Across the pond, death panels and “smart” grids

What liberals dream of: the ability to regulate which babies deserve to live and when your light switches actually work.

From the UK Daily Mail, Donald Berwick must be swooning:

Babies born after just 23 weeks of pregnancy or earlier should be left to die, a leading NHS official has said.

Dr Daphne Austin said that despite millions being spent on specialised treatments, very few of these children survive as their tiny bodies are too underdeveloped.

She claimed keeping them alive is only ‘prolonging their agony’, and it would be better to invest the money in care for cancer sufferers or the disabled.

Until, of course, a doctor decides that money spent on cancer patients or the disabled just “prolong[s] their agony,” too, and that they’re better off dead.

But remember: there are no death panels.

And via motorcitytimes, the CEO of the British power grid says folks need to “get used to” flipping that switch and receiving no power. It’s called “smart” power:

Electricity consumers in the UK will need to get used to flicking the switch and finding the power unavailable, according to Steve Holliday, CEO of National Grid, the country’s grid operator. Because of a six-fold increase in wind generation, which won’t be available when the wind doesn’t blow, “The grid is going to be a very different system in 2020, 2030,” he told BBC’s Radio 4. “We keep thinking that we want it to be there and provide power when we need it. It’s going to be much smarter than that.

“We are going to change our own behaviour and consume it when it is available and available cheaply.”

Holliday has for several years been predicting that blackouts could become a feature of power systems that replace reliable coal plants with wind turbines in order to meet greenhouse gas targets. Wind-based power systems are necessary to meet the government’s targets, he has explained, but they will require lifestyle changes.

Under the so-called “smart grid” that the UK is developing, the government-regulated utility will be able to decide when and where power should be delivered, to ensure that it meets the highest social purpose. Governments may, for example, decide that the needs of key industries take precedence over others, or that the needs of industry trump that of residential consumers. Governments would also be able to price power prohibitively if it is used for non-essential purposes

Let me guess: that air conditioner will be non-essential. And forget it if your fridge draws too much power. Will the government then cover the cost of your spoiled-contents? Ha. That will be your fault, I’m sure, for greedily stocking too much.

Steve at motorcitytimes comments:

Even if you are good and faithful environmentalist and purchase a planet saving Volt or Leaf, the government through the ‘smart grid’ might decide that allowing you to charge your EV has less social benefit than providing power elsewhere. Then your choices to get to work are public transportation, riding your bike or walking.

Remember: your freedom of movement is a threat.

Let there be no doubt what the “green” movement really is. I prefer the watermelon analogy: green on the outside and flaming red within.


One Response

  1. The more I hear about England, the scarier it sounds. One should never think they understand a country through journalists but what seems to come out of England really makes me pause.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: