Energy security strategy: Boris Johnson pledges to 'do more' on cost of living crisis as he defends energy strategy
"We are really doing a huge amount for the immediate cost of living," the PM said.
"This (energy strategy) is about tackling the mistakes of the past and making sure that we are set well for the future and we are never again subject to the vagaries of the global oil and gas prices and we can't be subject to blackmail, as it were, from people such as Vladimir Putin, we have energy security here in the UK."
It's lucky Boris again. Now he can slide the energy blame towards Putin rather than decades of boneheaded stupidity about climate change and sustainable energy.
Cure that and we could even make some progress, but they weren't mistakes of the past, they were features. Expensive energy was a deliberate aspect of energy policy. Stupid, but still deliberate.
6 comments:
If the prototype hydrogen boilers don't work as expected, we could send them to Ukraine as anti-tank devices.
Of course it's deliberate. My personal theory is that the whole issue of climate action is a scam and high energy costs are a central intended result. Ignore the local renewable energy get rich quick schemes for mates of the elites and think much longer term and deeper.
Think about taxation. Income taxes, NI, Vat etc are expensive to collect and open to all sorts of loopholes, they are relevent only within each individual nation.
For a future one world government you need a taxation system that is both worldwide and difficult to escape. Energy use and consumer spending are the most obvious close proxy to wealth.
So you load energy with all sorts of taxes, some overt like duty, VAT and green levies, others covert like CO2 pricing, extraction licences etc.
You now have a partly covert internationally applicable taxation system related to individual wealth based directly on energy use and also on consumer spending, because everything you buy has paid energy taxes and levies on extraction, manufacture, storage, transport - everything right down to the shop lighting and freezers in the supermarket.
So far I have not seen this idea anywhere else, so I'm either very machiavellian or an idiot, but it does explain the daft idea of giving handouts to assist with inflation rather than reducing the taxes on fuel. And how much do we pay for CO2 ouput licences that were slated to get traded like the stock market - gone very quiet hasn't it!
Well I for one don't think you're an idiot Woodsy, I agree with every word. But additionally I think that it has always been the policy to do this with energy supply, right back to way before 'climate change' was a gleam in some activist's eye. When I used to tell people that there was no shortage of energy for us and that its scarcity and high cost were political acts they were disbelieving; but I told a green dinner guest the other day, that if it weren't for politics it would be perfectly possible to run a house on gas and electricity for £150 a year.
Once thick politicians get involved in issues they will never understand, but are put to them by clever and rich businessmen, a 'market' is formed, where the shrewd (or crooked more like), business people take the politicians for a ride with bogus claims, raise money from other elites and sources, and whisk off the profit before Roger Harrabin even completes his English exams to become King Electric!
The money's been gone for ages by now, the taxes so well described by Woodsy and Tammly above are what's left for the politicians to fiddle about with. The Greens know all this of course, but as they're a sort of hybrid bunch of wide-eyed fantasists, they still can't see the future in real terms!
Expensive energy, how else can we afford to have those "green" non-jobs?
Sam - in future, Russians need to be wary of Ukrainian plumbers.
Woodsy and Tammly - I agree, that's what it is about. I seem to recall reading about this explanation when the carbon credits idea first surfaced, but for some reason it doesn't seem to be stressed so much now. I think that's an important reason why we haven't pushed nuclear, there was a possibility of it becoming too cheap.
Scrobs - and those thick politicians don't mind being sucked into schemes because it opens doors for a career after politics.
Anon - yes, it's like a green jobs subsidy.
Post a Comment