New - Spring 2012 edition.
View the current issue.
Browse back issues.
Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
91 to 120 of 120
Posted By: DarylPSeen the 'rent-a-roof' vs remortgage debate recently?
So what might happen as we improve the energy efficiency of Louth's houses? There are various possibilities:1. We allow our houses to be warmer, more comfortable, saving no money on our heating bills.2. We enjoy lower heating bills by spending the money on other things.3. We save the money in the bank.4. We stuff the money under the mattress.
Posted By: Ed Davies5. We work less as we don't need to earn the money thereby saving the carbon emissions associated with that work.
Posted By: Ed DaviesWhat about?5. We work less as we don't need to earn the money thereby saving the carbon emissions associated with that work.
Posted By: biffvernon@NigelFor each of the four reasons I give, the quantity doesn't matter for the purpose of my argument, only the direction of change.1 - Same fuel burnt = Warmer house. No carbon emission saved by definition.2 - Save money on energy bills - spend the money on other stuff. Broadly speaking, all expenditure, once it has flowed through the economy, translates into carbon emissions. This only changes if and when the link between GDP and fossil fuel use changes by, say, reducing the carbon intensity of the economy. It is happening but very slowly and not in the control of households.
Posted By: biffvernonTrouble is it looks like our government wants us to drink the bathwater.
Posted By: biffvernonTo misquote Hawking's publisher, every number halves the readership.
Posted By: Seretthe domain of weirdos.
© Green Building Press