Home  5  Books  5  Magazines  5  News  5  GreenPro  5  HelpDesk  5  Your Cart  5  Register  5  Green Living Forum
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building
"The most popular book on green building in the UK today."
New fourth edition in two volumes!

Order both books now for the combined price of just £17.00
and free delivery!

(free delivery applies to UK addresses only).

Or get both books for just £15.00 if purchased at the same time as a subscription to Green Building magazine





Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthorDarylP
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2012
     
    ... don't count on it! :shocked:

    From discussions with experience conveyancers (Partners in Sols Practices) recently, they have grave reservations about that. They all suggest at the moment to steer their clients away from anything like this.
    Seen the 'rent-a-roof' vs remortgage debate recently?

    Don't misunderstand me, I hope the GD can work, something needs to be done with the existing housing stock, but this GD is poorly thought out, and doomed to failure in its current guise:cry:

    Cheers :confused:
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2012
     
    Posted By: DarylPSeen the 'rent-a-roof' vs remortgage debate recently?

    Yep, think I was the first to raise concerns about it on here.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2012
     
  1.  
    We've just launched our Green Deal website : http://www.greendeallouth.org.uk/
    It's possibly the only such website pointing out that the Green Deal will do nothing to stop carbon emissions and reduce global warming, as explained at
    http://www.greendeallouth.org.uk/GDL07.html
    • CommentAuthornbwilding
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2012
     
    There are no numbers in your documents, just vague assertions. When it comes to energy and carbon emissions it's a numbers game. Without them nobody knows what they are talking about. I suggest you go and read David Mackay's book: Sustainable energy without the hot air.

    Nigel
  2.  
    Thanks for the comment, Nigel. I have read Mackay and the lack of numbers is deliberate. To misquote Hawking's publisher, every number halves the readership.

    But seriously, what numbers do you think I should include, where and why?

    My argument on the last page, http://www.greendeallouth.org.uk/GDL07.html about why the Green Deal won't stop carbon emissions, is qualitative, not quantitative. The numbers don't matter at all to the argument.

    The Elephant Trap, http://www.greendeallouth.org.uk/GDL21.html is absolutely about the numbers - but the government have not given us the numbers. That's why it's an elephant trap.
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
     
    Excellent article Biff.

    The same problem applies to Feed-in Tariffs. If someone uses the income for an extra holiday in the Bahamas then we are probably in a worse situation than if the PV had never been installed.

    We need a zero carbon economy.
  3.  
    Thanks Ted. You're right about FiT. My system is a good money earner for me but I was lucky enough to have the right sort of roof, some spare money in the bank and saw an opportunity to game the system and enjoy Jevons Paradox.

    On the other hand FiT has kick-started a solar industry which, like home insulation, is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a transition to a low-carbon future.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
     
    If you want to go down the zero carbon route, put a price on carbon, it is easier, cheaper and more effective than creating an artificial industry.
    • CommentAuthornbwilding
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
     
    "We have to conclude that, by itself, the Green Deal or any other work we do to improve the energy efficiency of our houses, will not reduce carbon emissions or slow global warming."

    You list 4 reasons why this should be, but non of them are quantified and non are compared to the carbon savings that might come from insulating our houses. So my point is that unless you can do the sums to see whether the balance is positive or negative, then you aren't in a position to make a conclusion either way. Of course some of the knock on effects you allude to might be difficult to quantify because (as you point out the information is hard to come by), but that doesn't mean you are allowed to assert things as if you had done/could do the calculation.

    Nigel
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
     
    http://www.greendeallouth.org.uk/GDL07.html

    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.

    What about?

    5. We work less as we don't need to earn the money thereby saving the carbon emissions associated with that work.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
     
    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.

    Only works in a situation with full employment. You run the risk of importing labour from lower emission countries into our higher emission country, well initially anyway.
  4.  
    @Nigel
    For 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.
    3 - Put money saved in the bank - This might be the worst thing to do as fractional reserve banking allows our bank savings to be used with a multiplier, increasing GDP and hence carbon emissions. Again, the quantity does not alter my argument. It's may be bad or very bad, but that's still bad.
    4 - Money under the matress - a subtle effect but nonetheless powerful when accumulated. Anythng that tends to reduce the price of energy (by demand reduction because of better insulation) will be exploited by people formally priced out of the energy market. If this allows a third world player to experience the delights of development there could be a multiplier effect even greater than fractional banking.

    I say again, in all these scenarios the quantities do not matter, its the direction of travel that counts. If we make our homes more energy efficient the global carbon emissions do not go down. That will only happen when supply is constrained - i.e. we leave the black stuff in the ground.

    Of course you must not interpret this as my saying that insulating our houses is not a good idea - it is! It's necessary but not sufficient when it comes to carbon emissions reduction.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012 edited
     
    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.


    Don't dismiss this too quickly ST. What Ed is suggesting here is a reduction in GDP or 'degrowth'. It is probably at the heart of our master plan to save the planet! If you haven't come across degrowth yet, google it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
     
    Just keeping the modal price of energy at a fixed fraction of modal income, though a 'special energy tax' would promote conservation and reduce use if the fraction is chosen right.
  5.  
    Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) does that. http://www.teqs.net/
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2012
     
    No it does not, but not going to open up that can of worms again Biff :wink:
    • CommentAuthorwookey
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2012
     
    What if I spend my saved money on ecobonds rather than put it in the bank? Up-front emissions are generated, but later ones are reduced. It's got to be better than putting it in the bank (or even a pension who will promptly give most of it to BP).

    I don't think you can reasonably claim that it doesn't matter what you do with money. Money is odd stuff because it's its speed of travel, not it's amount, that controls its total effect.

    But you are quite right that leaving it in the ground (or putting it back in the ground after burning) is absolutely necessary. Like Steamy I think a (high) carbon price is the most effective way to make that happen.
  6.  
    Greg Barker, climate change minister, promotes the Green Deal with the idea that one can hoover in one's knickers.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/minister-turns-the-disco-lights-on-to-sell-eco-home-upgrades-7717618.html
    • CommentAuthorGavin_A
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2012
     
    Posted By: biffvernon@Nigel
    For 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.

    I see what you're saying, but I reckon you're making the mistake of taking something that may happen and assuming that it must always happen.

    1 - We've knocked about 30% off our energy bills, and our house is at about the same temperature, I'm sure many others can say the same.

    2 - That extra money could be going on a multitude of things, including other things that save energy or are more environmentally friendly, eg buying more local organic food instead of imported factory farmed stuff, or more energy saving measures, renewable energy etc.

    Thing is that the transformation from a high energy, high carbon economy to a low energy / carbon intensity economy is going to need a huge amount of upfront investment of money and energy, it can't just happen by itself. IME once people start seeing the benefits from one form of energy saving measures they're usually keen to spend more money on further energy saving / renewable energy measures, though I appreciate that this isn't always the case, and the scenario you paint above is also often the case as well.

    I'm currently very sceptical of the green deal, but your posts are in danger of throwing the baby our with the bathwater, though they raise a valid concern about what could happen.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2012 edited
     
    I've listed four things that may happen, and though they're not mutually exclusive, they don't have to happen. Changing what you buy only changes the first step. Your organic farmer may donate her increased profits to her nephew who has a passion for flying helicopters. But you're right about transforming the economy to low carbon - that's the key. For sure we don't want to throw out the baby - that's why Transition Louth set up the website and much more to promote home energy efficiency. Trouble is it looks like our government wants us to drink the bathwater.

    If we want to save the planet we have to address the supply side. That means keeping the black stuff underground - the exact opposite of government policy and something ignored by very nearly everybody.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2012
     
    Posted By: biffvernonTrouble is it looks like our government wants us to drink the bathwater.

    I like that saying.
    • CommentAuthorSeret
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: biffvernonTo misquote Hawking's publisher, every number halves the readership.


    Believe what he said was: "Every equation, will cut your sales in half".

    Big difference, people don't mind numbers (especially the kind with a £ at the front), but equations are like maths and therefore the domain of weirdos.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: Seretthe domain of weirdos.

    Yep :bigsmile:
  7.  
    All part of the omnishambles:
    [quote]Prime minister asks Cabinet Office for urgent briefing on how to rescue flagship energy efficiency scheme
    David Cameron has stepped in to rescue the Green Deal by commissioning the Cabinet Office to put together an urgent briefing on how the scheme can be modified to avoid a collapse in insulation installations.
    The move comes just weeks after the success of the flagship energy efficiency policy was put at risk by the prime minister’s intervention to block the so-called ‘conservatory tax’ that was touted by ministers as key to driving take-up of the Green Deal.
    The Cabinet Office interviewed senior figures in the sector over the weekend to establish what must be done to make the scheme viable amid increasing concern that it will prove a damp squib when it launches in October this year.[/quote]
    http://www.building.co.uk/exclusive-cameron-in-urgent-bid-to-save-green-deal/5036281.article#
    • CommentAuthorGavin_A
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2012
     
    get a time machine, go back in time, stop yourself from slashing the funding for insulation work, and the changing the CERT funding scheme because you thought making people take part in some horendously complex scheme where they end up paying well over the odds for the work instead would be a better idea.

    alternatively, go further back in time, prevent your father from ever meeting your mother... job done.
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeMay 9th 2012
     
    :bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2012 edited
     
    Interesting list of Green Deal shortcomings from the purveyors of PassivHaus, Eurobuild:
    http://www.eurobuilduk.co.uk/deal-or-green-deal/
    • CommentAuthorJoiner
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2012
     
    • CommentAuthorDarylP
    • CommentTimeMay 16th 2012
     
    From what was 'leaked' this morning, it looks like the goals have moved, the brakes are on, and the "emphasis is changing"..... :cry::cry:
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press