They are, but more or less everything lives downstream of changes in the energy economy. Some of the increases come because corporate consolidation has reduced the need for companies to price competitively, and some of it is taking advantage of consumer expectation of âeverything is getting more expensiveâ. Some of this was baked in by the difficulty adjusting supply to demand over the course of the last 2 years or so of the global pandemic and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But ultimately, even though oil has been affected by these last factors as well, ultimately a big part of everything elseâs price changes have been due to oil.
Every retail premises is looking at a minimum 40% energy cost increase. That has to be passed on to the consumer.
All well and good until consumers canât afford the costs being passed onto them because the profits are going to energy companies shareholders and wages arenât increasing in line with inflation.
Itâs one thing for your local clothes retailer, car dealership or kitchen supplier to keep doing that. Itâs another entirely when that starts affect peopleâs ability to feed themselves and keep themselves warm.
Those energy company profits are obscene by any measure and they know they hold us all hostage and so can continue to do it. They should be better regulated or better still nationalised and the only reason they arenât is greed and profiteering. They choose profits over people and that will mean there will be deaths this year that you can lay at their door. They wonât give a shit though, as long as the earnings report keeps shareholders happy.
The easiest way of dealing with the profits of the energy companies during a cost of living crisis is a windfall tax that goes directly towards improving the sums paid in benefits, means adjusted subsidies for below average income households on utilities and, at the very least, freezes on council tax rates, particularly for the lower band properties.
Ideologically I would prefer such revenue to go into increased investments into renewable energies but a) fossil fuel companies ought to be doing that anyway if theyâre to remain in business long term, and b) the cost of living crisis takes precedence right now.
I might be naive here but why would that be a better solution than say capping what they can charge far more stringently than has been chosen to be done so far?
My concern is prices go up like a rocket and come down like a feather. We can see it with petrol right now. The second it costs them more, the price shoots up but when the price starts to come down they are slow to respond. Weâll see the same with energy companies too. Standing charges have doubled for a lot of people. That apparently is as a result of them having to take on customers from the companies that have gone bust. But now the standing charge is that high, will it ever come back down again?
In my thinking, by capping what they charge the consumer is better protected. Let them charge through the nose and then tax those profits, theyâll find ways to funnel that money elsewhere and prices will never come down again.
Or am I missing something?
Principally because I said easiest, not necessarily âbestâ.
Equally though, I donât think a cap works from an equitable point of view. It does proportionately less to assist the more disadvantaged.
I still the best way is that Energy should be priced much more flexibly. Basic use (say the average cost of central heating and powering a very modest house) should be cheap. Once you are running hot tubs, patio heaters etc on top of that then you should be charged so much it makes your eyes water.
It is also in line with the general principle that we should be charging more for things that we donât want people doing.
But some people do like their hot tubs and patio heaters. Do you extend this to all luxuries that consume? Jet skis, speed boats, sports cars etc etc etc?
Heard a really interesting one today, guy living in a tower block where all the bills are communal (no separate meters). Whatâs the incentive to turn the lights off? He explained it went a bit further as those on the bottom floor were running extensions out to the road and selling car charging time.
Thatâs a very fair point.
It does seem mad that in the 7th biggest economy in the world we can pay people so little that they can barely get by and then expect the state to fill the gap. A minimum wage job should still be enough to provide a reasonable, all be it relatively basic, standard of living otherwise itâs not a minimum wage, itâs a poverty wage.
Tough.
Absolutely. My wife was running the gas heater from the start of autumn as the temps dropped here in Adelaide which coincided with the new crazy marginal overseas market pricing⌠Got a small-car-sized bill so now have a disconnected pool heater and sheâs even taken to wearing a jumper inside instead of upping the thermostat or using an inefficient gas-fire place. 
Multi tiered pricing - with low prices for a small basic domestic amount and very high prices beyond this - is what we need to disincentivise fossil fuels. It works - even with my wife!
Sorry, on my phone. You said tough to my post. Whoâs to decide what âweâ want?
Yeah tragedy of the commons. Developers should never be allowed to do this. I have lived in a townhouse complex with a single water meter as the developer was too tight to provision individually - and this was the wild west that is lawless Canberra - which actually ended up costing each household significantly more as, with variable usage pricing, consumption was charged as if it was 1 extremely wasteful household instead of 20 more typical ones.
Iâll volunteer to, if @Mascot is busy.
I believe that âweâ means all of us?
Do you want to live on a planet that can sustain life? Itâs a simple equation.
I found this really interesting
So you were heating your patio when you werenât out using it? Really?
LOL. what kind if response is THAT?
Thatâs your answer? throw down the ultimatum to the masses, when itâs the elitest 1% who are the ones fucking it up for the rest of us? they make the rules, they define how society develops. to use a gambling analogy, the game is always played in the favor of the house. the house ALWAYS gets its rake, one way or another. if someone figures out how to play the game to change that, they are banned from the casino.
Example: why is there a near moratorium on diesel-powered vehicles in North America, even though nearly every manufacturer for vehicles have more efficient powerplants available in other parts in the world for very common models of transportation that would use 30% less fuel?
wowâŚjust wow.
Itâs a response from someone who is sick of this argument.
I get completely that the overwhelming fault for climate change lies with a relative handful of companies. Iâm not a big fan of the âeveryone needs to do their own bitâ position, and Iâd go so far as to say thatâs a narrative thatâs been deliberately pushed to distract people from the real solutions to climate change, which must be political and policy based.
However, there are some things that are beyond the pale, and most of them are things which are total luxuries. Running patio heaters and hot tubs - unless youâre running them off photovoltaics. Flying multiple times a year.
The response to these things is always some appeal to negotion or compromise âBut I need to fly becauseâŚâ It isnât a negotiation. The Earth does not give a fuck what anyone thinks they need.
And donât forgot, I didnât say people canât have hot tubs. I said they should be charged through the nose for excessive energy use.
So in the end people canât have patio heaters or hot tubs. We can take the hard path or the less hard one. We sort this absurd entitlement to consumption of it will be sorted for us.