|
Post by Zany on Jun 1, 2024 21:38:35 GMT
But not to make you switch to electric cars. I didn't say it was, in fact I said They didn't wait for electric cars before hiking vehicle tax on supposedly environmental grounds Then I'm confused as to what this meant. Home heating is not a low hanging fruit. If it were then governments various would have done the obvious measure of hiking taxes on home energy same way they were hiked for petrol on supposed environmental grounds.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 1, 2024 22:44:11 GMT
It means governments have run out of the easy sells of measures for environment action. Now we get to see if they really believed in it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 2, 2024 6:07:58 GMT
It means governments have run out of the easy sells of measures for environment action. Now we get to see if they really believed in it or not. I think pushing up gas prices and using the money to subsidise new gas heat pump boilers is pretty easy to sell. Probably not at the moment but as the economy picks up. But I do agree with you on this governments real commitment to climate change. I think there's a very good reason that only the most expensive form of heat pump qualifies for a grant and that's because they know it means very few will take it up.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 2, 2024 7:40:27 GMT
I think we're still in the land of idiocy that thinks if you cut 10% off each of 10 separate areas you've achieved 100% reduction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2024 12:12:00 GMT
It means governments have run out of the easy sells of measures for environment action. Now we get to see if they really believed in it or not. I think pushing up gas prices and using the money to subsidise new gas heat pump boilers is pretty easy to sell. Probably not at the moment but as the economy picks up. But I do agree with you on this governments real commitment to climate change. I think there's a very good reason that only the most expensive form of heat pump qualifies for a grant and that's because they know it means very few will take it up. Such sentiments from relatively affluent people such as yourself might sound reasonable until it hits the hard reality of people like me. As a social tenant in a block of flats, installing a heat pump is not down to me in the first place. Nor will it be for the millions of private tenants who exist under permanent threat of two months notice. Yet we are the very ones who will be hit hardest by gas price increases to make heat pumps we cannot fit ourselves less pricey for more affluent home owners. This would not be anywhere near as easy a sell outside leafy suburbia as you imagine, at least not without a lot of additional support for tenants with their high gas bills. If Labour were ever to do such a thing due to a disconnect from our realities on the ground - and the centrists in Labour have form on this from the last time they were in government and never understood why they lost so much of the working class vote - the Tories will seize on it as a wedge issue and use it to turn the poor and low paid against net zero. And that won't help any of us in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 2, 2024 19:39:16 GMT
I think we're still in the land of idiocy that thinks if you cut 10% off each of 10 separate areas you've achieved 100% reduction. 1, Net zero is not zero. 2, I'd much rather we kept trying than sneered at the attempts.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 2, 2024 19:50:08 GMT
I think pushing up gas prices and using the money to subsidise new gas heat pump boilers is pretty easy to sell. Probably not at the moment but as the economy picks up. But I do agree with you on this governments real commitment to climate change. I think there's a very good reason that only the most expensive form of heat pump qualifies for a grant and that's because they know it means very few will take it up. Such sentiments from relatively affluent people such as yourself might sound reasonable until it hits the hard reality of people like me. As a social tenant in a block of flats, installing a heat pump is not down to me in the first place. Nor will it be for the millions of private tenants who exist under permanent threat of two months notice. Yet we are the very ones who will be hit hardest by gas price increases to make heat pumps we cannot fit ourselves less pricey for more affluent home owners. This would not be anywhere near as easy a sell outside leafy suburbia as you imagine, at least not without a lot of additional support for tenants with their high gas bills. If Labour were ever to do such a thing due to a disconnect from our realities on the ground - and the centrists in Labour have form on this from the last time they were in government and never understood why they lost so much of the working class vote - the Tories will seize on it as a wedge issue and use it to turn the poor and low paid against net zero. And that won't help any of us in the long run. Did you see my suggestion that the first 7kwh of electricity could be reduced and then extra usage charged at a higher price. Well the same could apply to gas. Then outside leafy surburbia do the poor not care about climate change, is it only the rich who care? You surprise me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2024 21:15:40 GMT
Such sentiments from relatively affluent people such as yourself might sound reasonable until it hits the hard reality of people like me. As a social tenant in a block of flats, installing a heat pump is not down to me in the first place. Nor will it be for the millions of private tenants who exist under permanent threat of two months notice. Yet we are the very ones who will be hit hardest by gas price increases to make heat pumps we cannot fit ourselves less pricey for more affluent home owners. This would not be anywhere near as easy a sell outside leafy suburbia as you imagine, at least not without a lot of additional support for tenants with their high gas bills. If Labour were ever to do such a thing due to a disconnect from our realities on the ground - and the centrists in Labour have form on this from the last time they were in government and never understood why they lost so much of the working class vote - the Tories will seize on it as a wedge issue and use it to turn the poor and low paid against net zero. And that won't help any of us in the long run. Did you see my suggestion that the first 7kwh of electricity could be reduced and then extra usage charged at a higher price. Well the same could apply to gas. Then outside leafy surburbia do the poor not care about climate change, is it only the rich who care? You surprise me. That is a glaring non-sequitur. That the poor would resent paying higher bills merely to subsidise the heat pump purchases of the comparatively affluent does not imply a lack of concern for the climate from the poor. It merely suggests the likely result of making them pay more to help the better off. As one of the poor speaking to one of the better off, I am simply pointing out the obvious flaws with such a policy, and how it will do damage to the cause of cutting carbon emissions. Some understanding of human nature is necessary. The greater the immediacy of any current need, the more all consuming it becomes against longer term thinking. Poor people shivering in their homes because they cant afford the gas bill, made higher to subsidise heat pump purchases for the better off, are inevitably going to feel far more strongly about the immediate need to keep warm than the long term impacts on the climate. If you have ever studied psychology, Maslow's hierarchy of needs is most instructive. The shivering poor unable to afford the heating will be far more receptive to anti-climate change rhetoric that certain elements on the right will use as wedge issues. They did this with the whole immigration issue which won many poor around to Brexit, a lesson which Labour centrists and their supporters still struggle to learn from Carbon production being reduced needs to be done in a way that is affordable for the poor, and certainly not in a way that makes them pay for the better choices of the better off. As for the idea of charging less for the first amounts of gas used and more after that, on the surface it is an attractive idea but it does not do anything to make the idea of the poor paying more than they otherwise would to subsidise heat pump purchases by the better off any more palatable as a concept. And in any case it takes very little account of circumstances. Elderly people or people with certain medical conditions might require much more heating. And those working from home in the winter will be using much more heating than those working in the office. And of course, larger housing units with multiple occupants as part of a family will require much more heating than some single dude in a one bedroom flat. You think the idea is an easy sell. I can see the obvious danger of malevolent forces on the right using it as a wedge issue to undermine the net zero target in the minds of the shivering poor.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 2, 2024 21:51:34 GMT
I think we're still in the land of idiocy that thinks if you cut 10% off each of 10 separate areas you've achieved 100% reduction. 1, Net zero is not zero. 2, I'd much rather we kept trying than sneered at the attempts. 1. agreed but the carbon capture levels are not on track to be anything other than trivial 2. but they're not really attempts at net zero are they
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 2, 2024 22:11:57 GMT
Did you see my suggestion that the first 7kwh of electricity could be reduced and then extra usage charged at a higher price. Well the same could apply to gas. Then outside leafy surburbia do the poor not care about climate change, is it only the rich who care? You surprise me. The non-sequitur is you claiming the higher bills were to subsidise heat pump purchases for the comparatively affluent rather than the slow climate change. If comparatively affluent buy a heat pump it still slows climate change. Why do you always assume its the poor who will pick up the bill, the comparatively affluent also pay for gas. Drama queen. Labour centrists don't care about the poor, how conceited can you get. Rich people who vote Labour don't care for the poor. Yeah sure. You could have suggested ways instead of climbing back on your tin soap box, driving the comparatively affluent into the arms of the Conservatives with your sanctimonious dribble. Elderly people with medical conditions already get extra help and they could easily be excluded from such a scheme. And how many of the poor struggling to heat their homes use more that 7kwh's of energy a day. Why do you assume that such a scheme cannot make allowances for circumstance, but mostly that only you and yours care. Because the shivering poor don't care about climate change and only you care for them. My god I hope you're wrong on both counts.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jun 2, 2024 22:13:53 GMT
1, Net zero is not zero. 2, I'd much rather we kept trying than sneered at the attempts. 1. agreed but the carbon capture levels are not on track to be anything other than trivial 2. but they're not really attempts at net zero are they 1, Who mentioned carbon capture? 2, Of course they are, anything that reduces carbon production contributes to net zero.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 7:27:50 GMT
The non-sequitur is you claiming the higher bills were to subsidise heat pump purchases for the comparatively affluent rather than the slow climate change. If comparatively affluent buy a heat pump it still slows climate change. Why do you always assume its the poor who will pick up the bill, the comparatively affluent also pay for gas. Drama queen. Labour centrists don't care about the poor, how conceited can you get. Rich people who vote Labour don't care for the poor. Yeah sure. You could have suggested ways instead of climbing back on your tin soap box, driving the comparatively affluent into the arms of the Conservatives with your sanctimonious dribble. Elderly people with medical conditions already get extra help and they could easily be excluded from such a scheme. And how many of the poor struggling to heat their homes use more that 7kwh's of energy a day. Why do you assume that such a scheme cannot make allowances for circumstance, but mostly that only you and yours care. Because the shivering poor don't care about climate change and only you care for them. My god I hope you're wrong on both counts. Because whilst gas bills would be higher for all according to your idea, the subsidised heat pumps they are paying for would tend to benefit only relatively more affluent home owners. Mostly poorer tenants would only have the higher bills. This will easily be used by bad actors as wedge issues to drive the horse and cart through support for climate action. That you cannot grasp this and still insist on this being an easy sell is utterly perplexing to me. And did you not get my point about Maslow's hierarchy of needs? The greater the immediate need the larger it looms as the immediate priority to be addressed at all costs. And if you think the poor are going to happily shiver in the cold unable to afford the gas bill so affluent you can have a subsidised heat pump, and equate that with opposition to climate action, you are clearly fooling yourself and being wilfully blind. I am not objecting to subsidised heat pumps by the way. I think they should be as affordable as possible to as many as possible. But I object to gas bill hikes being used as the means to pay for it because - apparently unlike you - I know what this will mean for the poor, and the resulting potential for opponents of climate change action to use that is a wedge issue. I believe in the need for climate action and support the goal of net zero. But it needs to be done in a way that carries the people with it. Hiking gas bills which will hit the poor hardest to subsidise heat pumps which only the relatively affluent will benefit from is not going to do that and will just create political opportunities for our enemies on climate change action. And it will be anything but an easy sell. I would rather see any subsidies funded out of general taxation so that the poorest who are clearly struggling enough already are hit least hardest. I would also suggest making the inclusion of a heat pump in all new builds mandatory. This would add a few thousand perhaps to the purchase price of a property but would have the virtue of being paid exclusively by those who will benefit from the heat pump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 7:44:52 GMT
I wish to add further that if hikes in gas bills are to be used to subsidise heat pump purchases for home owners, the poorest will need to be insulated from the cost of this somehow. Otherwise opponents of climate change action will use it as a wedge issue.
One way of doing this would be to extend winter fuel payments from pensioners to include all universal credit recipients. But if you want this to be the easy sell you think it is you need to do something to ensure that the poor are not suffering disproportionately to subsidise the purchases of others which they themselves are unlikely to be beneficiaries of.
And you can cut all the sanctimonious crap about better off Labour supporters not caring about poor people. Because you are being sanctimonious. And it is crap. What you do sometimes lack though is an ability to see things clearly through the eyes of the struggling poor. I do n ot have this problem because I am, and most of the people I live amongst and work with are, the struggling poor.
You interpret our unwillingness to pay even higher gas bills so our landlords can get subsidised heat pumps for their own homes, as opposition to climate change. It is not. It is opposition to being made to pay even more for something that will only reduce costs for the better off. Subsidise heat pumps yes. But don't make the poor pay for that when they are least likely to benefit from it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2024 7:59:35 GMT
Another thought has occurred to me. Since tenants are not in a position to be able to fit heat pumps because they are not the owners of the property they are living in, and such decisions and the costs involved are in the purview of the landlord, perhaps tenants should be exempted from any gas bill levy? It is the landlord who needs to be persuaded of the desirability of fitting his properties with heat pumps. His tenants are powerless in the matter. But even if they had the landlord's authority to do so and could afford to do so at their own expense, no tenant would ever pay for such a thing whilst under permanent threat of two months notice
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jun 3, 2024 8:09:59 GMT
Good points ^ and ^^
|
|