From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Currency problems
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:13:05 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <1992Oct1.102531.9152@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>OK. My ignorance rules again, but I'm not convinced that this is either
>necessarily correct or a good answer to Jon's argument. You see I remember
>hearing that the reason all foreign coal is so cheap is that the coal-producing
>countries' governments recognise the value of having a production industry
>which employs large numbers of semi-skilled workers and so subsidise mining to
>the hilt. This has the knock-on effect of making British privatised coal
>hideously expensive (in comparison) and causing the loss of thousands of
>unsubsidised British jobs. 

There was a very interesting panel debate on telly last night,
participants being Margaret Beckett (deputy Labour leader), Michael
Portillo (Tory something), some grey LibDem whose name I didn't
recognise, and Arthur Scargill.

Scargill put some interesting sounding numbers to things.  Considering
that I don't trust him as far as I can throw him, I can't swear that
they are gospel truth.  On the other hand, Portillo, in responding,
didn't say anything to indicate that they were incorrect, and instead
tried to spin his answers so as to avoid having to acknowledge or deny
them.  (That raises the probability of their being right, in my mind.
Portillo is usually very good at attacking factual errors.)

Anyhow, Scargill's claim is that British deep-mined coal costs about 35
pounds per ton, at the pithead.  German deep-mined coal costs about 110
pounds per ton (before the recent devaluation) at the pithead.  All
other (he says) western European deep-mined coal is more expensive than
British at the pithead, and therefore if any of them are cheaper on
delivery (as some are) it is because their governments are subsidising
them.  (Of course, third-world coal is even cheaper, but anyone who
claims that 'the welfare of the miners' is an issue cannot morally
suggest that third-world coal should be used.)

Portillo said that decreasing use of British coal by the electric
companies simply reflected market realities; the electric companies are
using the cheapest energy sources.  He referred specifically to gas and
nuclear.

Scargill pointed out that both gas and nuclear are being subsidised by
the government, while coal is not being any longer, so that this was
hardly a level playing field.  The specific number he claimed was that
the British nuclear industry is being subsidised to the extent of 1.3
billion pounds per year.  He pointed out that if the coal industry were
given 1.3 billion pounds per year, that would amount to about 50 pounds
per ton subsidy at current production levels, which would mean they
could give the coal away free and still make 15 pounds per ton profit.

Interesting.  As I said, though, of questionable reliability, unless
someone can verify some of those numbers.  Also, yes, there are some
missing numbers.  E.g. the price of coal other than deep-mined, and
a comparison of the amount of energy this money given to the nuclear
industry provides, as compared to the amount of energy in a similarly
valued pile of coal.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british