I mean you’re getting down voted and yet at the same time there is literally another front page thread on the exact same topic filled with Greenwald fanboys doing exactly this.
Personally I think whataboutism to excuse bad behavior is awful, but using it to criticize an accuser's hypocrisy or double-standard is fair and legitimate.
For instance, the event with Evo Morales' plane being forced down in Switzerland, while not exactly the same, clearly set a bad precedent and we're paying the price now. I don't have any problem with saying that what Belarus just did and what happened then with Evo Morales' plane were both wrong. (At the same time I support European countries sanctioning Belarus even if they were the same countries that just a few years ago denied their airspace to Morale's plane for political reasons.)
Interesting. To be fair, in that case (assuming the article is accurate) the plane departed from Kiev, so it would seem that Ukraine would in that case have a reasonable claim that the plane is in their jurisdiction. I don't know the specifics of aviation treaties, so I can't really say for sure if this was improper.
On the other hand, if Ukraine did this just to harass a journalist saying things they didn't like (once again if we take the RT article at face value), then that's a questionable action that deserves to be criticized.
It reminds me of calling 'slippery slope' on an argument. Slippery slope arguments are sometimes fallacious, and sometimes very pertinent. You actually have to use reason to distinguish the two scenarios, not just use pattern recognition to try to spot a match to a list of fallacies.
Lots of people using 'what about' are doing so to try to make reasonable comparisons between two cases. Lots of people do it to avoid blame or confuse the argument. You have to actually read to figure out which it is.
Had to google whataboutism, which sent me into a fallacy wiki-hole. Only then could i come back, understand and laugh at your comment lol.
After some thinking it seems a lack of authority on what 'Truly' constitutes a logical fallacy during a conversation, but claiming the other is using a fallacy is a fallacy in it's own right. May I suggest Fallaception?
I think the problem is people cry whataboutism as a way of silencing dissenting opinions rather than engaging in a discussion rebutting the premise(s).
> The office will continue to prosecute other crimes related to prostitution, including patronizing sex workers, promoting prostitution and sex trafficking, and said that its policy would not stop it from bringing other charges that stem from prostitution-related arrests.
A good summary of EU problems is described [1]. Washington and London understood that crucial to mass procurement was throwing large amounts of R&D money at many companies in hopes some would work. Brussels focused on haggling down the cost per dose. Europeans pay a few dollars less per dose but ended near the back of the shipment line.
Which is too simplistic. The UK, the US and the EU depend on their local manufacturing capacity. That capacity is limited, regardless initial delivery schedules were sufficient for herd immunity in the EU around June/July with a significant surplus in Q3/4. That surplus was slated to be shared with developing countries.
Solid plan, solid procurement strategy. But after that procurement, nothing. No coordination of national campaigns with manufacturers, no planning on local and regional level, no operational procurement plan. And the list goes on.
Good question. Based on my experience in SCM I would say a combination of circumstances, luck and better management.
The UK had a head start (due to earlier approval of the AZ vaccine, they were the second ones after the Russins and before the US), of one and a half months or so. The UK gotlucky that AZs prodution in the UK went smoother than the one in Belgium. And cirumstances are in favour of the UK, initial deliviery volumes are low accross the board, regardless of supplier, and a smaller population allows higher per capita numbers in these cases.
The main reason so, IMHO, is the UKs approach and management of the campaign. With NHS, theUK coud build upon one entitiy to run things, the UK streched the second shot and didn't hold inventory back for it. And the UK seems to have proper operational supply chain management in place.
The EU (meaning individual member states) on the other hand has a larger population, at least 27 individual entities (Germany adds 16 individual states to that), o central planning (Germany has none on the federal level and I haven't seen any on state level so far neither), no coherent strategy. Appointment managment doesn't work. The EU also screwed up supply by ordering more in january (volumes that weren't needed) which resulted in further delays. And the list goes on.
In a nut shell, the UK didnt screw with the suppliers supply chains up to end f production and has a grip on the down stream supply chain up to peoples arms. The EU screwed with suppliers and has zero plan about everything after doses are delivered to a national distribution hub.
EDIT: The EU has to coordinate 27 nations and has to avoid an EU-internal bidding war. The UK doesn't.
It's worth remembering the UK bought 3x as many doses per capita than the EU (of AZ), and its domestic manufacturing capacity anyway has to serve a much smaller population. The luck in large part is the Ox/AZ was successful and fast, and the UK had placed a very large order for it.
Yep. The EU on the other hand spread the risk across multiple suppliers. One of which fell through so far, Sanofi if memory serves well. I for my part have no issue with the procurement strategy. The contracts, assuming they are all similar to the AZ one, are crap so.
And after contract signature, the EU basically took a step back. The EU did tell member states that logistics will be critical, and that logistics will be up to member states to sort out. Kind of right, but also kind of lazy. Even lazier are member states that failed to sort logistics out. Especially those that were fast to blame the EU for that.
This whole thing is not EU business, member states are responsible for medical issues.
The procurement, and the procurement alone, was something the member states decided ad-hoc to pool in this particular instance, in order to avoid exactly the kind of situation between member states that we currently have with the UK.
And that has actually worked remarkably well: all the EU member states have essentially the same percent of their population vaccinated. Solidarność! They are also actually doing quite well internationally, with only the US/UK and Israel significantly better (and some Gulf states).
And of course the US/UK achieved this by not playing fair. Trump tried to buy Biontech outright, and you can bet he would have denied Germany access to the vaccine developed in Germany had he succeeded. Oxford wanted to partner with Merck, but the UK government forbade this and forced them to go with Astrazeneca instead, exactly because they could then foist UK-first contracts on them.
Coming back to the EU procurement process: there simply was no precedent for this, no EU jurisdiction, no EU body that regularly does this, and thus no expertise. Thus the contracts :-/
"The EU took a step back" is incorrect, as there simply wasn't and isn't a role for the EU here at all, even the procurement wasn't really an EU thing.
Because around half the EU production is exported whereas until a few days ago exactly 0% of the US and UK production were.
"Until a few days ago" because the US just recently agreed to send some vaccine to Canada. For the first time. Canada had been getting vaccine produced in the EU. UK is still at 0.
USA has effectively banned export. UK signed a better deal (https://www.politico.eu/article/the-key-differences-between-...), three months earlier, and as a result all AZ vaccine produced domestically in the UK is going to UK Citizens, and they are higher up the queue for AZ product manufactured in the EU. This produces the same effect as an export ban (i.e. domestic production used entirely by country), but is really just the result of competent procurement.
The EU shat the bed by not banning all exports just like the US did. It's insane to me that the EU allowed 41 million vaccine doses produced INSIDE the EU to be exported to other countries while Europeans are dying and in lockdown.
It would be insane to hold this necessary vaccine back from the world just to serve egoistic purposes. Just because the EU has good production infrastructure should not make them the “winner“ in some world wide “vaxing race“
and of course the UK did as well, as the previous poster kindly pointed out:
> This produces the same effect as an export ban
How exactly you achieve being an egotistical sociopath seems a secondary concern.
Now of course both the US and the UK were in extremely dire straits at the tine, with by far the worst outcomes. So I guess that behavior is at least somewhat understandable when you have your back against the wall. Doesn't really make it any better, though.
All of the mentioned actors are egotistical sociopaths in your example, as the EU is not talking about equitable access, only access for its own citizens.
If you care about equitable access you should be praising the UK, and in particular Oxford, for making its vaccine available at cost, and for having dedicated supply chains already established for poorer nations.
There's still plenty to criticise, but the current framing demonstrates the egocentrism of all of the actors.
This is a very narrow view. The U.K. has made sure there are international supply chains to distribute the Oxford vaccine, and far more of that is being supplied internationally than the entirety of doses exported from the EU.
I think your 50% figure is also too high, though it is a high proportion, but these doses are primarily going to wealthy countries.
If the EU were asking for U.K. doses to be routed to other (particularly poorer) countries I would be sympathetic to the position, but this spat is about getting the EU doses, not about equitable access.
The U.K. is also experiencing a significant shortfall in doses compared to those that were projected to be delivered by AZ. Production yields have been lower across the board according to Oxford researchers involved in the scale up, and several delivery milestones were missed for the U.K.
The greater (lower) the degree of government involvement in the provision of a good or service the greater (lower) the price increases (decreases) over time, e.g., hospital and medical costs, college tuition, childcare with both large degrees of government funding/regulation and large price increases vs. software, electronics, toys, cars and clothing with both relatively less government funding/regulation and falling prices.
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-or-century-5...
Too bad that low cost is invisible for the consumers. California has one of the most, if not the most, expensive electricity in spite of years of investment in renewables.
California has high rates, like the Northeast[1], primarily because it pulls some externalities onto the bill. Red-state residents not paying for the cost of pollution doesn't eliminate the cost! But California has moderate bills due to decades of work on efficiency. (Climate helps somewhat, but there is a huge AC load in 30m-inhabitant SoCal.)
Does Houston have a carbon tax that prices the externalities into your electricity bill? If not then that's why fossil fuels are still cheaper. They don't have to pay for the externalities.
this is why rooftop solar, which has the highest LCOE of any power generation, still ends up making sense for consumers. Because it doesn't have to compete on the open market, it just has to be plausibly cheaper than your utility bill
Why is that a problem? Most people take multiples of that time just to pay off their mortgage. Maybe if you are house flipping, but even then this tends to increase their value.
Seems like an elitist point of view. Just pointing out the for the middle class family putting a lot of money to maybe get even after 5+ years is not very attractive.
But even if you dont stay in the house, the next owner can use it. I expect most houses will be lived in for atleast 30 years if they are getting mortgaged.
I think the average home ownership in the US is 5-7 years. Depending on the size of your solar setup, you very well may not break even before moving for whatever reason.
That said, it does make sense if you do plan to stay for 10+ years I think. As new houses get built, hopefully with requirements for solar, the housing stock will eventually all be upgraded to include some form of solar generation. I would expect the price to further come down and the majority of homes in the 1st world to have residential solar of some form within the next 30 years.
This seems to assume that solar panels do nothing for resale value. However there is definitely value for the next homeowner to save $50-$100/month in expenses.
I live in Finland next to a hydroelectric dam. Electricity is, at worst, like 200 bucks a month. More than half the cost is transport. The dam is less than 15km out. What a ripoff.
Privatizing the electric grid would make electricity cheaper, they said.
Privatizing the grid isn't enough to make it cheaper. The regulatory environment has to be set up to allow competition. It's competition that lowers prices, not simply being privately owned.
Even though you're 15km from a primary source, the network is built to provide you electricity even if that source is down. That requires connections to generators much further away.
The privatized electric grid companies were granted permission to raise prices for funding grid expansion. A later audit discovered that they pocketed 90% of the raise. (the expansion cost only 10%)
Even closer than the hydro dam there's a waste incinerator plant 3km from my home. Even if the hydro wasn't 100% reliable which of course it isn't (the channel is drained occasionally for maintenance), they can burn trash at any time to make up the difference. On some days there's a funny smell in the air.
Here in Norway it's because we sell our cheap hydro overseas, so that we can buy back more expensive energy when hydro is low. The owners make a ton of cash, and us consumers can only say "thank you".
Sure something something more reliable, but don't come here and say the cash they skim isn't a strong motivation in this equation.
At least a lot of the hydro is owned by local municipalities and counties, so most of it goes back into the local communities. But not all.
Norway's system of municipal hydropower ownership combined with export of surplus hydropower, effectively converts the (basically mandatory) electricity bill into a tax. Reducing the need for other forms of local government taxation, given that the municipality is well-run and not corrupt.
Beneficial side effects are incentivizing power efficiency, since capital-intensive efforts like insulating your house and installing a heat exchanger are only profitable if electricity prices are high.
Another dramatically undersold benefit is that Norwegian municipalities are effectively well-paid pumped storage operators when continental European power prices are low or negative, which effectively reduces the effective "synthetic" power bill taxation, while retaining its income to the municipalities.
Authorities and publicly owned power companies have really screwed the pooch on explaining these benefits to the public.
Given these benefits, retaining ownership of the hydropower companies in the hands of the public is super important. If they're sold to private owners, it's basically tantamount to allowing private owners to purchase tax collection rights. And honestly, screw that.
> Given these benefits, retaining ownership of the hydropower companies in the hands of the public is super important
It's almost unfathomable to me that anyone can disagree with this, yet I'm pretty sure the status quo won't last for much longer.
I'm tempted to use some very strong words for describing those that are working to this end, but I guess it could all boil down to ideological blindness and short sighted greed.
Quisling would be an appropriate word. I really wish the political right managed to put their ideology on the shelf for this case. It's a case of blindly following heuristics rather than reasoning about the underlying principles.
I agree, also regarding the latest wind power projects. These are often built on public land, and regardless on land that's open to the public through the right to roam.
I would have less of a problem with it if the incomes from these power stations were owned by the municipalities. But the municipal governments have demonstrated time and time again that they really suck at negotiating. So what happens is that private investors, often foreign, negotiate a very cheap lease where wind turbines are built on public land. All profits, except a small yearly lease to the municipality, are returned to the investors.
There should be people in the current conservative government that understand enough about market forces to step in and ensure that profitable wind power projects are actually built by the municipalities, but looks like they're asleep at the wheel. Or maybe there's some special interest groups that have managed to sneak in and stop that kind of measure. This is an area where ideology ends up being the enemy of the public.
$200 max sounds nice. I paid that some months for a 900 sqft (83.6127 m2) apartment in the summer in Texas. I have family that have seen 3-400/month for their larger houses some months.
Granted, these are mass produced homes built in the 50s-80s for the most part before home construction got more strict about insulation and energy used to be a lot cheaper.
The cost of electricity in CA is mostly the cost of the distribution infrastructure maintenance, which is a value approved on several levels of government, and the actual electron cost is hidden from the end user behind layers and layers of contracts.
The cost of electricity, then, is based on some fixed costs of infrastructure: we still haven't figured out how to make more electrons go down less metal wire than in the past. Any savings will result in lack of maintenance, aka: fires.
Subsides for the green energy were/are significant factor in energy prices in CA. If we got to the point that the green energy is price competitive we should see the decrease either because we do not need to subsidize or because the generation is cheaper.
The state has no incentive to give you something for free that used to cost a lot. Why would they do it? Votes?
The 'carriage' fee, ie the fee used to transport the electricity will grow quite a lot as the entity in charge of that finds reason to charge that much more and gov. will find reasons to tax.
There's the cost of electricity - but also distributors and government in that equation.
If the cost of making parts for the Google Phone were $1, and there were only 1 type of phone in the US and everyone had to have one ... would Google drop the price of the phone? Probably not. They would capture more surpluses.
This will be the same everywhere.
If electricity were purchased at 'independent stations' etc it would be another story entirely. As energy got cheaper, power usage would increase, and efficiency of households would go down.
California deregulated electricity and in the absence of regulations, electricity providers discovered that they could collude in reducing capacity until prices went nice and high, and make continuous windfall profits from then forward.
"Deregulated" is something of a misnomer here. They removed restrictions on prices and collusion, but did not remove the state-enforced monopolies that different electric providers have in different areas of the state. So they combined the worst aspects of deregulation with the worst aspects of regulation.
Part of this was that CA’s “deregulation” outlawed long term pricing in favor of spot pricing. So it created a situation where providers could “discover” that they needed to take a plant down for maintenance at peak, only to “accidentally” raise the price of electricity.
AIUI, long term contracts were seen as opaque, whereas spot pricing wasn’t.
The source of that problem was the price for consumers was fixed by the government, while the utility was obliged to pay whatever the wholesale price was.
I just tried DeepNote, wow! I havent seen such a clean interface in a Jupyter Notebook for very long time. So intiituve and very easy to use, I was up in < 5 minutes with GCS + BQ integration
