I think there are some excellent ideas here, replacing grants with cheap loans makes huge sense, and the general concept of “financially beneficial” has to be a core device, and the perverse incentives (I like that phrase) of the more energy you buy the cheaper it gets is contrary to any kind of logic except to encourage consumption of energy. But I also think that there does need to be a cultural shift, sustainability needs to be the new equality.

We live in a consumer society, so surely to create a sustainable housing stock governments need concentrate on creating the demand. I think that there are actually a number of devices already in place or being developed which can be adapted to do this:

1. Make it illegal for energy suppliers to charge anything other than a flat rate and a single standing charge OFGEN/OFGAS/OFWAT to ensure compliance, then over time increase VAT on high levels of consumption, ala income tax. The tax would be ring fenced to upgrade institutional building stock.
2. Use SAP ratings as a multiplier to stamp duty and council tax, this would be a particularly bitter pill, but again could be staggered
3. Cheap loans (genius)
4. Scrap all VAT on accredited products, this will help producers and consumers alike
5. Government to sponsor an easy to use, free, accurate, energy efficiency software suite, suitable for small builders, trades, self builders, keen housholders
6. Make it law to print, in bold and minimum size like a car number plate, the CO2 emissions incurred at the top of all utility bills
7. A Government funded organisation similar to Citizens Advice Bureau, or a dedicated arm of the CAB, but dedicated to helping householders improve their sustainability
8. Unsustainable is a much simpler concept than sustainable so drum in to peoples heads that if they have any doubt that what they do today they won’t be able to do in twenty years time, it isn’t sustainable,

Thanks for all the replies,

Bowman

Posted By: howdytom
9. scrap the reduction in council tax for single occupants to encourage sharing of resources(exceptions for Oaps maybe).

Those who live by themselves already pay proportionally more for their gas, electricity and water and rightly so.

However I don't think they should be penalised further, especially not through council tax. As someone living by themselves I currently pay 25% less than the couple living below me in the same size flat. Of course a 50% reduction would probably better reflect my use of public services which my council tax pays for, such as Local Transport, Schools, Museums, Police, Fire, refuse collection etc.

I understand your logic for wanting to discourage people living by themselves in order to use energy (and resources) more efficiently, but I think the financial burden at present is already high enough. I am of course entirely biased.

Yes, sometimes I can't help a wry smile when folk bemoan the cost of housing. My house, in which three of us currently rattle about, had a family with eleven children in 1900. I guess their carbon footprint was pretty low.

How many of them died of pneumonia?

Now that's the way to cut energy use for sure. Tax per kwh, the more you use the more you pay

Posted By: Mike GeorgeNow that's the way to cut energy use for sure. Tax per kwh, the more you use the more you pay

I think we have it already - VAT. It's set at a lower rate than other stuff to counter the regressive effect on non-discretionary spending on a price inelastic commodity.
TEQs would, of course, do the job better.

TEQs could be adopted by one country and would be of great benefit in terms of energy security and resilience, but obviously, global effects need global actions. Remember, any fossil fuel demand reduction made by individuals or individual nations will have precisely zero effect on atmospheric carbon. Carbon not burnt in one part of the global economy will be burnt elsewhere. That problem cannot be overcome unless the supply side is addressed and coal and oil is left in the ground.

howdytom ,
as you said elsewhere you cant beat wooly jumpers and thick socks, very cheap and effective

a friend of mine lived outside in a wood for about a year ,
now he always in shorts moaning everyones house is to hot
I guess were all getting soft and use to this high energy luxury living

Posted By: Chris Wardleas a landlord, I have no financial incentive to invest to gain energy savings because I don't pay the bill. Likewise, if you are an owner occupier and you think you might be moving in a couple of years (and people move on average every 7 years I think these days), you aren't going to invest in solar hot water for instance, because you wont see a pay back.
HMG can legislate though things like EPCs to try and tackle this but it isn't going to solve the problem and it won't be popular if people are foced to do things that aren't in there financial interests

How about if price of all fuels continues to rise at accelerating pace (some say tenfold), so today's Ă‚ÂŁ1,000pa fuel bill becomes crippling Ă‚ÂŁ10,000; and every 7yrs at move-house time people seriously check out what this one's going to cost to heat over 5yrs compared to that one, and adjust offer accordingly by 10's of Ă‚ÂŁ1000s; and opinion changes from slagging-off compulsory HIPs/Energy Rating, to demanding it truly reports on projected fuelling costs; and HMG at last brings in equivalent Energy Rating for rental properties, which they're currently being prosecuted by EC for failing to impliment?

Seems to me that would be an incentive that householders and landlords would ignore at peril of big capital loss, let alone running expenses. Would put all Bldg Regs, tax incentives, international treaties etc etc in the shade. When Middle England feels financial pain, it moves!

There seem to be a couple of underlying themes here:

Increasing the the unit cost of fossil fuel based energy in relation to the amount used, the more you use the more you pay, rather than the insane opposite we have now: and
Decreasing the taxable value of a property with increasing sustainable features, either SAP or BREEAM ratings could be used as a multiplier to council tax and/or stamp duty

Both these would not only encourage people to green-up pretty quick to reduce their outgoings but would also increase the market value of sustainable homes. If HMG were also to make it as easy as pie to make informed decisions as to how to achieve a sustainable home (software, education, advice), and decrease the cost and complication (stop mucking about with grants and just drop VAT on clear skies accredited products), the bottom line would be so bleeding obvious that even the dumbest in our dumbed society would see it as a no-brainer. We live in a consumer society and as far as I'm aware there is only one successful to reduce consumption.

And sadly I think there is very little we can do in the UK to habe a significant effect global population, catch-up-consumerism, and third world environmental issues, so this is really as much about mitigation as avoidance.

New look positive Jedi!
I nearly agree with you Bowman on all counts. I still want to see something proactive from HMG. Whilst dropping VAT on insulation, solar etc would be a good step and I would happily pay more taxes to support it I would rather see a strong practical initiative which led the way and had the strategic aim of reducing the number of power stations we need to build.

Rather than software/education I would go down the advice/carrot route. How about iso14001/EMAS (ie an environmental standard for houses as a national project. This could use SAP/BREEM ratings as a measure point people to the simple improvements they could make to their properties which will give the biggest returns. The whole country could be put through stage one of the the scheme over a 5 year period and in that 5 year period each house will be expected to address the most pressing issue it has. A return visit (say 12 months) would then confirm a step down the council tax band/cheaper energy tax/free thermals or some similar benefit.

So the worst may need cavity/wall/roof insultation (cheap for many with dramatic effect, tricky & expensive for a few but just as worth it) the best may need detailed work on air tighness/solar etc - hopefully you get the drift. You could set a relatively modest national target (say 15% reduction in household derived emmisions) in the sure knowledge that the range of individual changes will be in the order of 5 - 50% savings (which could be set as limits on action - <5% skip the property until later rounds >50% is any one measure actuall going to be effective). I've picked the figures out of the air so shoot away please.

A lot of the comments being discussed on this thread are already happening in one way or another. Councils are looking into what they can do...
http://campaigns.lga.gov.uk/climatechange/research/final_report/

However you can't really link the SAP to a tax rate. (Or you penalise people who can't afford brand new homes). It's better to enforce through the planning system (by requiring existing minimum standard to be met before granting permission) and to offer free energy surveys funded from elsewhere. ;-)

HMG IS Implementing Energy certificates for Rental Properties starting Oct 2008, but potentially with a soft start (i.e. promoting voluntary take up before then).

There is an incentive for land lords to upgrade their property - you can offset the cost against profits via the Landlords Energy Saving Allownace or LESA - upto Ă‚ÂŁ1500 per property (not building).

Tax on high use for fuel & ringfenced is something I've included in a response to government consultations. Easy to implement - I used to write utility billing software ;-). Recycled it to those living in fuel poverty. Threshold could be around double the national average - so it's self adjusting as energy use drops (hopefully). %? VAT rates would be a good start. Friends of the Earth wrote a great article on this, put about 40 pages in on, vs the 1 page i did :-).

I'm working on making energy rating more relevant to home owners who aren't moving, and more accurate. Will try voluntary at first but if there's no take up, compulsory will come next! I think the information needs to be specific and unbiased to make it relevant. E.g. my next door neighbour qualifies for free cavity insulation. He's not interested as he thinks the 30% saving he may get is just sales talk!?? It's flippin free so you think he might try it! I said I'd show him my before and after meter readings as I'm waiting to get mine done. I've also borrowed a TinyTalk from my wife which records temperature and humidity. You should see how the temp drops after 10.30pm. And how long it takes to get back up!

TEQ's are about 10 years away from what I've been reading. Unless they get set up outside of HMG first. Read up on the CDM/JI proposed by WWF to get a good idea of what might come sooner.

My personal thoughts are sod all this renweable technology - and over insulate. Once we've got that ingrained in society we can then spend some cash on PV - by which time NanoSolar will be selling it at Ă‚ÂŁ500 per kWpeak.

Victorian propeties can be insulated externally on rear/side elevations, with internal at the front.
Interwar semi can be done all external.
1950's 1960 can be done external - and lots of them will have improved appearance as a result.
1970's and later mostly external with a bit of internal.

There's a few older properties that we should leave alone (listed and convservation areas), but then, people park in the street in conservation areas, so shouldn't we make them not drive too? It ruins the street scene much more than double glazing would! Or a bit of cladding to replace the mess of an uninsulated timber bay window.

??

Simon

> What do you mean by 'planning permissions prioritised' guy?

I'm not Guy but...

Currently the planners put a lot of emphasis on the "local vernacular". It's harder to make a green house if it has to look exactly like the houses on either side of it.

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Posted By: SimonH&lt;/cite&gt;

However you can't really link the SAP to a tax rate. (Or you penalise people who can't afford brand new homes). It's better to enforce through the planning system (by requiring existing minimum standard to be met before granting permission) and to offer free energy surveys funded from elsewhere. ;-)
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

and

&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Posted By: Peter A&lt;/cite&gt;

Two things put most people off improving their existing homes energy performance,
cost and disruption.
However most people do have an opportunity to do something in a series of small steps. Who redecorates their home from top to bottom in one go? Not many I would guess.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Simon, I think linking SAP or similar to tax is essential, if CO2 can be linked to road fund, I don't see a conflict. I also don't agree that this would penalise those who can't afford new hones (this thread was started re existing stock). Peter, I'm guessing that most people redecorate when they move in to a house, new kitchen, new bathroom etc.

I think it's all very well HMG, housing associations, developers, and committed individuals taking the time and expense to research and implement sustainable housing (which of course is about way more than climate change) but this really doesn't address the fact that even if the Government reaches all it's targets for new builds, the vast majority of homes will still be of relatively low quality.

IMO there needs to be a see change in general awareness of sustainable issues, once the general public are aware that there is an issue consumer economics need to be used with both incentives and penalties by way of encouragement. We need to engineer a situation where spending Ă‚ÂŁ5K to Ă‚ÂŁ10K on upgrading the sustainable aspects of home are seen as worthwhile as a new kitchen or conservatory, both in terms of lifestyle and financial bottom line. Once the home owner has made this decision implementing it needs to be easy, really easy.

I think the first part (awareness) and the last part (making it easy) are the least addressed with respect to existing homes. I get extremely irritated every time I see some ultra-eco grand design with composting toilets and acres of veggie patch which gives the impression that this is the only route to sustainability, and the relevance of this for the vast majority in their 1970's semi is negligible.

HMG needs to concentrate on making the big numbers (20m existing homes) 50% better rather than the small numbers (3m new homes) 90% better.

With simple draft proofing, airtightness and insulation we could get really close to that 50% very quickly without waiting for cultural change, wouldn't this give around a 10% saving in national energy demand. If you allowed Ă‚ÂŁ1500 of improvements per property (just picking a figure) this would cost Ă‚ÂŁ30,000 million (British). I think this is worth it just in terms of energy security (from a political perspective) - how much do enough nuclear power stations to provide 10% of our energy cost. Yesterday the UK used 52692MW. 10% = 5269.2MW, nice new nuclear gets 1600MW for Ă‚ÂŁ2bn each - if these figures are even close it is a complete no brainer.

Then you could work on the cultural stuff (carrot or stick) to go much further. Although people are allways going to be more easily persuaded to pay out for things they can point at (rather than insulation which is, by nature, generally well hidden) such as solar etc. With the insulation I am doing I am having to take photographs to prove what I have done if ever I should sell as nearly all of it will be completely inaccesable when finished.

s.