| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
An Inspector Calls
Banned
Joined: 27 Jan 2011
Posts: 961
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| PaulS wrote: | The scheme as defined aims to insulate eventually All property, not just the rich or the poor.
It starts with housing associations and council properties, i.e.some of the poorest.
Terraced housing is very suitable for this treatment - also largely occupied by the poorer amongst us.
In conclusion it aims to tackle the poorer housing stock where the incidence of fuel poverty will be rife FIRST.
Is that clear? |
Yes, it was originally very clear.
But I questioned whether the costings lagger provided would cover houses which I thought would be difficult to tackle.
| An Inspector Calls wrote: | | We're talking here of those swathes of late Victorian, Edwardian, 225 mm solid brick walled houses that form much of the housing stock esp. of northern Britain. The ones with no damp course, a roof on its last legs, the houses that cost less than 150,000. |
lagger provided clarification:
| lagger wrote: | | I'm not talking about insulating derelict, or even semi derelict, housing. If the place is nigh on falling down there is not a lot of point insulating it. There are hundreds of thousands of pre 1920s houses in the country that are in perfectly good condition and well worth insulating. |
So the very houses that desparately need the work (perhaps completely demolishing would be better) in order to address the very real and serious issue of fuel poverty are to be excluded under the scheme envisaged by lagger. At the moment we seem to be aiming for the gentry of Chester!
Is that now clear to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SleeperService
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 1104
Location: Nottingham UK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With respect for you AIC you're reading into statements what you want to see.
Some houses are ALWAYS beyond hope in any location, insulating a semi derelict is putting good money after bad just as the government are doing with the banks.
IF these beyond hopers are replaced by properly built well insulated housing great!
I suspect the only people who'll have a problem with this scheme are the energy companies....and their vested interests, well fook 'em they're no better than the bankers IMHO.
Around here there's a huge amount of housing occupied by people who will benefit greatly from this scheme, there are a few houses that are beyond hope, but very few, as we have active local builders who rescue and resell them.
There's no millionaire's row around here. But think of all the huge gas and electric bills that will be sacrificed  and all the working class who'll have a much warmer life.
_________________
Scarcity is the new black |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10519
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Paul and Sleeperservice for taking up the batten while I was away from my computer.
If you knew anything, inspector, about architecture or Chester you would know that the gentry living in the centre of Chester I was talking about live in a Conservation Area so they won't get insulated either. Leastways not until the very last when the fuel supply situation in the UK is getting critical.
I usually take questions at face value but in future I will look for the trick in yours. You asked a question/made a statement
| Quote: | | Since the houses that will benefit most from any national programme of external insulation will be those with solid walls built before 1920, and are thus at least 90 years old, it hardly seems sensible to spend 13,000 per house with little chance of any recovery of that investmernt in the remaining life of those houses. |
that could have been answered two ways. I gave you my answer and you have twisted it so that I appear to be subsidising the rich in their ivory towers. If I had answered the question by saying that, yes, those houses would be part of the scheme you would have pilloried me for wasting public money on houses that should be pulled down.
In my answer to you I did say that if those houses were renovated, either using private money or on a parallel scheme, they should certainly NOT be denied insulation money. I even went on to describe how those houses might benefit.
I think that this thread has exposed, to me certainly, that you are a conniving, time wasting troll whose presence on this website is now becoming dubious.
I make every attempt to justify my arguments on this site and I think I have done in this thread but wasting time on people who are asking trick questions is not part of my agenda.
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bandidoz
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2705
Location: Berks
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulS
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 602
Location: Cottage Farm,Cornwall
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10519
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your first point, Paul, about the money ending up in the banks is in the third paragraph.
The same scheme could be used for renewables on the basis of a rentaroof scheme, I suppose.
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaulS
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 602
Location: Cottage Farm,Cornwall
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ujoni08
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Posts: 880
Location: Stroud Gloucestershire
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:55 pm Post subject: insulation |
|
|
| Now that the troll is gone, I'd like to add my support for this, Ken. I am linking this to various people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10519
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks very much, Jon.
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RenewableCandy
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12605
Location: York
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:57 pm Post subject: Re: insulation |
|
|
| ujoni08 wrote: | | Now that the troll is gone, I'd like to |
...come in from the cold
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snow hope
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 4104
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed! Great to see some action to improve the forum. 
Great scheme Ken. I am going to try and push it whatever way I can over here.....
_________________
Real money is gold and silver |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SleeperService
Joined: 02 May 2011
Posts: 1104
Location: Nottingham UK
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:09 am Post subject: Re: insulation |
|
|
| RenewableCandy wrote: | | ujoni08 wrote: | | Now that the troll is gone, I'd like to |
...come in from the cold |
Welcome Back!!! Although a relative newcomer I was missing your posts. Let's hope others follow 
_________________
Scarcity is the new black |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10519
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've had a reply from my MP explaining the Green Deal, which I already knew about so I've sent him this letter and another, enclosing my paper again, asking that he send it to the Minister for comment. They have to reply to an MP but not to a member of the public.
| Quote: | Thank you for your letter telling me about the Green Deal. I am aware of the facts of the Green Deal because I went to a seminar on the subject arranged by the Greening Movement and addressed by a civil servant from DECC. The reason that I wrote my paper and have sent it to you and others in government is that the Green Deal hasn't a hope of working and won't produce the 80% saving in fossil fuel use by 2050 that our government signed up to.
If you leave it to the market the 25 million homes will not be done at the 625,000 homes per year average figure but will be done on a standard distribution curve. There will be a slow uptake by environmentalists at first, then people will realise that they can save money and the momentum will grow to a peak and then drop off. Finally the late arriver's will be the last trickle. This will result in a peak work load of perhaps 1.2 to 2 million houses per year at a cost of 15 to 20 billion per year! Are Sainsbury and Tesco making that much profit from us?
The Green Deal and its Golden rule can't provide the necessary levels of insulation to satisfy the "Green Rule" that we must reduce our fuel use by 80% by 2050. The interest payments just won't allow it.
What is required is one of David Cameron's "Big Bazookas" to get the country moving. If it's good enough for Europe, why not for the UK as well?
I can only conclude that the government is more interested in GROWTH than the environment or the welfare of the British people. Every one with an iota of common sense knows that growth in the west isn't going to happen at any time in the near future, if at all, so why not just do something, deploy a Bazooka, that will leave the country in a better position in that growth free future. |
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snow hope
Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 4104
Location: outside Belfast, N Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good letter!
You have spurred me into thinking about communicating with our local MPs and MLAs over here.
_________________
Real money is gold and silver |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10519
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2011 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Reply from my MP to the above letter
| Quote: | The Government have put enormous efforts and a lot of money into the largest retro fit insulation scheme ever. I think you and I have to work within the art of the possible and for me to say that I have a constituent (however well qualified!) who thinks you are doing it all wrong and should do it differently at this stage is just not realistic. If you have suggestions that will allow Ministers to tweak the scheme, we may have something to work with but I do not see your ideas gaining credence at this stage in the process.
It would be easy for me to breezily pass on your ideas to Greg Barker but I would not be being upfront with you. |
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
