Roger Chapman wrote:
On 01/11/2011 12:54, RobertL wrote:

Anyone on this group that didn't get on the bandwagon has only
themselves to blame. It has been made perfectly clear it was a good
deal.-

Some of us chose not to, because we felt the scheme was unethical.

It was a scheme that the Government was desperately anxious to promote
so they offered incentives.

That is not true.
What SEEMS to have happened us that a political 'solution' to 'climate
change' was required so a bunch of lobby groups bent their ears and
said 'renewable energy, but it will cost a lot, but you can spin that
into 'green jobs'

The fact is of course that renewable energy costs a bloody fortune and
makes almost no difference to carbon emissions whatsoever, costs
anything up to a million euros per job created, and displaces 2.5 people
from more useful work they could be doing.

The only people who benefit are the manufacturers and installers and the
harry's of this world who don't give a **** as long as they are making
money out of government and green**** gullibility.




Taking them up on that is no different to
accepting say child allowance.


No, it IS different. Child allowance says - rightlt or wrongly ' we want
you to breed, have a cash incentive' It does what it sets out to do.

Renewable energy does not ..it says 'we want to save carbon, have a cash
handout for ONLY this technology or that technology' In short it doesn't
even work for the reasons its promoted. That is the true state of affairs.


Ethics these days depends very much on where you are coming from:


It always has, mate.

To the fundamentalist Moslem interest is unethical but killing apostates
is a sacred duty.

To a parent privileges such as child allowance are an inalienable right
but how ethical is taxing the childless poor so that someone who already
has a larger income and a more comfortable existence is further rewarded
for a particular lifestyle choice.


Exactly.

Iniquitous.