Move income tax, to a tax on dirty energy

 

If we want to encourage clean energy development and lower electricity use, we should raise taxes on emissions created by power plants, so that dirty energy costs more to produce than clean energy. 

If a tax based on the amount of pollutants a power station produced was raised significantly it would make renewable energy economically advantages.  Making clean energy cheaper than that produced by fossil fuels would lead to a surge in renewable energy projects.  This would lower pollution, create a secure energy supply and help the economy through investment.

Obviously this would lead to higher energy prices.  The government should offset this by lowering income tax.  Maybe the Liberal Democrats could get their 10,000 income tax threshold.  Those on fixed incomes would also need an increase, paid for by the emissions tax.  This would be a fairer system of taxation.  

Why is this idea important?

 

If we want to encourage clean energy development and lower electricity use, we should raise taxes on emissions created by power plants, so that dirty energy costs more to produce than clean energy. 

If a tax based on the amount of pollutants a power station produced was raised significantly it would make renewable energy economically advantages.  Making clean energy cheaper than that produced by fossil fuels would lead to a surge in renewable energy projects.  This would lower pollution, create a secure energy supply and help the economy through investment.

Obviously this would lead to higher energy prices.  The government should offset this by lowering income tax.  Maybe the Liberal Democrats could get their 10,000 income tax threshold.  Those on fixed incomes would also need an increase, paid for by the emissions tax.  This would be a fairer system of taxation.  

Daylight saving – permanent 2 hour shift

There would be several advantages to shifting our clocks forward by 2 hours all the time.

The conventions of UK society do not match the times of daylight.  Schools and shops start at 9.00 (instead of 7.30 or 8.00 on the Continent).    In the summer, even with our 1hr shift forward, a lot of daylight is wasted in the mornings before anybody gets up.  This is also true in October and March.  The centre of most people's day is around 2.00pm or later.  For example a school child might get up at 8.00 and go to bed at 9.00pm so his day is centred at 2.30pm.  A London commuter gets up at 7.00am and goes to bed at 11.00pm – day centred at 3.00pm.

It would save power for lighting if the centre of people's day matched midday by the sun.  This requires a 2 or 3 hr shift forward.  It would also give more time for outside activities in the  evenings.

It is often said that Scotland would not like this.  Well, they have their own Parliament and so can set their own time.  The UK Government could then consider charging them a Carbon Tax for wasting power that could have been saved.

Why is this idea important?

There would be several advantages to shifting our clocks forward by 2 hours all the time.

The conventions of UK society do not match the times of daylight.  Schools and shops start at 9.00 (instead of 7.30 or 8.00 on the Continent).    In the summer, even with our 1hr shift forward, a lot of daylight is wasted in the mornings before anybody gets up.  This is also true in October and March.  The centre of most people's day is around 2.00pm or later.  For example a school child might get up at 8.00 and go to bed at 9.00pm so his day is centred at 2.30pm.  A London commuter gets up at 7.00am and goes to bed at 11.00pm – day centred at 3.00pm.

It would save power for lighting if the centre of people's day matched midday by the sun.  This requires a 2 or 3 hr shift forward.  It would also give more time for outside activities in the  evenings.

It is often said that Scotland would not like this.  Well, they have their own Parliament and so can set their own time.  The UK Government could then consider charging them a Carbon Tax for wasting power that could have been saved.

To make the installation of Smart Meters in our homes voluntary

Instead of the compulsory installation of these intrusive meters in our homes, it should be done on a voluntary basis, so that those who want them can have them, and those that dont can say no, and they can be removed at any time if requested!

Why is this idea important?

Instead of the compulsory installation of these intrusive meters in our homes, it should be done on a voluntary basis, so that those who want them can have them, and those that dont can say no, and they can be removed at any time if requested!

Blanket planning permission 4 solar panels, windmills, satallite dishes

I think wind farms are beautiful, so just ignore my point about that perhaps and concentrate on the simpler part.

If I want to extend a building upwards by the height of solar panels and water tanks, and I have had the strength of the building inspected, surely this could be enough to allow automatic planning permission just as previous generations argued for their sheds and porch extensions to be covered automaticaly.

Why is this idea important?

I think wind farms are beautiful, so just ignore my point about that perhaps and concentrate on the simpler part.

If I want to extend a building upwards by the height of solar panels and water tanks, and I have had the strength of the building inspected, surely this could be enough to allow automatic planning permission just as previous generations argued for their sheds and porch extensions to be covered automaticaly.

Use of macro renewable energy sources not nuclear power

Why does the government plan to waste billions of pounds developing the nuclear industry when the money could be far better spent on installation of renewable energy sources at a macro production level?

New homes builders could be legislated to incorporate energy production via solar paneling, wind turbines (in certain areas of the country where this is proved to be effective) or boreholes to generate geothermal energy or a combination of both.  Standards for energy efficiency could also be raised with minimum requirements for insulation, heat retentive windows etc.

The government could also re-direct the planned billions of pounds of investment into nuclear energy into grants for the elderly and the poorest sectors of society to ensure the energy needs from the energy suppliers are significantly reduced. 

 

 

 

  

Why is this idea important?

Why does the government plan to waste billions of pounds developing the nuclear industry when the money could be far better spent on installation of renewable energy sources at a macro production level?

New homes builders could be legislated to incorporate energy production via solar paneling, wind turbines (in certain areas of the country where this is proved to be effective) or boreholes to generate geothermal energy or a combination of both.  Standards for energy efficiency could also be raised with minimum requirements for insulation, heat retentive windows etc.

The government could also re-direct the planned billions of pounds of investment into nuclear energy into grants for the elderly and the poorest sectors of society to ensure the energy needs from the energy suppliers are significantly reduced. 

 

 

 

  

Scrap the renewable energy MCS registration scheme

The MCS registration scheme is yet another example of a multi-layered Quango.

Ofgem sub-contract the MCS scheme to Gemserve. All Gemserve seem to do is hold the database.

Gemserve sub-contract to various third party Accreditation Bodies.

The Accreditation Body insist you have your renewable energy device tested by an independant testing laboratory. The Accreditation Body will then look at the test results and charge you five grand for the privilege.

And you have to test against an outdated British Standard that was derived from a irrelavent European standard. We never achieve the levels of solar radiation specified in the European standard. In order to meet this outdated and over-the-top British Standard you are forced to design with more expensive materials.

The whole scheme is pointless as any electricity generated will be measured by a smartmeter. If the renewable energy device doesn't perform no electricity will be generated and no feed-in-tariff will be paid. There is absolutely no need for a certification scheme.

The critical problem with the renewable energy sector is cost not quality. Micro-generation is just not cost effective. The MCS scheme only serves to drive up costs making renewables less likely to be adopted.

Why is this idea important?

The MCS registration scheme is yet another example of a multi-layered Quango.

Ofgem sub-contract the MCS scheme to Gemserve. All Gemserve seem to do is hold the database.

Gemserve sub-contract to various third party Accreditation Bodies.

The Accreditation Body insist you have your renewable energy device tested by an independant testing laboratory. The Accreditation Body will then look at the test results and charge you five grand for the privilege.

And you have to test against an outdated British Standard that was derived from a irrelavent European standard. We never achieve the levels of solar radiation specified in the European standard. In order to meet this outdated and over-the-top British Standard you are forced to design with more expensive materials.

The whole scheme is pointless as any electricity generated will be measured by a smartmeter. If the renewable energy device doesn't perform no electricity will be generated and no feed-in-tariff will be paid. There is absolutely no need for a certification scheme.

The critical problem with the renewable energy sector is cost not quality. Micro-generation is just not cost effective. The MCS scheme only serves to drive up costs making renewables less likely to be adopted.

remove forced membership in order to carry out Gas,Solar,Electrical installation

Remove the burden of having to attend expensive cources and membership fees  in order to carry out installation of Gas, Solar, electrical and water services for the small business.Proof of having served a recognised apprentiship should be adequate along with regular training from the Manufactures which is most of the time given free, would free up money for investment by smaller firms and allow them too compete for more contracts and pass on savings on installation of energy saving products.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the burden of having to attend expensive cources and membership fees  in order to carry out installation of Gas, Solar, electrical and water services for the small business.Proof of having served a recognised apprentiship should be adequate along with regular training from the Manufactures which is most of the time given free, would free up money for investment by smaller firms and allow them too compete for more contracts and pass on savings on installation of energy saving products.

Remove the subsidy for windmills

Windmills will never provide significant amounts of cost-effective electric power to a national grid which has to respond instantly and continuously to variable consumer demand.

Wind power is a mature technology which does not need subsidising but it can not and probably never will compete with gas, oil, or nuclear.

The consumer is subsidising wind power through the provisions of the UK Renewables Obligation (2002).

The reason for the outrageous subsidy is the panic over global warming, whose attribution to man-made carbon dioxide is (at least) simplistic and whose possible consequences are probably distorted and certainly exaggerated.

Why is this idea important?

Windmills will never provide significant amounts of cost-effective electric power to a national grid which has to respond instantly and continuously to variable consumer demand.

Wind power is a mature technology which does not need subsidising but it can not and probably never will compete with gas, oil, or nuclear.

The consumer is subsidising wind power through the provisions of the UK Renewables Obligation (2002).

The reason for the outrageous subsidy is the panic over global warming, whose attribution to man-made carbon dioxide is (at least) simplistic and whose possible consequences are probably distorted and certainly exaggerated.

Require that public and new buildings make some energy

Why can't government bite the bullet and require that all public buildings make energy using renewable sources for example solar water heating and in particulare solar electricity? British schools would generate huge amounts of energy in the six weeks that they're empty. How much would that eventually save? New houses should also be included. Imagine the sell back savings and perhaps even for the reduction in windfarms.

Why is this idea important?

Why can't government bite the bullet and require that all public buildings make energy using renewable sources for example solar water heating and in particulare solar electricity? British schools would generate huge amounts of energy in the six weeks that they're empty. How much would that eventually save? New houses should also be included. Imagine the sell back savings and perhaps even for the reduction in windfarms.

Supplement at least 50% of our country’s energy needs through renewable sources of energy by 2020.

According to the latest scientific evidence, we need to ween ourselves off fossil fuels completely by 2050 (despite the fact that we probably have recently surpassed peak oil production). This coalition needs to do far more to support investment in renewable energy sources like wind, free solar panels for all, hydrothermal, tidal, and wave energy. We have ten years to supplement 50% of our energy needs through these methods. This government is plainly not doing enough – and plans to not do enough. We need real change and real targets right now.

 

This planet's natural carrying capacity is 1.5 billion – think about it. We have the technology and resources to do wonders. We need to eschew oil and do something wonderful in this bright new decade. Support renewable energy and make a noise about it – this could well be the most important issue of your life and the biggest challenge to ever confront humankind.

Why is this idea important?

According to the latest scientific evidence, we need to ween ourselves off fossil fuels completely by 2050 (despite the fact that we probably have recently surpassed peak oil production). This coalition needs to do far more to support investment in renewable energy sources like wind, free solar panels for all, hydrothermal, tidal, and wave energy. We have ten years to supplement 50% of our energy needs through these methods. This government is plainly not doing enough – and plans to not do enough. We need real change and real targets right now.

 

This planet's natural carrying capacity is 1.5 billion – think about it. We have the technology and resources to do wonders. We need to eschew oil and do something wonderful in this bright new decade. Support renewable energy and make a noise about it – this could well be the most important issue of your life and the biggest challenge to ever confront humankind.

More Focus on Renewable Energy

Believe we should focus increasing our energy security, and reducing our CO2 emissions we can do this in two ways.

  1. Tax brakes or insentiences for home renewable energy  like solar.
  2. Invest in large scale off shore wind and other options like wave.

The government has started to act on this issue but people say we will not meet our EU targets.

 

All the sources can be found on the internet and are easy to find and cast your opinion. 

Why is this idea important?

Believe we should focus increasing our energy security, and reducing our CO2 emissions we can do this in two ways.

  1. Tax brakes or insentiences for home renewable energy  like solar.
  2. Invest in large scale off shore wind and other options like wave.

The government has started to act on this issue but people say we will not meet our EU targets.

 

All the sources can be found on the internet and are easy to find and cast your opinion. 

Ease planning restrictions for renewable energy projects

There is already some easing of restrictions on installing microgeneration equipment on your own property, but this should go much further. Ultimately, there should be a right to erect specified kinds of renewable energy and energy efficiency systems on your own property without lengthy planning applications. This could include solar panels, wind turbines, micro-hydro, small biomass power plants, microhydro, and external insulation cladding for homes.

Some consideration can be made for actual physical impact like actual noise levels in densely populated areas, particulate pollution from biomass burning etc. These can be predetermined from knowing the type of system that will be built. But largely, the criteria of visual/landscape impact should no longer apply. It could be possible that renewable energy installations, subject to simple assessment criteria, could be removed entirely from the planning process.

Also, anti-competitive rules for large companies should be reformed to permit water companies to get into the renewable electricity generation business. At the moment they are only allowed to install renewables for generating electricity for their own use, not for export to the grid. They own lots of land suitable for renewables, but can't make use of it due to these restrictions.

Why is this idea important?

There is already some easing of restrictions on installing microgeneration equipment on your own property, but this should go much further. Ultimately, there should be a right to erect specified kinds of renewable energy and energy efficiency systems on your own property without lengthy planning applications. This could include solar panels, wind turbines, micro-hydro, small biomass power plants, microhydro, and external insulation cladding for homes.

Some consideration can be made for actual physical impact like actual noise levels in densely populated areas, particulate pollution from biomass burning etc. These can be predetermined from knowing the type of system that will be built. But largely, the criteria of visual/landscape impact should no longer apply. It could be possible that renewable energy installations, subject to simple assessment criteria, could be removed entirely from the planning process.

Also, anti-competitive rules for large companies should be reformed to permit water companies to get into the renewable electricity generation business. At the moment they are only allowed to install renewables for generating electricity for their own use, not for export to the grid. They own lots of land suitable for renewables, but can't make use of it due to these restrictions.