Latest news with #ImmanuelKant
Spectator
2 days ago
- Business
- Spectator
We're all going to pay for Ed Miliband's zonal pricing folly
Philosophers have debated the concept of 'fairness' for centuries. Intellectual heavyweights like Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, and Aristotle have all had their say. They need not have bothered. The world finally has a definitive answer and it has come from the most unlikely of places: the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero's 'Review of Electricity Market Arrangements: 2025 Summer Update'. Even if you have an unshakeable faith in Ed Miliband's ability to plan a huge chunk of the economy from his desk in Whitehall, you must admit this is sub-optimal It just so happens history's most influential thinkers were miles off the mark. Fairness, it turns out, is when everyone in the country sees their bills go up so we can pay wind farms in Scotland to switch off when it is, er, windy in Scotland. The most intense debate in British energy policy is over. Ed Miliband has rejected proposals to break up Britain's electricity market into 12 regional zones that better reflect the actual physics of the energy system. The idea behind the zonal pricing Miliband has rejected is simple. Prices should reflect what things actually cost and are worth. At the moment for electricity they don't. In essence, we pretend that it doesn't matter whether a watt is produced in the Shetland Islands or in South-East England. It's all one price. In reality, location matters. Short-sighted regulators, Nimby campaigners, and National Grid penny pinching mean we haven't built anywhere near as many pylons and transmission towers as we need. That's a big problem when grid bottlenecks mean that Scotland's wind farms regularly produce more power than Scots can consume or send to England. Electricity isn't like other markets. When the EU's Common Agricultural Policy guaranteed high prices for butter and wine, we ended up with butter mountains and wine lakes. Wasteful? Yes. Absurd? Entirely. But an excess of these products didn't cause any other problems. When you have too much electricity though you end up with Spanish-style blackouts. Put simply, our grid needs to balance. Put too much power in it and bad things happen. The lights go off. Expensive equipment blows up. So when supply is on course to outstrip demand, urgent intervention is needed. At the moment this means wind farms in Scotland that have been paid an artificially high price to produce electricity are then paid again – at the last minute – to switch off. This, to be clear, isn't a hypothetical scenario. In 2024 billpayers handed companies such as SSE Renewables a collective £393 million in 'constraint payments' to stop their blades spinning. They then paid gas plants near where the demand actually was £1.23 billion to fire up at uncompetitive rates. National Grid warns these combined payouts could hit £8 billion a year by 2030. Off the coast of Angus, sits Scotland's largest offshore wind farm Seagreen. Since it came fully online in 2023, almost two-thirds of its potential output has been dumped. You start to see why the CEOs of renewable developers can barely contain their delight at the news zonal pricing is off the table. For the rest of though it's a missed opportunity. Texas uses an extreme form of locational pricing, with thousands of individual price nodes (well over 4,000). This has created a battery boom in the windy west. These batteries charge up when energy is cheap and power the grid when prices are high. Britain's batteries, by contrast, go where land is cheap and grid connections are available. In other words, not where batteries are most needed. Even if you think the downsides of a zonal system outweigh the benefits, it is impossible to deny the status quo creates big (and expensive) problems that need to be solved. Hence the government's new slogan: a 'reformed national market'. As the Guardian reports, the department's 'brainpower' is now focused on getting the benefits of zonal pricing without doing zonal pricing. Their inevitable answer? Central planning (and subsidies). Want data centres to move north, where wind is plentiful? Without price signals you can only bribe them or order them to go there. Want more batteries in Scotland? Ditto. Even if you have an unshakeable faith in Ed Miliband's ability to plan a huge chunk of the economy from his desk in Whitehall, you must admit this is sub-optimal. All of this should infuriate greens. Almost half of Britain's emissions come from two things: petrol cars and gas boilers – just one tenth comes from electricity. When it comes to decarbonisation, electrification is the only game in town. What matters most is not making electricity greener, it's making electricity cheaper. Bogus fears of a 'postcode lottery' and aggressive lobbying from wind farm owners have locked us into a policy that will do the opposite.
Indian Express
06-07-2025
- Indian Express
The Prada–Kolhapuri chappals controversy: A case study in ethical branding
(UPSC Ethics Simplified draws attention to topics related to applied ethics, especially those making headlines. Recently, UPSC has been focusing on contemporary issues and posing ethical questions to candidates. In the past, we have examined pollution, war, sports, finance, international relations, bureaucracy and judiciary through the lens of ethics. Today, Nanditesh Nilay, who writes fortnightly for UPSC Essentials, addresses another pressing issue — the Prada-Kolhapuri chappals controversy.) Let us remind ourselves what plagiarism, cheating, failing to give credit, theft, wrong intentions, self-centeredness, greed, and similar acts truly represent. Let us also reflect on those moments in life when our decisions lacked the guiding light of a moral compass. Yes, if someone is engaging in sophistry or behaving insidiously, how should we view their actions? These are important ethical questions that will keep testing us in different forms. A traditional Indian craft that left both an aesthetic and commercial footprint in Milan is hitting the headlines. These are the Kolhapuri chappals we all are familiar with. But what has disappointed many is that a well known brand, Prada failed to initially acknowledge the geographical origin and original artisans behind the Kolhapuri design. Instead of giving the due credit to the deserving, Prada added a vague note: 'Inspired by traditional Indian footwear.' On any ethics meter it is disrespectful and questions the integrity of an international brand. But this story is not new. We have heard musicians copying others' work, writers struggling with plagiarism accusations. The creative world has long battled issues of credit and originality. Today, we even have software to detect plagiarism and agencies to investigate such misconduct. So why is it so hard for people to think ethically before engaging in acts of malfeasance? Philosopher Immanuel Kant reminds us: 'In law, a man is guilty when he acts. In ethics, he is guilty when he thinks.' In a world of AI, where cheating has reached new heights, what happens to an individual's moral dilemma? The recent controversy around Italian brand Prada highlights this issue. At Milan Fashion Week, their showcased sandals featured an open-toe braided pattern almost identical to the traditional Kolhapuri sandals from Maharashtra and Karnataka. While Prada described the sandals, they failed to mention their Indian origins. The question is: Why is it so easy to copy and so difficult to give credit to the people or cultures behind an idea? Is AI making things easier while simultaneously encouraging a culture of ethical shortcuts? Has this 'cheating mindset' become a new kind of behavioural normalization? Yuval Noah Harari, a renowned historian and author, has offered thought-provoking views on AI and its implications for humanity. He sees AI as a transformative force—unlike previous technologies—because it can function autonomously, not just as a tool. While nuclear weapons depend on human action, AI can make decisions and generate ideas independently. This raises serious questions and concerns about control and accountability. Interestingly, Harari often refers to AI as an 'alien intelligence.' Why? Because AI evolves in its own direction. There is a strong possibility that it may soon surpass humans—not just in decision-making and creativity, but even in emotional influence. By 2030–2035, according to Harari, we could see 'super-intelligent' AI that fundamentally alters society. In fact, in many ways, it already has. We are aware that plagiarism and manipulation are at their peak. On top of that, AI is now performing the work of reasoning. AI may threaten democracy and human autonomy by manipulating information, shaping persuasive narratives, and enabling surveillance. This is one of Harari's key concerns. Ethical impact: it can erode trust and silence free expression—two values essential to democracy. Speaking of trust: Every time it is broken, so is the Rest's Model of decision-making. It is important for us to know that this model stands on four pillars: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral action. Making decisions ethically is not rocket science. Simply, had Prada viewed its brand through the lens of public trust, it might have followed a morally sound decision-making process. What could have been the process? Identifying, assessing, and prioritizing the ethical implications, and then acting with integrity. But Prada failed. Most importantly it failed on the grounds of trust, which is the most important factor of credibility for brands. Result: its brand value suffers. Pause and ponder: Is simply enforcing ethics and values as a code of conduct or compliance enough? No. As a student of ethics, you must have known by now that true ethical behavior stems from human values. These human values are instilled within us – the individuals and institutions. Only then can ethics become a genuine societal norm. As Amitabh Bachchan said in the movie Suhag, while wearing Kolhapuri chappals: 'Dekhne mein nau, phatkē mein sau.' He meant that while they may look simple, Kolhapuris pack a powerful impact. That same impact may hit Prada — hard. Because, ultimately, when trust is lost, everything is lost. POST READ QUESTION: To what extent does the Prada–Kolhapuri chappals controversy highlight issues of cultural appropriation and ethical oversight in global branding? (The writer is the author of 'Being Good and Aaiye, Insaan Banaen', 'Ethikos: Stories Searching Happiness' and 'Kyon'. He teaches courses on and offers training in ethics, values and behaviour. He has been the expert/consultant to UPSC, SAARC countries, Civil services Academy, National Centre for Good Governance, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Competition Commission of India (CCI), etc. He has PhD in two disciplines and has been a Doctoral Fellow in Gandhian Studies from ICSSR. His second PhD is from IIT Delhi on Ethical Decision Making among Indian Bureaucrats. He writes for the UPSC Ethics Simplified (concepts and caselets) fortnightly.) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
Indian Express
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
In German Chancellor's gift to Trump, a story of success that US no longer has room for
Most people, pushed far enough to defend an absolute moral principle, end up either in hypocrisy or irony and absurdity. Take Immanuel Kant, an extremist when it came to the universality of ethical principles. His categorical imperative would, taken to its logical conclusion, leave no room for any form of lie (even, for example, to protect a person hiding from a murderer) or violence (self-defence). But Kant has nothing on Donald Trump, who can wear, without a qualm, contradictions and hypocrisy on his sleeve. The White House meeting between the US President and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was warm, unlike those with the Ukrainian and South African presidents. Merz gifted the American President his grandfather, Frederick Trump's, birth certificate. Trump, visibly moved, thanked him profusely. This scene played out as Trump's government imposed travel bans on several Muslim countries, and just before the National Guard was deployed in California to quell protests against the detention of migrants suspected of being 'illegal'. No country can allow completely open borders, and 1885 (when the President's grandfather migrated to the US) is not 2025. But that doesn't mean there is no room for empathy. America, under Trump, is closing its universities and its borders even to those already in. The harsh anti-migrant rhetoric that paints those searching for a better life with the same brush as criminals, and student protesters as security threats, seems to have forgotten that almost every American, except for the marginalised Native Americans, has roots elsewhere. Trump can appreciate his grandfather's journey and has had the advantage of the fortune that Frederick built. He can be sentimental about a birth certificate because it represents a cross-generational ambition for prosperity and success — if only that came with a measure of understanding for those who want to repeat that tale.
Arab News
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Rethinking peace and coexistence in the AI age
The dawn of a new year is often accompanied by resolutions, promises, and, let us face it, a generous helping of naive optimism. We set out to eat healthier, exercise more, or save money, only to find ourselves devouring pizza by February. But perhaps as springtime approaches, humanity as a whole could make a belated resolution: To rethink coexistence and strive for a new era of peace. Nowhere is this call more urgent than in the Middle East, a region whose skies often echo with the sounds of war rather than laughter. But let us be honest: It is 2025, and while some of us are debating the merits of pineapple on pizza, others are debating borders, religions and histories that stretch back thousands of years. If we are to find a way forward, it is time to rethink what coexistence truly means — not as a utopian ideal, but as a practical necessity. Philosophers have long grappled with the challenges of human conflict. Immanuel Kant, in his essay Perpetual Peace, argued that lasting peace could only emerge from a foundation of mutual respect and legal frameworks that transcend individual nations. Sounds great, right? Yet, here we are, centuries later, with international laws that are ignored more often than New Year's gym memberships. Irony aside, Kant's ideas remain relevant. The conflicts in the Middle East highlight the failure of both international governance and localized empathy. While governments sign treaties they do not intend to honor, children hold onto fading memories of safety. 'We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves,' said the Dalai Lama. Yet, it seems humanity's inner turmoil spills over into policies and actions, creating external chaos. And yet, philosophers also remind us of our potential. Martin Buber's concept of the 'I-Thou' relationship emphasizes seeing others as ends in themselves rather than means to an end. What if this profound principle could guide geopolitics? Imagine a world where nations treated one another not as rivals or pawns, but as partners in a shared human story. Admittedly, this might sound like the plot of a science fiction film, but every revolution — industrial, social, or ideological — began as a wild idea. Imagine leveraging artificial intelligence to create platforms that facilitate genuine dialogue between conflicting groups. Rafael Hernandez de Santiago Enter technology — the double-edged sword of the modern age. While it has amplified voices, connected minds, and enabled innovation, it has also been wielded as a weapon in both literal and figurative senses. Yet, within this paradox lies a unique opportunity to rethink coexistence. Imagine leveraging artificial intelligence to create platforms that facilitate genuine dialogue between conflicting groups. AI could analyze speech patterns, cultural nuances, and historical grievances to foster understanding rather than deepen divides. In the spirit of ironic optimism, let us hope it does not malfunction and spark a virtual war instead. Moreover, technology can offer new tools for transparency and accountability. Blockchain — a buzzword often associated with cryptocurrencies and get-rich-quick schemes — can be a powerful ally for peace. Smart contracts could ensure that aid reaches its intended recipients, while decentralized systems could make human rights abuses harder to conceal. Of course, no technological advancement can substitute for the human will to change. As Albert Camus wrote: 'Peace is the only battle worth waging.' The Middle East's troubles — and, indeed, those of the wider world — are deeply rooted in identities, memories, and narratives. Rethinking coexistence requires us to confront these with humility and courage. Let us embrace the irony that hope often emerges from despair. The conflicts in Gaza, Yemen, and beyond are not just crises; they are opportunities to rethink our approach to coexistence. They challenge us to go beyond slogans and resolutions, to actively build bridges where walls once stood. Let us draw on the wisdom of philosophers, the potential of technology, and the strength of the human spirit to craft a new narrative — one where coexistence is not merely an abstract idea but a lived reality. And if all else fails, let us at least agree on the one universal truth — pineapple has no place on pizza. Peace may take time, but some battles — culinary or otherwise — are worth fighting. • Rafael Hernandez de Santiago, viscount of Espes, is a Spanish national residing in Saudi Arabia and working at the Gulf Research Center.
