Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




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.




  1.  
    Um

    There is already a carbon price included in the fossil part of our electricity (hence in all goods made with it ) and in industrial gas-fired manufacturing, steel, glass, cement, etc and also air travel.

    The price is currently a record Eur42/t despite covid, still set by the European trading scheme market, the UK market is being launched this year.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/participating-in-the-uk-ets/participating-in-the-uk-ets

    The carbon pricing applies to the UK electricity supply but doesn't apply to gas burned in houses. If Eur40/ t were added to domestic gas at 200g/kWh it would add about 0.7p/kWh to gas prices. Would push up heating bills by 20%, but probably not enough to hit consumption by a game changing amount. Faced with an extra few £100 on an annual bill, most people would grumble and pay, rather than lash out £10k+ on EWI.

    Likewise for road fuel (fuel duty and VED already raise a lot more than Eur40/t)
    Likewise for emissions from food production, etc

    The money raised by auctioning the carbon permits is swallowed by the exchequer. No means are tested.

    Edit to add: the UK is going to auction 83million permits this year. If these sell at Eur40/t it will raise £3bn for the exchequer, to be paid for (ultimately) by consumers of electricity, steel, etc and goods made with those.
    https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/britain-to-hold-first-auction-of-uk-carbon-permits-on-may-19-ice-2021-02-26

    Further edit: that's equivalent to ~£50 per person in UK
    • CommentAuthorjms452
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2021
     
    Jonti I was disagreeing with your statement (below) using your own example

    'The problem with a none means tested tax is it will ALWAYS hit the poorest'

    A RNCT is pretty much the only non means test tax I can think of that doesn't need to hit the poorest.
    • CommentAuthorJonti
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2021 edited
     
    djh,

    income tax does not work in the manner you suggest. Those that earn the most do not pay more but rather are able to pay to circumvent the system to pay less than they should. Saying that future progress will not solve the problems of today is a denial of history. The vast majority of progress is solutions introduced tomorrow solving the problems of the day.

    The whole flaw in the idea of taxing high uses to pay for people who are less able to pay is that it assumes high earners pay higher bills and that poorer people pay lower bills which in the case of electrical use is a flawed argument for the reasons I set out. The social problems are not a separate issue but the very nub of the problem.
    • CommentAuthorSimonD
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2021
     
    Posted By: djhI think you're talking solely about the second paragraph of mine that you quoted here.


    No, I'm not, I'm also and probably more importantly referring to your first paragraph where you said:

    Posted By: djhThe tax doesn't work like that as Ed has explained. It hits the biggest consumers most and they tend to be the richest. It has no effect at all on an 'average' person, and it pays money to poor people, who consume less.


    As I said, many taxes work opposite to your supposition.

    Posted By: djhIt's an issue that I'm not particularly bothered about and certainly don't want to divert to discussing here.


    Yet you raised the very suggestion of a tax as an idea, or perhaps I misunderstood this?

    Posted By: djhNo, as in tax things according to their 'carbon content' (whatever that is) and return *all* such revenue to the populace as per-head payments. So take-from-the-consumers and give-to-the-masses. Makes no difference to any other taxes.


    Posted By: djhAnd then you go on to exactly agree with my main point, unless I'm radically misunderstanding you.


    I depends on what you meant by tax in the first place, but from reading your earlier statement about how taxes work, I'm not sure I do :wink: I think a carbon content type tax would be regressive because poorer parts of the population would not have the financial freedom to move to alternative and lower carbon heating systems, for example.

    Posted By: djhSocial problems are a completely separate subject that may have some relevance somewhere else on this board.


    I think this gets to the heart of the matter of the problem. Green building is not separate from social problems, they are part and parcel. Until we begin to tackle green building and the environment from a systemic perspective, we're going to be going in circles. For example, if you look at countries where consideration for the environment is built into the social fabric, there is often a commensurate consideration for greener building (whatever that actually means) :wink:

    I would suggest that the social, cultural, and political milieu in this country sit at the heart of the subject of this thread.
    • CommentAuthorArtiglio
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2021
     
    An education system that taught the basics of home economics, budgetting, how utilites charge, use of appliances / central heating, basics of building design/ use Etc would as likey as not have as good a longterm return and give better insulated homes/ less demand responsive heating a chance to perform as they should and gain a better reputation.
    My tenants have no interest in even reading the instructions for the mandated boiler + controls , just wanting an ability to turn the heating from zero to max as they wish, most would be over the moon if i provided the means to do so via internet. None have a clue as to their annual fuel useage only that its “expensive” in winter. No doubt as theyears pass landlords will be expected to improve property ahead of any other sector. Which can be seen as fair enough, but the easy gains have been made , i’ll achieve the likely requirement of a C rating by 2028 without too much trouble , but the costs are only going to passed onto the tenants, if i work on a 10 year payback /fund for further improvements, my tenants will be looking at around an extra £50 a month onthe rent, their bills will never drop by this much , and this represents onaverage a 6% rent increase.
    The older social housing stock will cost an absolute fortune to improve especially given the providers procurement processes. The billions that’ll need to be spent would surely be better invested elsewhere.
  2.  
    During online school I was encouraged to find that my kids are now being taught most of the things Artiglio mentioned at school. One was writing a report about wind turbines and the Betz limit, one was planning the renewable electricity grid for an imaginary island, one was learning to read the electricity meter and work out the bill. All baked cakes and lectured me about not leaving the lights on.
    • CommentAuthorArtiglio
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2021
     
    That’s encouraging
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2021
     
    Clown college strikes again.

    Basic issue: the correct solution is higher building performance.

    Problem: this is very expensive to achieve. Calling some households "able to pay" is misleading because the "pay" bit varies enormously. Remember we're not talking about loft or CWI insulation here. There are deep interventions needed on a majority of the housing stock. An average house might be, what, 50k at least once you factor in new windows (replacing the crap ones brought three years ago on a similar scheme), insulation, air tightness. A vast majority of the population will look at that and say... no thanks.

    Result: government looks for another silver bullet.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2021 edited
     
    Any govt that thinks that that national retrofit/insulation can be paid for by households is indeed in a pickle. Scale sufficient to significantly contribute to statutory national nett-zero must go multifold beyond the few
    Posted By: gravelldhouseholds "able to pay"
    As everyone keeps pointing out, there's no better MMT/Keynesean scheme to prime the pump of economic activity/growth, than public-funding large-scale labour-intensive work that puts spending money in pockets and creates demand for materials and products that are simple enough for even old UK to home-produce.

    It's amusing that UK suddenly and embarassingly finds itself trailing behind a USA sea-change in public acceptance of similar. A govt that momentarily discovered the magic money tree now shows every sign of austerity-strangling any Keynesean encouragement that might have come of it.
    • CommentAuthorSimonD
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2021
     
    Posted By: fostertomIt's amusing that UK suddenly and embarassingly finds itself trailing behind a USA sea-change in public acceptance of similar. A govt that momentarily discovered the magic money tree now shows every sign of austerity-strangling any Keynesean encouragement that might have come of it.


    Incredible, it seems entrenched ideology trumps (pardon the pun) everything. For me, Schumacher in Small is Beautiful would be a worthy read for those responsible for these decisions (especially the bit about how national economies work). We can live in hope..
    • CommentAuthorSimonD
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2021
     
    Posted By: WillInAberdeenDuring online school I was encouraged to find that my kids are now being taught most of the things Artiglio mentioned at school. One was writing a report about wind turbines and the Betz limit, one was planning the renewable electricity grid for an imaginary island, one was learning to read the electricity meter and work out the bill. All baked cakes and lectured me about not leaving the lights on.


    Blimey, that's great. I remember only getting to do something like that in my first year of uni where we were given a project to design a heat recovery system for coal or gas fired power stations utilising heat pumps.
Add your comments

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

© Green Building Press