Home | About | Donate

Jeremy Corbyn: Nationalize, Democratize Electricity Grid to Avert Climate Crisis


Here’s a better idea:

Instead of nationalizing “a centralized system with a few large plants” and burden the taxpayer with the cost of it and then decommissioning it why doesn’t "the government " start building this new “decentralized, flexible, and diverse with new sources of energy large and small, from tidal to solar.” and start selling cheap, clean electricity and undercut the prices of the antiquated private sector?


Eh, the Marshall Plan?


Complete bullshit, unsupported by real-world empirical evidence. You are slinging a lot of bullshit in these threads.


If we measure “better” by how much money they make, private prisons work better but they are worse for the public. If we measure “better” in terms of excellence, private wins.


Jeremy Corbyn is one of the most forward-thinking politicians of our time. Our politicians need
to take lessons from him.


Hear, Hear!


Nationalization and renewable energy engineering are two different animals.

The old Soviet Union had a nationalized energy grid. In retrospect, their safety program didn’t look particularly good after the Chernobyl disaster. Japan, on the other hand, hired private companies such as TEPCO to build their reactors and ensure safety. In retrospect, their safety program didn’t look particularly good after the Fukushima disaster.

Renewables R&D, the climate change project, doesn’t have short-term profitability as its goal. Nor does it benefit one nation with one nationalized electric grid. Nor does it benefit one small power co-op, so the co-op has no financial incentive to get the R&D done.

Humanity does this R&D because we can’t have the whole world’s grain belts turning into scrubland or desert. The world becomes food-insecure if we don’t get the climate R&D work done. This is an all-in problem for all of us, not some kind of economic zero sum game.


I’m sorry, but that is a myth that has been around since Reagan, and it should have been interred with him. Try dealing with Comcast, or most Insurance Companies.


Using the DMV argument here at CD? First of all, it is entirely anecdotal - my experiences with the DMV in LA/California (where it is often maligned) have been entirely fine as have my experiences with the post office. I can however recount bad experiences with several private entities including various insurance companies (as many others here can too I’m sure). And secondly, even if it was true about the DMV in particular, you would have to actually cite a study that looked at: 1) what does the DMV have to do?, 2) how many employees did they hire to do it?, 3) how much money are they paying those employees and how much equipment support are they getting.

I have no issue with your plugs for direct democracy - I wish we had more of it at the federal level (many states have much more, but some issues like war are only at the federal level). But if you are going to argue against doing a particular function using public employees, you’ll have to come with a lot more facts - not just try to appeal to people with bad experiences at the DMV.


Disagree. Every model I’ve seen, govt. privatization means less service for more money.


He is the most progressive politician in the English speaking world that I have ever heard. For example, he has the confidence and moral authority to say he would never use nuclear weapons period (not a first strike, not a retaliatory strike). I’m afraid we couldn’t elect Corbyn (outside of a few very districts for US Rep perhaps) on this side of the pond. I hope he wins Prime Minister soon and our camp can start showing by example what is possible.


Great, I agree. When considering Corbyn’s perspective, isn’t it preferable that the solution to climate change be in the hands of the ‘people’ and their ownership and control of, capital, and energy production, than in the hands of those who use their capital to…increase their capital, which has a definite logic, but in the end, kills us all.


The Marshall Plan was socialist?


Just curious, you said private wins when it comes to excellence. What underlies that? Why do you think that is the case?


The Marshall plan was ‘planned’ as apposed to ‘unplanned’: planned economy versus unplanned economy. Words like ‘socialist’ can confuse. Pruitt is unplanned, Corbyn is planned. To come back to the issue, it is worrying somewhat that a solution, if there is one, is dependant on market forces!


Also, wasn’t the Marshall Plan funded entirely by the US Government?


How would nationalizing the UK grid actually work, since most distributed generation grid designs I have seen transfer electricity between different EU countries. A nationalized system may lead to international disputes between EU countries and non-EU nations, as opposed to privatized utilities that own connections in both countries.


Not in this case. Any particular criticism?


Unfortunately, or fortunately, in private you can have a freer hand in hiring and firing. And since profits are based on good products and services, to succeed these must better than the competition’s. Communist Russia was known for long bread lines and empty shelves.


I’m glad and wish more people didn’t. It is one good answer to what should be public and what should be private. It beats having oligarchs or commissars decide for us.