Power Companies

Climate change has been in the news a bit this week, with 56 newspapers around the globe printing the same editorial asking the G20 summit to actually do something to sort out the environmental problems we are causing.

Hundreds of millions have been dedicated towards 'green' projects in the pre-budget report

And it was also mentioned in this weeks PrimeMinister's Questions, with projects to increase wind-farms being briefly discussed.

But, the problem we have here is that energy = power: wether we're talking about the petrol that makes our transport network run, the gas that heats our homes and cooks our food, or the electricity that make our factories and communication network run (and lets us see in the dark), energy is one of the biggest forms of power, with energy companies featuring amongst the richest entities in the world.

The fact that we are reliant on companies to provide us with petrol, gas, and electricity also means that, should, say, an area of the UK break away and rebel, the government can simply order the aptly-named power companies to disconnect the area, throwing it back into the dark-ages...

So... with such powerful companies not likely wanting to give up their riches, and with it being such a juicy last-resort means of control, with the government considering wind-farms, and hydroelectric, and hydrogen power for cars, and anything else that leaves energy centralized and in the control of a small number of rich companies, I wonder if they'll also actually push solar-panels and small (on your roof?) wind-turbines, whilst decentralizing the power grid?

In other words, will they place power into our hands?

I notice that the pre-budget report mentions and average of £900 tax-free per year for solar-equipped households that over-produce electricity and give some back to the grid, which should go some way to making them more economically viable; a very nice, non-authoritarian move by the government, if it's as-seems...

ID cards

IMO = In My Opinion; IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer; tl;dr: = too long; didn't read (i.e., what follows is a summary)


A little insight into how the government seems to work:

ID cards aren't exactly the most popular idea the government's ever come up with: whether the complaints are cost, over-authoritarianism, or the government's track-record for looking after our data, the idea seems quite unpopular.

Yet, it's being rolled out — currently^[1] on a 'voluntary' basis.

A few tricks the government is using to 'encourage' us to adopt ID cards:

Divide and conquer

Of course, no-one likes immigrants, and so no-one complained when they were given compulsory ID cards.

I'm sure no-one will complain when other 'jews of today' are forced to adopt ID cards:

• Paedophiles (or at lest the potential paedophiles that are teachers)
  
• Students
  
• Unemployed (to 'combat benefit fraud')
  
• Terrorists (or maybe not)
  

All of which could result in a gradual 'creep' of compulsory ID cards, at no point provoking the resilience of too-large a number of the people.

Opt-out tax

Thinking of going to Spain for your holidays, but need to renew your passport?

Well, maybe the government could interest you in a cheaper alternative? Why pay £77.50 on a new passport when £30 will get you an ID card, which will allow you to travel to EU countries?

Given that the government could surcharge or subsidize either of these government-issued licences as much as they want, the fact that the one the gov' want you to have is cheaper than the one they don't is not a coincidense.

Compulsory volunteering

Far more sneakily IMO: the alternative to voluntarily carrying ID is choosing to go without ID — and alcohol and fags.

At the same time as the ID cards were being slyly implimented:

• The government 'unrelatedly' amended the Licencing Act (the amendments made by sections 23 and 24 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 seem to be the culprits, but IANAL), granting the police new powers to order to 'combat violent crime' (caused by underage drunkards).
• The police use said powers in order to crack down on under-age sales (so as to 'crack down on violent crime').
• The government release some advice on how to avoid losing your licence (tl;dr: adopt challenge 21|25 scheme).
• In fear of their trade, alcohol retailers started adopting challenge 21|25 schemes.

With something similar happening with tobacco sales to under-aged people, the end result is pressure on several adults (in theory, all 18-25 year olds who smoke or drink) to carry ID, at least some of the time. Another step in the government's step-by-step introduction of compulsory ID cards; in fact, 'ease of buying alcohol' is already being used as a reason to 'voluntarily' get an ID card.

Note that, in a few years, this will result in several young adults who have had a few years' experience carrying ID, and who may object less to the idea of it being made compulsory.

I suppose the next logical step — other than making challenge 21 (25? 30?) outright compulsory — would be to 'fix' the 'oversight' of a previous (less authoritarian) government, by making it obligatory to carry driving licences whilst driving (currently, the police may issue you with an order to produce it at a station within 7 days), meaning that there's one more thing that you can 'volunteer' to go without if you wish to decline the 'voluntary' ID card scheme.

And that seems to be how the government are sneakily implementing ID cards, bit-by-bit.

(By-the-way: there's a difference between 'an ID card' and 'the ID cards' of the government's ID-card scheme: the latter involves a national database of data, including biometric data; I'm just thinking that getting in the habbit of carrying normal ID-cards would be a step towards the acceptance of the national ID-card scheme).

I'm curious as to the exact reasons why (presumably) it wouldn't work to simply refuse, en mass, to co-operate... but that's enough for today.

===========

[1] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060015_en_1; part 4 and section 7, or ctrl+F and search for 'compulsory'.