The study, which modelled the effect of narrowing the gaps in energy use between households within 27 European countries, found capping demand from the top fifth, even at a fairly high level, cut greenhouse gas pollution from energy consumption by 9.7%, while raising demand from people in the bottom fifth who also live in poverty to a fairly low level increases emissions by just 1.4%.
“We have to start tackling luxury energy use to stay within an equitable carbon budget for the globe,” said Milena Buchs, a professor of sustainable welfare at the University of Leeds and the lead author of the study, published on Monday in the journal Nature Energy, “but also to actually have the energy resources to enable people in fuel poverty to slightly increase their energy use and meet their needs.”
Why do they keep coming back to the same idiot proposals?
“Why do they keep coming back to the same idiot proposals?”
Because they think they might find a nice little earner.
Because evil is eternal, and usually doesn’t think of itself as evil? Look at Murphy – would be hard to find anyone more convinced of his own righteousness yet he is in many ways as close to pure evil as it’s possible to find. He has no redeeming features whatsoever. And get people embrace his beliefs. As the BiS says – it’s Murphy’s world. We just live in it.
As regards the folly of rationing – agree completely but when you are pathologically incapable of valuing freedom Or losing control of your perceived power over people you can only see greater power and greater control as solutions.
“For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.”
Funny how often the simple and obvious solution is “make me world dictator so everybody has to do what I say”.
“A professor of sustainable welfare”. Someone who knows no science or logic, then.
I think a goal we could all agree on would be nett zero masturbatory fantasies by 2030.
Private masturbatory fantasies are fine, but have no place in any sort of government/governance. Unfortunately, that just sounds like my masturbatory fantasy (one of them anyway!). The “professor” it would appear has an MSc in sociology with political science and economics and PhD in Social Policy (from the fatherland, whose previous denizens with doctorates in improving the human race – well, didn’t) and is currently supervising a number of P.hDs
• Spatially just energy transitions
• Examining the environmental implications of Universal Basic Income
• Virtual reality and pro-environmental behaviour change
• Global eco-social policies
• Governance of energy and transport infrastructures and services for wellbeing and planetary boundaries
• Fairness implications of low carbon energy policies in the UK and France, an intersectional approach
• Evaluating wellbeing economy initiatives
P.hD from the university of life for anybody who can tell me what the fuck any of those actually mean!
What do they mean by “fairly high” and “fairly low”? I am sure that I could produce figures that give 1.4% for the effect of capping energy use by the top fifth and 9.7% for the increase by the lower fifth simply by changing the definition of “fairly high” and “fairly low”.
Europe has maybe 10% of the World,s population, and is stupidly beating itself up over a problem that does not exist, while the rest of the World could not give a rats, arse, and is getting richer by the minute.
We have to start tackling luxury energy use . . .
Yes, let’s combine this with Rishi Sunak’s proposal to end useless degrees. Half the universities are luxuries we can well do without, and half the courses in the other half are also useless energy squanderers. These are tough times and sacrifices must be made.
“9.7% … 1.4% …”
This is all bollocks, isn’t it? We’re supposed to believe that we know how to limit the warming of the entire globe by tenths of a degree, and now that cutting of the leccy of a fifth of the population will reduce “pollution” by 9.7%. Not 9½% or 10%, nope: 9.7%.
When people are that precise with figures which can’t possibly be that precise (as John says, what do “fairly high” and “fairly low” mean?), you can be reasonably confident they’re talking bollocks. The thinking seems to be that people will see percentages and decimal points and think it must be Science™. The writers on later Star Trek series operated on a very similar principle.
“narrowing the gaps in energy use between households”
So, households with two adults and three children ***MUSWT&**** use the same energy as households with one adult and zero children.
Why do they keep coming back to the same idiot proposals?
Because it’s a religion. You just have to believe in 10 contradictory things before breakfast & the power of prayer & you’re saved I tell you, saved! Keep counting those beads.
More like 6.25% of the global population (about 500m out of 8b).
None of this matters until China and India start cleaning up their act and a lot of that is actual pollution, not air-born plant food.
Meanwhile, Germans have gone backwards from Nuclear to brown coal (and more actual pollution by burning it) for reasons that make no sense to me, nor most of the German population.
More like “Pay more tax to appease the Earth Gods”. Makes about as much sense as Warble Gloaming.
Sounds great – let’s create a black market, encourage corruption, and prevent the wealthy from spending any of their money in the legal economy.
If only there were a proven way to allocate scarce resources…
@Mark They don’t mean anything, other than having the right word-count, making the right noises, and reaching the Correct Conclusions to secure a cushy place at the Trough of Subsidy.
The modern equivalent of medieval Philosophical Debate about the amount of angels that would fit on the head of a pin, dancing or not. Without questioning if there’s actually such a thing as an angel, because that would be Heresy.
Most academics are out of touch with the real world and have little useful to say about it.
(This view, of course, is not conventional among academics, most of whom fancy themselves as possessing deep insight into, and special knowledge of, the workings of the economy and society. In addition to these absurd fancies, most academics also believe – even more absurdly – that they are of nobler and purer character than are the icky likes of entrepreneurs, investors, and other profit-seeking business people – people who are actually willing and able to be productive in ways judged as such by real-world consumers; ways that not one academic in 500 could possibly pull off. Academics, in general, – and like politicians – ought not be taken seriously. A shockingly large number of them are ignorant and officious fools.)
https://cafehayek.com/2015/02/some-links-514.html
This study is not remotely realistic.
Take the case of a low energy users / fuel poverty.
Consumption 100 units per week.
New consumption 101.4 units. Is that even noticeable?
Now the high energy user (big house, maybe listed so no wall insulation or double glazing)
Consumption 1,000 pw
New consumption 903.
That’s a noticeable drop.
So it’s balls.
Why do they keep coming back to the same idiot proposals?
Because they want control.
Very true Dennis. It’s the control that’s the purpose of it all. The climate rubbish is only the excuse.
Why do they keep coming back to the same idiot proposals?
Because they’re idiots?
The top energy use is long-haul flights. But taxing them to the hilt means people will just change flight in Amsterdam or whichever nearby country has lower Air Passenger Duty.
Besides, preventing Mohammed and his three wives and seventeen children from flying back home to Pakistan twice a year sounds pretty racist to me.
Because they think the luxury consumption is done by layabouts eating the fruits of the labour of the oppressed?
So since those luxury consumers are all layabouts who make no effort whatsoever anyway, removing the options for luxury consumption will have zero impact on incentives and therefore no economic impact on “the poor”.
It’s almost as if someone wrote a novel about this several decades ago isn’t it.
The whole green madness seems to be all stick and no carrot. There doesn’t seem to be a single proposal or policy that makes people better off. I don’t understand why more haven’t seen through it. I suppose the endless fear mongering is part of it.
Because they’re idiots?
“Meanwhile, Germans have gone backwards from Nuclear to brown coal…for reasons that make no sense to me, nor most of the German population.”
The reason given was to avoid a repeat of the Fukushima disaster. An argument that was obviously fallacious but gave them the excuse that they wanted.
“Are you saying you don’t want me to beat you with the stick then Comrade?”
Socialism – Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.
If they want to “Narrow the gaps in energy use between households” I’m quite happy to drastically increase my energy useage – so long as a Guardian reader pays for the difference…
@ philip
You are understating it. The 9.7% is of total energy you use, not just of the top 20%’s use, so a bloody sight bigger % of their own use.
OTOH increasing the bottom quintile’s energy use by 1.4% of the overall total may be noticeable to them.
“The whole green madness seems to be all stick and no carrot.”
You won’t see the carrot coming.
@dearieme – “Because they think they might find a nice little earner.”
No. It’s far worse than that. The most important factor is that they really believe in what they are saying. Some of this is based on ignorance, and has potential to be improved with information, but most is due to an inability to understand how the world works, leading to solutions being devised which are based in fantasy.
who can tell me what the fuck any of those actually mean!
Collectively, they mean the good professor ought to be dragged into the street and humanely beaten to death.