Heat in the home

[Biospace]

The cost of *not* doing it is far higher.

There are some households which for whatever reason will not be spending many thousands in order for our Government to move closer towards its "Net Zero" target. The case of an elderly person living in a property which would need significant amounts of work which they cannot afford for example, someone who prefers to see out their days without the distress of being forced to move house purely to help the world's problem with fossil fuel consumption.

People seem to have become fixated on such things, all the while encouraging yet more war in Ukraine. Reducing our red meat consumption by a perfectly manageable amount would have more effect than moving from an economical car with an engine to one powered only by a battery - yet this isn't being legislated for. Why not?

[mjr]

The cost of *not* doing it is far higher.

But not for me in my lifetime.

You place your bet. I've placed mine!

At least good heat pumps have smart controllers and meters that show what it costs in near-real-time (2 minute delay or something) so you're not left checking the dials. That's possible with other electric heating, but is rarely done for gas. Worst is oil, where you have to guess what the dealer will charge you for the next tank load, or pay over the odds one way or another to cap the price for months.

[mjr]

The cost of *not* doing it is far higher.

There are some households which for whatever reason will not be spending many thousands in order for our Government to move closer towards its "Net Zero" target. The case of an elderly person living in a property which would need significant amounts of work which they cannot afford for example,

There are grants to help them.

someone who prefers to see out their days without the distress of being forced to move house purely to help the world's problem with fossil fuel consumption.

Their problem of fossil fuel consumption.

People seem to have become fixated on such things, all the while encouraging yet more war in Ukraine. Reducing our red meat consumption by a perfectly manageable amount would have more effect than moving from an economical car with an engine to one powered only by a battery - yet this isn't being legislated for. Why not?

Various reasons, which have naff all to do with this discussion's topic.

[[XAP]Bob]

The cost of *not* doing it is far higher.

There are some households which for whatever reason will not be spending many thousands in order for our Government to move closer towards its "Net Zero" target. The case of an elderly person living in a property which would need significant amounts of work which they cannot afford for example, someone who prefers to see out their days without the distress of being forced to move house purely to help the world's problem with fossil fuel consumption.

And that's why it's important that we have grants available. Of course those very same people are quite happy to pay thousands for a new boiler when the current one breaks, and many more thousands to pipe dangerous chemicals into their house every year.

It's not "the world's problem" it's "our" problem - every one of us.

No-one is forcing people to move house. The aim to ensure that when gas boilers break they are replaced by more efficient systems, rather than by more fossil fuel based systems.

[Paulatic]

The cost of *not* doing it is far higher.

But not for me in my lifetime.

Is there no help in England.
If you were in this village with your condition. COPD, you could get it paid for.
Four most recent installations here three have medical conditions ( 2 heart and 1 lungs) the fourth is a single parent. Of note there are no working families with panels or pumps.

Edit to add: Think I’ve answered my question I guess you will be on mains gas

[[XAP]Bob]

The cost of *not* doing it is far higher.

But not for me in my lifetime.

So continuing the selfish behaviour which has got us into this mess...

[simonineaston]

Well I'm not surprised... given the almost complete lack of cohesive explanation or visible planning to do with climate change, people like me, in their last couple of decades go like "I'd like to do something, but I can't wait much longer... I'm just going to give up and suit myself."!

[djnotts]

.....people like me, in their last couple of decades go like "I'd like to do something, but I can't wait much longer... I'm just going to give up and suit myself."!

If I were 60 or even 70 but in reasonable health I would probably view such investment differently. But with a life expectancy of 2 years, 5 absolute max, I have to conserve what little savings I have, partly for my care, mainly for my kids.

I can't just go out and find a job!

[Biospace]

And that's why it's important that we have grants available. Of course those very same people are quite happy to pay thousands for a new boiler when the current one breaks, and many more thousands to pipe dangerous chemicals into their house every year.

It's not "the world's problem" it's "our" problem - every one of us.

Of course it's important that the move away from fossil fuels is supported by Government for those without sufficient spare money, it's also enlightening to read what those who live in Sweden can tell us about the costs of heat pumps. The UK economy is so topsy-turvy in so many ways as the comfortably off grow ever more so, and ever less bothered about the lives of those left to struggle.

Some of us have been pointing out the problems with the ways we've been living for a very long time, while those who more recently become disciples of Mike Mann's approach behave more like zealous religious types from the 19th century with heretics treated as sub-human, such is their single-mindedness about The Climate. All the while arguing that "free trade" - buying everything from wherever is cheapest (usually China, with their vast coal fired economy) - is best for everyone.

[roubaixtuesday]

And that's why it's important that we have grants available. Of course those very same people are quite happy to pay thousands for a new boiler when the current one breaks, and many more thousands to pipe dangerous chemicals into their house every year.

It's not "the world's problem" it's "our" problem - every one of us.

Of course it's important that the move away from fossil fuels is supported by Government for those without sufficient spare money, it's also enlightening to read what those who live in Sweden can tell us about the costs of heat pumps. The UK economy is so topsy-turvy in so many ways as the comfortably off grow ever more so, and ever less bothered about the lives of those left to struggle.

Some of us have been pointing out the problems with the ways we've been living for a very long time, while those who more recently become disciples of Mike Mann's approach behave more like zealous religious types from the 19th century with heretics treated as sub-human, such is their single-mindedness about The Climate. All the while arguing that "free trade" - buying everything from wherever is cheapest (usually China, with their vast coal fired economy) - is best for everyone.

The irony of simultaneously rejecting cheaper goods and decrying the lot of the poor won't be lost on your readers.

As to zealotry, the last paragraph certainly smacks of it, complete with a barely known climate scientist(!) cast as the antichrist.

[simonineaston]

.....people like me, in their last couple of decades go like "I'd like to do something, but I can't wait much longer... I'm just going to give up and suit myself."!

If I were 60 or even 70 but in reasonable health I would probably view such investment differently. But with a life expectancy of 2 years, 5 absolute max, I have to conserve what little savings I have, partly for my care, mainly for my kids.

I suppose that's the issue that forms a watershed for our views on our future - whether or not we have children. Although I dont, I can readily see why folk who do, take the issue of climate change seriously. We, as a rule, invest extraordinary amounts of time, energy, money & affection on our kids and to see the whole thing appearing to go down the tube must be one of the most depressing things imaginable. I can't begin to get my head round how angry I would feel if I did have any children to feel protective about! Which makes the attitude of people like Trump, with his large family, even harder to understand.

[Biospace]

The irony of simultaneously rejecting cheaper goods and decrying the lot of the poor won't be lost on your readers.

As to zealotry, the last paragraph certainly smacks of it, complete with a barely known climate scientist(!) cast as the antichrist.

The cash poor spend most of their money on food and energy.

I very much doubt a better value BEV when new will be much, if at all cheaper than a more expensive European equivalent, once third hand. Would you suggest high EU tariffs on Chinese motor cars are a folly?

[roubaixtuesday]

The cash poor spend most of their money on food and energy.

You do realise that we are reliant on trade for both of these things? And that reducing trade would make both more expensive?

I very much doubt a better value BEV when new will be much, if at all cheaper than a more expensive European equivalent, once third hand. Would you suggest high EU tariffs on Chinese motor cars are a folly?

Sorry, don't understand the first sentence.

[Biospace]

You do realise that we are reliant on trade for both of these things? And that reducing trade would make both more expensive?

It's not about reducing trade, more a rebalancing of our economy so that we're not over-reliant on the tertiary sector.

The current high prices for energy are the result of decades of having little long term strategy for our energy supplies.

[roubaixtuesday]

It's not about reducing trade, more a rebalancing of our economy so that we're not over-reliant on the tertiary sector.

The current high prices for energy are the result of decades of having little long term strategy for our energy supplies.

In which case, why you continually advocate for said reduction is a mystery