Our defence is that it was a deliberate attempt to annoy Talisker. Ultimately, however, it was the polar bears which FoE were most concerned about.

You: “The Guardian explains it thusly (sic): ‘Households in fuel poverty are defined as those in which more than 10% of income is spent on energy’ “.

A family of four costs roughly the same to heat and wash, whatever their income. So a fuel poor family spending 10% of its income on energy becomes fuel rich if its income goes up. So, “fuel poor” means “poor”, nothing more, nothing less. You might as well call them “fag poor” if they spend more than 10% of their income on cigarettes. It’s just the Guardian ‘s way of avoiding the issue of the huge increase in inequality over the past few decades. For poverty as a concept is so Old Labour, so Dickens, so passé.

So let’s avoid the subject by focussing on some specific , probably ephemeral symptom, which won’t cost much to remedy. Let’s give the poor a fuel subsidy (to add to their bus pass, free tv licence, etc.) so they can’t complain that they’re still poor.

ps. Have you seen Morabito’s go at WWF on omniclimate.wordpress.com ? It’s open season on the charities, apparently.
pps I don’t think biofuels hurt polar bears. I think the problem is that they hurt humans, Mexican tortilla consumers and the like. Even Guardian readers know the difference between Mexicans and polar bears (answer : Mexicans, there’s too many of them; polar bears, there’s not enough).