Nationalise, regulate or laissez-faire?

[newfhouse]

This would fit in several of the current threads but since it starts and ends with effluent I’ll put it here.


View: https://twitter.com/secrettory12/status/1560706605695606784?s=21&t=kZUwdvY9txRXzXndy_ikTQ

 

[AndyRM]

I hope you charged mightily!

If I'd been freelance, I certainly would have.

Thinking about it, they did have some, a single side of A4. I actually laughed when I was given them. I thought it was a joke.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Talking of Viz

View attachment 1980

It may be because of my previous likes on Twitter that I'm now getting a steady flow of photos of those who voted to allow raw sewage pumping into rivers and the sea. More effluent there than the beaches in the south. I hope some of the shít sticks.

 

[Mugshot]

It may be because of my previous likes on Twitter that I'm now getting a steady flow of photos of those who voted to allow raw sewage pumping into rivers and the sea. More effluent there than the beaches in the south. I hope some of the shít sticks.

Yes, I'm getting that too.
I saw a good suggestion about renaming the outlets after the sitting MP for the area that voted to allow it.

 

[Deleted member 49]

If your really that interested who's dumping sh1t in your local waters...you can't enter your local MP here and see.

View: https://twitter.com/Feargal_Sharkey/status/1561272159825281025?t=_8JXJZbiQtuF8KgDgQliJg&s=19

 

[albion]

You cannot blame the energy companies when the government regulator both regulated and none regulated to glorious failure.
We became dependent on gas whikst at the same time failing to even invest in gas storage to balance prices.
Plus they allowed high stakes casino competition which led to the public getting to foot the bill.

This is the product of 10 years of self interest roll of the dice government.

 

[Mugshot]

Apparently the raw sewage is annoying the French, so that'll keep some of the headbangers voting blue.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62670623

 

[PaulB]

 

[Mugshot]

More of this sort of thing. No wonder they want to get rid of C4.


View: https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1563186366044811268?t=xfc_BK4lCLmSmVLGrECEyA&s=19

 

[PaulB]

Analysis by the Ferret News website shows that 33 tory Peers in the HoL have a financial stake in the Oil and Gas industries. The website shows them to own shares worth at least £50,000 each across 19 fossil fuels companies. Ten more have jobs in the sector - advising firms or acting as chair or director.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/da...-financial-interests-in-fossil-fuel-industry/

 

[Deleted member 49]

Yea but it's because of the war...Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Strange then that the energy companies are still making fecking huge profits !

 

[BoldonLad]

Analysis by the Ferret News website shows that 33 tory Peers in the HoL have a financial stake in the Oil and Gas industries. The website shows them to own shares worth at least £50,000 each across 19 fossil fuels companies. Ten more have jobs in the sector - advising firms or acting as chair or director.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/da...-financial-interests-in-fossil-fuel-industry/

I would hazard a guess that anyone who is a member of a non-public sector pension scheme has a stake in fossil fuel companies.

 

[theclaud]

I would hazard a guess that anyone who is a member of a non-public sector pension scheme has a stake in fossil fuel companies.

Not quite as big an individual stake, though, and most of them don't also make laws.

33 of them own shares worth at least £50,000 each, across 19 fossil fuel companies. Ten more have jobs in the sector – advising firms, or acting as chair or director.

 

[BoldonLad]

Not quite as big an individual stake, though, and most of them don't also make laws.

33 of them own shares worth at least £50,000 each, across 19 fossil fuel companies. Ten more have jobs in the sector – advising firms, or acting as chair or director.

Isn't the relevance of the size of the stake relative to the individuals Financial Status ie £10,000 to you, or I may well be a much greater proportion of our wealth than £50,000 to a wealthy individual?

Plus, an individuals 'Pension Pot' may well be a significant sum (certainly in the 100s of £1000s) if they have been in the scheme for all, or most of their working life, and, are (say) in their late 50s. (Rules me out, I am way older than that).

 

[Rusty Nails]

Isn't the relevance of the size of the stake relative to the individuals Financial Status ie £10,000 to you, or I may well be a much greater proportion of our wealth than £50,000 to a wealthy individual?

Plus, an individuals 'Pension Pot' may well be a significant sum (certainly in the 100s of £1000s) if they have been in the scheme for all, or most of their working life, and, are (say) in their late 50s. (Rules me out, I am way older than that).

A pension fund will have investments in hundreds or possibly thousands of companies, only a small percentage of which will be likely to be in fossil fuel companies. They are averse to risk so spread investment widely.

The average member of a pension fund, even a very large fund, will have very little of their individual 'pot' in such companies, and the vast majority of pension fund holders do not have a scooby doo about the make-up of their pension fund.

The chance of a pension fund member being in a position to influence government decisions to enhance their fund value is negligible and is a totally different scenario to these HoL peers.