We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

Instead of the Government directing energy policy from the centre, let the people choose.

This would involve the scrapping of ALL subsidies for power generation, direct or indirect. So all ROCs, FiTs, payments for nuclear decommissioning, tax breaks for gas extraction, and so on, would go. The real whole-life cost of each technology would be apparent. Each consumer could then choose the source, or mix of sources, for their electricity, in much the same was as at present one can choose energy supplier, or even a ‘green’ tariff, and pay accordingly.

– Murdo Fraser, deputy leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland, “breaks ranks”, as Bishop Hill puts it.

Fat chance, but good to hear such a highly ranked Conservative saying such a thing.

7 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • PeterE

    Great if we are allowed to break the AGW orthodoxy and vote for coal 😉

  • John K

    A large part of the SNP plan for an “independent” Scotland seems to be based on selling their wind power to England. Has there ever been a more shaky plan on which to base an independent nation state? It will be the Darien project all over again. Scotland’s problem isn’t the union with England, it’s the soviet nature of its socialist economy, and the SNP national socialists have no plan to change that.

  • mdc

    1. If AGW is real, does this include a (generalised, not source-specific) carbon price?

    2. LOL at basing an economy on wind, a power source that costs more than the value of the electricity it produces. idk if willful self-delusion, or if politicians really are that stupid.

  • PersonFromPorlock

    The real whole-life cost of each technology would be apparent.

    Good in theory. The problem is that in the real world, considerations of “whole-life” cost don’t hold a candle to the desire for short-term profits.

    God knows what the answer is – certainly not government planning, which replaces short-term thinking with short-term corruption. Letting the stockholders and workers sue the members of the Boards of Directors of failed companies for their losses might encourage long-term thinking and oversight on their part, though.

  • RRS

    What information is necessary and sufficient for effective (let alone efficient) choosing?

    Can prices alone provide that information?

    Are there necessitous bargains?

    T’aint as easy as all it might seem

  • Laird

    No one ever said it was “easy”, RRS. Only that free markets provide the best answer. Always.

  • Richard Thomas

    the sad thing is that the technology exists for us to be able to choose what kind of energy we would like to purchase. I believe it’s possibly to pay a “green surcharge” for power on my current electricity bill but there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be possible to get far more fine-grained and specific.

    Of course, most people will just plonk for the cheapest option (or possibly there will be several that are the cheapest due to supply and demand). But that’s kind of the point. If other power options have a genuine future, those who have a belief in them should be willing to pay for the development themselves.