h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Apparently, you can buy a gizmo that tells you how much electricity you use in your home in real time. It costs about £40 but can save you money. In fact, if used throughout the UK, it would save consumers over £3bn a year. The govt were so impressed that one of the muppets promised that one would be supplied free to every house in Britain.

They've just backed down.

The electricity companies plan to launch their own gizmo next year. The difference is that theirs links back to the company and they can read your meter. So no more meter readers or estimated bills. It'll save them a fortune. BUT, their gizmo costs the consumer to run. To the tune of £4bn a year.

It strikes me that if the Tories had done this, there would have been howls of protest from some quarters about govt being in the pocket of big business. Curiously, it's ok for Labour to do it though.


http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/retreat+from+power+monitoring+plan+/2104647

I didnt hear about it at the time and seriously would have doubted it was a feasible plan if I had.

As these things go I can imagine we might all get them in the next 10 to 20 years. Remember that despite the received wisdom being that water meters equal higher bills than the blanket water charges we still dont all have those do we?

Is it a sign that the government are in the pockets of big business (do you need a sign of that?). No its a sign of a lazy government who realises they'd have to do something to make this happen and that would cost them and then us money so getting the power companies to do it is a less messy and costly option for them.

As for going back on the promise that happens a lot if the country had gone wild for the idea then they may have pulled their finger out but it went pretty much unnoticed so its not something they'd be interested in following through.

So all the green taxes and wails about the environment can now be seen for what they are - stealth taxes and crocodile tears. By this one act, the govt has shown they don't give a stuff about the environment, never mind the public.

Maybe and then maybe not.

Remember we get the government we deserve.

We can shake our heads all we want at headlines about politicians but what have you seen people doing for the sake of the environment. People are still buying Porsche Cayenes and whatever other gus guzzling status symbols they view as being more important than acting responsibly towards the world they and the rest of us have to live in.

How importantly the government take the environment is related to how seriously we take it. One way or the other they or us have to go out on a limb and risk losing something so we can all get the benefits.

We wont, they wont and as you often point out the Chinese wont. So that's that for the environment (or rather our chances of survival in it).

one love

Well, sales of gas guzzlers are down and their 2nd hand value has fallen sharply so although some people continue to buy them, the signs are that many don't. Sales of hybrids increase year on year so it can be seen that when people are offered an environmental option, they'll take it.

I suspect that the real reason for increasing environmental attitudes is more to do with saving money. That's fine by me. Perfectly logical. This story is about the public being denied the opportunity to save money so energy companies can make more money.

This govt are as corrupt and inept as the Major govt. The sad thing is, as you point out, we get what we deserve. If we let this issue pass without comment it's a green light for more lies and hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm off to buy one of those gizmos at the weekend

So all the green taxes and wails about the environment can now be seen for what they are - stealth taxes and crocodile tears. By this one act, the govt has shown they don't give a stuff about the environment, never mind the public.

Dare I suggest that, if the government really didn't give "a stuff" about the environment (an extraordinary thing to claim considering their stance on things like the Kyoto treaty) or the public then they would never have intended to hand these things out to homes in the first place? What has happened is that the government has intended to do something that would have helped the environment and the public and then backed-down under pressure from the electricity companies. That's unquestionably weak and cowardly but it's not the same as not giving a stuff.

And in response to your point regarding the conservatives, they are in-hoc to business interests for ideological reasons so I doubt they'd have even considered such a policy in the first place.

>This govt are as corrupt and inept as the Major govt. The sad thing is, as you point out, we get what we deserve. If we let this issue pass without comment it's a green light for more lies and hypocrisy.

I don't think they're as crooked as the Conservatives under Major (although they are not the corruption-free party we were promised in 1997, unsurprisingly) but they are becoming equally inept. The problem is that without Blair they don't have anyone seriously capable of leading them. Brown seems to have turned-out to be a damp squib.

>We wont, they wont and as you often point out the Chinese wont. So that's that for the environment (or rather our chances of survival in it).

So you're argument is that we just shouldn't bother trying to negate our damage to the environment, presumably?

Not corrupt?

They weren't two minutes in the door before the Bernie Ecclestone affair. Secret loans, the PM being repeatedly questioned by the Police, Lord Levy, Mandelson, Robinson, Irvine, Vaz, Byers, Jo Moore, Milburn - all corrupt as hell. I could go on, but that's by the by.

How many times have this govt put it's grubby hands in your pocket and mine in the guise of "Green Taxes"? They're not shy about it. At every opportunity they raise taxes or create new ones then put on the big doleful eyes bit about the environment. The Kyoto Treaty - woo woo. Signing it is easy, sticking to it will destroy our economy and bankrupt the nation so don't expect to see anything but hot air about that one.

This one, simple measure could have led to approximately a 16% fall in domestic electricity consumption. How many targets would that have helped us towards?

I never said they weren't corrupt - they are - I said I don't think they're as corrupt as the Conservatives were during the Major years.

>How many times have this govt put it's grubby hands in your pocket and mine in the guise of "Green Taxes"? They're not shy about it. At every opportunity they raise taxes or create new ones then put on the big doleful eyes bit about the environment. The Kyoto Treaty - woo woo. Signing it is easy, sticking to it will destroy our economy and bankrupt the nation so don't expect to see anything but hot air about that one.

You're clearly not going to shift from your "green taxes are nothing to do with the environment" line but I'll simply make the point that I think these sort of tax rises are intended to make something unattractive and thus cut down its use. Governments have done it for decades with tobacco and landfill.

>This one, simple measure could have led to approximately a 16% fall in domestic electricity consumption. How many targets would that have helped us towards?

Yes, and as I've said their dropping it was cowardly and despicable and sends out the wrong message both to the public (you're not a high enough priority) and to business (if you pressure us we cave-in, so please step up a level and demand something more outrageous) however you can't deny that it *was* an intended policy and they *were* going to do it so trying to argue that they don't care about either us or the environment doesn't wash since if they didn't they would never have green-lit the idea in the first place. What it *does* prove (to anyone not pushing a one-dimensional anti-Labour line) is that Labour are far too deferential to the business pressure-groups.

I wouldn't say I'm one-dimensionally anti Labour so much as I have a passionate hatred of corrupt government of whatever shade. Notwithstanding that, how many PMs from the other lot were questioned by the police over corruption? Not to mention blatantly lying to Parliament about Iraq.

You're right though, I *don't* think green taxes are anything to do with the environment. Look at today's news about them sneakily back-dating emission rules on older cars. The AA have said this has led to people being in negative equity with their cars. They can't sell them so they can't buy another therefore they just pour more taxes into the Treasury with no gain to the environment at all.

>You're right though, I *don't* think green taxes are anything to do with the environment. Look at today's news about them sneakily back-dating emission rules on older cars. The AA have said this has led to people being in negative equity with their cars. They can't sell them so they can't buy another therefore they just pour more taxes into the Treasury with no gain to the environment at all.

Don't you think it's possible that Labour simply planned to put green taxes on any polluting cars and that the intent here was that people would either sell their cars or move to something less polluting?

You think it's *nothing* to do with the environment, not even a bit? Do you think that tobacco taxes have *nothing* to do with health, that landfill taxes have *nothing* to do with reducing landfill?

There's a point where, in trying to be clever, someone can become quite stupid.

Landfill taxes probably have more to do with the fact we're running out of landfill sites.

Tobacco Tax and health? Why is the tax on menthol cigarettes the same as normal ones?

If you see a bandwagon, expect to see a politician chasing it and the "Green Machine" is the biggest bandwagon in town.

Raise taxes on tobacco, booze or fuel and you automatically assume the moral highground. "Green" taxes are untouchable politically.

There's a sliding scale of taxes on cars, depending on how polluting they are. Why no sliding scale on cigarettes linked to tar & nicotine content? Wouldn't that encourage people to move to less dangerous cigarettes?

>There's a sliding scale of taxes on cars, depending on how polluting they are. Why no sliding scale on cigarettes linked to tar & nicotine content? Wouldn't that encourage people to move to less dangerous cigarettes?

Because the government wants people to stop smoking altogether but they don't want people to stop driving cars.

>Raise taxes on tobacco, booze or fuel and you automatically assume the moral highground. "Green" taxes are untouchable politically.

Yes, but my point was that Green taxes *do* have something to do with reducing damaging emissions whilst your argument was that they have nothing to do with this whatsoever (or at least appeared to be).

Any reduction in emissions due to taxes is incidental imo. The purpose is to raise money. Take the flight tax. Trumpeted as environmentally-inspired it was cleverly pitched at a level which has no effect on the number of fliers whatsoever whilst raising rather a lot of dosh. If they wanted to reduce flights they would have imposed the tax at a level that would actually deter fliers.

They wouldn't have approved extra runways either

The govt want us to stop smoking? Really? Just ban them then. Simple. Who needs around £10bn in taxes anyway eh?

Umm. I think I'm missing a couple of points here:

1. If people are so worried about how much electricity they're using, why don't they look at their meters?

2. If the power companies want to provide these new meters at their expense, thereby saving millions of taxpayer's money, where's the problem?

Dave

I do watch what I am using via my bills and do my best to limit it given the cost of electricity and gas.
I thought that the power companies wanted to provide these gizmos at OUR expense to make pot of loot for themselves.

It's much the same with oil and gas. BP and Shell have made heaps of loot from the price of oil yet they say that the costs of production of road fuel means that there is almost no profit in it. They blame the government for the price and state that the government is the one with it's hand in the pocket of motorists and hauliers.

Forgive me for my cynicism but surely any capitalist would pull out of the market if there was no profit in it, therefore the oil industry position is a falsehood. They are not a charity and must make money out of fuel sales. Their obscene profits will only benefit the shareholders and directors. Even their employees will see little of the money and you can bet that pension schemes have been closed!

t.