Were you to list the factors that distinguish civilization from barbarism, this would come close to the top: The elderly are not left to die of cold.
By this measure the UK is a cruel land. Although we usually have one of the smallest differences between winter and summer temperatures at these latitudes, we have one of the highest levels of excess winter deaths. Roughly twice as many people, per capita, die in the UK than in Scandinavia. Even Siberia has lower levels than we do. Between 25,000 and 30,000 people a year are hastened to the grave by the cold in the UK — this winter it could be much worse.
Why? Inequality. We have an economic elite untouched by the ills afflicting other people. It survives all changes of government. Its need for profit outweighs other people’s need for survival. Here’s how our brutal system operates:
Fuel poverty is defined as having to spend 10 percent or more of your income on keeping your home at a decent temperature. Between 2003 and 2008 (the latest available figures) the number of households in fuel poverty here rose from 2 million to 4.5 million. That’s not people; that’s households: This blight now afflicts 18 percent of the UK’s population. Yet since 2000 more than £25 billion (US$38.5 billion) of our money has been spent on programs ostensibly designed to prevent it. Admittedly, much of this spending doesn’t really have anything to do with fuel. The winter fuel payment is, in truth, a universal pension supplement that people can spend as they wish: It helps large numbers of the elderly to get by. However, most of the other spending programs are ill-conceived, unfair and unfocused.
Even before the coalition took office, the government’s statutory advisers estimated that 7 million households would be fuel-poor by 2016, which happens to be the date by which New Labour pledged to eliminate fuel poverty. As the incomes of the poor fall and the Tories deregulate further, it could get worse.
The main reason is that the privatized, liberalized utility companies have been allowed to get away with murder. In her book Fixing Fuel Poverty, Brenda Boardman shows fuel poverty has risen so steeply because public control over the energy companies is so weak. In 2002 the regulator, Ofgem, decided it would stop regulating consumer prices. The energy companies immediately increased their profit margins, tenfold in one case. When world energy prices rise, the companies raise their tariffs, often far more steeply than the wholesale price justifies. When they fall, domestic prices often stay where they are.
The price rises are exacerbated by policies that penalize the poor. People who use pre-payment meters to buy gas and electricity (often the poorest) are stung for an extra £120 a year. Those who consume the most energy (generally the rich) are subsidized by everyone else. They pay a lower tariff beyond a certain level of use. It ought to be the other way round. The first units you consume should be the cheapest. Before the election both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats demanded an inquiry into competition in the energy market. They’re not demanding it any more.
There should be a perfect synergy between climate change and social justice policies. As the Commons energy and climate change committee points out, “improving the energy efficiency of homes is the most effective way of tackling fuel poverty.” However, the government’s green policies are unfair and regressive. Everyone pays at an equal rate for reducing energy emissions, yet those who need the most help to green their homes and reduce their costs don’t get it. Policies such as the European emissions trading system, the carbon emissions reduction target and the feed-in tariff are, according to the government’s climate change committee, likely to throw another 1.7 million people into fuel poverty by 2022. This is an outrage.
The main scheme for improving the homes of the fuel poor, Warm Front, is so leaky and badly constructed that, if it were a house, it would be condemned and demolished. Only 25 percent of the money it spends relieves fuel poverty. There’s no requirement that the worst homes are made energy efficient. Boardman discovered that “the proportion of expenditure going to the fuel poor is less than they contribute.”
Now the scheme has been suspended. The government has launched a consultation on how it could work better when it resumes, but there will be much less money. Even if it starts to work, it will address only a fraction of the problem.
Nothing will be done to reduce fuel poverty until governments discipline one of the least regulated energy markets in the rich world — controlling profits and prices — and help those who need it most. Green policies must be funded by transferring money from richer consumers to poorer ones. It’s a scandal that none of this was addressed by the Labour government. It would be little short of miraculous if it were tackled by the Tories. However, until something is done, the cold will keep killing, at levels that even the Siberians don’t have to endure.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers