People were living in igloos and wearing polar bear skins and were relatively healthy. Are their present conditions of social displacement, on a diet of refined carbohydrates and the attendant consequences, and the alcohol poisoning beter?kenneal - lagger wrote:Woodburner, there are people who chose to live in igloos and wear polar bear skins, and good luck to them, but there are also people in the UK who are dying from hypothermia and other cold related illnesses every year.
Are the people dying because they are living in cold houses? Are they wearing insufficient clothing? Are they poorly nourished? Are they homeless and living on the streets? Have you made a dramatic statement for which you have no evidence?
Another of your demeaning remarks I see. have you worked out the cost vs benefit of the proposed changes? Or is it just a view you have and that it must be right as it is your view?It is they who probably would like to be a lot warmer a lot more affordably. I'm not out to press insulated homes on nutters who prefer to be cold but if a home is properly insulated and ventilated you can still live in an icebox if you choose. If your home isn't insulated you don't have the choice. All I want to do is give people the choice.
Yet another demeaning term. Do you really think that sort of attitude gives you credibility? Regardless of what is done. the economy will collapse, and I have it from an expert customer of mine the world economy is already stuffed (though she used a less eloquent Anglo-Saxon term which you seem to favour. Regardless of the situation, I will not be living in the type of accommodation you seem to expect. Do you think that the heating costs will be so low the savings will pay for the energy required to make the changes? Have you thought of the environmental consequences of the materials required for these changes?I am semi retired and wouldn't want, or be able, to handle the volume of work this would generate so I have no vested interest. I am just concerned that we do something about climate change and do something that will help ordinary people first for a change. If we don't do something soon the economy will collapse and we will all be left, or most of us will, living in unheated and unheatable shiteholes. Who would want that?
All spending above the current amount is inflationary. Fundamental economics. More money in circulation causes prices to rise as people are prepared to spend more.If the government wanted to recoup some of the money spent it could be done on the Green Deal basis that some of the reduction in fuel bills is taken back through the energy bills. That way no one pays any extra and the money is effectively taxed back and the QE isn't inflationary.
Yup. You’ve got it. That’s the way the system is designed. Take money from the poor and put it in the hands of the rich. See the trump tax cuts for an exampleIf all you worriers about inflation hadn't noticed there's been massive inflation in the stock market and also in the housing market over the last few years as a direct result of the Bank of England's QE policy. Now some people say that that is a good thing but it is hugely inflationary, especially the housing price increase which really does take money out of ordinary people's pockets and put it into the bankers' pockets.
They showed it because it made yet another television program. It would be rather boring to show what could be done with minimal expense, but they often don’t show any disbenefits which occur, and there has never been any advantage that did not have a detrimental effect somewhere.I strongly suspect that those Energiesprong homes had other work done on them as well. There were some homes done in a trial scheme a few years ago and they were uprated inside and out by the Housing Associations on top of the insulation work. I doubt that they were "Grand Designs" houses although they should be shown on GD to show people just what can be done to an ordinary home to make it comfortable and energy efficient.
