Fuel poverty?

[observer 624]

If folk are too poor to afford energy bills, and assuming their poverty qualifies them for benefits; would it be better for the Gov to subsidise the suppliers rather than giving folk money that could be spent on other things?

[Dizzy 384]

I guess part of that question may relate to the 'Winer Fuel Payments' that are being sent out too Obs

[asperity 613]

The answer to the question is obviously for the government to abandon immediately the absolutely ridiculous "fight against climate change" which is the main cause of the rapid increase in fuel prices (look up renewable fuel obligation). Climate changes, we can't do anything about it, live with it. Start fracking!! :wink: :wink:

[Cleopatra 93]

What's fracking?

[asperity 613]

Where have you been Cleo?? Fracking is the means by which we are going to release trillions of cubic metres of natural gas from deep shale formations in various parts of the UK. So long as the government stops listening to the green loonies we will have guaranteed energy supply for at least a couple of hundred years. Google is a wonderful resource BTW :wink:

[fugtifino 67]

What's fracking?

 

A bit like getting blood out of a stone.

 

It would buy us some time, but it's very costly and a bit planet rapey: at some point we're all going to have to figure a way to live without fossil fuels.

 

Basic pros and cons here:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/23/fracking-gas-environment

[Cleopatra 93]

Where have you been Cleo?? Fracking is the means by which we are going to release trillions of cubic metres of natural gas from deep shale formations in various parts of the UK. So long as the government stops listening to the green loonies we will have guaranteed energy supply for at least a couple of hundred years. Google is a wonderful resource BTW :wink:

 

Not as exciting as I was thinking it was then.

[Bill 168]

Well if fracking’s doesn’t work then I could think of some better ways of keeping warm.

 

I don’t buy into your argument Observer. Your assumption seems to be that if you give someone in fuel poverty say £5 extra towards their fuel, then they’ll probably buy a packet of fags with the money. But if you reduced their fuel cost by £5 they’d still have £5 extra at the end of the week and so could still buy a packet of fags.

 

The problem as I see it is that the cost of fuel is just too bloody high and as asperity rightly says, a lot of that cost is directly due to those involved in climate change. If the gas reserves under the Fyld coast are to be believed, then it gives us 100 years of breathing space and who knows what other solutions we’re going to come across during that time.

 

Bill

[Cleopatra 93]

Bill, I quite like you. You talk a lot of sense.

[Bazj 500]

Bill, I quite like you. You talk a lot of sense.

 

[observer 624]

No Bill, if you give "the poor" £5s worth of heat, they stay warm; if you give them cash it can be spent on other things; this arguement could apply to other benefits too. As for energy bills generally, it might help if the Gov provided a free insulation programme for ALL properties, thus reducing consumption and bills.

[Bill 168]

Cleo I agree with you 100%

 

No that’s still not right Observer. You can’t give energy out like it’s a food parcel and neither can you control how much or how little a family chooses to use. Because we live in a free society without energy rationing it’s up to the individual to heat or eat as the saying goes and as long as that’s the case, the packet of fags remains in the equation.

 

Even if you did give out the free insulation, it could still be argued that that would reduce the fuel bill again leaving more money for the cigs. It’s a no win situation just as long as there’s a choice involved.

 

Bill

[Wireboy 5]

Maybe with the way things are going, people will re-open there chimneys. I know Warrington is a smokeless zone but people are being priced out of gas. If people start doing that (and I think they will) it will have the opposite effect to the green targets. People need to keep warm and if they cannot afford the legal way, they will do it the illegal way.

 

Burning logs or scrap timber is a lot cheaper and you can buy wood burners now that can be used in smokeless zones. As long as you have a ready cheap/free supply of wood you can keep warm and give the middle finger to the energy companies.

[observer 624]

No one's "rationing" energy Bill; folk in the "fuel poverty" bracket would simply have lower bills than otherwise, due to the Gov discount - simples.

[inky pete 91]

If you give a large monopoloy corporation £5, they'll probably spend it on bonuses, waste and inefficiency.

 

How is that going to help anyone in "fuel poverty". (BTW, I don't believe that ANYONE in this country actually can't afford to stay warm - it's all about choices and people need to be left alone to make chouces of their own).

 

Scrap the Green taxes (never understood how forcing us into pouring more money into the Treasury somehow removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere)and we'll all be able to afford to insulate properly - IF we so choose.

[Lt Kije 99]

I would not like to live any where near where fracking is taking place, their has been big problems with it in the United States, something is not right when you can set water out of your tap on fire

[asperity 613]

You will believe any propaganda Lt Kije :wink:

[Peter T 61]

No Bill, if you give "the poor" £5s worth of heat, they stay warm; if you give them cash it can be spent on other things; this arguement could apply to other benefits too. As for energy bills generally, it might help if the Gov provided a free insulation programme for ALL properties, thus reducing consumption and bills.

 

Those on benefit get it free. And I would have thought that all newish houses are wall and loft insulated anyway.

 

Perhaps solar panels are the answer.

[Peter T 61]

I would not like to live any where near where fracking is taking place, their has been big problems with it in the United States, something is not right when you can set water out of your tap on fire

 

 

Think of the money you would save by not having to boil the kettle.

[asperity 613]

I would not like to live any where near where fracking is taking place, their has been big problems with it in the United States, something is not right when you can set water out of your tap on fire

 

A bit of light reading:

 

Gasland

[observer 624]

You mean we havn't got six "private" energy companies Inky, all in furious "competition" with each other, to keep prices down for the customer?! If we've got a cartel, we may as well re-nationalise them!

[Wireboy 5]

Maybe re-nationalisation is the answer. Something needs to be done, as it will only get worse under the current system.

[observer 624]

It's all smoke and mirrors in any case; same gas, coming through the same pipes; may as well nationalise it.

[asperity 613]

It worked really well last time eh :roll: :roll:

[Lt Kije 99]

Your light reading Asp, comes from the people doing the fracking, As you say don't believe the propaganda.