Stopping political ideologies and logical fallacies

Watch
Bruise
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Can you spot any logical fallaices and political ideologies in the following text? The text is an article published in The Times newspaper (A British Broadsheet).

"Last week the House of Lords' Economic Affairs committee revealed that appalling confusion and complexity is deterring vital investment in Britain's energy industry. Today Lord Lawson of Blaby, who sits on that committee, tells The Times the coalition is not merely misguided on energy but "doesn't have an energy policy" at all.

His remarks will irritate ministers, as wellaimed criticism often does. For years now, this and previous governments have postponed the tough decisions needed to secure Britain's energy supply for the future and make it affordable for business as well as domestic customers.

What passes for a coalition energy policy is in fact a tangle of regulations, subsidies and incentives that is delaying investment, driving up prices over the long term and making blackouts a real possibility by as soon as next year. Britain's lack of a coherent energy strategy is an emergency that will not go away just because of a short-term outlook of warm weather and long summer evenings. It is, as Dieter Helm, of Oxford University, told the Lords' committee, a "very slow-motion car crash" that is already happening.

Like Heathrow airport, Britain's power generation system is operating at close to capacity. The country has a capacity margin of just 2 per cent.

Ofgem warns this could shrink to zero by the winter of 2015-16 if predicted gains in the efficiency of power usage are not realised.

With zero margin for error, power cuts are virtually inevitable. Britons are in fact becoming more efficient in their use of energy. Overall consumption has fallen slightly since the 1970s and markedly since 2005. A crisis looms despite this trend because of steadily declining North Sea output and the planned obsolescence of ageing power stations.

Estimates from Ofgem and elsewhere suggest that the UK needs between £100 billion and £200 billion in investment in new generating capacity and "smart grid" technology by 2030 to keep the lights on and minimise dependence on unreliable energy suppliers, such as Russia.

This investment has ground to a halt. Work has begun on just one new gas-fired power station in the past 18 months. British and foreign investors are deciding not to risk capital in what should be one of the world's safest energy markets partly because of uncertainty caused by Labour's pledge to freeze retail prices should it win the general election next year. The coalition is to blame, too. It has sown confusion with its varying commitment to expensive renewables subsidies, which have a direct effect on household bills but also on industry's appetite for investment in new gas-powered generating capacity. It has given the competition and markets authority far too long (two years) to report on the pricing strategies of the big six domestic energy suppliers. Above all, it has failed to recognise the potential of shale gas.

America's shale gas revolution has delivered gas prices two thirds cheaper than those paid by British consumers. British shale gas output may never approach America's, but the Bowland basin with Sheffield at its centre is one of the world's largest reserves of its type. Even so, not one new fracking application was received by the Environment Agency in the year after the government's decision to allow the process to proceed. The reasons are clear. A screen of red tape deterring commercial fracking has been created by multiple agencies, chief among them the department for energy and climate change, the health and safety executive and the environment agency.

Scientists are working on energy sources that leave no soot and cool the planet. In the meantime there is gas, the "inescapable" transitional fuel, as Professor Helm has called it. Britain has it in abundance. What it lacks is politicians with the courage and vision to embrace it.
0
reply
Kittiara
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Yes, I can. But what is your take on it? It's a bit hit-and-run, posting an article like that. Also, it's best to provide a link, so that people can have a look at the article for themselves.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Technically, the Times isn't a broadsheet it's a compact, the Sunday Times, however, is a broadsheet. And of course the media will make use of such fallacious argument, it's like the sun coming up in the morning; bound to happen.
0
reply
Bruise
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Kittiara)
Yes, I can. But what is your take on it? It's a bit hit-and-run, posting an article like that. Also, it's best to provide a link, so that people can have a look at the article for themselves.
Hi. I am learning about political views and how authors use fallacies to present their opinion as fact. Currently, I do have some views, but they're not substantial enough to post here.

I'd like to hear your opinion instead.
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
This looks like homework that you are trying to get other people...
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
"Today Lord Lawson of Blaby, who sits on that committee, tells The Times the coalition is not merely misguided on energy but "doesn't have an energy policy" at all."

Not sure about any specific logical fallacies, but would this be the same Lord Lawson (Nigel Lawson) who has financial interests in the fossil fuel industry? Possibly a bit biased. He also runs a charity that opposes action to reduce emissions, which has refused to reveal where it gets most of its funding from, again raising the issue of possible bias and conflicts of interest.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ic-lawson-coal
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-restricted-us


As for political ideologies, the right wing tends to be in favour of reducing regulations they consider "unnecessary" (of course what's necessary is subjective), and leaving more things for the market to decide instead of having the government decide everything.

Stuff like this quote below is quite right wing - talking about "a tangle of regulations" that is "delaying investment", which seems to be a common theme throughout this article. This person/people seem to think that they should reduce regulations and let the market have more influence on energy policy, rather than having the government influence it with subsides.
"What passes for a coalition energy policy is in fact a tangle of regulations, subsidies and incentives that is delaying investment, driving up prices over the long term and making blackouts a real possibility"
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (87)
14.01%
I'm not sure (29)
4.67%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (196)
31.56%
I have already dropped out (13)
2.09%
I'm not a current university student (296)
47.67%

Watched Threads

View All