Is there a good example you can see in the questionnaire of excluded options, speaking technically?
Moreover, policy options other than those of the Green Paper are absent from the responses presented in the questionnaire. A major example is that, at no point, does the questionnaire offer energy demand reduction as a strategic policy option. (....?)
My suggestion:
Moreover, policy options other than those of the Green Paper are absent from the responses presented in the questionnaire. A major example is that, at no point, does the questionnaire offer a return to centralised forms of control of the sector, whether on a national or a pan-European basis. That may not be the Commission's preference, but a neutral questionnaire should acknowledge that the option exists and allow people to express their preference for it. Similarly, at no point does the questionnaire allow respondents to express a preference for demand reduction mechanisms (whether directed through taxes or quotas, or incited via education or "good practice").
A bit wordy, so feel free to cut... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
...A major example is that, at no point, does the questionnaire offer a return to centralised forms of control of the sector, whether on a regional, national or a pan-European basis. Or, alternatively, the option of a decentralised sector with serious limitations and selection among the players. These may not be the Commission's preference, but a neutral questionnaire should acknowledge that these options exist and allow people to express their preference for such alternatives.
I know people, not homeless nor jobless, who can literally not afford to heat throughout the winter when prices climb. This is not like being unable to afford a car, we talk basic needs with no room for sparing. So between the Commission's "reasonably priced" talk and general demands for increased energy tax "that should hurt", I'd argue against the principle of one price for all, e.g. for social subsidies. These exist. They inevitably change what "reasonably priced" can mean.
Reply on the main question follows. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Question 2 or 14 would be a good pick for a glaring omission, but a single one. The choices for Question 3 would be an example of leaving out just about anything sensible (from my viewpoint), but the problem is already with the framed question. Question 12 would be a good pick for too narrow a focus, e.g. only electricity generation, but the offered choices aren't all that bad.
As a general point, perhabs the complete supply-sider approach should be further highlighted by marking the complete omission of transport policy. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Moreover, policy options other than those of the Green Paper are absent from the responses presented in the questionnaire. A major example is that, at no point, does the questionnaire offer a return to centralised forms of control of the sector, whether on a regional, national or pan-European basis. Or, alternatively, the option of a decentralised sector with serious limitations and selection among the players. These may not be the Commission's preference, but a neutral questionnaire should acknowledge that these options exist and allow people to express their preference for such alternatives. Similarly, at no point does the questionnaire allow respondents to express a preference for demand reduction mechanisms (whether directed through taxes or quotas, or incited via education or "good practice"). In the same order of ideas, transport policy, despite the evident relation of transport systems to energy consumption, is not evoked. Entire questions offer a narrowly-focussed range of responses that evacuate essential items. An example is Question 2, concerning the development of a single European grid, in which the only options proposed concern management rules, no mention being made of planning, financial, construction, and environmental issues which must inevitably be faced in the creation of a single grid.
Entire questions offer a narrowly-focussed range of responses that evacuate essential items. An example is Question 2, concerning the development of a single European grid, in which the only options proposed concern management rules, no mention being made of planning, financial, construction, and environmental issues which must inevitably be faced in the creation of a single grid.
Or, alternatively, the option of a decentralised sector with serious limitations and selection among the players.
I'm not sure I understand that sentence (at least the selection bit).
I like the paragraph as a whole, but this sentence is confusing to me. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
By selection, I meant preferring one type of production to another. Wrong choice of words, maybe "different treatment of" instead of "selection among" would work. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Moreover, policy options other than those of the Green Paper are absent from the responses presented in the questionnaire. A major example is that, at no point, does the questionnaire offer a return to centralised forms of control of the sector, whether on a regional, national or pan-European basis. Public financing of the sector is not contemplated. Neither is any explicit public policy to favor some technological choices over others. Alternatively, the option of a decentralised sector with serious limitation on the size of actors is also ignored. All these options may not be the Commission's preference, but a neutral questionnaire should acknowledge that they exist and are backed by significant constituencies, and should allow people to express their preference for such alternatives. at no point does the questionnaire allow respondents to express a preference for demand reduction mechanisms (whether directed through taxes or quotas, or incited via education or "good practice"). similarly, transport and land occupancy policies, despite their evident impact on energy use patterns, are not even evoked. Entire questions offer a narrowly-focussed range of responses that evacuate essential items. An example is Question 2, concerning the development of a single European grid, in which the only options proposed concern management rules, no mention being made of planning, financial, construction, and environmental issues which must inevitably be faced in the creation of a single grid.
Now, I'll do something more on languages if I get the goods over the weekend. If not, it's ready to go as it is, imo.
