1 in 4 British Families Going Hungry Due to Green Energy


Remember, Britain today, America tomorrow. That’s how this game works. Europe went down the green energy garden path before we did and they are reaping the consequences. Electric Poverty is now a term. And British families have to choose between heat and food. If you have enough to eat and a warm place to eat it in, be thankful that the environmentalists haven’t taken over here all the way.

Yet.

Soaring fuel bills are leading to acute power rationing among many families as one in four say they are skipping meals to meet fuel costs.

A new poll of 2,000 people by Onepoll for Ovo Energy reveals that over a third of homes are rationing power. The energy company claims inflation-busting rises of up to 12% have left 70% of British homes forced to limit their power consumption. There are concerns more families are at an increased risk of becoming ill as a result of switching off their heating.

Ovo’s research suggests one in ten families have already defaulted on their energy bills, while a further 14.5% claim they will be unable to pay this winter. Over a fifth of families have even begun wearing outdoor clothing such as hats, coats and scarves indoors to keep warm, along with over a quarter who drape themselves in blankets to avoid turning on the heating.

The latest figures show the average dual fuel power bill has now hit a record £1,318 prompting families to cut back. A quarter – 23.7% – of the 2,000 people polled said they had been forced to ration food in order to meet the costs of their energy bills. And almost one in 10 admitted they could no longer afford to buy Christmas gifts for their family.

One in 13 people said they had begun to get into debt to meet their energy bills, with no long-term plan to pay it back.

Scrooge is an environmentalist and his kind never repent of the horrors they perpetrate on people, because they don’t believe that people matter nearly as much as weeds do.

  • Mary Sue

    damn, and I bet they're not allowed to use fireplaces, either.

    • RUI

      They are, but what are you going to burn? In this mindset, getting some firewood would probably get you arrested.

      • Mary Sue

        yeah, that's the other half of the problem.

        What pisses me off is there are actually places in North America where people aren't ALLOWED to put fireplaces in their homes. Or wood stoves for heat.

  • Viet Vet

    Not to speak of the fact that much of he world's economic woes is caused by the fraud of man-made global warming, or as they've begun to call it (since warming ended in 1996) Climate Change. Nation's are literally going broke trying to appease the environmental whackos and their pseudo-scientists.

    In his interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Obummer said he intended to bankrupt the oil and coal industry. He admitted in that interview that his policies would "necessarily cause energy costs to sky-rocket." Remember too that the democraps, going back to the 70's, but I remember well in the 90'''s, in order to assuage their environMENTAL constituents, advocating increasing the tax on gasoline in order to cause people to drive less. The democraps should change their name to: The Demotaxer Party. In fact we should start calling them that all the time, demotaxers.

  • ebonystone

    I assume the figure of L1318 (=US$ 2109) is for a year. If so, that's almost exactly double what I pay over a year for both gas and electricity, for both cooking and heating. And I live in an area with more extreme temperatures — both colder in winter and hotter in sumer — than most of Great Britain.

    • Mary Sue

      I think it's worse than that, that might be a power bill for 6 months…or (even scarier) ONE MONTH!

      • southwood

        I can assure you that's the bill for a year.

        • Mary Sue

          oh, phew. I have heard of paying a hydro bill every 6 months (or every 2 months) but not every *year*.

  • BS77

    Aye…Merry Olde England…once master of the seas, an empire on which the sun never set…now a collapsed socialist welfare state where insane PC agendas and Orwellian social policies are charting a course to the rocks..

  • UCSPanther

    The environmentalists would love nothing more than if we went back to the dark ages, where modern medicine and technology were unheard of and we fought wars with swords, spears and battleaxes.

    But knowing them, they probably wouldn't like the idea of blacksmiths burning fuel to forge metal, so they would probably want us to go right back to the stone age if not to complete extinction.

    • Mary Sue

      yup, they're trying to price people out of the energy market and force them thusly into huts or what have you.

      They're already starting to pull this crap in Ontario. And Ontario get nutsfreezingly cold in the winter, so a lot of people who don't have access to wood heat would die in that situation.

  • N. O'Brien Leeds, UK

    Mr. Greenfield, your article provides no fact based evidence whatsoever that green energy is the cause of our high energy bills in the UK. It seems to me you have misinterpreted the Observer article that your post is based on, which does not claim that green energy is causing 1 in 4 British families to go hungry, it merely indicates that the government has recently announced that we will be paying for more renewable energy through our bills. I welcome this further investment in green energy and I'm prepared to pay for it.

    Our high energy bills are not a result of investment in, or subsidising of, renewable energy. In fact, a breakdown of our energy bills shows that we pay almost 3 times more in subsidising nuclear cleanup activities and 6 to 8 times more in subsidising the oil and and gas industry. In addition, a large proportion of recent increases are due to free market speculation in oil and gas and nothing to do with an increase in wholesale prices of these commodities.

    So you see, green energy actually makes up a relatively small percentage of our energy bills in the UK. Perspective.

    • southwood

      N., I'm in the UK too. I haven't read the Observer article. But I have to say that the argument for renewables is precarious. My understanding is that wind turbine energy is grossly inefficient compared to, for example, gas. Also, and this is not unimportant, they are a blight on our beautiful British landscape. I drove up north through the border country on Monday and these things were dotted all over the hills. They were making me angry.

      Then there is the argument for nuclear energy. That's what the French use, isn't it ? Any way, I don't buy all this global warming scaremongering. Anthropogenic global warming is so minimal as not to matter so why are they lying to us ? Oh, of course, there's money in all that. That plus a likely globalist agenda. Just like they put the clampers on DDT in Africa. Those enviro whack jobs need to be challenged.

      • N. OBrien, Leeds UK

        South, the argument for renewables is precarious? In what way? Before the coalition got in the green economy was one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK. It provided the government more in tax than the oil and gas and nuclear industries, was creating jobs at a faster rate and would have continued to help us with our addiction to oil. As a fully paid up member of 'enviro whackoism' I also appreciated the fact it provides cleaner energy. Whether you believe in climate change or not, the fact is we need to move away from fossil fuels because as they run out they will only become more expensive.

        As for wind energy, offshore is not the most efficient, although I'm not familiar with the figures. The key to wind is to have it all offshore, which provides far more consistent production and doesn't get people all hot under the collar about the aesthetics.

        Nuclear is too expensive to start again, that's why they canned it. Not to mention the waste problem. However, there is potential I feel in building reactors that use thorium instead of uranium, which cuts out a lot of the usual nuclear problems.

        As you've probably guessed, I believe in the science of climate change. It's not about an agenda or there being money in it. The reason that climate change is kept off the agenda is because short term the money is still elsewhere. I wish the powers that be could see that there is money in renewable energy, then I'm sure it would be firmly on the agenda! As for the science, of the over 9500 peer reviewed scientific papers that have been published on climate change, less than 10 have concluded that climate change is not happening…..

        • southwood

          N., wind turbines are so inefficient that they need back up from gas turbines. Is that enviro-friendly btw ? Also one needs a huge amount to produce energy for even small cities. Nuclear energy can produce enough fuel for 1000s of years to come. The UK gave the go ahead to create 8 more nuclear power stations over the last few years and use of nuclear power increased by 11% in 2011. Also the Scottish government are now to extend the life of the Hunterston nuclear station by 5 years. This from an enviro whack job administration. The new reactors would be, I believe, less expensive. Safety cannot be a major issue if the record is anything to go by.

          I have looked into anthropogenic global warming. It's a complete myth. It is part of some global agenda. Tens of thousands of scientists reject AGW. These " 9500 peer reviewed scientific papers " are produced by scientists who are sold out to the global warming myth. They are afraid to lose their jobs. The founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, now rejects global warming as do many top scientists. Where is the evidence ? The pro global warming merchants use their own skewed evidence from data they manipulate. Go on, google or youtube " global warming hoax". It is very revealing.

          • N. OBrien, Leeds, UK

            South, frustratingly I just lost my long winded response to your comments above. So very briefly:

            'Is that environmentally friendly btw?' Well, yes more so than using gas alone. Bt I made my point about wind above and how it needs to go offshore.

            Nuclear, UK safety record suggests no problem, but still a problem with radioactive waste and weapons grade plutonium as a by product. Again, thorium would by pass some of the issues. Does your 11% figure include the nuclear produced electricity that we imported from France last year. Bottom line is we need to be energy independent. Combination of various renewable options and nuclear is likely best way forward for UK.

            I think you are confusing global warming and climate change. 'Tens of thousands of scientists' don't deny AGW, they deny that it is the only element of climate change. Climate change also includes changes in precipitation patterns and sea level, which are likely to be more important to us than global warming alone. No national or international scientific body disagrees with the view that global warming is at least partially anthropogenic. Google global temp data since industrial revolution. Global warming is ongoing but possibly slowing but there is not enough time series data to know if it is slowing yet. Look at decade on decade increases in temp.

            The assertion that climate change is a myth and there is a global conspiracy is bandied around a lot. The reason being that in the face of scientific fact based evidence, it's all you've got.

          • southwood

            N.,
            I am willing to accept that global warming may be a fact but I do not believe man has any input into that as greenhouse gases, CO2 emissions are just a tiny fraction in the equation. The tens of 1000s of scientists would have variations on this idea. AGW can only exist if it contributes to global warming. Surely that is tautological ?

            You mention international scientific bodies, but many scientists disagree with their findings. Remember if a theory gets a grip in the science world it becomes a dogma (like the unproven theory of evolution) and the academic institutions begin to exclude all alternative theory proponents. Why are these respected men of science not being given due consideration ? Why exclude people who disagree with your point of view ? Why threaten to criminalize those who disagree with climate change, as has be proposed by some ? What's to fear if you have the truth and the evidence ?

            Yes, I do believe in a globalist agenda. I believe that various powerful and influential bodies are pushing their agenda, including the UN, Bilderbergers, the Tripartite Commission, the US Council on Foreign Relations and others. You hear the phrase New World Order. What is that about ? There are those in the US government who talk of having UN law supersede US law. You might think that's all some crazy conspiracy theory. I don't.

          • N.O., UK

            Come on south, are you giving due consideration to those scientists who dedicate their professional lives to real, honest scientific research and who conclude climate change is real. You are saying they all operate under a global climate change conspiracy and skew their data. Unfounded and incredibly unfair on those scientists. I'm happy to give due consideration to those who produce research refuting climate change. Notwithstanding that, the weight of scientific evidence still indicates that climate change is happening and that it is, at least in part, of anthropogenic origin.

          • southwood

            N., I looked at the evidence. The evidence alone matters. The hierarchy of this or that sector, whether it's religious, political, whatever, means nothing when the evidence is clear. Like the so called Arab Spring which was supported by all the political leaders in the West. That has shown the "experts" were tragically wrong. I think you need to look at the alternative view. It is convincing.