He still doesn’t grasp money, does he?

Funding the UK Green New Deal

OK, super.

The Green New Deal will:

Transform the UK’s 30 million buildings so that they’re all energy efficient by 2030 – creating hundreds of thousands of jobs on the way right across the UK, as well as the training and support services they’ll need;
Turn as many of those buildings as possible into power stations by fitting solar panels and other generating alternatives;
Build new social housing to end our housing crisis;
Investing in renewable energy of all sorts on and offshore;
Build a non-carbon based transport infrastructure;
Invest in agriculture that protects biodiversity;
Require that business transform itself to become zero net carbon and provide the funding to help them to do that if they cannot find it themselves;
Provide security for people’s savings, which will be used to fund this innovation at better rates of return than most savers enjoy now;
Deliver pensions that will work.

We’re in Underpants Gnomes territory here. Green investment…….. profit!

It’s the middle step that’s missing. How does investing in new social housing bring a profit to the investor? A no-carbon based transport infrastructure? Biodiversity is rather a public good isn’t it? With all of the problems of being able to appropriate the benefits of investment in a public good?

That being the problem here. Let’s just assume that everything else is correct – it ain’t of course, climate change isn’t going to drive us extinct, nor does all of this have to be done in 10 years – and that we need the green investments and all.

OK, what’s the problem with normal market forces just providing the investments? That they don’t turn a profit. Not in the normal financial sense they don’t, even if they are desirable in the larger context. Where we can say there’s a “profit for the planet” or whatever but we don’t in fact have that “profit to the investor directly in the here and now”.

For example, investing in solar panels doesn’t make a profit. That’s why we set up feed in tariffs and all that so that, with the subsidy, private sector investment in solar panels did make a profit. We deliberately twisted things so that the investor could appropriate some of the public benefit of that investment.

What’s the bit that Snippa has forgotten here? The Underpants Gnome bit. Where is the system whereby investors in things Green can appropriate some of that public benefit so as to provide a private return? Without that of course everything else is nonsense.

And the real joy is that with such a system then all the rest of the cobblers is unnecessary. Because in being able to make a private return on greenery we’ll get the greenery, won’t we?

That is, not for the first time, Snippa’s entirely missed the vital part to make the scheme work.

We’ve got to make it profitable to:

Turn as many of those buildings as possible into power stations by fitting solar panels and other generating alternatives;
Build new social housing to end our housing crisis;
Investing in renewable energy of all sorts on and offshore;
Build a non-carbon based transport infrastructure;
Invest in agriculture that protects biodiversity;

And once we’ve made it profitable to do so then what else do we need? And what’s Snippa forgotten? How to make it profitable.

30 comments on “He still doesn’t grasp money, does he?

  1. !. How much better off we will be if we do nothing special.

    2. Whenever money moves, there is profit. Declared for shareholders or going into someone’s back pocket. Pile o’ money theory.

  2. “And what’s Snippa forgotten? ”

    Not exactly forgotten. Just left out.
    The plan’s to fine the fuck out of you for not complying with Snippa’s New Green Deal. So under SNGD you get to keep a little more of your own money. Which is, of course, PROFIT!
    Simples.

  3. Ye canna change the laws of physics captain!

    But you can ignore them – on planet PowerPoint at least.

    Many moons ago Fred Hoyle wrote a short book in favour of nuclear power. Not above a bit of politicking himself, but in it he did clearly state one truth. “Energy is more important than money but we think otherwise because we use money to buy energy”

    You can make “green enery” as “competitive” as you wish by various sorts of financial woo (aka creative accounting) but you can’t make it work in the real world.

    Wind and solar have their uses, but these are definitely peripheral. They are far too diffuse and intermittent to be of any significant use in a modern industrial economy. There is a form of “green energy” that does work though – hydroelectric.

    Centuries ago, there were small water mills and windmills. The small water mill can become the three gorges dam. Windmills can be made with blades 200 foot across but they are essentially useless. If you have even an atom of understanding of physics or engineering, it is obvious why.

    If you come back with the “we need to remake society to fit the meagre and intermittent output”. Well, that’s the real agenda isn’t it.

    I believe you can sign up with suppliers who claim that all their electricity comes from “renewables”. Does anybody know how this particular scam works or what it says in the small print? How are they allowed to get away with it?

  4. Does Murphy think that there is an infinite number of building workers to transform 2.5 million houses a year to be energy-efficient like Grenfell Tower as well as building the million or so houses required to house the 3 million-plus immigrants (very very plus since 3+million NET immigrants in 2001-11 is net of deaths as well as emigration and excludes children born to immigrants) under New Labour?
    Does he think that there is any way for British Airways to become carbon-neutral?
    Does he think that directing savings into infrastructure investment creating no no value added using unproven technology will provide security/
    Does he think?

  5. Mark,
    I believe you can sign up with suppliers who claim that all their electricity comes from “renewables”. Does anybody know how this particular scam works or what it says in the small print? How are they allowed to get away with it?

    That’s what I want to know. How do they ensure that the electrons I receive via the National Grid are generated by wind/solar power and how do they separate them from the nasty electrons generated by Power Stations?

    So yeah. It’s a scam.

  6. “Invest in agriculture that protects biodiversity;”

    I’ll comment on the one bit I have some knowledge of. Farming suffers from a constantly deflating output price, and constantly inflating input prices, the two diverging factors only being bridged by a) subsidies and b) increased productivity. The latter basically means bigger more efficient machinery and larger scale units of production, neither of which are that conducive to biodiversity (whatever that means). Thus if you want ‘biodiverse’ food, the consumer is going to have to pay more for their food, or the tax payer is going to have to pay farmers even more subsidies than they do now. And cheap imports from ‘non biodiverse’ sources will have to be eliminated.

    All of which sounds great to me as a producer, something tells me that the 65m other non farmer consumers and taxpayers in the UK might have something to say about it though…………

  7. @ Mark
    What they do is buy energy equal to the amount sold to “Green” purchasers from “Green” suppliers – but supply that to the nearest customer while supplying energy to “Green” customers from the nearest supplier. But even that isn’t quite true – when there is no “Green” supply (as happens for a few days in January every year) they cheerfully use fossil fuel suppliers and make the annual accounts balance by buying more “Green” energy in summer.
    Definitely a scam.
    How do they get away with it? political bias in the DPP under Kier Starmer and his hand-picked successors.

    There is one point where I disagree – wind and solar can be used where the demand is not time-critical. The Dutch (the experts on windmills, whatever the Danes claim) use windmills to pump water out of the polders. You can use solar panels to supply power to office air-conditioning. There are dozens of other examples, if one just thinks (I sometimes wonder whether Greenie propagandists are unable to think or just choose not to do so).

  8. Provide security for people’s savings, which will be used to fund this innovation at better rates of return than most savers enjoy now;

    Narrator: they stole your money.

  9. Rob I foresee adverts in the future a la PPI for so called green investments that have left millions in the red.

  10. There’s already complaints over the misspelling of solar panels, I believe at least one of the banks that had a specific loan package for solar panel installation is already providing £30m-£40m for compensation/default etc.

  11. @John 77

    Thanks for clarifying. Of course it’s a scam, just wasn’t sure how it worked.

    Wind and solar do have their uses, but these uses are very much peripheral (but worth doing I might add. If we could get – say – 5% genuinely from wind/solar. Great). But the “green deal” and other such fantasies claim that the whole world can be run off them which is demonstrable nonsense.

    If windmills were genuinely useful sources of power, the Victorians would have covered every damned hill with them and we likely wouldn’t have a large scale grid. Why didn’t they?

    I have no problem with “green energy” and I have no issue with it except for the weaponising of it ( a rather large “if” ) against the sort of technological society I’m afraid far too many take for granted.

  12. Centuries ago, there were small water mills and windmills. The small water mill can become the three gorges dam. Windmills can be made with blades 200 foot across but they are essentially useless. If you have even an atom of understanding of physics or engineering, it is obvious why.

    I’m a volunteer warden at the oldest ‘smock’ windmill in the country (come and visit, but we’re only open for another fortnight this season). I bore visitors by pointing out that you only find windmills where there’s no running water*. If there’s a small stream, you can dam it and you have a much more effective energy source that is under your control. With a windmill, you can’t run if there’s no wind, or even if there’s too much wind – just as true for today’s wind turbines as it was for 17th century windmills.

    * East Anglia and the Netherlands have plenty of water, but not much in the way of a useful head to generate power. Hence windmills.

  13. My house is already energy efficient, thak you very much, and if somebody tries to put some of those abominations on my roof, I’ll be applying for a shotgun license.

  14. Wtf has biodiversity got to do with reducing net CO2? Maybe Snippa knows. I shall ask him.
    I mean you could take land out of agriculture by permitting GMO, and getting rid of the EU’s de facto meat production subsidies which account for a lot of land area relative to protein output. But that doesn’t reduce CO2.
    In fact if you increase the temperature range of the world, and go for more extremes of climate, then more biodiversity could and should emerge. It’s a non-sequitur argument for his plan, thrown in to throw you off track.

  15. I’ve got a better idea. He could use the returns from all that “investing” Gordon Brown did using my taxes. They should be providing stellar returns by now, or that’s what we were promised.

    He can fuck of if he thinks he’s getting even a sniff of my savings.

  16. I live in one of those 30 million buildings. Have worked in several others.
    They are already energy efficient, the market made them so. Many years ago, what with grants, rising prices etc the emphasis was on making a lot of these buildings energy efficient.
    Was at my local hospital recently, its less than 12 years old. And its pretty energy efficient compared to the old building.

    Perhaps he sees problems where people have already provided and fitted the solutions years ago.

  17. I live somewhere that is almost all hydro, the Greens have been holding up building a new dam to increase capacity for years.
    So even where there’s an eco solution they aren’t letting you build it.

  18. Why wouldn’t you do the Green New Deal (UK)? So many good things, and it will only cost £100,000,000,000,000.57. How could you be against it? You would have to hate the planet to be against it!

  19. The potato obviously not read this – http://euanmearns.com/the-energy-return-of-solar-pv/- The conclusion- If correct, that means more energy is used to make the PV panels than will ever be recovered from them during their 25 year lifetime. A PV panel will produce more CO2 than if coal were simply used directly to make electricity. Worse than that, all the CO2 from PV production is in the atmosphere today, while burning coal to make electricity, the emissions would be spread over the 25 year period.
    But then again the potato never does any real research – he just jumps on the nearest passing bandwagon.

  20. Apparently we shouldn’t do Brexit because it’s hard and will hurt the economy, but destroying it for green virtue signalling is ok

  21. “Wind and solar have their uses, but these are definitely peripheral.”

    The best use of solar and wind is for remote places. If you need energy off the grid, it can be a lot cheaper than getting wired up. Like, many parking machines run on solar. They charge a car battery. It means you can put one on a car park on a beach or country park without digging anything up.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.