so I get that energy prices are high, and I get that this has a cascading effect on, well, everything.
I'm not really sure though that energy prices can be controlled by govts.
(the comparison with the Poll Tax is somewhat irrelevant because the poll tax was 100% dreamed up by the govt, and was a new tax out of fresh air).
Energy is however a commodity, and prices are set internationally either by private companies, or other govts (eg Russia).
Yes there are taxes on energy, but that's just taxes, if they don't get the money there, they'll get it somewhere else.
So given that the underlying price is set by extra-govt entities, who have plenty of customers elsewhere, I'm not sure that most govts have control over energy they would like.
A better long-term solution is to a) Foster the use of less energy overall, better house insulation, electric cars etc and b) grow home-produced energy (wind etc.) if those reduce dependancies on oil and gas then that's likely a nice byproduct.
Of course these won't change by Oct 1.
So yeah, I get people are hurting, I'm just not sure there's a lot a single nation (which imports energy) can do much about it.
I think that it's not true that govt are not a big influence on energy pricing.
For example; UK energy costs are currently higher than EU because the govt decommissioned most of our long term gas storage meaning our usage is tied to the current price (hence we've had price shock a lot quicker than the EU).
Also government's control the system of marginal pricing which generally was a good system for fair pricing - but with gas costs rocketing is skewing energy costs unduly.
Of course policy and long range planning can greatly affect real energy costs. This can be done on the govt level, or on occasion on the individual level (investing in houses, transport etc that improve energy efficiency.)
But a "rent boycott" is typically a short-term even chasing a specific short term outcome. Yes old policies have an effect here, yes new policies will help in the future, but it's not clear what action the host article is trying to accomplish.
>the comparison with the Poll Tax is somewhat irrelevant because the poll tax was 100% dreamed up by the govt...
So was the decision to fight an economic war against Europe's major energy supplier
>Energy is however a commodity, and prices are set internationally either by private companies, or other govts...
What's not been mentioned in the other comments is that, in addition to the 30% price hikes on the actual cost of the electricity/gas we use at home, there has also been a similar price hike on the Standing Charge, which is the daily fee you pay, just for having your home connected to the grid. You continue to pay this even if you don't use any electricity or gas whatsoever.
I think this was the straw that broke the camel's back for many people. When the energy companies took advantage of the raising of the energy price cap to hike the costs of the actual energy they supply by 30% that was bad enough. But the fact they also took the opportunity to slap a similar increase on the Standing Charge was despicable.
> So was the decision to fight an economic war against Europe's major energy supplier
No, that was Russia's choice. They chose to invade Ukraine with the full and inexcusable intent of occupying territory. Opposing this is not that different from opposing the occupation of Poland nearly a century ago, and boohooing about how it hurts the economy is just so transparently self-serving at the expense of the Ukrainian people and everyone else in former Soviet bloc countries, it makes my teeth hurt.
What was the UK government's choice was being party to the entrenchment of Russia as Europe's major energy supplier over the course of the past decade or so. That was a very bad idea, but unfortunately, there's not much we can do about it in the short term now.
>No, that was Russia's choice. They chose to invade Ukraine with the full and inexcusable intent of occupying territory...
And what has that got to do with our energy supplies? Did we thumb our noses at Saudi Arabia and stop buying their oil,when they started bombing the shit out of Yemen? Have we sanctioned the US --ever!-- for any of the 88 and counting countries they've attacked since the end of the second world war?
What's so special about Ukraine that we have to throw our own people under the bus because Ukraine hid behind the US's skirts poking the bear next door with a stick and are now suffering the consequences?
>What was the UK government's choice was being party to the entrenchment of Russia as Europe's major energy supplier over the course of the past decade or so. That was a very bad idea
No. That was a very good idea. What was a very bad idea was continuing to treat Russia as a leper state, even after the break-up of the Soviet Union and the [relatively!] bloodless 'liberation' of Eastern Europe. Is anyone surprised that Russia has realised "Fuck it. whatever we do, we're still the bad guys here!" and decided they might as well act accordingly.
But don't fret. I'm sure the good ol' US of A will be delighted to make up the energy shortfall by selling us as much oil & gas as we can send them wheelbarrows full of cash for, in the future. The fact that it's environmentally insane to ship oil & gas all the way across the Atlantic Ocean, when we could have it cleanly flowing through pipelines from our next-door neighbour is a minor detail.
> And what has that got to do with our energy supplies? Did we thumb our noses at Saudi Arabia and stop buying their oil,when they started bombing the shit out of Yemen? Have we sanctioned the US --ever!-- for any of the 88 and counting countries they've attacked since the end of the second world war?
Well, I mean, first of all, we absolutely should. It's long past time to stop subsidizing their lifestyle and their violence to support our outdated dependence on fossil fuels.
We also need to stop treating Brown People Countries as being less important to protect than White People Countries.
> What's so special about Ukraine that we have to throw our own people under the bus because Ukraine hid behind the US's skirts poking the bear next door with a stick and are now suffering the consequences?
....But there actually is a significant difference here (beyond the racism angle). From what I understand, the Saud family just wants to have hegemony within their fairly-small region. Which, yeah, that's not great, but...
Putin wants to reassemble the USSR, and then exert influence over...basically all of Asia and Europe. I don't know if he actually wants to "rule the world", but he certainly wants to be in position to influence or pressure most of the world to do things His Way. He is objectively a much greater threat to world stability and to the US.
> I'm not really sure though that energy prices can be controlled by govts.
It can. France has set up an electricity price cap, which EDF has bled billions to maintain (compared to the market price) resulting in it's renationalisation. The cap will remain in the foreseeable future.
> a) Foster the use of less energy overall, better house insulation, electric cars etc and b) grow home-produced energy (wind etc.) if those reduce dependancies on oil and gas then that's likely a nice byproduct.
None of these can be in place in sufficient quantity for this winter, and all have been in progress for years now, depending on the European country. (Stuff like massive tax credits and/or subsidies to insulate/buy an EV/switch to less energy intensive heating/etc.)
> I'm not really sure though that energy prices can be controlled by govts.
They cannot set the price, but they can set the market mechanism which produces the prices. The auction mechanism used in UK and the order in which producers with higher CO2 output get switched off first means that electricity price is set by gas powered electricity producers. Govt can and is looking at updating that auction mechanism to decouple electricity prices from gas prices.
What I'd like to see is progressive energy cost (or rebate or sth). Have low cost for an amount per person that is sufficient to jest your average house to, dunno, 15 deg C and cook 1 hot meal per day. Have ~market price for the rest.
Neither are you, then, forcing people into living in cold damp mouldy houses, nor are you subsidizing people's gas heated jacuzzis again market forces.
This kind of campaign would not be possible in the US because the provider can simply turn your service off with no questions asked, where from their FAQ it sounds like turning it off is heavily regulated in the UK.
On the one hand, solar panels will not fix this problem. Sun and wind both die down in the UK in the winter. You need hydrocarbons.
Honestly, if it were me, I'd ask them to turn my gas off and just heat a few rooms with electric heaters, and buy lots of blankets. It's not very convenient, but wearing a coat indoors is free. That feels more honest than stealing their gas and then not paying for it. Sure, they're probably ripping me off. Doesn't mean I should do the same.
> That feels more honest than stealing their gas and then not paying for it. Sure, they're probably ripping me off. Doesn't mean I should do the same.
This kind of supine attitude is why 'The Great British* Public' continues to be fucked over by their governments, year after year, decade after decade and just keeps on taking it, with barely a murmur.
Even when they're plunging a huge section of the population into abject poverty, causing thousands of elderly people to die of hypothermia over the winter, causing countless people to contemplate suicide --because they literally can't afford to heat their homes or pay their energy bills...
...you're more concerned with not 'stealing' from the energy companies --who've just made record profits again, whose shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank. And whose directors will likely see out the worst of the winter on the yachts in the Bahamas they bought with their multi-million pound annual bonuses.
[*insert other nations, as appropriate]
PS: Why has this thread been flagged. It's a damned sight more important than most of the stuff that gets submitted on here, these days.
Not much gas will get stolen. This campaign says they'll stop their direct debit arrangements. They'll still owe the money and most people will pay eventually. It may squeeze the utility companies a bit in the short term though, and I wonder if they have insurance for this kind of thing.
Utility companies don't purchase insurance against their customers not paying. The utilities can draw down their capital reserves, or if necessary borrow money to continue operating until customers pay their bills.
This kind of campaign would not be possible in the US because the provider can simply turn your service off with no questions asked, where from their FAQ it sounds like turning it off is heavily regulated in the UK.
That might be true, but if enough customers organise to refuse to pay the company will collapse. You can't carry on trading if you cut off some relatively large percentage of your revenue stream. There's no reason to belive customers are powerless in the US.
You can but that doesn't send the same message. The point is to tell the companies "We want your service but we believe the price is unreasonable." Cancelling the service fails to achieve that.
Also, this isn't stealing. It's negotiating. Withholding payment until you get what you need is a very common tactic in business. There's no reason why consumers shouldn't be able to use it too.
> Withholding payment until you get what you need is a very common tactic in business
Are you talking about negotiating a contract or breaching one you've already agreed to? If the latter, can you provide some examples of breaching a contract to negotiate new terms? That's not something I've heard before, I think.
Neither. I'm saying that common for two parties to sign a contract that agrees a payment schedule based on delivery milestones, and for one party to withhold payment because they think the other party hasn't delivered what they said they would deliver. For example, if X commissions a website from Y that says X will pay when the website is "done", X will refuse to pay Y until X thinks it's fast enough, or has a feature that Y didn't think they would have to develop, etc. The negotiation is around whether or not the terms of the contract have been fulfilled.
If you've signed up for a payment plan for £xx/month and overnight it goes up to £xx+30%/month in August, with the threat of another similar price hike in January, it could be argued that the energy companies broke the contract.
Yes, there has always been the possibility of prices rising. But there's also always been a reasonable expectation that any price rises would be in line with inflation. Not +30% twice in the space of a few months.
It is indeed a problem, however just for a few days in the year, most of the winter there's no issue. From your link:
> The German weather service estimates that it happens on the average twice each year, that the power production from wind and solar in Germany is less than 10% the expected average for at least 2 days. Every once in a while these situations can last a week or longer.
The UK has a few nuclear projects in progress (mostly done by foreign companies, including the French state owned EDF and even a Chinese company at some point), and a domestic small modular reactor program in research.
There have been delays and budget overruns (nothing unexpected really) at Hinkley Point C (an EPR build by EDF; and where the cleanup and decomissioning costs are explicitly included in the overall costs of the project and the electricity price reflects that) and that had stirred some debate, but i don't think anyone is still complaining about it.
One lesson from this disruption of energy markets seems to be that it renders visible the incredibly inflated value attached to service economies. I strongly remember the "Russia's economy is the size of Italy, what's that going to do?!" arguments in spring.
I remember certain US President warning the Europe this kind of thing may happen, some years ago. And some Europeans very independently and openly laughing at him. I wonder if they are still laughing. I also wonder whether their electorate still think they were defending their interests in the best way possible. I also wonder when and how exactly US forced the dependent Europe into rebuilding their energy structure in a way that led to the current conundrum.
I fully agree. We need a full decoupling from the US. We must protect our economy and our interests, through out every single American soldier from European soil and make sure that those brain-washing machinery Hollywood/Netflix are being banned and replaced.
We are in this mess because of the US. Let us not forget that they are not our friends, but our enemy.
PS: btw, given by what you are saying I assume you haven't seen russia's state tv channels last years which airing in a prime-time shows how they would like to strike EU countries with missiles...
>Do you not realize that the US is the only reason Russia doesn't steamroll all of Europe?
Do you not realise the US is the only reason Europe doesn't enjoy friendly relations with Russia and access to that colossal market for European goods and, in return, access to equally colossal supplies of cheap energy.
Wake up and smell the bloody coffee! The US is the direct or indirect cause of most of the conflict in the world today. You're like Oceania. Your entire economy and political system is based on there always having to be 'An Enemy". Today it's Russia, yesterday it was ISIS, the day before that it was North Korea, the day before that The Taliban, The day before that Iran... the day before that... and so on, ad nauseam. Who will it be tomorrow?
The US has been at 'war' with <someone> continually since the end of WWII --yet somehow you never seem to consider the merest possibility that the fact you're continually getting into fights with other people might j-u-s-t p-o-s-s-i-b-l-y be because it's actually you who are the 'Baddies'... and not [at one time or another] everyone else on the fucking planet!
No, the fundamental reason Europe doesn't enjoy friendly relations with Russia is because Europe is liberal and Russia is not. I'm not an American either. The US has enough of its own internal problems and their military actions aren't ones where millions of Americans settle on the territories they fought on so I don't buy the argument that their political or economic system is based on having an external enemy. It certainly wasn't that way before WW2 nor afterwards, especially given how big their domestic market is. The reason they have been consistently involved in international conflicts is primarily because they were violently against Communism spreading around the world. Most things stem from that. Take your examples, North Korea is a direct hold over from the Cold War. Taliban/ISIS is religious extremism that came about from Cold War conflicts. Iran is because they are a threat to America's ally in the Middle East, Israel, which was only created post WW2 and heavily involved in several Cold War conflicts.
>No, the fundamental reason Europe doesn't enjoy friendly relations with Russia is because Europe is liberal and Russia is not...
Are you for real? Europe [and its puppet-master the USA] enjoys cordial relations with some of the most odious regimes in the world because they're 'on our side'. It's kindergarten stuff and self-delusional to pretend western nations form their relations with other countries based on moral principles.
>I don't buy the argument that their political or economic system is based on having an external enemy. It certainly wasn't that way before WW2 nor afterwards..
Maybe you should do a bit of independent reading and thinking, before making such nonsensical statements:
> Do you not realise the US is the only reason Europe doesn't enjoy friendly relations with Russia
Is because Russia does not have friends. If you think buying his hydrocarbons and shutting up about him being fascist would make you Putin's friend - you've got some bad news coming. Putin doesn't want friends. He wants power. If he can use some useful idiots from the West (like certain German politicians) to gain more power - he will use them. The rest of the Germans are paying for it now.
> might j-u-s-t p-o-s-s-i-b-l-y be because it's actually you who are the 'Baddies'
We considered the possibility, and it's not true. Putin attacked Georgia in 2008, Putin attacked Ukraine in 2014, Putin is attacking Ukraine right now. It's that simple. There are evil people around, and sometimes evil people capture power in some countries. It happened in Germany. It happened in (half of) Korea. It happened in Iran. Now it happened in Russia.
> not [at one time or another] everyone else on the fucking planet!
Everyone else on the fucking planet did not invade Ukraine. Putin did.
Considering what percentage of tech workers in the West and therefore on this forum are of Asian heritage I doubt there is much brainwashing going on beyond the typical lack of knowledge on culture or history and so on.
2021 is the last year that idea had any leg. A "steamrolling" into Poland, even with a fully withdrawn US army, would be an harder feat than one into Ukraine...
Russian tactics would be completely different for that scenario. There would be a much more massive bombing campaign using the full might of their air force (which is clearly not what is happening in Ukraine) for one. I wouldn't rule out usage of tactical nuclear weapons either if they faced any difficulties.
> There would be a much more massive bombing campaign using the full might of their air force (which is clearly not what is happening in Ukraine)
Why? They've shelled indiscriminately civilian city centres, train stations with civilian evacuations, buildings where civilians have taken shelter. It's obvious they couldn't care less about civilian lives, what is stopping them from using their aviation?
Considering what we saw on the rare occasions they did use their aviation (phones with buttons used to coordinate and communicate, using physical landscapes and maps for orientation, pilots in not the best shape) their air force is probably as good as their army. That is, utterly shit, with terrible maintenance, no morale, missing equipment, etc etc etc.
Shelling city centers randomly once a day is completely different to a widespread bombing campaign similar to Dresden in WW2. You can see the obvious differences looking at the casualty rates on Wikipedia (~30,000 in 6 months vs ~25,000 in 3 days). They also have to maintain their aviation in case of an escalation with NATO.
How they are currently going now in the war which was clearly not planned well at all doesn't necessary mean their performance would carry over to a war with the rest of Europe which I doubt would be this poorly planned. Plenty of military commentators have noted such a point (Michael Kofman as an example).
> Shelling city centers randomly once a day is completely different to a widespread bombing campaign similar to Dresden in WW2
Of course they're different, nobody is arguing the opposite.
> How they are currently going now in the war which was clearly not planned well at all doesn't necessary mean their performance would carry over to a war with the rest of Europe which I doubt would be this poorly planned. Plenty of military commentators have noted such a point (Michael Kofman as an example).
I don't follow. Why do you think that:
a) they have some hidden reserves they're keeping for a potential escalation. It'd be mighty stupid to not use them, or at least some parts of them, for the ongoing war which is going very poorly for them. Their advance is stopped and they're even losing ground on some fronts. What could they be possibly waiting for? It seems unlikely that they've taken Tochkas, T-62s and Mosin-Nagant rifles out of the museums to equip the Donetsk and Luhansk "volunteers" and other cannon fodder, or they'd be buying North Korean artillery shells and pieces, if they really had any reserves left. It's a myth that their best units were kept in reserve.
b) that a war they started, on their terms, and for which they've had at least since 2014 to prepare for, is going to be vastly different than any other conflict. If they can't prepare to invade Ukraine, which is literally a part of the same railway system (which is crucial for Russian logistics), with which they have hundreds of kms of borders to invade through, and which is almost entirely surrounded by Russian and allied land... how could they possibly prepare for anything? Russia doesn't stand a chance against Poland and Ukraine, let alone the whole of NATO.
What? It's Thales who produce Russia's R77M1 guidance systems and some of its avionics, and they are worst than MICAs (let's not even talk about Meteors). Russian pilots get on average less than 80 hours/year of real flights, standard in France in 140, including regular wargames against US raptors and superhornets at both Fox3 and Fox2 distance (some old videos are available on the internet of rafale f2 vs F22 raptor, it is fun to watch)(also, i write engagement distance in full letter because french standard for their rafale is confusing).
And not talking about the difference in Fox3 missiles (because Russia cannot compete), even Fox2 it's not that close, with a time to lock for MICA IM at least twice as short as Russia equivalent on the same plane (and MICAs avionics are better, so harder to evade).
But enough talk about missiles and air to air engagement. What about electronic warfare capabilities? Oh yeah, dependant on Thales designs. Also, do you expect a lot from country whose plane passive IFF isn't working? Yeah, that happened on a Su34 (so, not that old of a plane).
The S400 would prevent too much entries in Russian airspace (although we learned last year than EM disruption was enough to counter it, you still have to find it. I think S400 are better than what a lot of people now expect from Russian modern weaponry). I doubt however they would have anything other than Su57 left after two days of war against EU. And since they already lost two (or is it three?) in six months in ukraine, they only have thirteen left (including prototypes).
Also i'm not convinced of Russian nightime optics, i know they didn't hire Thales for those, but i think they should have considering it took two weeks to spot nighttime Mariupol approvisionment raids.
Why would it matter who produces them? They would be bought where it's cheapest to buy them, that doesn't necessary mean they lack the ability to produce them domestically if needed. Russia's military expenditure adjusted for purchasing power is far more than any individual country in the EU indeed it's more than all the great powers of the EU combined. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/roiw.12536
Russia's air force pilots would be getting more combat experience compared to French pilots whose only would are less active in doing strikes in Africa and the Middle East. This applies to their armed forces in general in comparison to EU armies. I would agree their electronic warfare has been lackluster so far in Ukraine and that sanctions will continue to cause problems but in the long term I am not so sure their effect would be so great if Russia was planning years ahead. Also I would mention there's lots of Russian sympathizers in the EU and the increased amount of espionage that would occur beforehand, it would likely be a lot more brazen than it currently is. I can't find the source right now but recently I read some military commentators talking about how Russia has a much higher industrial capacity than the US currently has too. I would assume this applies to the EU. Even if they lack lots of high tech stuff they can still mass produce more lower tech fighters and so on.
I would be very cautious underestimating Russia's military ability just because of the fuck up in Ukraine. At the start people were calling it the end of the tank in the modern military too but now more wiser heads are prevailing.
Do you not realise that the EU (yes, not Europe, sorry Moldova and Ukraine) has a mutual defense component and includes a nuclear power with a 24/7 nuclear submarine patrol? Nobody is steamrolling the EU.
Not to mention that the state of the Russian army is so poor it could barely steamroll Moldova.
Okay, I will retract my statement to say steamroll up to France (because I believe France would use nukes to defend France). I don't believe they would use nukes to defend other European countries unless they had American backing, you can see even now how weak Europe is regarding punishing Russia, and that's with America pushing them to do so. I will defer to my sibling comment on the state of the Russian army. One thing I actually forgot to mention is that Russia openly does subcritical nuclear weapons testing which as far as I know is not done by any Western nuclear weapons nation which relies almost solely on computer simulations. The US is also (at least publicly) playing catch up on various hypersonic cruise missile technology with Russia and China so I would definitely not risk underplaying their air force capabilities.
Emmanuel Macron, French president for the next 5 years, has already said that he's ready to share the responsibility and power of French nuclear power with the EU. He's been harping for stronger European integration and dedicated EU-wide defence collaboration and forces. French nuclear weapons are definitely on the table in any conflict involving the EU.
Yes the US government agrees, and has been urging European countries to take responsibility for their own defense instead of depending on the US security umbrella. And the EU probably should have done more to compromise on UK demands in order to prevent Brexit.
What? in 2012 Eu compromised on Every Single Point. Every points. Not as much as the UK wanted sometime, but to put the brexit on EU is disingenuous.
Also, the US government is really weird on EU security. Because while Trump pushed for higher defense spending, the military was in Belgium and Germany saying "See, you have to get new fighters carrying our bombs, and since the Viper is abandoned and we won't upgrade your F18 into superhornets, you will have to buy our F35". So Germany and Belgium at least will be paying an order of magnitude more in maintenance costs for at best the same air capabilities. But they did finance Lockheed, so all is good?
You are misrepresenting what happened with tactical aircraft purchases. Germany, Belgium, and several other countries voluntarily participate in the NATO nuclear sharing program. In order to continue with that they need a nuclear capable aircraft. The US Air Force was already paying to certify the F-35A as a nuclear bomber, so other NATO buyers get that essentially for free. They were free to purchase other aircraft and pay for nuclear certification (like they did previously with the Tornado) but chose not to do so.
The Lockheed-Martin F-16 Viper is still in active production and the Air Force is upgrading theirs with new radars so it's hardly abandoned. It is physically impossible to upgrade a legacy Boeing F/A-18 Hornet to an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet because the airframes are different, but new ones are also still in production. US allies are welcome to purchase either aircraft, but neither one is nuclear capable. Those aircraft are also considered less survivable against Russian air defenses than the F-35, so hardly the same capabilities at all.
How can the gas problem not be entirely blamed on the current leadership? I have not heard of too many elections in recent times. Though, UK did change their prime minister... But still the same party and parliament.
It's true speaking about long term leadership. German french and uk leaders (together with most others in west and central europe) were long nurturing russia and agreeing to be sit on the needle of its energy supplies. Now we have consequenses. Hangover so to say...
8 in 10 europeans agree on european leadership in current situation agains rashist ruzzia according to the newest poll. Don't waste your time. Slava Ukraini!
How do they plan to achieve that? Simply have the state fork the bill and fund it through taxes?
Sure energy costs will be high for the next few years, that's the reality. Nothing anyone could do about it.
And no, nuclear is not the answer: even if we take nations where permissioning and red tape is not a problem at all (Russia), nuclear takes a LONG LONG LONG time. Belarusian nuclear plant was being built for 14 years now and still only one of the reactors is operating. So it's about 15 years lead time. In 15 years, energy issues will be solved with renewables, before nuclear will kick in.
> This crisis is a profit-price spiral caused by wholesale gas and oil producers. There should be no more public subsidies for profiteering. Gas and oil companies should pay for this crisis in its entirety via their record profits.
This can be looked into and maybe a windfall profit tax is a good idea. In any case, for a country where the rich still spend their money inside not siphon it outside (plus lots and lots of other countries' rich bring in theirs to spend), it's like moving from one pocket to another. There will not be any net change in the economy.
Should gas and oil companies also receive special tax rebates in years when their profits are low? And how would you propose to make gas and oil companies based in foreign countries pay?
Well, it is entirely the state's fault - it wasn't me who cut off the only reasonably priced supplier who can provide enough supply in the name of some retarded ideology...
You mean Russia? There is no way anyone in the free world will ever depend on it for anything, even if it means civil war or mass dieoff. Russia has to be suppressed or at least isolated from the West to the point it can be ignored.
Secondly, UK never did. It never imported any considerable amounts of energy from Russia. What happens in UK now is consequence of lack of storage facilities "optimised" away by privatisation, combined with skyrocketing world prices because of Putin switching off gas (and no it wasn't done through sanctions, it was a one-sided Russian decision).
What could the West do? Just allow occupation of Ukraine doing nothing? And in any case, UK could not do anything. It's not even a member of EU anymore to veto any sanctions if it wanted to. It just happened to UK, an indirect effect.
Will the public accept going at war with Russia any easier than higher energy bills? I doubt it. We need Russia to become unable to exert any sort of political influence over the West, and two ways of doing it they had were the thereat of cutting off energy supplies (which has been realised, in case of oil and coal, from our side, and in case of gas, from their side, so it's no longer a threat and thus no longer a tool that can influence us), and the threat of invasion (which turned out to be a bluff because they can't even properly invade Ukraine).
Now all we need to do is to go through the end here: finalise cutoff of all remaining Russian energy supplies and bring energy markets back in balance after that, and achieve a full victory in Ukraine. Both is a lot cheaper than anyone could assume to "solve" Russian question once and forever: then it can simply be seen as a Russkistan we can forget about.
Whenever a comment seems too ridiculous to be a serious take, look through a couple pages of the posters history before replying seriously. It helps you waste less time.
1. You cannot do that without bumping the price for the few remaining customers.
2. In some EU countries you would have problems with human rights legislation.
1. You can if you make the reasonable prediction that the overwhelming majority of protesters won’t (or can’t) stick to their pledge in the face of actual service shut-off.
...and even if they did, most likely it'll be so fragmented that it won't have an impact. UK has population of around 67 million. 180k of pledges right now doesn't even make it 0.025%. It's probably not enough to turn off energy in one apartment per apartment building.
It's not so easy. No idea about the UK, but for instance in France you cannot turn off electricity, heating, or expell a tenant during the winter months because it's considered inhumane.
I just asked my Russian friend how much do they pay for heating. He said he has no idea about his own place but has a bill for a small 31m2 rental he has and it was 1290 rub per month (charged year round). Average UK house is 1582 sq ft i.e. 4.74x bigger so would be 6226 rub or 86.93 GBP per month or 1043 per year. Meaning, the Brits are now paying only 1.86x as much (1940 GBP annually) and are about to pay about 3.3x as much (3500 GBP), meaning heating currently takes a smaller part of their incomes (UK nominal GDP per capita is over 3x Russian) and are about to pay about as much. Is it really that much to be concerned with? I haven't heard about anyone complaining on their heating bill in Russia.
Energy costs are high because there's not enough energy (oil, gas) to go around. Prices go up as people compete for the hot commodity. People have an upper limit that they are willing to pay, so usage is curbed. I am not sure how lowering fuel/energy prices at the beginning of fall is not going to cause life-threatening shortages by mid-winter. If prices follow demand/use then there ought to be enough fuel to last the winter. You cannot strike to create more energy, unfortunately.
CCJ: "You may get a county court judgment (CCJ) or high court judgment if someone takes court action against you (saying you owe them money) and you do not respond." https://www.gov.uk/county-court-judgments-ccj-for-debt
Both suspected to be sophisticated Russian backed propaganda. Who benefits from this energy protest? What’s the fastest solution to fix the energy cost issue?
Meantime russia’s state outlets last weeks are pushing narratives “eu is gonna to freeze and stink this winter” [1]. Also in russian social networks appeared a short reel allegedly filmed by Gasprom with a song “the winter will be long” [2] showing a winter landscapes interleaving with EU flags.
All those narratives are focusing to show: this as an our answer on sanctions from EU so we are going to punish EU by turning off a gas pipe.
Personally I see all that as a big campaign of propaganda. Russia is abusing democracy mechanisms to achieve own benefits.
Eventually most of them will end up paying in one way or an other. Some might get away with it, but so do they today. If you own property I'm sure someone is willing to buy the debt and fund the fight.
What a headache it causes in the world. I don't think anyone can measure the total cost of lost productivity in Europe, just people who read the news and worry. Sad.
Rather than destructive action ("Do as we wish or we will hurt you!") I prefer productive action.
If one million people came together to put solar panels on roofs - that would be cool!
We could have a giant forum where we plan on helping each other by raising funds, sourcing the materials, negotiating with landlords, hiring contractors ...
If something is really important to you, how much would you donate? $10? $100? $1000? Imagine every one of the one million people this campaign aims for would donate $100. We could put solar on roofs for $100000000. Solar panels that will reduce the need to buy from the energy companies for decades.
How big the roof needs to be to house solar panels enough to supply 50 families? Not everybody leaves in single-family housing in suburbs, some people live in dense highrises.
From what I can see, average EU consumption is 6000 kWh per capita per year, or 500 kWh per month. As far as I found, solar panels can provide about 200 W per square meter. According to https://climatebiz.com/average-peak-sun-hours-united-kingdom..., this requires - in London - 28 square meters per person to cover their electricity needs. For a multi-family house housing 100 people that'd be 2800 square meters. That seems to be a bit too big to fit on a roof (and we haven't accounted for distribution losses, needing to space them out to be able to actually get to them and service them, etc). Now take houses like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartment#/media/File:St_James... and there would be likely more than 100 people per house...
> If one million people came together to put solar panels on roofs - that would be cool!
That would be “cool” and actually great. The problem is that people who cannot get through the month because the bills have skyrocketed, cannot afford the upfront price of installing solar panels. So unless there’s government intervention, I don’t really think this would be feasible.
They cannot get through the month, but they have time to start a fight with the legal system by withholinding their due payments and then deal with whatever trouble comes from it?
What?! Following this logic then, the bread riots in the French Revolution[0] would not have happened because “they don’t have the money but they have time to start riots to demand a cap on the price of the good”?
By the way, I’m not commenting on whether this is the right approach to the issue, just commenting the current situation considering what’s happening now.
Only purpose of this kind of initiative is to cause trouble.. Marketed by the same trolls who spread medical disinfo, climate negationism, Russian propaganda..
I'm not really sure though that energy prices can be controlled by govts.
(the comparison with the Poll Tax is somewhat irrelevant because the poll tax was 100% dreamed up by the govt, and was a new tax out of fresh air).
Energy is however a commodity, and prices are set internationally either by private companies, or other govts (eg Russia).
Yes there are taxes on energy, but that's just taxes, if they don't get the money there, they'll get it somewhere else.
So given that the underlying price is set by extra-govt entities, who have plenty of customers elsewhere, I'm not sure that most govts have control over energy they would like.
A better long-term solution is to a) Foster the use of less energy overall, better house insulation, electric cars etc and b) grow home-produced energy (wind etc.) if those reduce dependancies on oil and gas then that's likely a nice byproduct.
Of course these won't change by Oct 1.
So yeah, I get people are hurting, I'm just not sure there's a lot a single nation (which imports energy) can do much about it.