A National Scheme of Building Insulation Instead of QE3

[An Inspector Calls]

The scheme as defined aims to insulate eventually All property, not just the rich or the poor.
It starts with housing associations and council properties, i.e.some of the poorest.
Terraced housing is very suitable for this treatment - also largely occupied by the poorer amongst us.

In conclusion it aims to tackle the poorer housing stock where the incidence of fuel poverty will be rife FIRST.

Is that clear?

Yes, it was originally very clear.

But I questioned whether the costings lagger provided would cover houses which I thought would be difficult to tackle.

We're talking here of those swathes of late Victorian, Edwardian, 225 mm solid brick walled houses that form much of the housing stock esp. of northern Britain. The ones with no damp course, a roof on its last legs, the houses that cost less than £150,000.

lagger provided clarification:

I'm not talking about insulating derelict, or even semi derelict, housing. If the place is nigh on falling down there is not a lot of point insulating it. There are hundreds of thousands of pre 1920s houses in the country that are in perfectly good condition and well worth insulating.

So the very houses that desparately need the work (perhaps completely demolishing would be better) in order to address the very real and serious issue of fuel poverty are to be excluded under the scheme envisaged by lagger. At the moment we seem to be aiming for the gentry of Chester!

Is that now clear to you?

[SleeperService]

With respect for you AIC you're reading into statements what you want to see.

Some houses are ALWAYS beyond hope in any location, insulating a semi derelict is putting good money after bad just as the government are doing with the banks.

IF these beyond hopers are replaced by properly built well insulated housing great!

I suspect the only people who'll have a problem with this scheme are the energy companies....and their vested interests, well fook 'em they're no better than the bankers IMHO.

Around here there's a huge amount of housing occupied by people who will benefit greatly from this scheme, there are a few houses that are beyond hope, but very few, as we have active local builders who rescue and resell them.

There's no millionaire's row around here. But think of all the huge gas and electric bills that will be sacrificed and all the working class who'll have a much warmer life.

[kenneal - lagger]

Thanks Paul and Sleeperservice for taking up the batten while I was away from my computer.

If you knew anything, inspector, about architecture or Chester you would know that the gentry living in the centre of Chester I was talking about live in a Conservation Area so they won't get insulated either. Leastways not until the very last when the fuel supply situation in the UK is getting critical.

I usually take questions at face value but in future I will look for the trick in yours. You asked a question/made a statement

Since the houses that will benefit most from any national programme of external insulation will be those with solid walls built before 1920, and are thus at least 90 years old, it hardly seems sensible to spend £13,000 per house with little chance of any recovery of that investmernt in the remaining life of those houses.

that could have been answered two ways. I gave you my answer and you have twisted it so that I appear to be subsidising the rich in their ivory towers. If I had answered the question by saying that, yes, those houses would be part of the scheme you would have pilloried me for wasting public money on houses that should be pulled down.

In my answer to you I did say that if those houses were renovated, either using private money or on a parallel scheme, they should certainly NOT be denied insulation money. I even went on to describe how those houses might benefit.

I think that this thread has exposed, to me certainly, that you are a conniving, time wasting troll whose presence on this website is now becoming dubious.

I make every attempt to justify my arguments on this site and I think I have done in this thread but wasting time on people who are asking trick questions is not part of my agenda.

[Bandidoz]

Goodbye Inspector....

[PaulS]

I have used this scheme in a debate on the Guardian website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/no ... f-comments

Maybe we could all use this excellent scheme as pointing the way out.

Btw, couple of points which might be good to add to the scheme:

a) The QE money will end up in the banks using this process, but it will do some good on the way to the banks

b) Same system could/ should be used for the development of a renewable energy infrastructure and upgrading of the grid

[kenneal - lagger]

Your first point, Paul, about the money ending up in the banks is in the third paragraph.

The same scheme could be used for renewables on the basis of a rentaroof scheme, I suppose.

[PaulS]

Yes, you are quite right about QE, I missed that.

[ujoni08]

Now that the troll is gone, I'd like to add my support for this, Ken. I am linking this to various people.

[kenneal - lagger]

Thanks very much, Jon.

[RenewableCandy]

Now that the troll is gone, I'd like to

...come in from the cold

[snow hope]

Agreed! Great to see some action to improve the forum.

Great scheme Ken. I am going to try and push it whatever way I can over here.....

[SleeperService]

Now that the troll is gone, I'd like to

...come in from the cold

Welcome Back!!! Although a relative newcomer I was missing your posts. Let's hope others follow

[kenneal - lagger]

I've had a reply from my MP explaining the Green Deal, which I already knew about so I've sent him this letter and another, enclosing my paper again, asking that he send it to the Minister for comment. They have to reply to an MP but not to a member of the public.

Thank you for your letter telling me about the Green Deal. I am aware of the facts of the Green Deal because I went to a seminar on the subject arranged by the Greening Movement and addressed by a civil servant from DECC. The reason that I wrote my paper and have sent it to you and others in government is that the Green Deal hasn't a hope of working and won't produce the 80% saving in fossil fuel use by 2050 that our government signed up to.

If you leave it to the market the 25 million homes will not be done at the 625,000 homes per year average figure but will be done on a standard distribution curve. There will be a slow uptake by environmentalists at first, then people will realise that they can save money and the momentum will grow to a peak and then drop off. Finally the late arriver's will be the last trickle. This will result in a peak work load of perhaps 1.2 to 2 million houses per year at a cost of £15 to £20 billion per year! Are Sainsbury and Tesco making that much profit from us?

The Green Deal and its Golden rule can't provide the necessary levels of insulation to satisfy the "Green Rule" that we must reduce our fuel use by 80% by 2050. The interest payments just won't allow it.

What is required is one of David Cameron's "Big Bazookas" to get the country moving. If it's good enough for Europe, why not for the UK as well?

I can only conclude that the government is more interested in GROWTH than the environment or the welfare of the British people. Every one with an iota of common sense knows that growth in the west isn't going to happen at any time in the near future, if at all, so why not just do something, deploy a Bazooka, that will leave the country in a better position in that growth free future.

[snow hope]

Good letter!

You have spurred me into thinking about communicating with our local MPs and MLAs over here.

[kenneal - lagger]

Reply from my MP to the above letter

The Government have put enormous efforts and a lot of money into the largest retro fit insulation scheme ever. I think you and I have to work within the art of the possible and for me to say that I have a constituent (however well qualified!) who thinks you are doing it all wrong and should do it differently at this stage is just not realistic. If you have suggestions that will allow Ministers to tweak the scheme, we may have something to work with but I do not see your ideas gaining credence at this stage in the process.
It would be easy for me to breezily pass on your ideas to Greg Barker but I would not be being upfront with you.