.
      Stop me when we reach Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Eastern Europe in Soviet days or any other Socialist paradise. Or even Britain before Margaret Thatcher. The cowards and fools who never wanted to work still denigrate her when in reality she saved Britain and stood up to the Commie oppressors wherever she found them.

      • Drive up taxes and regulations, then when companies respond by moving production elsewhere, go on TV and decry companies that are shipping “our jobs” overseas.

      • You tick nearly all the boxes John.
        Must disagree however when you say “before Margaret Thatcher” Our situation now is even more dire when the present day Conservatives are no better that the communists of the Thatcher era.

      • “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
        – H. L. Mencken

      • it appears that mr worral holds the promise of socialist paradise dear to his heart.
        i’m totally grossed out by this b.s. ‘ooh da poor’ crap.
        let’s talk about dead unborn babies next, please- not this humorless socialist drivel.
        or not. i can always just snort and leave.

      • … You will eat bye and bye
        In that glorious land above the sky
        Work and pray,
        Live on hay.
        You’ll get pie in the sky (that’s a lie)
        When you die.

        And the Starvation Army they play
        And they holler and clap and they pray
        ‘Til they get all your coin on their drum.
        Then they’ll tell you when you’re on the bum.

        ” you will eat ….

        Joe Hill

      • Once again I see what to my eyes is clearly “religious” discussion being allowed, if it is derisive . . yet when I attempted to respond, with what “you know Who” actually said of the matters discussed above, I was disallowed.

        I tried to get Anthony to either enforce his ostensible *no religious discussion* policy, or allow folks like me to respond when others get all Jihadish about their fixation on discrediting Christians/Christianity, such as here I feel, where the allusion to same is essentially nonsensical . . And as I have tried to explain, it’s prolly Christians what have saved your sorry asses from the CAWGites, so far, O deep thinkers ; )

        (You overreact this time as I see so little of it) MOD

      • Mod,
        Overreacted? I don’t know what you’re talking/thinking about . .
        I’m thinking; If the CAGW clan is trying (as we can readily see they are) to convince as many Christians as possible that the CAGW is compatible with their religion/Scripture in fundamental ways, AND the World’s most viewed climate (alarm ; ) skeptic site, only allows people who think the same about that supposed congruity to comment . . when people quite cable of arguing that is not the case are censored; Then . . you have effectively become the ally of your ostensible opponents. Not wise, it seems to me.
        But hey, I’m just a Christian, so who cares, eh? ; )

      • I think that I see what JohnKnight is offended by. Brent is talking about Marxists (irreligious by definition), but Curious George says the suffering they cause will be rewarded in Heavens. Then ITKlavier follows on by disparaging the Salvation Army as being a greedy “Starvation Army” — without any apparent moderation. JohnKnight responds -> moderation. It seems to me he was just following the path that had been already been allowed to diverge early and rapidly from the subject of taxation.


      Alan Tomalty wrote:
      “Why is it that in every jurisdiction in the world that has got serious about renewables the electricity prices have quadrupled?”

      The wind power component of the total electricity mix has in some cases more than quadrupled – in Alberta at one time it was 20 cents /KWh, almost TEN TIMES the price of conventional coal-fired power.

      To your question of why?

      1. Facts:
      The intermittency problem of wind has been known since ~forever. Storage of electricity is not a practical solution and may never be economic or sensible. We’ve known these facts long before the beginning of global warming mania, yet trillions of dollars in scarce global resources have been squandered by politicians on intermittent, non-dispatchable wind power, which has served only to reduce the reliability of the grid, drive up power prices and increase winter mortality among the elderly and the poor.

      2. Why?
      Most politicians are uneducated in the sciences and to a significant degree are vain, incompetent and corrupt. They love big, expensive projects because those provide them with the greatest opportunity for graft. They want to get re-elected, and “donations” from wind power producers given them the funds to run their re-election campaigns (plus a bit more for the family). They can rely on the support of environmental extremist organizations which have also been bought off by Big Green. When trillions of dollars per year are siphoned off to support wind power, there is lots of graft to go around.



        “Put simply, an onshore wind farm will expect to earn double the wholesale price, and an offshore will triple it.

        According to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the cost of subsidising renewable power this year will amount to £6.0bn. Of this, the Committee on Climate Change estimate that £3.1bn will go to wind farms.

        By 2021, subsidies for wind will have increased to £7.1bn, as capacity grows. This equates to £265 per household.”

        6-7 Billion pounds squandered here, another 6-7 billion wasted there, pretty soon you’re talking real money!

        One wonders what the other £2.9bn pays for – is it for backup power for the wind farms – all those diesel generators that must run when the wind does not blow?

        Or does part of the money pay for advertising campaigns to delude the British public into thinking wind power is actually cost-effective and saves the environment?

        Or does cloudy, rainy Britain also have considerable solar power – for the six days per year when the Sun actually shines?

        It’s “Heat or Eat” for the elderly and the poor in Britain, resulting in Excess Winter Mortality Rates that are several times higher than that of Canada, where energy costs are lower, and homes are centrally-heated AND insulated.

        The warmist elite has taken “granny-bashing” in Britain to a whole new level – just kill off the old bats with excessive energy costs – they are a drain on the economy anyway.

      • Aye!

        With government and large corporate executives, there is a seductiveness to build new; rather than improve old.

        Employees, that successfully build a new project get awards, commendations, promotions and enhanced job prospects.

        While workers fixing old stuff lack glamour and excitement.

        Just remember how many programmers were so excited to be hired as COBOL maintenance programmers…

    • No True Scotsman Fallacy.
      The reason that this makes no sense for a Socialist to do is that Green policies are not socialist.

      They are regressive. They give precedence to the land-owners and capital owners over the needs of the workers. They are the epitome of right-wing policies.

      As such the outcome of Green policies is perfectly understandable. They are what supporters of establishment power always want.

      The rich get richer and the poor get whatever.

      • It always is fascinating how socialists describe as right wing, any policy that has results they don’t like.
        While socialists may claim that they want to help the poor, their policies always make the poor poorer, and the rich richer.

      • Mark Wm please note that I described the policies as right-wing because of what they are not because of what their results happen to be. It is just that in this case the results are as intended.

        The policies are right-wing because they are regressive. They require the workers (the users of energy) to pay unnecessary subsidies to the owners of the land (where wind turbines and solar farms sprout) and to the investors in these new ventures (capitalists). That is, these policies are right-wing as they are on the side of capital over labour.

        There are left-wing green policies. For example, subsidising public transport so as transport externalities are shared and thus reduced by economies of scale (free busses).
        However, no-one is doing any left-wing green policies. Nor are they being advocated.

      • Like I said, you define right wing and left wing based on whether you approve the results or not.
        In this case, progressive is left wing, and regressive is right wing, despite the fact that socialist policies always end up hurting the poor.

      • MarkW (sorry for typo in your name, last time ),
        I define left and right wing in the correct way. They have real meanings dating back to almost two and a half centuries to the French Revolution.

        You can’t just pretend words mean what you want them to mean when you want them to mean it. That’s Alice in Wonderland logic. It’s also how that other Napoleon acted – the one in Animal Farm. If you claim you are not a Communist then you ought to avoid that example.

        Policies that support the wealth-wielders (in land and capital) at the expense of the labour force are right-wing. That is just what the words mean.

        Left Right Political spectrum: “The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes.”

        Regressive: “A regressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners.”

      • @M Courtney
        You are right in a way: obviously, the whole enviro green thing is reactionary, as far right as possible, as it aims at no less than restoration if lost paradise, including pure, sinless, man.

        However, I certainly won’t use wikipedia as a reference for political stuff, and your quote may be exact, but its content is obviously nonsense: the very definition of “upper” and “dominant” include the control of the rules the government makes. So, if the labour is in charge, well, by this definition the labour is right wing, while the conservative, not having the upper hand anymore, turn left wing. Doesn’t make sense.

      • paqyfelyc, I only used Wikipedia as the first thing that came up on Google. It happened to agree with what I already knew as the word did mean what I thought I did. English is my first language.

        However, the idea that the classes invert with every fluctuation at the ballot box would make the words as meaningless as MarkW’s language. The words were defined in the French Revolution and have merely evolved with history to mean:

        Left Benefiting – Those who live off their Labour:
        Right Benefiting – Those who live off their assets.

        Curiously, most pensioners are right benefiting and most lawyers are left benefiting. This may be why the revolutions predicted by Marx and Engels haven’t occurred. They never saw this situation coming.

      • M Courtney,

        “Left Right Political spectrum: “The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes.” ”

        The lingo switcheroo from “interest of the upper” classes, to “expressive of the lower” classes ought, I feel, alert one to the con artistry involved there. Anyone can “express” that they are acting in the interest of the lower classes, even if what they intend is their domination or even enslavement . . such as has occurred repeatedly when such “expressers” have actually come to power.

        Talk is cheap, so to speak, and I personally believe that many of those claiming to be “leftist” (expressive of the lower classes) are actually seeking to cement the status of (some of) those with vast wealth and power, (to include themselves eventually, if not yet).

        To me, the real division now is between “collectivist” ideologies (leftist), which require the domination of society to function, and less domineering approaches. I don’t believe the prominent ostensible “leftists” these days are unaware of the historical ramifications of establishing “collectivist” systems, which have not at all been in the interest of the ‘lower classes”. I think they are generally just pretending . .

      • No, MCourtney.

        Renewable diktats are not right wing.
        No competitive solution search.
        No competitive bid process.
        Human and wildlife impacts are glossed over in favor of the official’s choice.
        Extra costs to citizens are not a problem.
        No service guarantees, e.g. 24/7/365.

        Every part of a renewable decision is based on gross political pressure, along with copious fake/edited/scripted propaganda.

        Classic socialist/communist governance. The elite commissars decide what is good you and that you love it.

        This is not about the altruistic principles behind socialist governance. It is about the realities of modern actual socialist leaders and governments.

      • Words change meaning over time. It’s what language does.
        For example, having a gay old time doesn’t mean what it did 100 years ago.
        Regardless, since socialist policies always end up in the people who were getting rich, getting richer and always end up in the poor getting poorer, then it should be declared a right wing philosophy.
        Beyond that, your belief that anything that isn’t socialism must be supporting the rich couldn’t be further from the truth.
        Capitalism creates new wealth and has always been opposed by the current rich.

      • As to the mis-spelling, no biggie, my fingers often get bigger than the keys as well.
        And in case you didn’t see it the last two times you made the charge. I am NOT the person who accused you of having improper relations with your son. That was someone else on the same thread.

      • If only the landed gentry are right wing, then the term itself no longer has any meaning.
        BTW, living off your assets takes quite a lot of work.
        Unless you are one of those people who believe that it is only work if you are sweating.

      • And trying to place political parties on one linear distinction from right to left misses a fair number of differences. Jerry Pournelle did a short essay on a scheme that does seem to work fairly well. Where would one place the current government of the People’s Republic of China on a line?

      • @ M Courtney
        opposing labour to assets (capital) is the very definition of class struggle according to marxism. A marxist scope that didn’t work retrospectively (UK, US nor French revolutions had nothing to do with labour Vs asset struggle), nor nowadays ( current “left” is just interested in increasing social benefits –a class of assets, that workers have to pay for while non workers just benefit–, race/sex/LGBT issue, and of course “green”).
        Bottom line: scholars and politicians just blurred the “left” and “right” words so that nobody actually know anymore what they meant, that is:
        Right (old tradition where the chosen are on the right side of the lord/Lord)): support and trust the king, give him more power over “subjects” and tax money from them, as they need to be shepherded
        left : distrust and oppose the king, chip power and tax money out of him, down to “citizens” who most be pretty much everyone (equal without class distinctions)

    • ‘Green’ energy policies are about ‘croney capitalism’. They NOT “socialist” and NOT “Marxist”:

      We have a Conservative government here in the UK. They are not “socialists” and not “Marxists”. They are merely ‘right of centre’ politicians with snouts in the trough of public monies.


      • Conservative in Europe, isn’t.
        In Europe, Conservatives merely want to adopt socialism more slowly than the other parties do.

      • No. Using the force of government to ‘pick winners’ in the industrial market place through large support subsidies and ‘sweet heart’ regulations while destroying directly competitive industries with punitively huge taxes and crippling regulations is Crony Socialism.

      • Mark W and J Mac,

        Please say whom – other than yourselves – you think you are fooling with your silly assertions.

        This thread is about actions of the UK’s Tory (i.e. Conservative Party) government which is ;right of centre’ and anti-socialist. The UK government’s policies which are being discussed in this thread are crony capitalism being conducted by ‘right of centre’ politicians with their snouts in the trough of public monies.

        Only idiots could delude themselves into thinking this has anything to do with “socialism” and/or “Marxism”.

        Assuming you are not idiots then it has to be concluded that you are trying to deflect attention from the crony capitalism and, thus, to hinder opposition to it.


      • Richard,
        Your strawman argument response – Fail.
        Your ad hominem attack response – Fail.
        Your continual attempts to redefine socialism as only benevolent – Fail.

      • It really is fascinating how upset you get richard, just because nobody else accepts your definition of socialism.
        It is also fascinating how you declare that only those who agree with your definitions are allowed to have opinions.
        I know that you truly believe that socialism increases freedom, and for you, it probably does.
        However for those who are forced to pay for your increased freedom, all isn’t sunshine and roses.
        Europe has become so far to the left, there no longer are any conservatives over there, just varying degrees of socialists.
        As to your whines about crony capitalism, that’s the fault of your beloved government.
        BTW, using government to pick winners and losers is the definition of socialism, not capitalism. So your attempts to declare that the sins of socialism are actually flaws of capitalism may impress your fellow socialists, but it doesn’t carry any weight with those who actually know something about how economies work.

      • JMac, richard once declared that socialism promotes freedom.
        For those who are receiving money taken by force from others, their options probably have increased.
        However for the rest of society, the options have gone down.
        It’s no wonder that those who think they are getting a free lunch always love socialism.

      • J Mac and MarkW:

        Your responses to me are typical of the untrue, irrelevant and nasty abuse commonly provided by anonymous internet trolls such as yourselves when their falsehoods are refuted.

        I wrote a post addressed to you two which said in full,

        “Please say whom – other than yourselves – you think you are fooling with your silly assertions.

        This thread is about actions of the UK’s Tory (i.e. Conservative Party) government which is ‘right of centre’ and anti-socialist. The UK government’s policies which are being discussed in this thread are crony capitalism being conducted by ‘right of centre’ politicians with their snouts in the trough of public monies.

        Only idiots could delude themselves into thinking this has anything to do with “socialism” and/or “Marxism”.

        Assuming you are not idiots then it has to be concluded that you are trying to deflect attention from the crony capitalism and, thus, to hinder opposition to it.”

        J Mac replied saying in full,

        Your strawman argument response – Fail.
        Your ad hominem attack response – Fail.
        Your continual attempts to redefine socialism as only benevolent – Fail.”

        I posed no strawman, I made no ad hominem attack, and I provided no definition of socialism.
        J Mac, your response only consists of untrue assertions which are all strawmen clearly intended to deflect attention from what I did say.

        MarkW responded as he always does when his offensive, ignorant and irrational assertions are rebutted. He ignored everything I wrote and provided reams of untrue insults, falsehoods and irrelevances.

        So, I repeat my question to the both of you.
        “Please say whom – other than yourselves – you think you are fooling with your silly assertions.”

        I ask the question again because you have not addressed it and it seems your silly assertions are an attempt to hinder opposition to the crony capitalism which is the subject of this thread by deflecting attention from it.


      • One thing I’ve noticed with richard, whenever you challenge his belief that socialism is wonderful and has no flaws, he does a couple of things
        1) Gets very huffy
        2) Just repeats the same tired definitions over and over again as if they actually meant something.
        3) Declares that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is just too ignorant for words.

        Regardless, I’ve seen no rebuttal of my point, just you screaming louder and louder that you and only you understand the true nature of politics.

      • MarkW:

        I provided a full rebuttal of your daft post. It is not my fault that you cannot read.

        Strweth! You really, really are among the most nasty of anonymous trolls stalking on the internet.


    • Interestingly, I’ve found the mentality of CAGW believers to be a massive projection of insecurity, self-loathing, and an unhealthy esteem. I find a striking similarity, one that seems to pervade the lot of them.
      I say this because I just met a gentleman named Gary Pond here at the Copper Wynd resort in Scottsdale. It is luxury and had it not been for my fiance’s sister’s wedding, we’d likely not had the benefit of enjoying this place.

      This guy starts off by working climate into the conversation (which I welcomed), criticising the people out in Arizona as the equivalent of Neanderthal religionists, remarks that he is a scientist so he knows, and continues to rant about humanity and it’s destructive means, caring capacity, etc.

      The overlapping theme is misanthropy, disgust for the poor, and a glaring hypocrisy. I attempted to point out a few inconsistencies with the data and carbon proxy data and once he realized I wasn’t going to accept how false declarations (after he enjoyed the initial part of the conversation and realized I am intelligent), he needed to run away from the conservation.
      I was unable to point out his glaring hypocrisy being that he is a religionist as well, but I was attempting to remain polite. It was good practice for future interactions.

      I sensed a great childishness in his worldview and much smugness. I really wanted to get into the discussion about the sensitivity of co2 because he was forced to admit that I was correct about ice core and other proxy data that appears to show co2 lagging temperature, but he wouldn’t admit the implication.
      Unfortunately, this era of post truth is not lost upon those in their sixties, who absolutely choose to live in ignorance because of the disgusting worldview in which they cling. The overlap is staggering and most unfortunate.

      Nick Stokes certainly fits some of the behaviors listed, especially the pattern of Cherry picking, which let’s face it, is lying. The lies that lying liars tell. It has no place in a civilized society and I refuse to be polite to liars

      • The OP is from The Conversation, a website known for its low tolerance for conversation. (I wasn’t referring to WUWT’s comments section.) Sorry if that point got obscured in my usual layer cake of cynicism, pessimism and sardonicism.

    • I have found that sites called “Conversation” or “True Science” or include “honesty”, “natural”, “factual” and so forth are most often propaganda and dishonesty. I think it has to do with trying to trick people into believing the nonsense by using happy, upbeat words. And lot’s of smiley face emoticons. To avoid any contamination by reality, all opposing opinions are sensored or no comments are allowed. Too much chance of truning those smiling faces into frowny faces and we cannot have that.

  2. Not just UK. There is a newish study showing this for California, which has the surprisingly has the highest poverty rate in the US. Difference is means poor people in CA swelter in summer rather than freeze (sometimes to death) in winter.

    • Talked with others about this related issue.
      Most of us want to help folks that for reasons plenty, are poor.
      So various mechanisms are set up to do this. Food kitchens, for example. Housing support. Many more.
      Now we come up against the notion that if you want more of something, subsidize it; want less, tax it. California’s cities, as well as Portland, OR & Seattle, WA have run full speed into this brier patch.
      Recent news stories have appeared regarding the growing cost and disruption to other functions (safety, health) and to local residents and businesses of squatters or tent camps.
      Seems solving such issues is beyond everyone’s pay grade, and so it grows.

      • Ben Franklin felt that there should be a certain level of support for the poor – but it shouldn’t be at a level that makes them comfortable since that would encourage them to remain poor. That is the current problem – our poor are afforded a comfortable standard of living so there is no reason why they should change their status.

      • poor dear rhoda.
        take better care of your poor.
        i don’t own any, so i don’t have to worry.
        it’s you wannabe governators that keep lying about how much you care and use it as some kind of rationale to demand other people finance your beneficence.
        cuz you wanna be the big shot concern troll messianic distributor of causeless wealth.
        next thing you’ll be reaching in the bedroom, in the womb, in the minds of the young.
        and don’t forget to wave you ‘we we’ because altruism destroys faster when it’s mixed with collectivism.

      • LMAO @ gnomish: “i don’t own any, so i don’t have to worry.”

        Guess Mr. Gnomish never brought a son or a daughter into the world. I’ll bet any money he’ll change his tune if he does so.

        But then, when Mr. Gnomish was born, he entered the world owning nothing (poor). Not only was he poor at birth, he was a non-productive member of society for four or five years.
        It’s a good thing his parents didn’t think like he does.

      • oh, so now all the poor are nursing infants, mr bradley
        i think you are pulling a boner of a false equivalence.
        pull it about 20 more times and see if you get milk

      • No false equivalence, just taking advantage of the fact that you have left open the definition of “poor”.
        Next time you should be more specific.

        You were flat broke when you were born.

      • oh, just quibbling, then? cuz your comment doesn’t seem pertinent.
        don’t worry – i would never dispute your claim to ownership of your children.
        not my tarbaby. set up a trust fund it bothers you.

      • No, not quibbling at all. Just pointing out that with your viewpoint on the “poor” and poverty in general, it’s obvious you are not fit to be a parent.

      • Because there is little difference between your two day old child screaming for food, and the PSTD American veteran living on the street and begging for a meal.

      • it is not surprising that you be unable to make such a simple distinction.
        nor is it unexpected that you adjudicate my parental fitness on the basis of such ignorance
        or that you consider your ignorance to be justification for meddling in the affairs of others.
        so you won’t be surprised that i find you to be a dangerous fool.

      • There is no distinction. You post: “i don’t own any” which says you are not a parent. I’m only “dangerous” because I can see through your facade.

      • there are a number of differences between an adult military veteran with a psychotic disturbance and a newborn infant, of course.
        but it is entirely to be expected that you double down on denying that in order to avoid reality.
        another pertinent distinction is that these gentlemen, who are not suckling babes, are also not your children.
        it is not expected that this wisdom penetrate…lol
        fool is fool. the end.

      • Both want food. You’d provide one of them with food, and you would reject the other.
        With your mindset you would think that you “own” only one, when in fact you “own” both.
        I love watching you dance around your confused priorities.

      • It is endlessly satisfying to see people such as you that reject empathy for the less fortunate among us, having to pay taxes (which of course you’ll never stop complaining about) supporting said “poor.”

      • you’re lying, of course
        and projecting
        and fantasizing
        and you are copying the most boring and jejune.
        no participation trophy for you.

      • Only socialists are fit to be parents.
        Next thing you know Rob will demanding that government licenses be required of anyone wishing to be a parent.

      • MarkW, I’m still waiting for you to post a link to your “5KV” solar panel.

      • ooh. now he’s lashing out. u just never know what they’ll do after a huffpo rave. estrogen and ecstasy is a potent cocktail.
        now he’s at stage 2 – all caps manic. when he breaks all the way, don’t let him around any schoolyard.
        i only hope he ignores everything the black dog tells him.

      • You’ve ignored everything else I’ve posted, so why should I do your work for you, just so you can ignore it again.

      • gnomish, one thing you will notice with dear Rob, is that the further behind he gets, the louder and more offensive he gets.
        I guess it’s just his way of compensating.

      • Ever notice that when someone has been taken down, MarkW has to jump in to try to defend them? But then, Mr. Gnomish needs all the help he can get?

      • I do not find you offensive MarkW. I find you are good comic relief, mainly because you’re in way over your head. I’m still waiting for you to post a link to the 5K solar panels you claimed to have worked with.

      • mr bradley can not see himself.
        i thought it was vampires that had no reflection?
        oh, wait…

      • I never said that you found me offensive. I just declared that you like to be offended whenever possible.
        Perhaps you should take a class in reading comprehension as well as basic logic.

      • Perhaps we should just ignore poor Rob. But then again, it’s so much fun kicking him while he’s down.

    • There are two types of poor people: Working poor, and welfare recipients. Working poor elected Trump. Welfare people vote Democrat, hoping that they will get more welfare money. No one is attempting to do anything for working poor – except, horror of horrors, Trump!

    • Ristvan,

      The three big electrical service providers in CA have seen their costs go up appreciably more than providers from other states over the last few years.

      The legislature and utility commission are aware of what happened to Governor Davis during the energy crisis in CA -they have been careful to shield the poor from the worst of the rising costs of energy (1) in the state. The CARE rates are roughly 50% lower for the economically challenged than for those utility customers who are on traditional rates. For example the PG&E’s CARE rate eligible customers on an E-1 rate schedule currently pay an AVG price of 13.7 cents a kWh. Non CARE rate customers with PG&E pay 23.2 cents for kWh on average. (2)


      A few years back 26% of PG&E billing meters were eligible for CARE rates from PG&E.

  3. Part of this is sheer incompetence, but a portion of the green blob hates people, and creating energy poverty is a desired goal.

    • I think a lot of ‘greens’ are snorting coke….how else could explain their weird thinking.

    • My dog likes to eat the burned bark of Ponderosa Pine trees — common here.
      I’ve not tried it. Maybe I should.

    • YOUR coke, bud.
      it’s got to come out of your pocket or it’s not charity and you don’t get to heaven.
      and if your sacrifice doesn’t really hurt bad – i’m talking polio with no iron lung kinda bad- how can it be anything but tokenism?

  4. What you thought your friends were, and what they actually showed themselves to be, can be explained as follows: Child psychologist Jean Piaget identified several stages of childhood development. In the “Concrete Operations” phase, from 5 to 7 until about puberty, the world is divided up into clear, “concrete” categories and everything is pitted against each other. Its why your 8 year old wants to know which is faster, a cheetah or a peregrine falcon, or which would win in a fight, a grizzly or a tiger, etc. etc. After ages 12 or 13 we enter “formal operations” where abstract thinking is possible, and where categories still exist but lose their importance, become much more fluid, sometimes merging or other times competing etc, etc.

    Only about 50% of adults (or less) make the transition to Formal Operations. Those who don’t are forever putting everything into concrete categories like race, class, sex, etc. and pitting them against each other.

    So when your gentle socialist friends suddenly got weird on you, that’s cognitive dissonance that happens when the reality they expected once again failed to materialize, and once again they failed to understand why, and once again they failed to use that failure to transcend concrete-operations thinking altogether to arrive at a state where they could see the bigger picture, and finally see clearly why socialism keeps failing all the time.

  5. For a decade now I’ve been pounding this theme that the insane war on CO2 is screwing the poor badly … glad to see the idea is finally getting some traction.


    • Most of the “climate scientists” and their media and political brethren likely do not know anyone that is poor.

      Reminds me of:

      “Pauline Kael** famously commented, after the 1972 Presidential election, ‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.’”
      [ ** New Yorker film critic ]

    • don’t we all long to be a happy milch cow for those underprivileged ™ disadvantaged ™ (trademarks of the orwellian socialist language mutilation crew)?
      isn’t somebody’s need a blank check on a real person’s productive life?
      shouldn’t everybody seek moral justification in service to incompetence for the sake of self sacrifice- because cutting just isn’t deep enough to be sincere?

    • RE: “the insane war on CO2 is screwing the poor badly…”

      True, but the AGW faithful don’t care a damn about people living in poverty. These self-proclaimed environmentalists are Saving the Planet from Anthropogenic Global Warming! Saving the Planet supersedes ethics, morality, honesty, integrity, kindness, empathy, charity, and any other fundamental attributes of humanity not focused on Saving the Planet.
      The ends truly justify the means… for the most noble of all causes, Saving the Planet.

    • @ Willis…I have been watching this developing hot spot in the Indian Ocean for the last several weeks. When I clicked to see the Tcw and Tpw view that reminded me of your posts on the limits to ocean surface temps. What was interesting to watch for the first week of this spot was that it held its circular shape for around a week. Now the heat is’diffusing into a less concentrated shape. The thought that came to mind was what caused the circle in the first place, and for the shape to maintain its integrity for around a week? …,-13.51,1105/loc=60.262,-11.030

  6. I’m waiting for the day that common sense prevails (ha!) in the pricing of energy. If tptb were genuinely serious about reduction in use – and the CO2 – then they’d enforce a pricing policy whereby the first xkWhr were sold at a price the lower users (pensioners, low paid etc) could afford and then ramp the cost (per kWhr) up as usage increased so the heavy users paid more.
    This is the way with vehicles – luxury car owners paying heavily for their low mileage figures – so why can’t it be implemented for electricity consumers?
    Instead we have a mish-ash of complex and undecipherable ‘tariffs’ where, even if you know what you normally use, it’s almost impossible to find the ‘right’ scheme and make savings – and agin the lower paid and pensioners either can’t fathom these tariffs or are permanently in debt and can’t change suppliers as a result. Scam.

    • California has had a tiered system for utility prices for some time. I rented a house in San Francisco for most of the 1990s. I was never able to get away with out paying some fraction of my bill at the highest rate, and I lived alone. The tiered rates were always a scam, imo.

      • I got on a bus at the Bishop Museum in Honolulu . . . seven different fares. Being an adult, white male, I paid peak rate.

  7. This fixation that alarmists must be described as looney lefties, is marginalising the scientific arguments of us deniers. To count the Tory cabinet as lefties wanting to impoverish the poor with green taxes is ridiculous.
    Such arguments imply that only right wingers can win the common sense argument with science as a weapon.That approach means we are trying to go forward with one hand tied behind our backs. Our case is winnable in the public arena, but not like this…_

    • While not all lefties are alarmists, almost all alarmists are lefties.
      The fact that we are skeptical of the two great myths of our generation, that CO2 is going to kill us and that socialism is going to save us, is in our favor.

      • Alarmist/acceptor circles are infested by many from the left. Many of the denier circles are infected by right wingers.
        Politics doesn’t take priority over science in my head. There are people on the left who I know don’t come anywhere near WUWT, or GWPF, simply because of the politics of those involved.
        I have bitter memories of Lord Lawson when he was part of the tory government in the 80’s, likewise Christopher Brooker of The Daily Telegraph is not on my xmas card list…….but their position on the science is good.
        WUWT needs to stop shooting itself in the foot with the political arguments. It’s just backward and costs us valuable support. This battle is winnable…_

      • People who are willing to face up to reality realize that both climate alarmism and socialism are failures.
        If that makes us right wing, so be it.

  8. green socialists pushing policies which actually hurt poor people seems insanely cruel.

    Ah, but you’re forgetting that the greens think of Hom sap as a case of planetary herpes.

  9. I am going to forward this to my provincial governing party which strongly opposes Trudeau’s carbon tax and also to the federal Conservative party and my M.P. and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I would encourage any and all to send this information to their local and national representatives along with a strong statement about not only the harm this does to the poor but also the completely unestablished nature of the AGW hypothesis and its utterly failed predictions.

    • Yes, John, also there’s an excellent opportunity in Ontario to educate the citizenry on these matters during this brief but volatile provincial election campaign. An informed citizenry is the basis of a functioning democracy.

  10. I think you will find that only those households in receipt of state benefits qualify for financial assistance with house and boiler improvements.
    Those at the margins receive nothing, and are taxed to pay for the feckless, thus preventing them from affording to improve their lot.
    Regressive taxes however disguised disgrace every government and representative that votes for them.
    We have 630 such assholes in the UK.

  11. The Climate Change Levy introduced by the socialist (Marxist) Edward Milliband, still earning £75,000 as an MP and living in his £2.7m mansion. And Don’t forget his brother David Milliband, failed socialist (Marxist) MP, now earning £450,000 running the charadee International Rescue. One of the many do gooding schemes funded courtesy of UK Aid, in other words more taxes that we are forced to cough up whilst our own infrastructure and services go down the pan. 18 years of fake Conservative (Marxist) government have done nothing to reduce a penny of this.

    • Well said. I got out of the UK in the mid-90’s. Sadly Australia and New Zealand are not far behind in this green madness.

  12. About 20% of the levy is spent on improving the efficiency of homes.

    The state can only exert it’s influence on council housing toward achieving it’s emissions targets, like tower blocks…

    In May 2012, the government’s committee on climate change (CCC) published its ‘advice on how local authorities can reduce emissions and control climate risk’ under the 2010 Climate Change Act. The CCC identified social housing as one of the key areas where CO2 emissions could be reduced by improved energy efficiency from greater insulation. The problem, as the CCC put it, was that ‘the very slow turnover of stock’ makes ‘[housing] relatively energy inefficient’. The CCC’s solution was to reduce emissions in existing housing stock through insulation and new boilers. As the CCC explained, ‘local authorities and housing associations have been the key partners, driven largely by their role as social landlords’.

    Professor Julia King, a member of the CCC, said in May of 2012 that ‘local authorities have the potential to impact significantly on the UK’s scale and speed of emissions reduction’. At the top of King’s list for action were ‘energy-efficiency measures for existing buildings’ – insulation, such as cladding, and new boilers. While local authorities struggled to get funding for other things, austerity did not apply to the CO2-reduction scheme.

    Voila, Grenfell Towerr

  13. No surprise here. A saving grace may be that energy utilities eventually price themselves out of use and those that can’t afford it all become energy refugees to places like California. People move in, businesses move out. Play that one out for a good chuckle.

  14. ‘actually hurt poor people’

    Name one hurt by it.

    You attack a fantasy. EVERYTHING hurts poor people.

  15. Quote: The UK is one of the leading countries in addressing climate change.

    Not a good start. Assuming your conclusion is never a good idea. And that was the very first sentence.

  16. “green socialists pushing policies which actually hurt poor people seems insanely cruel.” It’s who they are; it’s what they do — because it’s never about “the poor”, or others, it’s all about them.

  17. “gentle socialists”

    Are you familiar with the story of the Scorpion and the Frog? There is no such thing as a “gentle” socialist, just one that is biding his time.

    • Tend to agree,perhaps a “gentle socialist” is one that has not yet put their bite into the host.
      Career parasites do not give a rats for their victims, they fear exposure and being thrown out of the trough.
      They fear work most of all.

  18. “This issue really upsets me. I’m not a fan of big government, but green socialists pushing policies which actually hurt poor people seems insanely cruel.”
    It hurts everyone. The difference is there are far more poor people than there are rich ones. Those poor people have what is called the power of the vote and can overwhelm the rich easily on this power. If they do not want to suffer these harms, the choice is simple, vote for someone else.
    Do they do that? Or do they always vote for the same people? If they are not firing the people that cause these hurts, either they are getting something else more valuable from them, or they are stupid. In either case, the truth is that it is the poor people hurting themselves. So, why should you give much of a care for them?
    Now the rich on the other hand, I can feel sorry for. They are few and have little political power. 1 person, 1 vote, no matter how much money you make or how little taxes you pay. I tend to find stories like this enjoyable. I like it when the poor suffer their due. When people vote for idiots, I say give them everything they voted for good and hard.

    • You sir do not have a clue.
      In the UK it does not matter who you vote for, all the main parties have the same ideology.
      The only one that didn’t was UKIP who have been deserted once they achieved their main aim of Brexit.
      As to the rich, they jusy buy what they want, including political favours.

      • I do not live there, but the fact remains that they have the power of the vote, and the largest share of the vote. It would mean nothing that all the current parties have the same ideology if they just simply did not support those parties and voted for someone who had a better ideology.
        But, and here is the biggie, they do not want to support someone with different ideologies, if they did, then a party would come into existence for them to vote for. Which is why I do not feel sorry for them. Will not feel sorry for them. They are simply getting exactly what they vote for in droves, good and hard.

      • You do not live here and have no clue how the system works.
        Although UKIP had 20%-25% of the votes they had NO that is ZERO MPs.
        The voting system is totally stacked against any new party making inroads in to the big 2.
        So keep your opinions balming the “people” to yourself until you understand how other countries voting systems work.

      • Well, well, well… You do realize that people have choices in what they do. Here in America we could still be owned by the British. But our people stood up for their rights and pushed off the chains they held us down with. There was 0 democracy back then, so they had to fight a war and lose many lives to get it done.
        Now, in Britain, you have a democracy of sorts, and the power of the vote can replace guns and violence. You are saying that UKIP got no one to represent them with 20-25% of the vote. Great, that just means that 75 to 80% of the people are happy with this lot in life.
        Again, my argument is that they are happy to suffer on this and many other things so long as the government pays them off with something else. Maybe I made the argument a bit too subtle?
        Here in the United States of America blacks vote >92% for Democrats, and Democrats run all of the largest cities in America, and where Blacks are heavily represented in the population, are some of the worst living conditions in America. This has been going on since the 1960’s. They vote time and time again for Democrats, who ruin their neighborhoods and destroy any opportunity they might have at a better life. But the Democrats give them something better? The Democrats tell them it is not their fault, there is racism against them, and that their terrible lives are the fault of someone else. That worthless argument however is powerful enough to allow the Democrats, many of whom are black themselves, to keep black neighborhoods in terrible condition and keep earning their votes.
        Obviously, the British government is giving their poor losers something equally valuable. The thing is, poor people, by and large, are poor due to their own failings. Which is why I usually have trouble feeling too sorry for them. Their children, certainly do not deserve the sucky lives their parents provide, but unfortunately, no amount of help can correct the internal failures of the vast majority of the poor.
        We have lottery here in America where a poor person can become an instant millionaire, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you know how long it usually takes a poor idiot to burn through tens or hundreds of millions of dollars? A third of all big ticket winners go bankrupt in 5 years. 5 years they burn through millions of dollars.
        By the way. I personally grew up in a very poor family, raised by my grandmother, in a tiny nowhere town. While my grandmother earned very little money, we had a very rewarding life that included money management. We did not really suffer, we had a home, garage, small business, extra plots of land that we grew crops on and several cars. All on a tiny income from a part time restaurant job. Point being. I do not have trouble seeing from the eyes of a poor person. I have trouble seeing from the eyes of suffering poor person.
        If they truly wanted change, all they have to do is vote for it. The problem is, they do not want that change. Government is giving them something more valuable. And it is probably something worth nothing in reality. Kind of like the Democrats giving black people the boogeyman of racism which in reality makes the black people worth less, as they no longer will have the will to fight to be successful.

    • “the choice is simple, vote for someone else.”
      Perchance you are unaware of the aphorism “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in”.
      There are few. if any, career politicians’ who are not on the gravy train.
      The present (left of centre) conservative government is still promulgating the policies of David Cameron (self-confessed “heir to Blair”) and Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.

    • For those who argue voters have no power… Here is Italy’s election results. Think that will have no effect?

      “Preliminary results from Sunday’s vote indicated around half of the voters cast their ballot in favor of anti-establishment parties 5 Star Movement and Lega, formerly Lega Nord, while the mainstream parties suffered a drop in support.”

      Of course, who knows, maybe Russia sponsored those new parties?

  19. This means that adding the climate change levy to household energy bills hits the poorest households hardest. Energy bills account for a much greater share of their household income

    Well duh.
    Take out the words “climate change” and “energy” and replace them with gasoline, food, clothing, shelter, transportation, income tax, sales tax, value add tax or a host of other things and the sentence is still true. ANY additional levy or tax will ALWAYS hit the poor the hardest. That’s the very DEFINITION of being poor for %^&@$ sake.

    • @david, this article should point out that green taxes hit everybody.
      As you point out, the percentage of income the poor pay is always proportionally higher, particularly food costs…_

  20. The Conversation is an academic website based in Australia and largely funded by universities. It does have some good articles (I read it most days) but its dominant theme is promoting the One Truth about Global Warming (which on other than very hot days it calls Climate Change).

  21. The last paragraph just says that they changed one bad utopian idea for another. Realists don’t fall for either.

  22. The” Green” agenda is a population control measure designed to eliminate the poorest and weakest ,
    a reverse Robin Hood stealing from the poor to give to landlords and the bird blender industry more cake and finally a brand spanking new fountain of guilt laden tax revenue . Even the government recognizes the diminishing returns of taking more the half of peoples income through layers of tax . But hey people don’t want to freeze do they ?
    The only thing that will stop this assault are people in the streets and it’s coming fast .

  23. This isn’t new. They’ve murder thousands of seniors over the years with their high taxes on heating fuels.

  24. In the UK it is the House of Lords, er in Ireland and Scotland they say “House O’Lards”, rules!
    The Lard does take’ith by the Lard’s Law.
    Ha hahahahahahahahha

  25. Yes indeed, but it’s not just the appalling climate levies which have helped put six million U.K. households into fuel poverty.

    The eye-watering subsidies paid for ruinable energy are, effectively, a transfer of money from the poor to the wealthy. Those with land and/or big roofs can adorn their properties with solar panels and wind turbines and sit back while the money rolls in, and ‘the little guy’ is left feeding the meter with ever more hard-earned coin in order to keep his family from shivering in the dark.

  26. This is not something new. Government energy policy has been known for years as “the reverse Robin Hood effect”, i.e. robbing from the poor and giving to the rich.

    • why just energy policy? ALL policy.
      by definition, government will help the powerful, that is, those who have the ability to help a politician reaching top.
      Robin hood robbed from the government, and give their tax money back to those taxed.

  27. The Government know how unpopular the increasing energy costs are.
    So they blame the ‘BIG SIX ‘ energy companies for ‘vast profits’.
    The truth is that the share price of any publicly quoted energy company has about haft in the last three years
    Further the smaller private energy companies get relief of around £100 from climate levy giving them an unfair advantage over the big six.

  28. The Government know how unpopular the increasing energy costs are.
    So they blame the ‘BIG SIX ‘ energy companies for ‘vast profits’.
    The truth is that the share price of any publicly quoted energy company has about haft in the last three years
    Further the smaller private energy companies get relief of around £100 from climate levy giving them an unfair advantage over the big six.

  29. Both the left and the right want higher energy taxes which will cause higher food prices.
    Obama “justified” this with bogus climate science. Trump’s excuse is to build infrastructure.
    We are ruled by people who hate us.

  30. Obama helped finance the failed Al Gore green cash register , Chicago Climate Exchange . Enough said .
    Britain lost it’s “Great ” about 30 years ago .
    Stupid ,stupid policy decisions need to be reversed and at least Trump is trying it in the USA .
    Would CNN even exist if it didn’t have a bad case of Trump derangement syndrome ?
    The reason most of the USA media attack anything Trump 7/24 is the free pipeline of leaks is drying up and they are going to shown to have conspired to facilitate the “insurance plan ” .

  31. If you could prove with data tomorrow that this was all a natural phenomenon and that nothing we are doing has the slightest effect except to impoverish nations you would find that you will have made a lot of zealots very angry by attacking their religion with the curse of data. Your life expectancy after making that announcement would be counted in days if not hours. They do not need data, evidence they have belief. It is one of the strangest aspects of mankind that we as a group need religion AND one that will bring down hellfire and damnation on us if we stop toeing the party like

Comments are closed.