Hero999,
The problem isn't that it makes no sense,
its that sharing heating -makes too much sense and so, would be framed by trade agreements as a trade barrier, because it decreases the potential for profit which supposedly commercial firms are now entitled to.
Everything has changed in the last few years in that respect. the idea of "universal service obligations" and "public services", where local communities owned utilities or other resources like water in order to make things like electricity and clean water available to ALL, have been jettisoned in favor of new rights given to investors to both commercially exploit all 'markets' to the maximum extent possible and to own a right to any new profitable change continuing in perpetuity (but not its reverse, the people always lose rights and cannot regain them)
So, once something is sold at all, it becomes fair game for profiteering, with no limits allowed, except the most minimal ones possible, even in critical areas like energy, banking and health insurance, sell and buy these commodities internationally without government interference.
Regulations (which includes any kind of cost sharing measure that reduces the total cost to anybody) must be the
least burdensome necessary to ensure the quality of the service. Burdensome meaning unprofitable to businesses.
Inequality is now good, (SARCASM >>>)because after all, part of the pleasure people get from spending lots of money on something like modern health care or a warm or cool home in the winter and summer, respectively is the exclusivity of it, which is based on the fact that others arent getting it. (/SARCASM)
(Look up whats allowed and what isnt in indexes like the OECD's STRI (Services Trade Restrictiveness Index)
Could some kinds of new rights to essentials like water, primary education, air, and some habitable physical space to occupy within the parameters which sustain life and liquid water be established? The recent attempt to create a right to water for all in the European Union and have all the member states agree on it didn't turn out so well, a red flag that should give people pause. Everything changed with the creation of the WTO, World Bank, OECD, ad the many other so called global economic governance institutions. Countries 'measures' now need to be minimal, structured as to have the least possible impact on trade. That means that new non-conforming
measures that
distort trade have to be limited to the most extreme cases and - in order to set an example, are only available for limited periods to the poorest countries. When a countries applies to join the WTO often they "require" they give them up. This is kind of like an inside joke, on all of us.
Its led by the big countries. Who are so strongly in favor of making the selling of essential any thing becoming corporate rights that in order to trade with them other countries are put under pressure to give them up. Consequently a steady stream of entangling agreements has eroded the 'policy space' of what countries can do in these areas, unless it already existed before these agreements were established and has not been changed in any respect.
This might apply in places like Scandinavia Canada that have a long tradition of social services - who have also not allowed any privatization in those areas.
Then the old services and rights pre-WTO and pre-other FTAs can remain - by virtue of grandfathering.
So generally, any kind of association that makes essentials more affordable for all people is seen as anathema to these ever more aggressive interests and ideologies. Helping the destitute may be okay if its done minimally and for the shortest period of time. As long as nobody who is not entitled to it gets help. Also, rules of every possible kind, that increase prices, like wage and hour laws, safety regulations, etc. are framed as tariffs or trade barriers, and only temporary crutches which the free market will eventually eliminate.
Good paper on what needs to be done to carve out space for services.
This increasingly applies to things like healthcare, water, education and other "services of general interest". (The new official name in the EU for what used to be called 'public services'.)
commercial f
Space heating at 52%
I know in council owned properties back around 1970's in certain cities they used communal boilers and they were only just getting rid of them on refurbishment projects a couple of years ago and they giving the residents their own boiler and I heard they were not happy about it.
I went to Amsterdam once and it was cold.
A year later when I went back I saw most streets in the city area with floodlights outside the pubs and shops with infrared looking lights and they were giving out lots of heat.
district heating is still very much a thing, here the coal fired power plant can reach 90% efficiency making both electricity and heating, trash incineration and a cement factory also put their waste heat into the system. Apple big new data center is also going to put the waste energy in their cooling into district heating
As long as it's hot enough > 88oC, waste heat could also be used to power an absorption chiller to provide air conditioning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_refrigerator
I think waste heat usage should be mandatory, whenever practical.
The urban heat island effect is also a problem, especially in some cities like London. They should design buildings to be better at keeping the heat in winter and cool in summer.
Its as bad or in many cases even worse outside the EU, basically this is a worldwide change put into place because of shifting power as workers become more globalized and less necessary, the balance of power is shifting to supranational corporations. To them, money is everything and anything that impedes profit is a threat. They see the kinds of safety nets that existed in the past to be a slippery slope because of the vanishing nature of the kinds of jobs that employed a lot of people. They see their dominance as directly threatened by democracy because people would just vote to fix things, what they now frame as
indirect expropriation.
Look that phrase up if you want to understand whats being done. LAws must now serve businesses and investors, particularly international investors.
Instead of buying all-risk insurance (commercial risk insurance would be the way to do this) against changing laws and times, as corporations used to do, now they get it free, as taxpayers of countries are liable if their lawmakers change some law and their country gets sued for "lost expected future profits" (This new 'tort' is now sued for in a special forum where countries only exist to be sued, and people don't exist at all except as markets.)
Look up Investor State dispute settlement (
ISDS) and "
indirect expropriation")
Also, the so called governmental authority exemption.
To so called "Intra-EU BITS" are also informative on this issue. A recent case Achmea is also worth looking at.
The situation in the US as far as public knowledge of these issues is even worse than in other countries. probably because we're the country pushing these agreements the most it seems. Things haven't changed much, really. Despite what you read in the media these things are still being promoted. To take advantage of a widespread state of ignorance.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
