How climate change and anti-nuclear fanatics are making energy a luxury good

****

Germany. That place we're supposed to emulate. Land of eco-friendly cities, anti-nuclear protests, pacifism and campaigns against gentrification. The world's fourth largest economy. Migrant-welcoming manufacturing giant. The place where fans still stand at football matches, where there aren't speed limits on the motorways and where beer is drunk from litre steins (except in Cologne where it comes in tiny glasses and is mostly froth). Yeah, Germany.

Home of the world's most expensive electricity. The country where energy is almost a luxury good:

When Stefan Becker of the Berlin office of the Catholic charity Caritas makes a house call, he likes to bring along a few energy-saving bulbs. Many residents still use old light bulbs, which consume a lot of electricity but are cheaper than newer bulbs. "People here have to decide between spending money on an expensive energy-saving bulb or a hot meal," says Becker. In other words, saving energy is well and good -- but only if people can afford it.

A family Becker recently visited is a case in point. They live in a dark, ground-floor apartment in Berlin's Neukölln neighborhood. On a sunny summer day, the two children inside had to keep the lights on -- which drives up the electricity bill, even if the family is using energy-saving bulbs.

Becker wants to prevent his clients from having their electricity shut off for not paying their bill. After sending out a few warning notices, the power company typically sends someone to the apartment to shut off the power -- leaving the customers with no functioning refrigerator, stove or bathroom fan. Unless they happen to have a camping stove, they can't even boil water for a cup of tea. It's like living in the Stone Age.

This situation is entirely the result of a combination of climate change fanaticism and anti-nuclear panic which means that German energy supply system is both inefficient and also obscenely expensive:

This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.

If there is too much power coming from the grid, wind turbines have to be shut down. Nevertheless, consumers are still paying for the "phantom electricity" the turbines are theoretically generating. Occasionally, Germany has to pay fees to dump already subsidized green energy, creating what experts refer to as "negative electricity prices."

Over the coming week or so, the climate change fanatics will be shifting into top gear - trying to persuade us all to change to the German model. A torrent of articles, news reports and documentaries will pour onto an unsuspecting public. These will talk of 'zero-carbon emissions', of the urgency of the challenge, of melting ice and dying polar bears, and will conclude with exhortations to change our wicked, sinful ways and embrace greenery.

Who cares if this means poor folk are living hand to mouth in damp flats they can't afford to heat of light. Who cares if steel mills close and aluminium smelters fold. Who's bothered if the lights are dimmed because the power supply is unreliable. We'll have save the planet won't we? Errr....

On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That's when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.

Great strategy!

....

A few random thoughts inspired by meatloaf....

As you can see the random thoughts are inspired by the real thing - so no musing on biker fatalism, distinctions between love and lust or making love in a mini cooper. Altogether more wholesome, the blending together of old bread, minced meat and cheese to make a meal that can be served hot or cold, summer or winter, as a dinner party centrepiece or slammed in front of fussy kids.

I am not one for perfection - don't get me wrong, I up for fine dining, fancy combinations and such like - but there's something comforting about things that aren't quite square, perhaps droop a little in the wrong places and attract the occasional sneer from those who prefer image over substance. Indeed, our search for perfection, for a tidy solution seems to me one of the curses of the age.

Take suicide, for example. We're told that the solution - the tidy, fining dining answer - to the terrible truth that some deaths are painful beyond endurance is to allow people to "assist" in that dying. by which we mean accelerating it rather than sharing some of the agony of painful death. But not all people who would assist another's death are minded to do so from undiluted altruism - those staggering acts of love we see from some may be, indeed probably are, exceptional.

And look elsewhere - we speak of "poverty" in mechanistic terms, almost as a permanent state curable only through the setting of rules. Yet each case is different - some poverty is short-lived brought about by tragedy, misfortune or even death while other poverty is sustained by structural disadvantage, inadequacy, ill-health and, yes, even fecklessness. We have discovered that passing a law about poverty does not end that poverty - the rules do not educate, do you feed, do not provide a shoulder on which to cry. But we seek a tidy answer - whether it be to categorise all the poor as lazy or to claim innocence in every such case.

It is too untidy - whether we speak of the pain of death or the suffering of poverty - to say that we should approach each case as just that, an unique human tragedy meriting its own unique response. No we must blame it the "system", on disincentive and on the actions of others - perhaps bankers, maybe politically correct social workers, take your pick.

So much of this is just the image - making the right sounds, painting the right pictures, playing to the gallery. Surely all those things we were taught, the ethics, values and morality of England should tell us that the charge was placed on us all - you, me, the bloke next door - to care for others, to look out for the neighbour. We can't sub-contract that charge to a big system called "the welfare state". The duty that charge entails isn't resolved through the passing of tidy little laws. It is our duty - and too often, too many of us pretend that paying taxes and putting a few pennies in a collecting tin suffices.

Meatloaf isn't a tidy dish, there's not right way to make it, no set of rules (although you're welcome to pinch my version - after all I pinched it too). Yet it works and each family can see its way to its own version - a version that works for them - and a particular combination to accompany. If you seek perfection you won't find it in a meatloaf. But if you want something that does the job - and does it well - then the meatloaf's just the thing. A mix of things, old and new, a little bit of love and a uniqueness to time, place and circumstance - a bit like much of everything else really.

....

Bradford's had its fill of "regeneration" - we don't need any more grand plans from outside experts

For six years I was Bradford’s Executive Portfolio holder for Regeneration – so I guess you’re welcome to blame me for all the trial and tribulations, holes in the ground and aborted projects that have plagued our mighty city. However, I had to crack a wry smile at Julian Dobson’s post on Bradford’s regeneration and especially its relationship with Leeds:

There’s a popular view in Bradford that the city is the poor relation of neighbouring Leeds - that the money flows into Leeds, as evidenced by speculative development, big name shops and a busy nightlife, and that to compete Bradford should become more like its rival, only cheaper. Yet Bradford has plenty of potential of its own, if only it could see beyond its disadvantages.

And why should Bradford seek to emulate Leeds anyway? As Brian Ablett, who works for Leeds City Council and spoke at our workshop, pointed out, that isn’t how they see it across the boundary. Leeds doesn’t look over its shoulder to see if Bradford is catching up. Its comparator cities aren’t even Manchester or Newcastle or Birmingham. It’s better to compare Leeds with cities like Rotterdam, Ablett suggested - cities that are modelling a distinctive approach to urbanism and economic development in a European context.

If I had a quid for each time I’ve heard this said – or variations on its theme – I’d have the cash to take a trip to one of those super-duper sustainable cities in mainland Europe that Julian likes to tell us about. And would I learn anything as they showed me all the shiny bits they like to show to visitors? Are we going to get a chance to see the grubby underside of these places – the disaster that is Rotterdam’s community cohesion or the problems with racist football violence in Germany?

Of course not, nor would I expect that of these places. But I do find the idea that we should simply take these overseas models and import them to a place like Bradford incredibly patronising. Indeed, I’ve listened for years as the examples of such places are waved before me – ignoring unemployment, racism and high costs let alone recognising the very different systems of local financing in these places.

Bradford is a great place that had its soul battered by being told how bad it was for years. Bradford’s leadership in the 1990s – a Labour group obsessed with political advantage – conducted a long campaign to capture extra money from central government. Barely a week passed without some delegation or other wending its way south, begging bowl in hand – like the civic version of Oliver; “can we have some more please Mr Government Man?”

And we came to believe our press – to believe that we were a basket case with no hope of improvement without vast charity from elsewhere in the land. It’s no surprise we turned an envious gaze towards Leeds and its big shiny regeneration, its gleaming skyscrapers and grand schemes. People didn’t ask for us to major on “liveable space and effective public transport” or to “value local distinctiveness and production”. They wanted some better shopping, for some more jobs in the centre and a few more amenities, stuff for folk to do.

And that’s what we tried to do – a process not helped by having an “urban development company” shoved at us, not assisted by the decision of John Prescott to refuse planning for the Odsal redevelopment and definitely not helped by the changing ownership of our developer partner on the Broadway development. Worst of all we were stalled and stymied by Yorkshire Forward – firstly while they tried to turn an ‘anti-development’ masterplan into a developer model and then as they first bought the former Odeon and then stood by while it slowly rotted.

But we did deliver something - Manningham Mills was brought back to life, we began to notice how, with a little effort the towns of Shipley, Bingley and Keighley could begin to thrive again and we opened a new art gallery, spruced up Manningham Park and started the same process for Roberts' Park. We turned round the markets - redeveloping John Street and investing in Kirkgate, St James Wholesale and Keighley.

And we put on events - encouraging the Mela to thrive, supporting City Centre animation and bringing 450 international market traders to the City on two occasions in a great international markets festival.

So when people arrive from out of town lecturing Bradford about European cities, sustainability and such marvels the world would never appreciate, I’m not impressed. I don’t see any understanding of how Bradford has evolved and is evolving, I see no recognition that trying to make the City like some provincial German market town isn’t going to work and I see, yet again, the curse of planning that blighted the City in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 2000s.

After 40 years of “regeneration” starting back in the late 1960s, we have made little progress in England. Generally speaking the same places that were poor in 1968 are still relatively poor today – Canning Town, Harehills, West Bowling, Aston, Moss Side and so forth. More planning, more experts, and more trips to fancy foreign places: none of this is what Bradford needs.

Yet that is what we will get. And it won’t work.

But what do I know, I only live here!

....

Scrap the climate change levy and save a few lives.

I am as you know, dearest reader, notably grumpy. Hardly a day passes without me finding some aspect of what's going on out there to rant, whinge and moan about. Of course, all my grumbles are entirely justified - we do pay too much tax for too little return, the state does try to control and direct us to its preferred style of compliance and West Ham United don't win nearly enough football matches.

However, I refuse to grumble about snow. Every year it's the same. We get a pile of snow (it always 'sweeps across the country') and there's chaos, gridlock and a load of tosh filling up the media about how one or other columnist couldn't make it to the shops meaning her children missed out on organic polenta and had to eat sliced white bread and baked beans from the corner shop instead. And yes I took five hours to travel home - a journey that usually takes about an hour. But this isn't a big deal. It's usually one day - a couple of days at the most - before we can get about our daily lives without a great deal of fuss and bother.

However, cold weather kills people. It's much better at killing people than hot weather (whatever the climate change obsessives want to tell you) which is why the climate change levy is a moral outrage. By driving up the price of heating our homes it is directly contributing to the deaths of the old and the ill. Now I appreciate that many greens are closet eugenicists who see our future as something akin to Logan's Run but I am uncomfortable with supporting a tax that kills people.

We pontificate about fuel poverty while supporting a tax that promotes fuel poverty? Look at the impact of high fuel prices:

Policy in this area has been developed around the concept of ‘fuel poverty’ – a household being considered to be fuel poor if it would have to spend more than 10% of its income on fuel to keep the home at an adequate level of comfort, as well as provide for cooking and lighting. Current estimates are that 4.5 – 5 million homes fall under this definition. In addition, it is recognised that there are around 25,000 excess winter deaths each year. Small scale studies suggest that as many as 400,000 emergency admissions could be the result of living in inadequately heated homes.

Simply by abolishing the climate change levy we could take tens of thousands of elderly people, young families and people with long-term ill-health out of 'fuel poverty'. And maybe keep them alive. We spend millions fussing about smoking and drinking and miss the very clear evidence that the biggest preventable cause of death is cold not smoking or drinking.

So scrap the climate change levy and save a few lives.

...