Cough up?

"Energy bills 'too low' to combat climate change" is sure to be a headline that will provoke a lot of anger from many people, and for the 3 million plus in fuel poverty it's understandable. However, as the article mentions, the price of energy has been artifically low due to not including the cost of carbon. Similarly, the Government considered the extra £4 billion a year due to financial regulation changes was a product of a more efficient market/better regulations, rather than an unsustainable model (imagine being on a desert island: chopping down the trees provided you with shelter but later on you'd have no food)

It reminds you of the phrase: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, people have gotten used to cheaper energy, effectively subsidised by future generations, and view a return to normal levels as a cost increase. It's a hard thing to say to the public, but it is required and so measures to help those in fuel poverty should be stepped up (I'm not a fan of the Winter Fuel Allowance, I'd rather the money was spent on improving the energy efficiency of peoples homes but that's for another blog)

A lot of what was said in the article is good stuff but doesn't seem to be anything new, I'd guess that's down to a seeming lack of government action more than anything else, however, I should of course have a look at the study itself.

The Guardian is often frustrating in that regard, as it rarely has links for its content. I've spent several hours trying to find the one mentioned here for example, UCL mentions it while the closest I could get was this (incidentally that Claverton site has a lot of interesting stuff on supergrids which I'll probably mention when I get round to it.)

So yeah, expect angry radio phone-ins and letters to the Daily Mail, but the reality of the situation needs to be accepted for solutions to be created.