Paying to go Green

I do wonder at times you know, I do. For example, is this guy actually as thick as he sounds or has the newspaper deliberately made him look so?

Friends of the Earth supported the government\’s drive to use far more renewable power, but said loading the cost onto the consumer was misguided.

Who the buggery else is there to pay for it? There\’s no magic pot of money anywhere, there\’s only what can be taken out of the hides of the 60 million or so who live in the country. If it\’s not going to be those 60 million who pay for this renewables fantasy, then who will?

Twit.

12 thoughts on “Paying to go Green”

  1. Well, when the government wants something they print some money and use that to pay for it, that’s how it works, innit?

  2. Or they windfall-tax it from the secret huge pots of money that our evil enviro-rapist corporations bury at the end of the rainbows, tainting them black with the pollution of their grubby oil-soaked dollars.

    Since, of course, Swiss banking secrecy has been weakened. So, clearly, we need to boycott Toblerone to protect the indigenous leprechaun population!

  3. “Who the buggery else is there to pay for it?”

    Producers, of course. Evil producers

    Who in Friend of the Earth spokeman’s imagination wear top hats, monocles and relax on big piles of money, like Scrooge McDuck.

    Because even FotE idiots realise that if the consumers ever twig just what the Green loonies have in store for them, they’ll hang the dimwit hippies from the nearest (sustainably-electric) lamppost…

  4. I assume they mean they want it to be taken out of general taxation, and thus redistribute the burden, rather than just hiking up fuel bills and imposing ‘fuel poverty’ on people, particularly the elderly.

    They didn’t really explain it very well, though.

  5. I imagine FOE meant that the costs shouldn’t be borne at the point of consumption. If there was a need for this, they would have a point. Of course, there isn’t, and they don’t.

  6. “I assume they mean they want it to be taken out of general taxation, and thus redistribute the burden, rather than just hiking up fuel bills and imposing ‘fuel poverty’ on people…”

    So, everyone pays, not just the consumers of the energy? Yeah, that’ll work… 😀

  7. So, everyone pays, not just the consumers of the energy? Yeah, that’ll work… 😀

    It would be so effective at limiting excessive use, won’t it? With the direct cost to the users of the resource being so, well, nil? It is, it has to be said, an entirely consistent nu-Lab solution. All we need to find is a stealth way of implementing it.

    Oh, I don’t know, what about a windfall tax? ‘Cause the buggers won’t put up the prices (again) to regain their profit margins, will they?

  8. “Oh, I don’t know, what about a windfall tax?”

    When the wind falls off, there certainly will be a need to pay: for all that gas that suddenly is needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *