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.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.
RSS