Eskom ... is there ANY chance? In CPT there is

General Discussions
3198

I’m not sure about the 3 letter agencies in the US, but I’m pretty sure any actual law changes have to be voted in by Congress. Congress is a headless chicken right now, but hasn’t always been that way the last few years.

In the EU the individual countries have agreed to belong to the EU and understand that some affairs are EU wide and decided on by the EU parliament. The EU parliament is elected (which is how a party led by arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage came to sit in Brussels, but not in Westminster). They’re not some body who just popped up and started legislating against the will of the people, they’re chosen.

3199

What bothers me a little bit about this line of conversation, is there appears to be the hidden premise that the intelligentsia is wrong, and that democracy should be allowed to save the day. Thing is… I don’t think they are wrong. That is, if I concede (for the sake of argument) that the debate really divides that neatly into Aristocrats and Bourgeoisie.

3200

Wrong is the wrong word here, for own benefit or class benefit is closer. Look at the last few years, look at all the things where agencies of (State) ie the state is now admitting the unthinkable, they were wrong. It’s a form of cancelling. My (their) belief is the only one that counts, by any means. It’s similar to the whole disinformation battle by states, they are the only purveyors of the truth, the only ones that can speak on the subjec, even corporations are threatened. Do not dare to speak your opinion, or the real truth, canceled you will be, or jailed, especially if it is against the current narrative.

But ja boet, such is life. My opinion, wrong or right nobody knows but just guesses, remains my opinion

HappyekkanpraatGroetnis

3201

When one debates with intellectuals vs practical people, one sees two sides of the coin.

When people trying to survive enter the debate, one is stumped at times with reality.

3202

Compared to what we are paying… :neutral_face:

image
image579×763 140 KB

1 Like
3203

If I understand this correctly, the argument is:

P1: Going green is going to suck for the poorest of the poor.
P2: Only the rich are involved in going green.
Conclusion, from P1: Therefore we cannot do it.
Extra Conclusion, from P1 and P2: Therefore the rich are conspiring against the poor.

I agree with the first premise. It’s going to suck. But I don’t see the conclusions following. I mean, with some additional evidence they could be consistent with the premises, but they don’t follow. If the scientists are correct, barring any large scale conspiracy of the kind that is generally considered impossible because it simply involves too many people, we need to go green and the only thing we really need to debate is how fast we ought to be doing it.

I mean, isn’t that the entire point of all the “just transition” talk? That it needs to happen in a way that doesn’t make the poor even poorer?

In many ways, this is one reason I’d rather stay in Africa. Let’s compare it to the US. The US has had all their luxuries for so long that they can hardly imagine not having them, or having a different kind.

One example. They had mobile phones for so long, that when the rest of the world finally followed, the rest of the world got the new stuff and the US had to struggle with their phones not working when going overseas. They had to deal with legacy tech, while African countries simply installed the latest and greatest at the time.

America had cheap oil for ages, and to some extent still do. Getting away from it is going to be hard for them. On the other hand, large parts of Africa already has no electricity. We don’t have to get away from coal and THEN move to green energy. We can just start with the green stuff.

It has been said that the migration to green energy is the largest shift in wealth the world has ever seen, and this could be a good thing for Africa. We won’t be as reliant on oil from the middle east, or (shudder), from Russia. A country can no longer call the shots merely because he happens to have oil reserves under his feet. The US no longer has to send the army to rearrange the pieces on the board.

Sometimes I think we look only at the negatives.

Of course, this was Andre de Ruyter’s whole dream, this same one I’m retelling now. He thought we could combine going green with solving the energy crisis.

3204

What I want to hear is actual experts talking about the stuff they actually know about.

I get very cross with the modern need for “balance”. Typified by radio shows with announcements like “thank you for that interesting insight, Mr VC Engineer, MEng (Stanford), with a long CV of technical leadership roles in power companies. Now, for balance, we cross to Mr Someguy who is #3 on Amazon’s list of books about ley lines.”

I don’t want to hear from intellectuals, I want to hear from people with real expertise. When they’re talking about prevention of heart attacks on the radio, I want to hear from cardio vascular surgeons, and only cardio vascular surgeons, not some social influencer with 20 gazillion followers on social media.

1 Like
3205

What am I missing … can they not buy “in country”?

Like that video on the EV thread, this one:

That was (my opinion) intellectuals + practical people + the rest trying to survive example. All in one simple solution.

Yes.

“We” must just be allowed to do it … but we are blocked on the scale that is needed to allow it to work, not so?

Now who is “blocking” it all?

1 Like
3206

Yup. But even with that said, often the conspiracy theorists implicitly acknowledge that qualifications matter. During COVID, when people were angrily debating the vaccines (not that that has really stopped), the videos we were sent to watch was from a former heart surgeon, the guy who “invented” the tech, etc etc. Now why would they do that if qualifications did not, in fact, matter? :slight_smile:

3207

I got a lot of messaging involving people who had a qualification (or so it was claimed) but not in that field. It’s like getting a dentist to talk to you about brain tumors.

So I had an audiologist telling me all about the dangers of 4G cell masts. And a late friend of mine, who was a rock mechanic, told me that climate change is obviously a lie because not one rock mechanic he knows believes in it.

So there is an appeal to expertise, but sort of on the basis that any expertise is as good as any other.

Also this is the way that these people I was taking a pot shot at get presented. They are never just “Mr So-and-so” but always “best-selling author”, “Doctor” (of something, with the doctorate maybe even coming from a proper university), “well regarded expert on” (IE he has a column on some web site).

So, yes, there is often an appeal to expertise, and if we don’t take the sceptical but neccessary position then that’s enough.

There was that “Doctor” on a beach in Cape Town who went into an anti-semitic rant involving the President, and who also told us that there’s no such thing as a virus. She’s not a “Doctor” as I understand the term. A pity that none of the channels giving her airtime asked her where her doctorate was from.

1 Like
3208
3209

Someone is gonna shut him down soon……

SwartkristalbalGroetnis

3210

No man, the ANC has it covered: One is a coal minister and another a solar PV minister.

3211

Seems to me @mmaritz was spot on with this …

Couple that with @Sarel.Wagner “let me say it as I see it (with some experience)” and TTT’s “gut feel”, and we are in for dire times in the future.

Renewables may assist now in summer, but we are so far out of “not in the dwang” that we cannot see the “chaff from the corn”. (kaf vd koring skei)

Eskom/Gov is patching not installing, selling us lemons as lemonade, them not making it.

Now here is the thing guys:
If we are wrong, then SA wins all the way.
But what if we are not wrong?

We are NOT building, we are not expanding renewables from where it counts to where it is needed, “they” now want to import electricity, from exporting, and not buy for SA … this Gov must go.

3212

Kyk ne, on behalf of my fellow countrymen without Solar I just want to thank Escam and the CancER for their other humanly efforts in curtailing the Loadshedding during 2023. If it was not for them and their policies, there would be no household or business driven to seek alternative from Escam power, and thus everybody would now be at stage 11-13 or worse.

So a harty thank you!SarkastieseGroetnis

3213

First major poll has the ANC at 41%

The Brenthurst Foundation’s recent poll has the ANC at 41%. See the report here. A couple of provisos apply. The poll is telephonic and for registered voters only. Also, the Brenthurst Foundation supports a change of government. It is throwing its weight behind the Multi-Party Charter for SA pact, a six-party alliance to form a coalition government, if the election ends in a hung vote.

3214

My prediction is 51%.

From 2004 onwards…

2004 2009 2014 2019 2023?
69.7% 65.9% 62.2% 57.5% ???

We see a linear trend of around 4% downwards every year, but we also see a marked increase of almost a whole percent between the last two. So a 5% decrease in support, which puts you at around 52.5%, is likely.

This is purely a technical analysis (as the currency trading people say), no fundamentals taken into account. On that topic though, the fundamentals have not changed, but the population that were born after 1994 did… in fact a hole heap of them will be voting for the first time next year.

Then consider local elections.

2006 2011 2016 2021
64.8% 62% 53.9% 45.6%

That predicts at least a 7% drop in support, off the 57.5%, of 2019, that puts you just a hair above 50%.

However, people vote differently on a local level. You need to look no further than the EFF, who is well represented nationally and even locally, but doesn’t run a single metro other than through coalitions. So I am inclined to adjust me estimate slightly upwards, and I put the ANC at 51% next year.

This is not at all scientific. Let’s see how it pans out :slight_smile:

Edit: Let me also just add, the thrill of being wrong about this, will be both scary and exciting. I can’t wait!

3215

Me, I hope for ±40% based on what my gut tells me deduced from what is happening all around in SA. Just a really bad “dent” in support. Forcing their hand.

Way I see it, this coming election is pivotal.

ANC will probably stay “in power” with “help”. The next one thereafter “must be” a complete annihilation of the ANC. New voters, 5 more years of BS, Eskom further failing, and all that.

If the ANC still retains a large portion of the votes then, 2029, then I give up. Then “SA moet maar sy gat deeglik sien en klaarkry”.

For the ANC to lose badly in 2024, way too much to clean up in the 5 years following.

One bit at a time is better.

3216

To me, that is a bad place to be. That means they need a lot of “help” (aka a large coalition partner), and there are only two that fit that bill. A slight loss (closer to 50%) means an IFP coalition (which I am a lot more comfortable) becomes a possibility.

3217

True … I subtly shot myself in the foot with 40%.

What is a worry, an EFF coalition… unless SARS takes hold of that guy once and for all.