~ Gesticht àls Gesticht ter Voorkoming v/d Maatschappelijke Randdebiliteit ~
~ HÉT "progressief" Orgaan Der "Hangmatsocialisten" ~ Gesticht àls Gesticht ter Voorkoming v/d Maatschappelijke & Politieke Randdebiliteit
02-05-2010
Slimme meters in Bakersfield California
Jullie hebben toch ook gemerkt dat wij in
alle talen hebben gezwegen over 1 mei? Snuggere lezertjes hebben wij!
Wij vinden dat er al te veel geluld wordt over de rooie toekomst en de
verdediging van de kleine man. Elke bijziende tuinslak merkt zo
onmiddellijk dat de realiteit er spijtig genoeg helemaal anders uitziet.
Het is immers niet omdat je een paar keer per jaar en zeker op 1mei wat
orakeltaal uitkraamt dat alles beter moet, de armoede uitgeroeid en nog
meer fraaie woorden dat we daar in de dagelijkse realiteit veel van
merken. We moeten dus vaststellen dat de kloof tussen de potentiële
linkse kiezer en de linkse partijen nooit zo groot geweest is. Wij
houden dus onze bek en we spreken over zeer concrete dingen zoals ons
favoriete kluifje: de slimme meters. Gisteren waren we reeds blij
jullie de eerste formidabele resultaten van de massale plaatsing van die
slimme metertjes te mogen voorstellen. Een kniesoor kan echter
zeggen dat die firma er een knoeiboel van heeft gemaakt en daarom
zochten we nog andere voorbeelden uit de praktijk op. We zijn zo
gestoten op een plaats die als een vloek klinkt in de oren van alle fans
van slimme meters: Bakersfield. Het zegt jullie meer dan waarschijnlijk
niets en daarom geven we wat uitleg. Ofg tenminste we laten jullie wat
Amerikanen vertellen waarvoor Bakersfield staat. En we beginnen stilaan
te begrijpen waarom in het pilootproject van Eandis de analoge meter
samen met de slimme meter blijft functioneren. Maar lezen jullie maar
mee en let vooral op de "dynamische tarieven" zoals men in Vlaanderen
ook graag zou toepassen zonder er bij te vertellen dat de tarieven
volledig vrij zijn en dat Vlaanderen nergens een bevoegdheid heeft om in
te grijpen moesten de tarieven plots de pan uit swingen zoals in
California...
Pacific
Gas and Electric Co. announced Wednesday that it will test its
controversial SmartMeters side by side with older analog meters at 150
homes, in the utility's latest effort to defuse public suspicions about
the new devices.
Since last summer, PG&E customers have
complained that the new, digital SmartMeters overstate electricity usage
and lead to higher bills, a charge the utility has consistently denied.
So PG&E will pick 150 homes throughout Northern and Central
California and test the new meters against the old for three months to
see if any discrepancies emerge.
Both meters will be tied into the
same electrical line and should, in theory, show the same usage.
"We
want to make sure our customers have confidence in this technology,"
said PG&E spokesman David Eisenhauer.
Data from the test will
be made public at the end of those three months, Eisenhauer said.
State
energy regulators have already hired a consulting firm to investigate
the meters' accuracy. But so far, regulators have refused to halt
deployment of the advanced meters, which relay their information to the
utility via wireless communication
California was
the first state in the US to move ahead with full-scale deployment of
smart meters. That decision can be traced back to the energy crisis of
2000-01 which analysts showed was caused in part by the failure to
transmit dynamic pricing signals to retail customers.
In
response, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) held
evidentiary hearings into policies to promote advanced metering, demand
response and dynamic pricing. To fill a much needed gap in knowledge,
it authorized a two-year long pilot with dynamic pricing involving a
random sample of some 2,500 residential and small commercial and
industrial customers of the states three investor-owned utilities.
Each
of the utilities filed a business case for the deployment of advanced
metering infrastructure (AMI) based on a combination of demand response
benefits, which were anchored around the findings of the dynamic pricing
pilot, and operational benefits in distribution. The CPUC approved all
three business cases and meter deployment began at a rapid pace,
hitting rates of 18,000 meter installs per day.
All was going
well until another crisis erupted last autumn in the southern central
valley town of Bakersfield. Some residents who were served by Pacific
Gas & Electric Company complained that the smart meters were
doubling and tripling their energy bills. Town hall meetings,
encouraged in party by criticisms that were voiced by a state senator,
were held in Bakersfield and in Fresno, a town further up the valley.
The senator called officials of both the utility and the CPUC to task
and called for an independent inquiry to be held (which has recently
been initiated).
In December, the New York Times carried an
article entitled, Smart Electric Utility Meters, Intended to Create
Savings, Instead Prompt Revolt. This was widely cited in the industry.
And more recently, Christine Hertzog posted an article on the Energy
Collective website with the provocative title, Is PG&E killing the
smart grid? [http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/63512].
Ms.
Hertzogs article did not dwell on the Bakersfield problem. It also
criticized PG&Es attempts to alleviate the problem by asking
permission from the CPUC to replace its five-tiered inverted rate
schedule with a three-tiered inverted tier rate schedule. She stated,
The proposed flattening of this program rewards electricity guzzlers at
the expense of energy-conscious consumers. It is akin to asking
drivers of gas-sipping cars to subsidize the gas for Hummers. Solar
companies are already on record stating that this tariff change, if
approved by the California Public Utilities Commission, would remove
financial incentives for many homeowners to add solar generation and
thereby defeat two key Smart Grid objectives increased renewable
energy and more active consumer participation.
PG&Es rate
design reform proposal also received extensive coverage in the print
media. It was praised by a leading daily that serves the warmer
climates in the east bay as a long overdue reform while it was panned by
a daily that serves San Francisco as being anti-conservation.
The
rate design proposal also came under fire from the solar lobby and from
low income advocates (who have steadfastly opposed smart meters). Why
are these disparate groups united in their opposition? Simply put, they
are concerned that the subsidies they have been getting from years are
about to be reduced or eliminated.
Their arguments to preserve
the five tiered rates would have merit if those rates were based on
PG&Es marginal costs. But they are not. The five-tiered rate
design is the unintended consequence of a law that was passed by the
state assembly during the height of the energy crisis, Assembly Bill
1X. That law froze the rates on the first two tiers for as long as it
took to pay off the bonds that the state through its Department of Water
Resources had sold to pay off the costs of the crisis. It guaranteed
that subsequent inflation in energy costs would have to be recovered
from customers who consumed in the upper tiers (three to five).
The
first tier was the price that customers would pay for buying a
baseline amount of power. This amount varied with climate. The
second tier applied to the next 30 percent of usage. The third tier
applied to usage above the second tier but less than 200 percent of
baseline. The fourth tier applied to usage above 200 percent and below
300 percent while the fifth tier applied to usage above 300 percent.
The
fifth tier rate is now around 50 cents per kWh which has to be the most
precious price that one has to pay for a unit of electricity anywhere
in the US. Under PG&Es proposal, a new third tier that would be
created that covers all usage that now lies in tiers three, four and
five. The new third tier price will be 29.8 cents per kWh. Contrary to
the view being espoused that the new rates will be anti-conservation,
they will provide plenty of incentive for energy efficiency since the
second tier rate is under 13 cents per kWh and the new third tier will
represent a doubling of price.
Before the energy crisis, PG&E
had a two-tiered inclining block rates. This was intended to provide
an incentive for energy efficiency and was based on marginal cost
studies. The rise in prices between the lower and upper tiers was less
than 20 percent.
When the five tiered rate was introduced in
2001, the rise in prices between the first and fifth tiers rose to an
astonishing 100 percent. Now it stands at nearly 500 percent. Not only
does this have no relationship to marginal costs, it creates a grossly
unfair system of subsidies where users in the first two tiers are
subsidized heavily by users in the upper tiers.
Of course,
given the nature of rate of return regulation, PG&E will still get
the same total revenue from its customers, whether they are on a
five-tiered or a three-tiered rate design. The issue is cross-subsidies
between customers, not cross-subsidies between the utility and its
customers.
As for solar installations, it is true that many
developers and customers invested in roof-top photovoltaic systems on
the assumption that fifth tier rates would continue to rise as they have
done in the past decade. But just because uneconomic solar investments
were made in the past is no reason to ask for their continuance.
In
summary, the five tiered rate has no basis in marginal costs and should
not be used as a guide to making long-term investments. It is bad
economics and bad politics. Indeed, it is one of the factors that
contributed to the Bakersfield problem. Weather in July 2009 was a lot
warmer than weather in July 2008. That pushed up usage, especially for
customers in upper tiers. A rate increase earlier in the year of 8
percent was pushed entirely into the upper tiers due to the freeze on
the first two tiers. It is not surprising that bills went up
dramatically for some customers who, without the benefit of any
analysis, blamed it on one thing they knew had changed: their electric
meter. This is another instance of the Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
fallacy.
en
als jullie wat meer uitleg willen over "gedifferentieerde tarieven"
waarvan iedereen gelooft dat het goedkoper zal uitkomen...als men
tenminste een ingenieursdiploma op zak heeft. Want lees maar mee... met
een aantal bloggers uit gebieden waar smartmeters ingeburgerd zijn...
Think
last summer's PGE bills were high? Hold on to your wallet, they're
about to soar to new heights.
I thought I had my finger on the
pulse of utility rates in our area. I was wrong. Seems PGE had
another rate hike Jan 1, 2010. This is bad news for our city since those
dollars will leave our local economy and affect those that are most
vulnerable. The ray of hope, though, is that as a community we may get
serious about efficiency, catapult the local PV industry even greater
heights, and create much needed green jobs.
The economics are
sound. The financing mechanisms, however, are still working their way
through the halls of federal and state offices. But they're coming!
Last summer I received a Pacific Gas & Electric bill that knocked
my sandals off. I decided to compare Fresno's electricity rates with
other hot cities. I discovered that Fresno's rates are absurdly high.
As of this January, it costs $241.93 to use 1,000 kilowatt hours a
month in Fresno. That much juice costs $121 in Las Vegas, $111.83 in
Phoenix, and only $83 in Tucson. Are you surprised?
The cost of
1,000 Kwh is $125.05 in Sacramento, $119 in Orlando, $108.61 in Chicago,
$100.17 in Salt Lake City, $95.37 in Atlanta, $88.04 in Memphis, $87.99
in San Antonio, and just $63.09 in St. Louis.
So what's up with
PG&E? It uses a rate system with five tiers, each more expensive
than the next. The lowest tier is 11.88 cents. The highest is 47.39
cents per kilowatt hour after the first 1,070 Kwh.
Most cities
have tiered rates. Tucson has three tiers. Its highest tier is reached
after 3,500 Kwh, when the rate goes up to 11.3 cents per kilowatt hour.
That's less than Fresno's lowest tier.
If we use 3,000 Kwh in a
month, the cost in Fresno is $1,156.61. But 3,000 Kwh costs only $269 in
Tucson, $400.37 in Phoenix, and $347.34 in Las Vegas. It costs $465.45
in Sacramento, $257.28 in Mobile, $274.50 in Houston, and only $164.85
in Tampa.
PG&E has a new "SmartMeter" option. If you sign up
for it, on 15 "smart days," (hot days) when electricity is in short
supply, PG&E will charge 60 cents more per hour on top of the 47.39
cent rate, for a total charge per Kwh of $1.07, from 2 p.m. to 7 p.m.
The reward for this will be a reduction of the off-peak rate, down to
(ahem), about 43 cents per Kwh for the top tier.
In other words,
PG&E has a plan to use SmartMeters to charge you an insane
additional 60 cents per Kwh on top of its already insane rate of 47.39
cents per hour on the very hottest days, when you need your air
conditioner the most!
A SmartMeter option is also available in
Phoenix. If a customer signs up for it, the highest peak rate is 21.6
cents from 1 p.m. to 7 p.m., in return for an off-peak rate of just 5.4
cents per Kwh.
My wife and I moved to Fresno in 1975. We raised
three kids here. I can tell you that for decades it did not cost an arm
and a leg to stay comfortable in the summer. Now it does.
The
Public Utilities Commission has kept rates down for the lowest tiers, so
many PG&E customers in cooler areas have not seen an increase in
their already low electricity bills.
But, last summer, with very
little notice, the highest tier rate was raised an incredible 23%.
That's why we now pay 47.39 cents per Kwh after the first 1,070 Kwh.
This is the reason why last summer some people in Fresno had $500, $700,
or even $1,000 PG&E bills. Brace yourself, because it will happen
again.
Now, imagine you are a major employer, and you are
thinking about moving a business to Fresno. Would you move here if you
knew that you and your employees would pay thousands of dollars more for
electricity in the coming years?
Can anything be done? The
short answer is no. The Public Utilities Commission doesn't care,
obviously.
You could sell your old house and buy a brand new
smaller well-insulated home, but that is not the solution for most
people. So, my advice if you want to pay less for electricity this
summer is to empty your pool, and then buy a swamp cooler and some
candles.
Get ready. PG&E is planning the same nasty surprise
on your utility bill.
Under a plan submitted to
the state Public Utilities Commission, rates would be reduced for people
who use the most electricity and increased for people who conserve. If
they're approved, the new rates would take effect in May 2011.
PG&E's proposal is a good deal if you live in the
San Joaquin Valley with its sweltering summers and soaring air
conditioning bills. And it's conveniently timed for PG&E's campaign
in Kern County, where voters many of them already angry about the
introduction of wireless SmartMeters last year will decide an advisory
measure in November that asks if they want to replace the San
Francisco-based utility with a publicly owned utility district.
(PG&E also is sponsoring Proposition 16 on the June 8
ballot, which is intended to block creation of public utility
districts. We'll comment on that in a separate editorial.)
If you live in one of California's cooler coastal
counties, PG&E's proposed rates are a lousy deal.
PG&E wants to squeeze its five rate tiers into
three, with more people falling into the highest tier. For a Sonoma
County resident using 550 kilowatt-hours per month, that means paying
about $130 more annually. Meanwhile, people using 1,500 kilowatt-hours a
month would save about $1,200 a year.
I asked my friendly neighbors. And friends,
colleagues, sometimes even total strangers. Everybody seemed to be
paying less than $100 every month. And here I was going poorer day by
day by paying hefty electricity bills to PGE for all of last three
years. Last months bill was just a wake-up call. Something was really
wrong here!
I reached a point where I was almost
convinced that either somebody is stealing away my electricity or, I
have a faulty appliance or two that is/are leaking electricity all the
time.
After much
deliberation, I decided to act a little sane before going berserk.
Why is my electricity bill so high? For the
first time since I moved out of living in an apartment, I searched for
PGE bills. Couldn't find them. Oh, I enrolled for electronic delivery,
no paper statements! Doh.
I
logged in to PGE and looked at the bill details. Ah, there's a slab
system. Dumb me. So yes of course my electricity usage is high but the
troubling part is that I pay more than 3 times what others in my
neighborhood pay. So why is the baseline so low? Does this mean that
everybody else is able to manage within 340 kWh every month?
It was time again to consult friends. It was a
big help when a friend allowed me to look at his bill. Wait his
baseline quantity is almost double that of mine. Great, so all I got to
do is probably enroll in some other type of plan. Another call to
PGE brought down all my sudden found hopes. The friends service was on a
E1 H Residential Service Electricity only. Mine is E1-XB -- Gas +
Electricity. PGE understands that for residential customers who only
have electricity will need to use it for heating as well so their
baseline usage is set higher. In any case, since this friend lived in an
apartment I was sure, the bill would somehow be lower ( it was lower
for me when I was an apartment dweller) than mine.
But that is weird. I am supposed to use gas
as well as electricity. And of course, other than the winter months,
nothing in my home uses gas other than the water heater. A quick look at
the history at PGE site (those guys have an amazing website) showed
that during non-winter months, my gas usage is less than $10-$15.
Now, that is a troublesome discovery.
Although I moved from India a couple of years ago, Im still new to this
place. I do not even know what appliances can run on Gas. The first
appliance that comes to my mind is the cooking range. Its electric!
Shouldnt it be Gas? How dumb of me. When I rented this house, I didnt
pay attention.
Coming back
to the electricity bill, it seemed lik if I could save falling into the
last (above 300%) slab, my bill would at least reduce by a major amount.
But what exactly would be able to save from? What appliance is
consuming so much of electricity?
DALLAS
- Anger at one of Texas' largest utilities is growing.
Dozens of
people are furious at sky-high power bills and are convinced the new
smart meters are to blame.
"I don't mind paying my bill, but I'm
not paying for something I'm not using," said one customer in Grand
Prairie on Saturday.
Oncor representatives sat through a tongue
lashing at a town hall meeting, where angry customers, pleaded for help
with their high bills.
"It's either food, medicine or my electric -
there's no way," said Trina Hall.
Nearly all say their bills went
up after Oncor replaced the old mechanical meters on their homes with
new digital smart meters.
Susan Major has always been careful to
save electricity but almost immediately after her new meter went up, so
did her bills.
"There's something wrong, either my meter was
installed wrong, read wrong, something, and nobody will own up," she
said.
Oncor still blames the cold winter for most of the high
bills.
But the company now admits its workers misread at least
7,000 new meters when they were installed and overcharged customers.
"What
you have is essentially a typo, we're catching those, both with the
customers and through our own internal process," said Chris Schein from
Oncor.
The utility insists the meters work.
Still, anger is
growing, as is suspicion.
Grand Prairie Rep. Kirk England (D) is
joining other lawmakers, calling for Oncor to stop installing millions
of the new meters across North Texas until an outside agency can test
their accuracy.
"I think there's a problem and I think it's more
than just weather," he said.
FORT
WORTH Following hundreds of consumer complaints and concern from the
Texas Public Utility Commission, Oncor is now testing its new "smart"
meters in side-by-side comparisons in North Texas.
But homeowners
in one neighborhood in far North Fort Worth have already come to their
own conclusions.
Im very frustrated, said Diana Fisher. I just
know my meter's different than everybody else's. It's not the old
little mechanical with the numbers turning; its actually a digital
meter.
Fisher is convinced that her digital meter has been
overcharging her for years.
Shes been complaining about high
power bills since she moved into a brand-new subdivision three years
ago. She often spends, on average, $300-400 a month on electricity.
Fisher
became so irritated that she started introducing herself to her
neighbors and comparing bills.
She found homes with the mechanical
meters consistently showed that families were using less electricity.
Every
home in the subdivision is nearly identical; all share similar floor
plans and have nearly the same square footage.
Around the corner,
Melody Whitlock and her family live in a 3,065 square foot home
exactly the same size as the Fishers'.
Whitlocks family is
larger; she has three kids, while the Fishers only have one at home.
Yet
the Whitlocks with a larger family consistently have lower power
bills. Statements show theyre using half the electricity as the
Fishers.
In January, for instance, the Whitlocks' meter said they
used 3,123 kilowatt hours of power; the Fishers' meter said the family
consumed 4,998 kwh.
December and January were our two highest
bills, and we were gone a week of those months, Fisher complained. I
really don't know how I could be using this much electricity.
Not
only were the Whitlocks at home, but they had their Christmas lights
running for hours every night. The Fishers passed on the decorations to
save electricity.
In several ways, the Whitlocks admit they
suspect they use more electricity than their neighbors around the
corner. They wash clothes every other day, while the Fishers do laundry
once a week.
The Fishers spent thousands making their home energy
efficient, even unplugging every major appliance.
Diana Fisher, a
legal editor, admits she works from home, but insists she leaves the
lights off, and only turns on the family television once a week.
Melody
Whitlock sheepishly admits her husband sleeps with the TV turned on.
Its
all enraged Diana Fisher.
They have TV; we don't! We don't have
little kids that watch TV! They use a lot more [electricity]; they have
to! she said. And their bills are $200-$300 cheaper than mine every
month!
Fisher said her years of complaints have been largely
ignored. Ive called so many times, I think theyre sick of hearing
me, she said.
Oncor is quick to point out the Fishers have a
digital meter thats been in use for nearly 20 years and not one of the
new smart meters.
The utility recently began installing hundreds
of thousands of the new sophisticated digital meters on homes across
North Texas.
Homeowners, shocked with suddenly high bills, have
questioned their accuracy and lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to get
Oncor to stop installing them.
Currently, the Public Utility
Commission is investigating, although Oncor insists its new meters work
perfectly.
One major difference is that the smart devices carry
data wirelessly to Oncor. Oncor said the Fishers' digital reader is an
older version that cannot transmit readings wirelessly. The company
insists both the Fishers digital meter and the Whitlocks' mechanical
meter work properly.
There's absolutely no difference (in their
meters), said Oncor spokesperson Chris Schein. Its the difference
between reading an analog watch and getting it from a digital watch;
its the same thing.
Schein said the Fishers usage was in line
with a family of that size in a home that large, although he concedes
that the Whitlocks power consumption is low.
However, Schein
figures the Fishers one teenage daughter is likely using more
electricity than the Whitlocks three young children. He says teenagers,
with all of their electronic devices, typically sap more energy than
small children who still dont know how to turn on the lights.
What
we're seeing here is a difference in lifestyle and that's what really
drives the difference between the two families' usage, Schein said.
Diana
Fisher strongly disagrees. Shes now left feeling helpless and furious
as she struggles to pay electric bills reaching $600 a month.
I
don't know what to do, she said.
And the difference in power
usage has even Melody Whitlock suspicious.
There's really not
making any sense of it, she said. There's something definitely wrong.
en
hier een klein feestje van typische wel doorvoede Texanen die hun
vreugde over de slimme meters niet opkunnen!
DALLAS
Oncor Electric Delivery set up a promotional event Sunday to show off
its new smart meter technology.
But a small group of protesters
chanting slogans and carrying signs and red bandanas got more of
the attention.
The angry homeowners were at Keist Park Recreation
Center in Oak Cliff to voice their concerns about high power bills.
The
customers contend that their usage increased only after the smart
meters were installed.
Oncor spokesman Chris Schein said the
utility stands by the accuracy of the devices. "One of the the things
that consumers ask us to do is to show that the meters are running the
same way, and we've run dozens of tests showing that the meters are
running the same and that the meters are accurate," he said.
The
company says inefficient heating sources, inefficient supplemental
heating (like space heaters) and bad rate plans are to blame for this
past winter's high power bills.
en er is zelfs sprake
van een moratorium op de installatie van de slimme meters...tsjonge
tsjonge toch we zijn hier wel ver weg van de "smarttalk" uit de leuke
brochures met allemaal lachende gezichten van blije verbruikers...
DALLAS
After Oncor Electric Delivery has already deployed 760,000 advanced
digital electric meters, better known as "smart meters," a state
official is now calling on the Texas Public Utility Commission to
suspend further installations until an independent third party test can
be conducted to settle questions about expensive bills some customers
have received.
State Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Killeen) sent a letter
to the PUC on Tuesday officially making the request. Commissioners will
consider it at Thursday morning's meeting in Austin.
The utility
said it's a good idea.
"Oncor fully supports independent third
party testing of a significant sample, because we want to rebuild that
public trust," said company spokeswoman Catherine Cuellar. "Based on our
experience, [we] have no reason to doubt the [meter's] accuracy."
Still,
for Lisa Smith and Jennifer Stanfield, electricity is a sore subject.
"Yeah,
yeah a little bit," Smith chuckled.
What isn't funny is their
December electric bill: more than $1,000.
"To pay for these bills,
I'm cutting out any kind of social life I have," Stanfield said. "Not
eating out; not going out and meeting friends after work."
Even
with new energy efficient windows and a thermostat set at 56 degrees,
their January bill still topped $800. High bills, the two said, didn't
happen until Oncor replaced their mechanical meter with a digital one.
"We've
got people with their electricity being cut off -- being bullied -- and
that's not right," said Ree Wattner, who organized a group of dozens of
neighbors. They've already met twice trying to find a remedy to the
high bills they suspect the smart meters caused.
Wattner even
started a Web site for her Smart Utility Reform Citizens group and said
she is preparing a petition to the PUC.
But Oncor said it has
found fewer than 10 of its 760,000 advanced meters with problems after
random tests.
The utility blames the cold winter for big bills.
Data from the National Weather Service confirms that December 2009 was
colder than the previous four years.
But state records show the
Texas Public Utility Commission refused to do a cost-benefit study two
years ago -- even after cities and others asked for it.
Plus,
CenterPoint Energy, Oncor's counterpart in Houston, just removed 3,002
smart meters because software failures prevented them from being read
remotely, according to records the utility filed with the PUC.
The
devices are at the center of a class-action lawsuit in California after
residents there received big bills, too.
Oncor CEO Bob Shapard
flew to Austin to answer questions at Thursday's PUC meeting.
He
is expected to explain a number of things his company is doing --
including side-by-side tests with both old meters and new ones recording
usage starting Friday in an effort to recapture public trust.
We
zijn er nu al van overtuigd dat Eandis en Infrax zullen zeggen dat het
bij ons allemaal veel beter zal gaan. Wedden? In Amerika zijn het
allemaal oenen...basta
We hadden het gisteren over de slimme meters en de twee pilootprojecten
die ons tot nog toe bekend zijn in Vlaanderen. Elders zijn er echter
reeds massa's "slimme meters" geïnstalleerd zoals o.a. in het
Amerikaanse Texas. Want Obama heeft de installatie van deze slimme
meters opgenomen in zijn economisch relanceplan en alle Amerikaanse
energieleveranciers zijn op dit initiatief gesprongen zoals de
spreekwoordelijke hond op een pond saucissen. Als we de peptalk van
Eandis en Infrax mogen geloven dan zullen alle Texanen nu dolblij zijn
met hun nieuwe speeltje en zullen zij heel wat lagere energierekeningen
gepresenteerd krijgen. Bovendien vernemen we dat iedere gelukkige
gebruiker van deze handige dingen zich kan aansluiten via internet om
zijn verbruik per kwartier op te volgen. En wat nog leuker is: er
bestaan daar een aantal blogs met discussieplatform waar alle gebruikers
hun geluk met elkaar kunnen delen. Dus nieuwsgierig als we zijn willen
we nu toch aan de hand van een reëel voorbeeld weten wat de consumenten
daar van vinden. Kan altijd nuttig zijn om eventueel onze negatieve
houding die we tot nog toe over deze meters hadden te herzien. Want zo
zijn we wel. We zijn steeds bereid om onze mening aan te passen op basis
van doorslaggevende argumenten en ervaringen van het tegendeel van onze
mening.
Beste lezertjes, jullie zijn waarschijnlijk even
benieuwd als wij:
en
we publiceren graag de commentaren van de gelukkige gebruikers:
The Public
Utility Commission launched a web site where electricity consumers
can view readings from their new smart meters.
The site, www.smartmetertexas.com,
allows users to see how much electricity they've used, in 15-minute
segments. Users can also see a graph of the amount of juice they consume
daily.
This is only for people who already have new digital
meters, known as smart meters. The old, mechanical meters don't generate
this data. Also, it takes a few weeks for your new meter to be
"provisioned," which is a procedure to connect the meter to the system.
So,
my Oak Cliff neighborhood got smart meters a few months ago. I logged
on to the web site today to find that, sure enough, my family uses the
most electricity in the early evening, when we're cooking dinner and
turning on lights as the sun goes down.
I also discovered that,
in the past month, the day we used the most electricity was March 1.
Why? Well, my in-laws were visiting, keeping my son, probably watching
television and cooking a nice meatloaf for dinner.
What can I do
with this information? Anyone?
Jump for the PUC press release.
Website launch to help electric
customers
SmartMeterTexas.com online for competitive retail
markets
A new Website, www.SmartMeterTexas.com , gives Texas
electric customers with smart meters the ability to better manage
electric bills.
"SmartMeterTexas.com gives Texans more control
over their electricity use," said Public Utility Commission (PUC)
Chairman Barry Smitherman. "Smart meters increase reliability, enhance
customer choice and enable demand response."
The secure Website is
available both to residential and business electric customers who have
had traditional mechanical meters replaced with digital smart meters.
Customers should have their most recent electric bill on hand when
visiting the Website to establish proper identification. The PUC has
authorized four transmission and distribution utilities (TDU) to deploy
smart meters for their customers:
ONCOR
CenterPoint
AEP Texas Central
AEP Texas North
Today more than one
million customers with smart meters in the Oncor and CenterPoint
territories can use the Website. Eventually, more than 6.3 million Texas
electric customers will be able to manage their electricity use through
SmartMeterTexas.com. It could take up to 60 days after smart meter
installation before a customer's information is on the Website. Smart
meter deployment in the American Electric Power (AEP) Texas North and
Texas Central areas is expected to begin during the second quarter of
2010.
IBM developed SmartMeterTexas.com and will operate it under
the direction of the TDUs. Website features include secure access to
electricity usage in 15-minute intervals. Future enhancements will let
customers register devices inside their homes and businesses to give
customers more choice and control. The Website complies with standards
established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The new
Website will not include information for municipal utility or electric
cooperative customers. SmartMeterTexas.com also is not available for
electric customers located outside the Electric Reliability Council of
Texas (ERCOT) region. SmartMeterTexas.com is designed only for customers
in competitive retail electric markets of Texas.
Comments
Posted by Mark - Dallas @ 12:13 PM Tue, Mar 23,
2010
In case you're really
asking...
We use a small toaster oven rather than our large oven.
Its cheaper to run, preheats faster, and doesn't heat up the kitchen so
much.
Consider that your TV is an energy hog unless you went LCD.
When those lights go on make sure there are dimmers and/or CFLs
in those high use sockets.
Make sure your outdoor lights are
tracking with DSTime.
If you have a thermostat with a lock out
feature, program it and then make sure the "laws" don't change it. One
degree can be as much as an 8% increase in the use!
Your son may
be less diligent in turning off lights when the in-laws are there.
So
what you have quickly learned is where your big users are based on time
of day.
I have another fun exercise. Look at the meter when
no-one is there. That will really send up some questions.
The PUC approved the meters without
extensive study of them- and on March 11,2010, after complaints (Waco,
Killeen, Hearne, Irving, Grand Prairie, Dallas, Tyler ETC) selected an
organization to test them. The PUC picked an organization that receives
DOE grant funds for smart grid projects. The DOE is pushing smart meters
and has a high level Federal Appoint in the 'efficiency' office - Cathy
Zoi- who used to work for the meter manufacturer.
Do you smell
any conflicts of interest?
The increased kWh is also reported in
smart meter rollouts in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, California
(lawsuit there), Georgia, Alabama etc. Al Gore is involved too!
Do you trust the PUC or Oncor or DOE
recipients to do a good test ?
A bright idea- Test your own:
Here
is how to test the meter by using 10 new- 100 watt light bulbs: Turn
off and unplug everything in your home, including refrigerator. Turn the
breaker off to the hot water heater, if its part of your electric
bill. Ideally- turn most electricity breakers off. In rooms where
there's still an electric current- plug in 10 new light bulbs of 100
watts each. This should be the only thing that is pulling electricity in
your home now.
Now go outside and watch for the digital meter to
move to a new kWh. Write down the time (Time A). Get a book and drink
and sit and watch your meter. Write down the time when the meter moves
to the NEXT kWh. If it's less than 1 hour after Time A, consider calling
the Press (TV news) to document the discrepancy.
How much Radio
Frequency (RF) exposure do Smart Meters emit? How much additional
energy will it take to power all these new RF transmissions? What is
the frequency and signal strength utilized in both house meter and
repeater system? What is the range and signal direction of both
house meter and repeater? Are these one or two way signals? Will
the Smart Meters also use the existing cell antennas/ towers or will
new ones be deployed? How often will the meters, repeaters and smart
appliances emit RF signals and for what duration? What is the
signal strength at the device, at six inches, one foot, 3 ,5, 10, 20, 50
feet? If these are short bursts of RF, what is the peak power for
each burst? What levels of RF will these new signals add to the
environment? What is the tiered pricing structure? Will it cost
more to do laundry at 8 am, 2 pm, or 10 pm? Will customers be
advised of this new pricing method and if so when? What personal
information will be transmitted via the new meters? Isnt the threat
to privacy inherent to this wireless technology? How many meter
readers will be on State unemployment once these new meters are
deployed? Will Smart Meters cause interference in their homes
wireless network?
Interesting...I just logged into the site.
My consumption shows the same at 3am vs. 5pm (keep in mind this is when I
start preparing dinner, kids have the tv on etc)!! Something is
definitely wrong here. My bill averaged over 6,000 kw/hrs last month!!
Everyone needs to get together on this if we expect a resolution. Visit
www.smarturcitizens.com for more info on how you can get involved!
Do you have a pool? I found
that my pool filter and cleaner suck the most power of anything in my
house. If so, maybe your filter is running at 3am and not at 5pm. But
your oven, stove, tv and lights that you are using at 5pm use the same
power as the pool filter.
If you don't have a pool, then this
comments doesn't matter.
Posted by nanaanna2002 @ 3:28 PM Tue, Mar 23,
2010
I have a compaint about
Oncor,I got a double bill on March one due on March 13 and one due
March 15th, I called TXU the said that the Oncor people did not report
the Feb. billing cycle so know i have 2 bills due this month.So whos
smarted than a 5th grader?
nanaanna2002: we share the same trouble with
TXU. Last month I received two bills. Same thing this month. They
cannot provide a logical explanation. Further, during January, the month
after my meter was installed, my bill jumped from $400 (roughly) to
$880 (roughly). Like magic, it returned to a more typical amount the
following month. They refused to even entertain the idea that there was
an error with reading the meter. Is there any sort of recourse?
Posted by David Vernon @ 6:19 PM Tue, Mar 23,
2010
These DONKEYS are over
billing us BIG TIME.
They have asked us to pay > $500/Month
for the past three months. About double what we paid on our old meter.
I
created a spreadsheet to track this earlier in the month. I go out and
read the meter periodically, and extrapolate out what the bill would be.
Right now we are tracking to about a$250 bill, but this is a low energy
usage month for us.
They call these things "smart" meters --
FIENDISH is more like it. My guess is that these new meters inflate
energy usage during high usage periods (like when it was really cold
recently). This allows them to argue that we are simply using too much
power. The best lies always have a shred of truth in them.
The
only resource that I see here is to call them on their lies. For about
$300, including installation, you can buy your own power meter and
install it inline with theirs. I don't expect our energy usage to spike
again until July, so I might just do that between then and now. Left to
thier own devices (literly) they will never fix this problem.
There's also a $25 dollar product at some of
the area HomeDe's called Kill-A-WattEZ. If you turn and unplug
everything but one high watt item (hair dryer or space heater for
example)- turn it on.. go outside and watch your meter till it turns to
the next Kwh. Write the kWh and the time down. Go in the house.. Turn
the hair dryer off for a second. click Reset on the KW monitor. The the
hair dryer back on full blast. Now- wait till the digitl (outside) meter
turns to the next kWh. Write that time down. Go back in your house and
click on Menu till you see the kWh reading. Let's say that it says
.75... Well.. then you'd be getting ripped off by .25 or 25%. Let the
hair dryer keep running till it says 1.00. Write the time down. If you
find a discrepancy- call the Press first and show them what you found.
Help your neighbors do the same thing...
Every Texan is being duped into letting
these meters get installed. These meters are the enablers for dynamic
pricing (time of day pricing). These meters offer the consumer NO
benefit as we are being led to believe. What good is it for me being
able to monitor my own useage at anytime of the day? I haven't had to
for the last five decades so why do I need to start doing it now? Its
not like - oh, my AC just kicked on I better run and shut it off so I
can sweat my rear off.
Furthermore, these meters will easily be an
enabler for "software errors" or "system errors" ONLY IF THEY GET
CAUGHT. They will be able to upload new software anytime they want and
they can make changes remotely any time they want.
I think I will
attach my house lightening/grounding cable to the unit when it gets
installed.
Posted by Imjustsaying @ 11:32 AM Wed, Mar 24,
2010
Instead of grabbing
pitchforks and feeding off the media hype has anyone thought that maybe
the issue was that your previous meter was reading inaccurately low? Yes
we had an unusually cold "winter" but many of these "smart meters" have
been installed for some time. I have had one at my house since last
summer. You can test these meters yourselves like those outlined above,
but if you are unwilling to change your behavior after being made aware
of your usage then who do you have to blame but yourself. (That after
all is the point of this website) Back to my original point, the chances
are that your new "smart meter" is accurate (test it yourself), but
your old meter was just that..old and probably slow. Just think how much
"free" usage you got before they changed your meter out.
Posted by ben elizando @ 8:46 PM Fri, Mar 26,
2010
The new power meters
are definitely more accurate than your 30 year old analog meter that has
been running slow for 20 years due to gunky bearings. Also, the old
power meters could not accurately meter "non-linear loads", like
computer power supplies and flourescent lights. In fact, flourescent
bulbs' cost savings claims are attributed partly to the old power
meters' inability to read them accurately. Good times!
Power
companies justify rate increases partly to compensate for aging
residential power meters. Of course, don't expect them to adjust the
rate lower to compensate for the new meter accuracy. Expect a huge push
this summer to buy "radiant barrier" for your attic- The new meters
being the motivation. Radiant barrier is ...largely a con; thats why
they include insulation for "free" (so you will notice some
improvement).
Where do we go to sign up to fight Oncor. This is insane, I
am going on month #3 with double or almost triple cost as last year. TXU
is worthless and could careless about its customers for putting a
solution out that has raised so many concerns.
I would like to know where you sign up to fight Oncor.. I
also had TXU and my bills tripled and they were no help. I had to change
companies because I couldn't pay the full bills and they were going to
disconnect my service. HELP.....
I too have seen my bill increase
75-125% over the past several months since my new smart meter arrived. I
believe there is defiantly a problem with the meters. The encore spokes
person says it is the results of colder weather. While I agree, it has
certainly been colder than normal I do not believe, that is the total
problem with these higher bills. Big companies have a tendency to
lie when they are on the carpet to protect the company image and stock
prices. Therefore, if you are going to tackle this company it will be
necessary to compile as many facts as possible. My bill last March was
$267.78 this March it is $628.65.
We kunnen daar inderdaad veel van leren maar we zullen dus meer dan waarschijnlijk onze mening over die krengen niet moeten herzien! Leest, Hombeek en Vosselaar en binnenkort gans Vlaanderen, jullie zijn gewaarschuwd!
Beste lezertjes, we gaan nog eens een rotje maken op ons stokpaardje
namelijk " de slimme meters". Wat valt daar nu nog over te vertellen?
Wel een goed ingelichte bron, zoals dat meestal wordt genoemd was zo
goed ons inlichtingen te bezorgen over een ons totaal onbekend
proefproject voor de plaatsing van slimme meters. We kenden inderdaad
het Eandis-project van Leest en Hombeek met in een eerste fase de
plaatsing van een 4000-tal slimme meters. We kenden echter absoluut niet
het Infrax-proefproject in Vosselaar met een 300-tal meters. Die lacune
is dan ook hierbij volledig ingevuld Maar via contacten die we hadden
met rechtstreeks bij beide projecten betrokken personen vielen ons wel
een aantal verschillen op. De verbruikers in Leest en Hombeek worden door
Eandis NIET echt verplicht aan het pilootproject mee te werken. Zij
kunnen weigeren. Al lijkt het niet de bedoeling te zijn van Eandis dat
er bij de definitieve massale uitrol veel keuzes zullen overblijven. In
dit stadium echter laat men de mensen de keuze al dan niet mee te
werken. Bij Infrax, mogen we op basis van getuigenissen stellen dat het
een verplichte deelname betreft. Dit laatste is volgens ons wel een brug
te ver! Men schermt overal met het argument dat de verbruiker hierover
niks in de pap heeft te brokkelen. De meters zijn eigendom van de
distributienetbeheerder en dus is het vrij logisch dat deze steeds aan
zijn eigendom kan. Maar wanneer men begint te beweren dat men daar maar
gelijk welk type meter mag komen installeren...neen! Trouwens er
bestaat genoeg wetgeving en jurisdictie dat niemand materiaal mag
plaatsen dat schadelijk of gevaarlijk is voor de bewoners van een
woning. Is het erg ver gezocht te stellen dat de installatie van een
slimme meter gevaarlijk kan zijn voor de bewoners van de betrokken
woning? Als we de studie van de Universiteit van Tilburg over de privacy
in het kader van de plaatsing van de slimme meters lezen, dan zijn we
eerder geneigd om het tegendeel te denken. Want wie beheert de
individuele verbruiksgegevens, waarvoor worden ze gebruikt, wat zijn de
garanties dat ze niet in verkeerde handen vallen, wat is de beveiliging
waard van de gegevenstransferts en de stockering? Misschien dat de door
Eandis zelf ontwikkelde technologie iets veiliger zal zijn omdat de
kwaaie geniussen deze technologie waarschijnlijk niet voldoende
beheersen. Maar wat met de door Infrax gebruikte technologie die zeer
duidelijk niet de zelfde is? In elk geval mogen we hieruit al
besluiten dat zelfs binnen Vlaanderen twee verschillen standaarden
ontwikkeld worden voor de slimme meters. Zo slim is dat basisprincipe
dus al niet. Vooraleer te praten over een ééngemaakte Europese standaard
kan men al misschien beter meteen beginnen met een ééngemaakte Vlaamse
standaard. 5 minuten politieke moed en we zijn dan al een eind
opgeschoten. Het grote argument dat steeds weer wordt bovengehaald
ter verdediging van die slimme dingen is namelijk dat ze
levensnoodzakelijk zijn voor de ontwikkeling van slimme netten. We
zullen onze goeie wil eens bewijzen en hun stelling als uitgangspunt
beschouwen. Maar dan is die slimme meter heel erg slim ofwel hebben we
hier te maken met een vorm van volksverlakkerij zoals men dit wel
eens noemt. Want als al die individuele verbuiksgegevens via andere
standaarden worden doorgezonden...enfin daar moeten we geen tekening bij
maken, een papkind begrijpt dat dit problemen met zich meebrengt. Dat
bekent eveneens heel erg concreet dat beide distributienetbeheerders hun
middelen hebben ingezet zonder eerst met elkaar duidelijke afspraken te
maken om alzo de kosten voor het gebruik van aparte systemen te
verminderen. Want wie betaalt deze kosten? Juist, de verbuiker! Dit
lijkt ons dus al een erg slecht begin We merken ook meteen op dat de
beide distributienetbeheerders vrij identieke residentiële gemeenten
verkiezen boven veel ingewikkelder (heterogener) stedelijk gebied. Wat
dat betekent voor de algemene geldigheid van hun onderzoeksgegevens,
weten we natuurlijk niet. Maar het doet in elk geval vele vragen rijzen. En
één van de meest cruciale vragen zal ongetwijfeld zijn: wat is de
impact van de installatie van een slimme meter op zeer kleine
verbruikers. Residentiële gemeenten of buurten zullen eerder boven de
5OOOKW per individuele meter zitten wat betreft elektriciteitsverbruik.
Maar wat met bijvoorbeeld verbruikers die niet boven de 2000kw uitkomen.
Sommigen beweren zelfs dat slimme meters tot en met een jaarlijks
verbruik (we spreken steeds over elektriciteit) van 6500kw absoluut
nutteloos zijn.
Terwijl Belgistan in de ban van bellen en klokken is gaan wij op zoek naar iets boeiender materie voor de toekomst. Wij trekken ons lekker geen bal aan noch van klokke Roeland die de Vlaming ten strijde roept noch van alarmbellen die de Franstaligen zou moeten beschermen tegen een opdringerige meerderheid Vlamen... Beste lezertjes we blijven dus liever nog even in de milieusfeertjes hangen en we
geven jullie hier een perscommuniqué dat gisteren werd verspreid en dat
zeker erg de moeite waard is om te lezen. Vooral voor mensen die zich
interesseren aan groene energie en aan de hier reeds verschillende keren
voorgestelde "supergrids". Ziehier een merkwaardig verbond.tussen
transportnetbeheerders en milieuverenigingen Zo zien we het veel
liever... http://www.renewables-grid.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/RGI-Persbericht-270410.pdf
Meer
TSO's sluiten zich aan bij RGI Brussel, 27-04-2010 Het RGI
(Renewables-Grid-Initiative) brengt ngos en elektriciteitsnetbeheerders
(TSOs) samen om volledige integratie van duurzame energie in het
elektriciteitsnet mogelijk te maken. De TSOs Elia (België), National Grid
(Groot-Brittannië), RTE (Frankrijk), en Swissgrid (Zwitserland) hebben
zich bij het RGI aangesloten door de gemeenschappelijke
intentieverklaring te ondertekenen. Het RGI
(Renewables-Grid-Initiative) zet zich in voor de uitbreiding en
integratie van op kleine en grote schaal opgewekte duurzame energie
en voor de hiertoe benodigde transportcapaciteit op het Europese
elektriciteitsnet. Hiertoe brengt het RGI een aantal ngos
(non-gouvernementele organisaties) en TSOs (Transmission System Operators)
samen. Voor het eerst slaan 50Hertz Transmission, Elia, Germanwatch,
National Grid, RTE, Swissgrid, TenneT en het Wereldnatuurfonds (WNF)
de handen ineen om een gemeenschappelijk doel te bereiken. Om de
Europese doelstelling van 20% duurzame energie voor 2020 te behalen
wat neerkomt op zon 35% duurzame elektriciteit voor de Europese
energiesector moeten op grote schaal duurzame energiebronnen worden geïntegreerd.
De doelen voor 2020 zijn slechts een eerste stap op weg naar de zeer
uiterst ambitieuze doelstellingen om in 2050 de uitstoot van
broeikasgassen met ten minste 80% te reduceren en om te zorgen dat de
gemiddelde temperatuurstijging op aarde onder de 2°C blijft. Hiertoe
is een aanzienlijke uitbreiding van het gebruik van duurzame
elektriciteit dringend noodzakelijk. Dit kan echter alleen
plaatsvinden door de transportcapaciteit te moderniseren en uit te
breiden. Nieuwe strategische interconnecties zijn noodzakelijk om
duurzame elektriciteit te transporteren van afgelegen productiegebieden
naar de consumptiecentra. Het RGI wil belanghebbenden hierbij
betrekken en draagvlak creëren voor deze cruciale uitbreiding van de
infrastructuur. Het RGI dringt aan op een nieuw en krachtiger mandaat
voor energietoezichthouders om een geschikt investeringsmodel op te
zetten voor de ontwikkeling van een Europese netarchitectuur waarmee
snel en efficiënt duurzame energie kan worden getransporteerd. De
ontwikkeling van een zogenaamd smart grid is een essentiële voorwaarde
voor de substantiële integratie van zowel gedecentraliseerde
duurzame energie als grootschalige wind- en zonne-energie. We leven in
een tijd van ernstige economische onrust. Daarnaast wordt de druk
steeds groter om de uitgebreide problematiek op het gebied van
economie, geopolitiek en milieu die het gevolg is van onze enorme
afhankelijkheid van fossiele brandstoffen, aan te pakken. Kortom, de
argumenten voor duurzame investeringen in het transportnet en in
duurzame energieopwekking wegen zwaarder dan ooit. De
vertegenwoordigers van de negen partners 50Hertz Transmission, Elia,
Germanwatch, National Grid, RTE, Swissgrid, TenneT en het
Wereldnatuurfonds (WNF) hebben een gemeenschappelijke
intentieverklaring getekend tijdens de ledenvergadering in Brussel.
De ngo RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds), de Britse Vogelbescherming,
kreeg officieel de status van waarnemer en overweegt sterk zich bij het
initiatief aan te sluiten. Het European Climate Forum, het
Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung en de Duitse universiteiten
van Magdeburg en Cottbus behoren tot de instanties die het initiatief
ondersteunen. Het RGI wordt gesteund door het ECF (European Climate
Foundation).
Voilà, hier hebben we een initiatief met een
realistische slaagkans dat veraf staat van alle naiëf weliswaar goed
bedoeld maar zwak onderbouwd groen gewauwel...
Hier vind je de
link naar de interessante site van "renewables grid initiative"
We gaan vandaag de milieutoer op...We merken weer een staaltje op van
krachtige lobbying tegen de Europese milieuwetgeving o.a over fijn stof.
Eerst even situren over welk Europees initiatief het gaat. Het is
immers nog niet gestemd en er komt een tweede lezing en dus kans op
uithollings- en vetragingsmanoeuvers.
het
draagt de welluidende titel: Integrated pollution prevention and
control: industrial emissions, titanium dioxide industry, use of organic
solvents, incineration of waste, large combustion plants (repeal.
Directives 78/176/EEC, 82/883/EEC, 92/112/EEC, 96/61/EC, 1999/13/EC,
2000/76/EC and 2001/80/EC). Recast
Blijkbaar is men volop
bezig vanuit bepaalde economische kringen de conservatieve en liberale
partijen te bewerken om deze tekst te amenderen en de zaak wat op de
lange baan te schuiven...een voorbeeldje:
EU
pollution regulations 'could prompt energy crisis'
The proposed EU
Industrial Emissions Directive could cause an energy crisis in the UK if
passed, the Confederation of British Industry has warned.
John
Cridland, deputy director-general of the organisation, called the
timescales being discussed "unrealistic" and suggested up to 14 British
power stations could be forced to shut down prematurely over the next
six years as a result of the pollution legislation.
"Businesses
want to help cut air pollution, but this directive must be implemented
in a way that doesn't undermine the UK's energy security," he remarked.
Mr
Cridland indicated that it would be better to allow the at-risk power
plants to "run their course" and close down as scheduled in the 2020s,
to allow a "smooth transition" to low-carbon energy without running the
risk of an energy gap.
European Voice reported in February that
flexible deadlines are being considered in Brussels that would allow
national governments to delay the implementation of further pollution
controls until 2020.
Written by Joseph Hutton
De
milieuorganisaties hebben hierop reeds gereageerd. En nu moet er ons
toch iets van het stenen hart. Onze inlandse milieuorganisaties lijden
blijkbaar aan een typisch Belgistaanse ziekte. Namelijk de
kerktorenmentaliteit. Want we merken dat er uit verschillende landen
milieuorganisaties bij de ondertekenaars zijn met hun logootjes netjes
uitgeprint...maar dus geen inlandse organisatie....Die houden zich
waarschijnlijk meer bezig met B-H-V.... Hieronder vinden jullie de
reactie vanwege een schare organisaties die blijkbaar helemaal niet bang
zijn om wat van onder hun eigen kerktoren te komen en alzo trachten de
aandacht te trekken op bepaalde onderwerpen.
EU Parliament must resist pressure to weaken Industrial
Emissions Directive
[Brussels, 26th April 2010] Medical and environmental groups are alarmed by possible
reductions in public health and environmental protection standards
within the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED), which is about to
undergo a second reading in the European Parliament. They are concerned
that ongoing discussions appear to be favouring short-sighted industry
interests over public and environmental health [1].
Millions of Europeans suffer from chronic respiratory
diseases daily - one of the leading causes
of premature deaths in Europe. According to
the European
Respiratory Society (ERS), respiratory diseases will result in 12
million deaths globally by 2020, increased hospital admissions, and
millions of lost working days with a yearly financial burden of over
100billion Euro.
Many of these diseases are preventable, which is why
medical and environmental groups have joined forces to tell EU
regulators that the best control strategy
from the standpoint of human health is to reduce the levels of all air
pollutants, said Prof. Nikos Siafakas, ERS President. They must resist the call for unnecessary derogations
fromBest Available Techniques, excessive opt-outs and needless postponements.
Best Available Techniques (BAT), agreed by industry,
member states and NGOs, are the state of the art techniques which
achieve a high level of protection for the environment whilst being
economically and technically viable.
Emission Limit Values
under pressure from industry
In
2001, the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) was revised to
gradually limit pollution emitted from installations such as coal-fired
power plants [2]. However, despite 15 years warning that a stricter
nitrogen oxide Emission Limit Value (ELV) will apply from 2016, several
EU countries and their power companies are yet arguing for more time.
They also argue that without derogations new investment would move
electricity supply towards more carbon-intensive technologies.
The health and environment groups point out, however,
that this is a grossly oversimplified argument that overlooks the
immediate environmental benefits of efficient new plants, the role of CO2
capture readiness requirements, the unlikelihood of coal being
abandoned and the very considerable advantage of gas for load following
intermittent renewable sources of energy. They point out that if the
operators of large combustion plants make money by running these plants,
then they should at least make the necessary economic investments to
bring these plants in line with BAT.
Moreover,
despite overwhelming evidence of the superiority of ELVs over trading
schemes in achieving emission reductions, the EU power sectors umbrella
organisation Eurelectric is trying to remove the option of member
states introducing requirements on greenhouse gas emissions from IPPC
installations [3].
An unlevel playing field: Varied implementation between
countries
The groups are also concerned
about what appears to be an increasingly unlevel playing field between
member states when it comes to applying BATs. Implementation studies
from the European Commission revealed that in some cases significant
differences and shortcomings occur between how permits are applied
between different EU member states. This not only creates an unlevel
playing field for industry but also an uneven level of health and
environmental protection for EU citizens, who ultimately pay the price,
said Christian Schaible of EEB.
The IED is a litmus test for the Europe 2020 strategy and
its commitment towards smart, green growth. Environmental and health
NGOs are calling for a realistic and ambitious IED that provides the
predictability and equal treatment sorely needed for green,
capital-intensive investments.
We
are in favour of a strong and effective directive that fosters and
rewards the principle of innovation rather than derogation, and we are
strongly encouraging MEPs to take the same line, concluded Schaible.
Dus waren de Belgen weer aan het dobbelen en achter de vrouwen aan het lopen want via ons linkje kan je de ondertekenaars vlug identificeren...Het Ollandse Natuur en milieu was er dus WEL bij.....Hallo Belgistan, Flandristan en Walistan, Wakker worden!
Vandaag de combinatie Griekse junk met Van Gheluwe ...
Je kan je suf piekeren over B-H-V of Van Gheluwe een brave sukkel vinden
die niet van de kinderen kon afblijven. Het is eigenlijk allemaal vrij
onbelangrijk in vergelijking met wat er stilaan staat aan te komen.
IJslandse as? Neen, de Griekse tragedie zoals weleer maar maar dan in
minder literaire vorm. Griekenland spartelt als een vis op het droge en
het valt te vrezen dat andere Europese vissen ook stilaan in ademnood
komen. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8647441.stm
Greek bonds rated 'junk' by Standard & Poor's
Greece's debt has been downgraded to junk status by
rating agency Standard & Poor's amid concern it could not take steps
to tackle its economic crisis.
It makes the struggling nation
the first eurozone member to have its debt downgraded to junk level.
Portugal's
debt was also lowered on fears the trouble could spread - sending stock
markets sharply lower.
Greece wants 40bn euros (£34bn) from
eurozone governments and the IMF to shore up its finances.
But
there are fears it will not meet conditions needed to access the funds
it needs to make looming debt repayments.
Doubts intensify
When
ratings agencies downgrade the country's credit rating - it means they
think it is now a riskier place to invest. If it reaches junk status, a
country loses its investment grade status. Some financial institutions
have rules prohibiting them from investing in "junk" bonds.
Greece's
2-year government bond yield surged to almost 15% on Tuesday, making it
highly expensive for the country to borrow from the debt market.
Greek
5-year yields hit 10.6%, higher than many emerging market economies,
including Ecuador at 10.5% and Ukraine at 7.1%.
The 2-year
Portuguese bond yield jumped to 5.23% from 4.16%.
S&P said it
was lowering its rating on Greece's debt to BB+ from BBB-. It also
reducing Portugal's debt rating by two notches to A- as doubts
intensified about countries with substantial debt relative to GDP.
Greece's
finance ministry said in a statement that the downgrade "does not
correspond with the real data of the Greek economy."
The news
rocked markets in Europe and the US. In London, the FTSE 100 index
closed down 2.6% with most of the losses following S&P's downgrade
of Greece. Germany's Dax index slid 2.7% and the French Cac-40 lost
3.8%. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones index was 1.4% lower at 11,052.1
points.
Meanwhile shares in Greek banks slumped by more than 9%,
the largest one-day fall in bank shares for 18 months.
'Prohibitive'
rates
On Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had pledged
German support to a European financial aid package for Greece, provided
"certain conditions" were met.
She said that Germany would play
its part in order to ensure the future stability of the euro but that
Greece would have to be ready to accept "tough measures" over several
years in return.
The unpopularity of austerity measures is worrying markets
Greece
needs to raise 9bn euros ($11.9bn; £7.7bn) by 19 May, but has said it
cannot go to the markets because of "prohibitive" interest rates.
The
Greek government's cost of borrowing on the money markets has reached
record levels in recent days amid investor concern over whether a 40bn
euro bail-out package for Greece will be agreed.
Eurozone
countries, together with the International Monetary Fund, have yet to
agree details of the package.
Investors are also concerned that
the Greek government's austerity measures - designed to cut domestic
spending and reduce its ballooning budget deficit - will prove too
unpopular with the Greek public.
S&P warned holders of Greek
debt that they only had an "average chance" of between 30% and 50% of
getting their money back in the event of a debt restructuring or
default.
It said its action to cut the rating resulted from its
"updated assessment of the political, economic, and budgetary challenges
that the Greek government faces in its efforts to put the public debt
burden onto a sustained downward trajectory".
The agency added
Greece's weak long-term growth prospects made it less credit-worthy.
en
hoe is het zo ver kunnen komen? Dank zij de wizzkids van Goldman
Sachs. Je kent ze nog van die leuke mails die hun directieleden naar
elkaar sturen...Zij adviseerden de Griekse potverteerders om alzo de
rekeningen helpen op te smukken en de statistieken "lichtjes anders" te
interpreteren
Welke andere bron kunnen we beter aanboren dan een
Duitse?
How
Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt
By Beat Balzli
dpa
Greek
Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou speaking at a conference in
January.
Goldman Sachs helped the Greek
government to mask the true extent of its deficit with the help of a
derivatives deal that legally circumvented the EU Maastricht deficit
rules. At some point the so-called cross currency swaps will mature, and
swell the country's already bloated deficit.
Greeks aren't
very welcome in the Rue Alphones Weicker in Luxembourg. It's home to
Eurostat, the European Union's statistical office. The number crunchers
there are deeply annoyed with Athens. Investigative reports state that
important data "cannot be confirmed" or has been requested but "not
received."
Creative accounting took priority when it came to
totting up government debt.Since 1999, the
Maastricht rules threaten to slap hefty fines on euro member countries
that exceed the budget deficit limit of three percent of gross domestic
product. Total government debt mustn't exceed 60 percent.
The Greeks
have never managed to stick to the 60 percent debt limit, and they only
adhered to the three percent deficit ceiling with the help of blatant
balance sheet cosmetics. One time, gigantic military expenditures were
left out, and another time billions in hospital debt. After
recalculating the figures, the experts at Eurostat consistently came up
with the same results: In truth, the deficit each year has been far
greater than the three percent limit. In 2009, it exploded to over 12
percent.
Now, though, it looks like the Greek figure jugglers have
been even more brazen than was previously thought. "Around 2002 in
particular, various investment banks offered complex financial products
with which governments could push part of their liabilities into the
future," one insider recalled, adding that Mediterranean countries had
snapped up such products.
Greece's debt managers agreed a huge
deal with the savvy bankers of US investment bank Goldman Sachs at the
start of 2002. The deal involved so-called cross-currency swaps in which
government debt issued in dollars and yen was swapped for euro debt for
a certain period -- to be exchanged back into the original currencies
at a later date.
Fictional Exchange Rates
Such
transactions are part of normal government refinancing. Europe's
governments obtain funds from investors around the world by issuing
bonds in yen, dollar or Swiss francs. But they need euros to pay their
daily bills. Years later the bonds are repaid in the original foreign
denominations.
But in the Greek case the US bankers devised a
special kind of swap with fictional exchange rates. That enabled Greece
to receive a far higher sum than the actual euro market value of 10
billion dollars or yen. In that way Goldman Sachs secretly arranged
additional credit of up to $1 billion for the Greeks.
This credit
disguised as a swap didn't show up in the Greek debt statistics.
Eurostat's reporting rules don't comprehensively record transactions
involving financial derivatives. "The Maastricht rules can be
circumvented quite legally through swaps," says a German derivatives
dealer.
In previous years, Italy used a similar trick to
mask its true debt with the help of a different US bank. In 2002 the
Greek deficit amounted to 1.2 percent of GDP. After Eurostat reviewed
the data in September 2004, the ratio had to be revised up to 3.7
percent. According to today's records, it stands at 5.2 percent.
At
some point Greece will have to pay up for its swap transactions, and
that will impact its deficit. The bond maturities range between 10 and
15 years. Goldman Sachs charged a hefty commission for the deal and sold
the swaps on to a Greek bank in 2005.
The bank declined to
comment on the controversial deal. The Greek Finance Ministry did not
respond to a written request for comment.
EU-IMF
financial support for Greece
fails to reassure bond markets.
Eurozone governments are today
coming under increasing pressure to quickly release emergency loans to
Greece, as opinion hardens on the markets that Greece will not be able
to honour its debts.
The Greek
government's announcement on 23 April that it will seek emergency
support from the eurozone and International
Monetary Fund has failed to stem a sharp rise in the interest
investors charge on Greek government debt, or the cost of insuring it.
Yields
on Greek two-year bonds this morning climbed to almost 14%, a record
high for the eurozone, and higher than the yields charged to Argentina
(which defaulted on its debt in 2001), Venezuela and Pakistan.
There
is not going to be a default, there is not going to be debt
restructuring as part of the programme
Yields
on ten-year bonds reached 9.83%, over 670 basis points higher than
those on German bonds, the benchmark rate for the eurozone. Three weeks
ago, yields on ten-year bonds were at an, already high, 7.4%.
The
spike in yields suggests that investors are pricing in a debt
restructuring that is, they are assuming that Greece will seek to
negotiate a reduction or deferral in its obligations to investors and
that they do not believe that the eurozone can or will prevent
restructuring.
The cost of insuring 10 million of Greek debt with
credit default swaps has jumped by 100,000 since Friday.
Thomas
Mayer, chief economist for Deutsche
Bank, today described the rising yields as an insolvency death
trap.
The mood on the market has not been helped by a tough
message from the German
government that it will only provide financial support if Greece
commits itself to tough economic restructuring measures. Angela
Merkel, Germany's chancellor, said yesterday that Greece must do
its homework before getting financial aid.
The German
parliament, which must vote to approve any aid, will be briefed
about Greece's situation on Wednesday by Dominique
Strauss-Khan, the IMF's director-general, and by Jean-Claude
Trichet, the president of the European
Central Bank. Both Strauss-Khan and Trichet will urge the
parliament to quickly approve aid to prevent Greece's situation from
becoming any worse.
Emergency loan facility
Officials from
the European Commission and IMF are in Athens negotiating with the
Greek government on the restructuring programme it will implement in
exchange for support.
Marco
Buti, the Commission's director-general for economic and financial
affairs, said today that the programme would be finalised in the next
few days, and would be designed to ensure that Greece meets its
obligations to investors.
There is not going to be a default,
there is not going to be debt restructuring as part of the programme,
he said.
Having a programme will help a lot in [providing]
stability and reassuring markets, he said. He said that it would be a
very serious programme of adjustment, spanning at least three years.
He
said that it is a question of days before member states complete all
the internal procedures necessary for the provision of financial
support.
Ministers agreed on 11 April to set up an emergency loan
facility, funded jointly by the eurozone and IMF, as a response to
Greece's debt crisis. It would provide finance to Greece at rates
substantially lower than it is currently paying on the markets. The
programme is expected to last for three years, with the eurozone
providing around two-thirds of the total support. The facility's budget
for 2010 is around 45 billion, with 30 billion to be provided by the
eurozone and 15 from the IMF. Germany would contribute 8.4bn, the
largest single contribution from the eurozone.
Market
participants don't think it would work, he added.
Gros said that
the facility was unlikely to restore Greece's fiscal health, and member
states would face difficult decisions after 2010 on whether to provide
more support or to allow Greece to default. When that [45 billion] is
used up you cannot refuse the next tranche, he said. Whoever said no
would be responsible for a catastrophe, he added, warning that this
could be the end of political union in Europe.
Gros is
advocating that Greece negotiate with its creditors on a five-year
deferral of payment.
Zo, dat is dus nog andere koek dan
wat gezever over het splitsen van een tweetalige kieskring of twijfelen
aan de noodzaak van bestraffing van een pedofiele bisschop. Over dat
laatste willen we doodgewoon kwijt dat op dergelijke zaken geen
verjaring zou moeten mogelijk zijn en dan zeker niet wanneer het gaat
over mensen met een voorbeeldfunctie. Of hij nu priester was of
bisschop, maakt niks uit. Hij had het morele voorbeeld moeten geven en
ondanks het feit dat zelfs een éénogige blauwe kanariepiet onmiddellijk
zou beseffen dat je met je fikken van kinderen moet afblijven vond de
"brave" Van Gheluwe het toch maar nodig om begot bisschop te worden...en
nu maar wat zitten grienen in West-Vleteren...kan niet...stuur die man
naar Vorst, Lantin, liefst niet naar Brugge. Ze zijn daar nog in staat
om een wekelijkse bedevaart te organiseren naar zijn cel.
Het doet pijn opeens weer in het middelpunt van het wereldnieuws te staan door een
verschrikkelijk seksschandaal dat ons allen, gelovigen en
niet-gelovigen, diep raakt, en onze gemeenschap op haar grondvesten doet
daveren. Hot news: seksschandalen, en dan nog in de kerk.
Ongeloof, verbijstering, dat kan toch niet? Niet hier, niet in de
katholieke kerk in ons rustig Vlaanderen. Een toonaangevend West-Vlaams
icoon valt van zijn sokkel, en dit
is hoogstwaarschijnlijk slechts het begin van
een weerzinwekkend verhaal dat verder zal uitdeinen.
Ik was
niet van plan publiek te reageren
omdat er al zoveel is gezegd, zoveel geschreven, maar wat me opvalt,
verwondert en mateloos ergert, is het steeds terugkerend zinnetje op het
einde van het interview of de
lezersbrief. Velen haasten zich om eerst de feiten streng te
veroordelen, dan hun onbegrip te uiten, om te eindigen met de
beschouwing dat de bisschop toch een goed mens is. Of dat zulke dingen
wel overal voorkomen, dus ook in de kerk. Een soort vergoelijking, een
excuus, een zoveelste kaakslag voor de slachtoffers.
Machtswellustig
Neen,
beste mensen, bisschop Roger van Gheluwe kan geen goed mens zijn,
integendeel. Iemand die jarenlang een kind seksueel misbruikt, macht
uitoefent, zich schijnheilig uitspreekt tegen seksueel misbruik, zich
afvraagt hoe de Dutroux-affaire zolang kon verborgen blijven, iemand die
andere schandalen in de doofpot steekt en priesters/verkrachters het
hand boven het hoofd houdt, die zich vastklampt aan zijn macht en
prestige en enkel naar buiten is gekomen omdat het niet anders kon,
iemand die jarenlang de vraag van
zijn slachtoffer negeerde, die zo hypocriet en machtswellustig is: zo
iemand is geen goed maar een door en door slecht mens. Wat het nog
ergert maakt is dat hij een hoge vertegenwoordiger is van een organisatie die morele waarden
juist hoog in het vaandel draagt.
De bisschop is van zijn piëdestal gevallen en dat is maar
goed ook, waarschijnlijk is hij zich nu aan het bezinnen in een
slotklooster en ik hoop dat hij er alleen maar uitkomt om naar de gevangenis te gaan, wat zijn welverdiende
straf is, maar wat waarschijnlijk nooit zal gebeuren, want het is
verjaard nietwaar? Hij zal waarschijnlijk niet eens zijn status van priester verliezen, maar verder kunnen
genieten van een mooi pensioen en van de geneugten van het leven, iets wat andere misdadigers
niet altijd gegund is.
En de kerk likt haar wonden, en looft het
sereen en adequaat optreden van
aartsbisschop Léonard, terwijl bisschop Danneels diep in zijn geheugen
graaft en zich tracht te herinneren wat priester Devillé hem nu precies
gezegd heeft. Misschien waren er zoveel verhalen en klachten dat dit ene
feit aan zijn aandacht ontsnapt is. Maar als het om zijn vriend
bisschop Vangheluwe was gegaan, dan zou hij het zich
toch waarschijnlijk wel herinneren.
Hypocrisie
Kom
nu mensen, weg met die hypocrisie alstublieft. Het wordt tijd dat het
instituut Kerk in retraite gaat en zich bezint over geloof, religie,
macht, celibaat en engagement, en zich afvraagt waar het verhaal vandaan komt dat een goede priester
celibatair moet zijn. Uiteraard is het celibaat niet de enige boosdoener
en zijn er heel wat alleenstaande mannen binnen en buiten de kerk die
normaal met hun medemensen omgaan, maar de meerwaarde van het celibaat is nog nooit aangetoond.
Ik kan u getuigen dat het onmeetbare lijden als gevolg van seksueel misbruik, onder andere door
verdedigers van hoge morele waarden,
wél degelijk aantoonbaar en bewezen is. Ik hoop dat de gezagsdragers van de kerk in het reine komen met
zichzelf en ophouden zich te moeien met zaken waarin ze - aseksueel
zijnde - per definitie geen expertise hebben, zoals seksuele en
reproductieve gezondheid en rechten van
vrouwen, kinderen en mannen.
Nu de kerk, noodgedwongen, want
geplaagd door schandalen, van koers
verandert en zélf de slachtoffers oproept om zich kenbaar te maken met
de belofte dat er naar hen zal geluisterd zal worden, is er een begin van therapie mogelijk. Er kan tijd en
ruimte komen voor een verwerkingsproces - ook voor de gelovigen. Maar
dat alleen is niet voldoende. De slachtoffers moeten ook naar de
reguliere hulpverleners stappen: de leerkrachten, dokters,
politieagenten, maatschappelijke werkers en rechters. Het wordt tijd dat
de maatschappij een actieplan opstelt voor nultolerantie voor seksueel
misbruik in en buiten de kerk. Kinderen moeten opgevoed worden tot
weerbare mensen, zodat ze alert kunnen reageren op dergelijke vormen van machtsmisbruik. Kinderrechten zijn
simpelweg mensenrechten en het is onze plicht signalen van bezorgde kinderen ernstig te nemen. Zo
kunnen we vermijden dat ze een tweede keer slachtoffer worden van ongeloof en onverschilligheid van hun omgeving, een omgeving die hen zou
moeten beschermen. Kinderen zijn te belangrijk.
Ik hoop ten
slotte dat de slachtoffers van
seksueel geweld een voorbeeld nemen aan de neef van de Brugse bisschop, die door zijn
moedige kruistocht de weg heeft vrijgemaakt voor anderen. Voor mij moet
niemand aan het kruis genageld worden en u mag mij geloven. Persoonlijk
mogen van mij duizend religies
bloeien, maar iemand die kinderen seksueel misbruikt mag geen goed mens
genoemd worden. Hij moet gewoon voor de rechtbank komen.
een combinatie van B-H-V met de situatie van de Amerikaanse mijnwerkers...
Het houdt niet op de ellende die als IJslandse vulkaanas over ons
landje wordt uitgestrooid. Populaire bisschoppen lijken enkel slechte
klonen van Dutroux en nu valt de regering Leterme 11 dus over B-H-V.Het
kan moeilijk erger. Wat ons betreft maken we een beetje de zelfde
analyse als onze politieke lieveling Gennez Caroline. Deze regering
regeerde als een lamme eend dus niet getreurd dat ze valt. In een
noodregering geloven is volgens ons als bij een Brugse bisschop
opbiechten dat je je masturbeert. De remedie is in dit geval kwalijker
dan de kwaal. Trouwens wie zal daarin zitten in die noodregering? Terug
de zelfden want de anderen willen niet. En verkiezingen? Zullen die
iets oplossen?....Wij vermoeden dat vooral NVA garen zal spinnen voor
haar inderdaad zeer consequente houding. Consequent betekent in dit
geval dus het opleggen van de zogenaamde wil der Vlaamse meerderheid aan
de Franstalige minderheid. Volgens hen heet dat democratie. Dat kan
zijn als het gaat over vele zaken maar niet binnen de context van
communautaire betrekkingen. We bekritiseren graag landen als Roemenië of
Hongarije in hun houding t.o.v. de Roma-minderheid of anderstaligen
maar in feite doen we hier net het zelfde. Luc Huyse publiceerde
hierover een zeer lezenswaardig artikel in De Standaard dat natuurlijk
een massa reacties opriep waarvan de meesten werden ingestuurd door de
Vlamingen die lijden aan hersenverlamming en/of acute borderline
(Iemand
met de borderline-persoonlijkheidsstoornis heeft vaak een laag gevoel
van eigenwaarde en een sterke neiging
tot extreme oordelen. In relaties met vrienden en/of partner is het
vaak alles of niets, vaak eerst alles en daarna plotseling niets.
Het
lage gevoel van eigenwaarde leidt soms tot zelfbeschadigend gedrag (automutilatie,
bijv. zichzelf bewust snijden of branden), ook in combinatie met manipulatie,
maar sommige Borderline-patiënten proberen hun onzekerheid te
overschreeuwen door provocerend gedrag, waarbij je juist geen
onzekerheid zou verwachten.)
Als de onderhandelaars het niet eens geraken
over BHV, moet een Vlaamse meerderheid
de splitsing maar goedkeuren in het parlement. Want dat is toch democratie? LUC HUYSE is het daar
niet mee eens.
Wat lees ik nu toch wel bij Frieda Brepoels,
algemeen secretaris van de N-VA? Vrouwen vormen demografisch een
volstrekte meerderheid, schrijft
zij, want zij maken 51procent van de bevolking uit. Zij hebben dus het
recht om eenzijdig te beslissen dat, bijvoorbeeld, gelijk loon voor
gelijk werk onverwijld en zo nodig met dwang wordt gerealiseerd. Zij
voegt eraan toe dat er anders sprake is van democratievervuiling,
want wie de meerderheid heeft, mag
de macht claimen. Nu, zegt zij, heerst in ons land de dictatuur van de
minderheid, gezien de mannen die vrouwvriendelijke maatregel
tegenhouden. Vijf minuten politieke moed is er nodig, meer niet. Applaus
graag!
Strijdkreten
Natuurlijk fantaseer ik. Toch
spreekt de partij van Brepoels voortdurend dezelfde taal. Alleen heeft
men het dan over de splitsing van BHV en, bij uitbreiding, over zowat
alle dossiers waarover de gewesten het oneens zijn. De mantra gaat als
volgt: de Vlamingen zijn demografisch én in het parlement in de meerderheid; in een democratie beslist de meerderheid; dus moeten wij onze wil
onverkort doordrukken; anders is dit land het niet waard democratisch te
heten. Deze strijdkreten hoor je uit de mond van De Wever en co., lees
je op de website van de Vlaamse Volksbeweging, zit in de manifesten van
de Gravensteengroep. Zij kiezen voor de meerderheidsregel
in zijn meest absolute vorm: 'the winner takes it all', vrij
vertaald als 'wie de grootste is, doet zijn goesting'.
Het
geloof dat de meerderheidsregel het
democratisch principe bij uitstek is, ontroert. Maar de interpretatie
ervan rammelt. Wat men gemakshalve vergeet is dat die strikte definitie
alleen verantwoord is in landen met een tweepartijenstelsel waarin de
minderheid van vandaag dankzij vrije verkiezingen morgen meerderheid kan worden. Zoals in de
Verenigde Staten dus, waar Democraten en Republikeinen geregeld
haasje-over springen. En de winnaar inderdaad alle beslissingen naar
zich kan en mag toetrekken.
Maar er zijn samenlevingen waar meerderheid en minderheid op
demografische, etnische of religieuze gronden rusten. Vaak zitten die
numerieke verhoudingen muurvast. In zo'n situatie is de harde meerderheidsregel onbruikbaar als
democratisch instrument. Immers, geen enkele bevolkingsgroep die weet
dat hij altijd van enige macht verstoken zal zijn, ontwikkelt een
blijvend geloof in de democratie. De
uitslag van verkiezingen ligt toch op voorhand vast. Vaak wordt dan de
weg van het geweld gevolgd, zoals dat jarenlang met het katholieke IRA
in Noord-Ierland het geval is geweest. Om dat soort risico's te
vermijden is in een aantal landen een heel andere inhoud gegeven aan het
meerderheidsprincipe. Een
parlementaire meerderheid ontstaat
er via onderhandelingen tussen de verschillende kampen. Er wordt gewerkt
met technieken die tot een consensus en een 'regeren met wederzijdse
toestemming' moeten leiden. Ruime toegang van de minderheid tot
parlement en regering is een van die procédés. Als het moet, komen er
alarmbellen en zelfs vetorechten, zoals in ons land. Het cultuurpact dat
hier in 1972 definitief een einde maakte aan de bittere strijd tussen
de katholieke meerderheid en de
vrijzinnige minderheid is daarop gebaseerd. Ook de staatshervormingen,
van 1970 tot nu, zijn langs die weg verwekt en uitgevoerd.
Noord-Ierland
België is geen uitzondering. Zwitserland werkt zo. Ook Noord-Ierland is
enkele jaren geleden toegetreden tot de familie van wat de consensusdemocratieën heet. De premier is een
protestant, de vicepremier een katholiek. Het is geen toeval dat met
deze stap Belfast nu vrede kent. Zelfs Burundi experimenteert sinds 2005
met allerlei vormen van machtsdeling tussen de Hutu meerderheid (meer dan 80procent van de
bevolking) en de Tutsi minderheid. Zo bestaat de kiescommissie die moet
toezien op de komende stembusgang uit evenveel Hutu's als Tutsi's.
Een gemakkelijke manier van werken is het niet, dat weten wij hier
onderhand wel. Maar democratievervuiling?
Het tegendeel lijkt waar. Arend Lijphart is de academicus die de
consensusdemocratie haar roepnaam en
een eerste profielschets heeft gegeven. In zijn Patterns of
Democracy (1999) vergelijkt hij zesendertig democratieën en komt tot het besluit dat
de regimes van het consensustype als verzorgingsstaat beter scoren dan
de landen die met de pure meerderheidsregel
werken.
Een selectieve lezing van wat een democratie hoort te zijn, is van alle
tijden. Het is zo verleidelijk om het begrip een inhoud te geven die de
eigen belangen dient. Alleen is het ook nogal doorzichtig. Een uitspraak
van Peter De Roover, politiek secretaris van de Vlaamse Volksbeweging,
laat dat goed zien. In De Morgen (4 april 2009) beschrijft hij
consensusland België als een plaats 'waar de normale democratische meerderheidsregel niet van toepassing is
en waarvan politieke onbestuurbaarheid een structureel kenmerk vormt'.
Dus, besluit hij: 'Wie zowel de brute meerderheidsregel
tegen een etnische minderheid (in casu de Waalse) als de huidige
formule van het veto-federalisme afwijst, rest alleen nog de scheiding,
waardoor de meerderheidsregel zowel
in Vlaanderen als in Wallonië bruikbaar wordt.' Zo, daar gaat het dus
om. Om de democratie te redden moet
Vlaanderen onafhankelijk worden. Of nog anders, om de splitsing van het
land te presenteren als een godsgeschenk voor de democratie komt een vervalste, want voor
een land als het onze onverantwoorde, definitie van de meerderheidsregel goed van pas. Zeg dat
dan!
Dat radicale flaminganten zo uitermate bezorgd zijn om de
gezondheid van de democratie is
verheugend. Want het is niet altijd zo geweest. Een deel van de Vlaamse
beweging heeft tot in de vroege jaren negentig de dictatuur van de
blanke minderheid in Zuid-Afrika verdedigd. De demografische meerderheid van zwarten had er niet eens
stemrecht. Trouwens, de Vlamingen die nu zo opvallend zwaaien met de
vlag van de democratie volgen in hun
politieke projecten niet altijd de eigen geloofsleer. Het zou,
bijvoorbeeld, getuigen van democratische gevoeligheid als zij die de
splitsing van België willen ons zouden vragen hoe dat onafhankelijke
Vlaanderen er moet uitzien. Dat hoeft niet, luidt het bij hen. In de
woorden van Peter De Roover in het al geciteerde artikel: de vraag welk
Vlaanderen we willen is boeiend is, maar staat los van het
onafhankelijkheidsproject. 'Dat is onvoorwaardelijk, in die zin dat het
niet ondergeschikt is aan de vraag wat de Vlamingen met die autonomie
willen doen.' Respect voor de wil van de meerderheid?
Tango
Het is waar, ook in een consensusdemocratie
geldt dat 'it takes two to tango'. Het model werkt slechts als
de minderheid niet roekeloos omgaat met de mogelijkheden die het regeren
met wederzijdse toestemming haar bezorgt. Electorale overwegingen
hebben Franstalig België de weg van het oneigenlijk gebruik van het
vetorecht opgestuurd. Dat is een gevaarlijke ontwikkeling. Maar het
probleem ligt breder dan dat. Begin mei 2009 heeft de Universiteit Gent
aan Arend Lijphart, daarnet al geciteerd, een eredoctoraat toegekend.
Bij die gelegenheid heeft hij de Belgische politiek op de weegschaal
gelegd. Zijn analyse: 'De belangrijkste verandering die ik zie is dat de
politieke elite zich steeds minder is gaan houden aan de fundamentele
spelregels: het vertrouwelijk onderhandelen in besloten kring, het
verzakelijken of ontideologiseren van politieke problemen, de inzet om
bereikte akkoorden door de achterban te doen goedkeuren, en de
waardering van compromissen als een goede in plaats van een kwade zaak.'
Het is een evolutie die de hele politieke klasse in ons land kleurt.
Daar liggen de radicale Vlamingen niet wakker van. Hoe meer zand er in
de politieke machinerie terecht komt, hoe dichter zij bij de splitsing
van België staan.
Wat deze dagen aan beide kanten van de
taalgrens gebeurt, lijkt op armworstelen aan de rand van een ravijn. Ik
weet het wel, het consensusmodel heeft al zwaardere stormen doorstaan.
Maar het is en blijft morsen met het democratische gedachtegoed waarop
dit land zijn stabiliteit heeft gebouwd.
LUC HUYSEWie?
Emeritus hoogleraar sociologie aan de KU Leuven. Wat? Wie over
BHV wil stemmen zonder onderhandelen, is het niet om de democratie te doen. Waarom? Ze
interpreteren de regels van de consensusdemocratie
bewust verkeerd om de zaak te doen vastlopen.
Maar in
feite wilden we het daar nu even niet over hebben. Wij wilden het hebben
over de mistoestanden in de Amerikaanse mijnen. Want we kijken toch zo
graag naar de mistoestanden in China die inderdaad wraakroepend zijn
maar in het ontwikkelde Amerika is het even erg zo niet erger.... We
hadden het hier al over in een eerdere bijdrage. Wij komen er hier op
terug want dit is het ware gelaat van de vrije markteconomie zoals
partijen als LDD en andere liberalen ze toch zo als zaligmakend
afschilderen terwijl de staatsinmenging en de vakbonden enkel de zwarte
piet worden doorgespeeld, verouderd en achterlijk als ze zijn. Vermits
we toch stilaan naar nieuwe verkiezingen gaan is het nuttig toch
eventjes na te denken over dit soort economieën en zeker niet de fout te
begaan om de verdedigers van dergelijke wantoestanden als oplossing
voor on,ze problemen te beschouwen... http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair04232010.html
How
Much is a Miner's Life Worth?
Black Hole, Black Death
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
This
is an excerpt from Jeffrey St. Clair's environmental history, Born
Under a Bad Sky..
The only thing
more predictable than the deaths of those twelve miners in the Sago coal
mine on January 2, 2006 was the Bush administrations rush to exploit a
tragedy that they helped foster.
Since 2001, Big Coal has
benefited as Washington regulators have turn a blind eye to their
rampages across Appalachia. The cost of such official laxity is borne by
decapitated mountains, buried and polluted streams, and hundreds of
miners injured and killed by an industry that has been liberated from
even the most basic regulations governing worker safety and
environmental protection.
The Sago miners didnt even have the
minimal protections afforded by membership in a union. In the economics
of coal country these days people are so desperate for a job that they
will sign up for the most dangerous kind of work while asking few
questions about the risks or the precautions taken by the companies. And
thats exactly the way Big Coal wants it.
Since Bush
arrived in Washington, more than 230 coal miners have perished in 206
mine accidents. Hundreds of others have been injured. Thousands suffer
from chronic ailments and lung diseases caused by hazardous working
conditions.
The Sago mine was a death trap. In 2005 alone, the
Mine Safety and Health Administration slapped the mine with 208
citations for violations, ranging from the accumulation of flammable
coal dust to ceiling collapses.
The accident rate at Sago was abysmal.
In 2004, Sago had an accident rate of 15.90 accidents per 200,000
man-hours worked. This rate is nearly three times more than the national
average of 5.66. The next year was even worse. In 2005, Sagos accident
rate spiked to 17.04, with at least fourteen miners injured.
But these
citations and accidents came without regulatory sanction. Most of them
resulted only in negligible fines. In total, the mine was hit with just
$24,000 worth of penalties. Its much cheaper to pay the fine than to
fix the problems, even when the conditions are lethal. For example, in
2001 Jim Walters Resources paid only $3,000 in fines for an accident
that led to the deaths of thirteen miners in Alabama. Thats $230.76 per
dead miner. The company earned more than $100 million that year. Other
companies have paid less than $200 in fines for fatalities linked to
safety violations.
And these token fines often go unpaid by the
mining companies. A review of the Mine Safety and Health
Administrations records since 2000 reveals that the agency has hit the
mining industry with $9.1 million in fines following fatal incidents.
But the companies have paid less than 30 percent of that puny amount.
All a company
has to do is appeal its fine, and it will likely be reduced. More than
$5.2 million in fines have been reduced to $2.5 million following
appeals. Another $2.2 million is unpaid pending appeal. The agency lists
more than $1.1 million in fines as being delinquent, but most of those
mines remain in operation.
Under the Bush administration, Big Coal
has essentially been handed the responsibility for regulating its own
behavior, with few questions asked. Even in the aftermath of the Sago
disaster there were no serious calls for congressional hearings or
criminal sanctions against the mine bosses and their corporate
chieftains. The biggest outrage was reserved for the false report, which
stated that the twelve miners had miraculously survived their ordeal in
the poisonous pit, where carbon monoxide levels had reached 1,300 parts
per million, more than three times the maximum safety level.
Naturally, the
Democrats offer the miners almost no relief. In the 2004 presidential
campaign, when the election hinged on results from the coal belt, John
Kerry wrote off the mining country of southeast Ohio and West Virginia,
counties burdened by the highest unemployment in country, and lost by
landslide margins to Bush.
If youre going to tie black ribbon on
the gates of the White House, you might as well wrap one around a tree
outside one of the Kerry-Heinz mansions, as well. Neither party gave a
damn about the lives of those men.
