Pre-Budget Report

[biffvernon]

A precise definition of a zero carbon home? I don't think you'll get one. The best available is a house that uses very little energy to keep it warm, less thatn the energy it and generates and exports. Of course it will need a pricise definition before the stamp duty exemption can be applied. But in ten years time we may have such a severe economic depression that there will be few new houses being built. Whatever happens, old houses will form the bulk of the housing stock forever. On the positive side, it may encourage a few more 'passiv house' type developments.

I don't think much of our architectural heritage is dependant on cavity wall, insulated or not. Windows are another thing, of course.

 

[Flyfisher]

Why?

Apologies, my cynicism may have been too subtle; I thought the ' :wink: ' would give it away. I agree with you wholeheartedly; why indeed. Another example of 'rip-off Britain' ?

 

[NT]

So much propaganda. Lets just pick one paragraph:


> Every section of society – business, individuals and government – has
> a role to play in helping meet the UK’s climate change and other
> environmental goals.

The reality is that with only 2% of the worlds populaiton, what we do here isnt going to change the outcome on climate change. If the agenda were really about climate change, we'd be ploughing the money into research, looking for a method that could and would be applied around much of the world, instead of spending it on toy windmills that dont have a prayer of achieving anything.

Is there a publicly available prize for anyone who comes up with a scheme that meets a carefully set out list of targets? No.


> For its part, the Government recognises it is required to take action
> where market failures prevent long-term economic and environmental
> consequences from being taken into account in decisionmaking.

Who has required the govt to take action? No-one. It just wants to, for reasons brought into question above, using methods brought into question further down.

market failures = market behaviour that it doesnt fully understand, and its attempt to impose what it thinks are solutions, but the rest of us dont.

What IRL prevents buyers considering long term consequences is lack of infomation. But the govt mostly isnt providing it. And when it does, its typically under informed, and at times somewhat naive.

Getting some leading experts to write a consumer information database would change a lot of decisions, if done properly. There are cheaper options too, such as an index linking to pre-existing expert pieces.


> A key aim of government intervention is to encourage behavioural
> change, particularly with regard to the use of energy, waste and water.

Nannying at its height: there is no problem with water here. Britain has especially high rainfall, water is so plentiful we can deluge our gardens with it day in day out, and not even be metered doing it! It is so plentiful that water companies can lose a vast tonnage of water in sieve like pipes, and still run no risk of a water shortage.

There is a lot of talk about water shortage, but the fact is Brtain has never seen one in living memory, and never will. A partial hosepipe ban has nothing to do with water shortage, it just means we're asking you to not waste quite such a large tonnage please. Water shortage happens in arid countries, and means not enough for uses such as washing, irrigation and so on. There is just no risk of that here, even with our present ancient distribution system in such poor condition.

That we have a party in power trying to enforce solutions to non existent problems on us is not really a good thing.


> Investment to increase efficiency in these areas is often a cost-
> effective option for businesses and households, but short-term cost
> considerations and market failures can create barriers to the take up
> of more efficient alternatives.

Or to put it more realistically, those succeeding in business realise the govts naive ideas arent always the right ones to follow.


> Intervention can correct these market failures,

can correct the failures of the market to follow our naive suggestions, yes, and waste a lot of people's time and money. Pathfinder, promotion of toy windmills, Part P, and so on... all attempts to "correct market failures" and enforce a govt's unrealistic and frankly naive vision of a better world.


> ensuring the implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle in
> which environmental costs are fully internalised in economic decisions.

More waffle that doesnt mean much IRL. Why? Because we've already come a long way from the days when polluters didnt pay. This is now just an excuse to foist more costs on us, with the govt getting its rake at every turn, and claiming dubious feelgood project victories to win more votes from those with only superficial knowledge of the subjects. And we pay for it all.


Are there things I'd like to see done? Yes, there are. But the way to do them is not the dim nanny method, its to present the case to the market and let people decide. Iff the case is good, people will do it. If it isnt, people will say no. A whole country's experts can come up with a far more informed take on Blair's policies than any govt dept, and thats what would happen if ideas were justified and published instead of just being blinkeredly enforced. The good ones would get a thumbs up and be used, the junk proposals would disappear.

And this is precisely what happens in some areas, and it works quite well. When govts mandate on the basis of error-ridden facts, idealism and marketing speak in place of logic at times, it doesnt work.

The mandating of cfl-only light fittings in new builds is another example of this. Nearly all householders get them removed imediately, so what it really achieves is to waste resources, time, money and energy. Despite this going on for quite a while now, the govt is not repealing the requirement, so it is now instituting a policy that is well known to be counterproductive and the opposite of green, merely for its green propaganda value. And all at our expense as usual.


And, that was just one paragraph!


NT

 

[worms]

skier-hughes wrote:
I was surprised to see that fuel had been increased by 1.25p per litre in the budget and by 1.6p per litre at our local pumps!!

1.25p was the wholesale increase; the filling stations have to add their retail markup

Why?

The actual increase should be 1.46875p, since the increase in duty also attracts VAT...

 

[NT]

It strikes me also that the re-use of existing buildings, with all their embodied energy, instead of the current rush to demolish swathes of Victorian housing, and even city centre historic buildings such as in Sheffield, (for another ghastly new shopping temple) would be A Good Plan, but that's about big business so that's OK.

Yes, and this is obvious enough. Old houses can be insulated to new build standards at a fraction of the cost of rebuild. Instead Mr Blair would rather extort our houses from us at joke prices, using misinformation to justify these actions, demolish them and rebuild, and sell them at a fat profit. Who cares that a large number of house owners have been badly stung, losing fortunes against their will. These houses are often purchased by a lifetime of work, but what does it matter to Mr Blair?

Well, it lets you know whats really going on.


NT

 

[Paul Hopper]

Graham

how do you explain the fact that on Wednesday I purchased diesel for 88.9pence from a large chain garage yet had I waited until the next day I would have had to pay 91.9 pence per litre

It is no use saying "do not go there" They are all at it round here (East Midlands)

Paul

 

[middi]

Rerering back to new schools and new hospitals, it seems to me that governments are taking the lead for a wasteful society.

If the only music one can play is CR*P, buying a new piano is not going to improve it.

It is a bit like buying a pair of reading glasses because one is illiterate.

 

[Lime]

Rerering back to new schools and new hospitals, it seems to me that governments are taking the lead for a wasteful society.

If the only music one can play is CR*P, buying a new piano is not going to improve it.

It is a bit like buying a pair of reading glasses because one is illiterate.

Hasn't that been typical government policy since the Second World War?

I too would like to see a precise definition of a zero carbon home. I find it impossible to believe that it means a home in the course of whose construction no carbon was emitted. That just sounds totally unachievable with any remotely conventional construction methods.

Are the workmen/women allowed to breath while on the job?
Holding their breath for the whole new-build would reduce CO² emissions in the long-term.

 

[Penners]

On the subject of zero carbon homes, have a look at this.

 

[biffvernon]

I know someone who lives there. It's easy to knock it. It's not perfect, but it's a prototype and a great deal has been learnt. Bill Dunster, the architects, is absolutely the leading practice when it comes to low energy architecture. Take a look round their website http://www.zedfactory.com/home.html

 

[Nemesis]

PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED BY STOP STANSTED EXPANSION 6 December 2006



CHANCELLOR STILL HAS NOT GRASPED THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM



The Chancellor’s doubling of air passenger duty announced in today’s Pre Budget Report will do practically nothing to stem the rapid growth in cheap flights and the environmental damage which they cause according to campaign group Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE).



"This is little more than a token gesture," said SSE Campaign Director Carol Barbone. "Until such time as we have sensible taxation of air travel and sensible pricing of air fares, the unsustainable boom in cheap flights will continue unabated.”



“Despite all the warnings about the urgent need to tackle climate change and Tony Blair telling us that it is the greatest challenge facing the world today, when it comes to action, this Government still does not appear to have the courage to take the type of decisive action necessary to address the problem," she continued.



Aviation is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions and yet the aviation industry continues to receive total exemption from fuel duty and VAT. If airlines had to pay the same fuel duty and VAT as the motorist, the revenues raised would amount to £9bn a year. However, even with today's increase, the total revenues from air passenger duty will still be only £1.9bn a year.



The Stern Report commissioned for the Chancellor and published by the Government on 31 October highlighted the cost of not taking decisive action now to curtail carbon emissions.

Based on analysis from the Stern Report, the climate change impact of UK aviation is currently between £6bn and £12bn a year.



ENDS



NOTES TO EDITORS:



1. The Chancellor announced that the doubling APD will be effective from 1 February 2007. Revenues from air passenger duty in the last fiscal year (2005/06) were £909m. Doubling APD will increase revenues to about £1bn in the current fiscal (2006/07) and to £1.9bn in 2007/08.



2. The current rates of air passenger duty are:

£5 on economy and charter flights to Europe and on UK domestic flights
£10 on first class and business class flights to Europe
£20 on economy and charter flights outside Europe
£40 on first class and business class flights outside Europe
Over 75% of passengers pay at the £5 rate


3. The Chancellor estimates that the APD increases announced today will deliver carbon savings of around 0.3m tonnes of carbon per annum by 2010-11 through reduced demand. When the effect of non-carbon dioxide emissions is taken into account this has a climate change impact equivalent to saving around 0.75m tonnes of carbon per year by 2010-11. This 'saving' is less than the additional amount of carbon that is being generated each year through the rapid growth in UK aviation.



4. Official reference sources for all of the figures quoted in this release are available on request. The Stern Report can be accessed at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./independent_reviews/stern_

review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm





FURTHER INFORMATION

Carol Barbone, Campaign Director, Stop Stansted Expansion M 0777 552 3091, cbarbone@mxc.co.uk
http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com

 

[Penners]

I know someone who lives there. It's easy to knock it.

Oh, I'm certainly not knocking. I'm 100% behind anyone who is having a go at reducing our environmental impact, no matter how much or how little, no matter whether it succeeds or fails - so long as people are trying.

But I do think the Telegraph article highlights how far we have to go in this field, when even our best efforts to date are still a long way from the bullseye.

 

[Nemesis]

However - those houses still command a premium of ten to fifteen percent above those around them.

It's hard to blaze trails! Lessons have been learnt and mistakes are being rectified.

 

[Toby Newell]

But how much energy extra energy does it take to produce the triple glazed float glass windows compared to how much energy they will save in their lifetime? Green issues are the preserve of the richer well educated, mostly, which is the only reason polititians are tinkering at the edges.

Question: Is it better to recycle a little, buy an electric car (which was made using fossil fuel and effectively "burns" fossil fuels through the electricity it requires to charge and run it and feel relaxed or buy a lot less of everything (consume less) and know that even this is not enough?

Fact is we are tinkering that is all. You want to buy a pair of trainers for your kid/grandchild made in Vietnam £20, made in England £100. In Vietnam the factory definately does not run to the same environmental standards, but cheap. Food. Danish bacon cheap, has to travel to us. English bacon more expensive, same with New Zealand lamb. Same with most things we consume. We want the cheapest, we cannot produce the cheapest so we go to where they can.

What we would need to truly "save the planet" if it were still possible (and if it were all our fault, remember there is going to be a detailed analysis of sunspot activity conducted in the next few years by a new satellite which may tell us that the majority of the warming is due to natural processes on the sun) would be to pay more for stuff, buy less and consume less. The whole market economy would have to be overturned.

Rather than feel complacent, or feel impotent we can start by buying local produce for more money, by travelling less, walking more. By buying less toys for our children, less ready meals. By keeping our old cars for longer (up to a point) Honestly all this claptrap Green stance is meant to allay your fears and soothe your conscience. Just consume less. But that would mean not buying a £20 cd player, £20 mp3 player, by being willing to pay several hundred pounds for your flight instead of pennies. We will be worse off financially. Our standard of living (as measured by wealth standards) will go down, it would have to.

What upsets me is that a lot of the tinkering at the edges is actually harming the environment as it placates peoples consciences and a lot of the measures like wind or solar power actually cost more in energy to make and maintain than they give out. Look at us, on the net!!! my computer and screen are using energy, so does PPUK server, so does bt server... 15 years ago we couldnt communicate like this and look how much energy would have been saved. Will we give up the net???

There should be a Green "carbon miles" tax on every foriegn product coming in to the country that we could reasonably make ourselves (in more environmentally efficient factories I might add)

We should buy locally produced consumables (food/clothes etc) wherever we can even at higher cost.

We should be forced to keep our cars for longer (sales would go down)

Air travel should have a tax of £100 or more on most flights.

Green taxes should be ring fenced and used for research into two main areas of most use.

1. Cold fusion which we will need to develop in the next two to three hundred years anyway (maximum) as fossil fuels run out of economically viable sources.

2. Battery storage technology. Wind/solar/wave powered generators are sporadic by nature. Efficient storage would solve that problem and make them several factors more efficient in the real world.

I'm an all or nothing person really, what we are doing is frankly nothing and I wish more ppl would realise it.

Toby

 

[Toby Newell]

PS Closing down half the supermarkets in this country would be a good start. And I'm serious. Almost encapsulates the whole problem. (I buy as much as I can from a "local" farm but as I live in London its quite a way away)

 

[Flyfisher]

What we would need to truly "save the planet" . . . . if it were all our fault . . .

A very interesting point. Whatever the outcome of that sun-spot research and whether or not our CO2 emissions really are the cause of global warming I believe there is little dispute that the planet has experienced wild climate fluctuations in the past, both hotter and colder. We may simply be living in a particularly balmy period of geological time and our over-inflated ego may be leading us to believe we can actually have an influence on the planetary climate systems. Species come and species go, extinction is the natural order of things. All this talk about saving the planet is completely misleading; it's really about saving ourselves. The planet will be fine without us.

 

[Moo]

Closing down half the supermarkets in this country would be a good start............... (I buy as much as I can from a "local" farm but as I live in London its quite a way away)

And that, of course is the conundrum. It all depends on how local it is. What if everyone in Toby's borough followed his example and made individual trips to the "local" farm?

Although he did say "closing down half the supermarkets". Any suggestions as to which one?

 

[worms]

Nemesis, its not just Stansted. BAA and the Government are insisting that the Royal Highland Showground outside Edinburgh be moved to accommodate growth at Edinburgh Airport.

At the moment 1.2m people a year visit the showground, compared to 0.8m using the airport, but a "blueprint" released by the Government last week wants to see Edinburgh Airport capable of handling 13.7m passengers by 2013 and 26m by 2030! This is irrespective of similar plans for growth in passenger numbers at Glasgow, Prestwick, Aberdeen and Inverness airports.

At present 4 times as many people fly to and from London from Scotland as take the train - flying is quicker, cheaper and more reliable, so who can blame us? Against this background you would have thought that rail improvements might be in order, possibly even links to the Channel Tunnel... You might also think that a Chancellor and potentially future prime minister who has to commute on this same route might be aware of the issues?

 

[Nemesis]

I appreciate that it's not just Stansted - it's other places too - Heathrow for one - massive expansion everywhere, when you add it all together. Stansted opposition, however, has really got its act together over this one, and rightly so - so many historic buildings will be lost, so many communities affected, and all relying on the unfettered growth of cheap air travel, which may never happen.

I agree about the train - I see that Virgin is going to put up prices in order to be able to add more carriages on the west coast route - that will really encourage us all to take the train then!

I occasionally travel from either Newcastle to London or Carlisle to London by train (and back) depending on where I can get cheap tickets from. (It actually takes nearly as much time to reach either station as it does to get to London, but that's another issue entirely! I have a local station through which most trains to Newcastle and Carlisle simply pass without stopping...) It would never occur to me to fly - which I could do from Newcastle - I suspect that time wise it isn't saving much, and I've never investigated costs. I suspect it's cheaper. Carlisle is going to expand the airport in order to encourage more people to fly also.

What is dreadful about travelling by train is the confusing ticket range and pricing, ranging from incredibly cheap if you can book in advance and be able to travel at off-peak times, to hugely expensive for walk-up tickets. The on-line booking system for GNER and Virgin is incredibly difficult to negotiate your way around. Virgin is particularly lousy.

If some sensible, more flexible and above all affordable pricing structure was introduced I am sure more people would use the train. However, maybe I'm a cynic, but I do think that Gordon's flights tax is intended to simply rake in more revenue, as he sees the huge expansion of air travel as a Treasury money spinner.

 

[Flyfisher]

If some sensible, more flexible and above all affordable pricing structure was introduced I am sure more people would use the train.

Is there an effective rail system in any country in the world, or one that doesn't rely on huge amounts of subsidy?

I don't understand why railways seem to be held in such high regard and are continually touted as 'a good thing' compared with 'evil' of the car and air travel.

As far as I can tell they only really work well in big cities, where they can support the door-to-door travel requirements of a large proportion of the inhabitants. Otherwise, they are mostly only able to meet a partial journey requirement so it's a lot easier for people to drive or fly. Even if rail travel was cheaper, many many people would still happily pay the extra to drive because of the vastly superior convenience and flexibility.

Let's face it, people generally do what's easiest and most convenient, and why should they be coerced into something else? Government should be addressing the wants and needs of people, not telling them what to do all the time.