presumably the government?
I mean, itâs literally the policy to phase out gas boilers, why are they surprised?
2 Likes
when youâre pushing a technology towards obsolesence, why would that âold technologyâ get more expensive?
Itâs part of the push I think? Unless Iâm severely misunderstanding how it goes, itâs using market interventions to push consumers towards heat pumps. The main losers on the consumer side would be those who would be unable to install heat pumps.
If gas boilers become more expensive, more consumers would then be looking towards replacing them with heat pumps at EOL. Iâm looking closely at this too since Iâm not convinced by my own gas boiler. The moment there are sufficient incentives, and if I can somehow fit a ground-source heat pump, Iâm diving in.
1 Like
To help it on itâs way. If it is a cheaper option than the one replacing it, then take up of the latter may not happen as quickly as needed to hit the various energy/ environmental targets
1 Like
When the scale falls way, costs soar. But in this case I suspect it is because of the portfolio effect - in order to bring the percentage of gas boilers sold into the required line, they will need to increase the price of gas boilers. If you are the vendor and are faced with taking a loss on heat pumps per unit or collecting a premium on gas boilers, you will obviously go with the latter.
1 Like
@redalways @redfanman @Arminius
if the Government is mandating a push towards âgreen technologyâ they shouldnât be making alternatives more expensive. They should make the âgreen technologyâ more affordable using subsidies and rebates. Isnât that why theyâre charging a carbon tax?
As a whole, if the people donât start pushing back and demanding accountability from our elected officials, this shit will keep happening.
I noticed that they have effectively banned the construction of new homes with wood-burning fireplaces. so my home is a unicorn. if the gas shuts off (or the electricity!!), probably 98% of homes are unable to be heated. Talk about being tied to the teatâŚ
I think in an ideal world, youâd be doing both simultaneously. Increase the costs of gas boilers, but also using any subsequent funds raised from penalties towards paying down the costs of subsidies.
Knowing this governmentâŚ
1 Like
again, why do they need to make gas boilers more expensive? thatâs bullshit price fixing. profiteering and using âgreenâ as an excuse.
That is exactly what a carbon tax is doing though - making the high carbon alternatives more expensive. What they do with the tax revenues is actually secondary. You could equally eliminate other taxes, like reducing income tax or the like.
1 Like
To make it less palatable compared to the alternatives. Itâs the stick to the subsidy carrot.
thatâs exactly my point, they charge a tax on the usage of fossil fuels as a penalty for usage, for what? Where does that money go? it SHOULD go towards incentivizing green tech through rebates and incentives, but it does not. NOBODY KNOWS where the money goes
$22 Billion dollars of carbon tax revenues. Whereâs the carbon tax revenue money, Justin?
Why should it? All things being equal, if a government uses carbon tax revenues instead of an alternative source of taxation revenue (i.e. total government spending remains the same), the economy is more efficient, and more efficiently pursuing lower total emissions.
In practice, a new revenue source is always very tempting for governments to spend on new things, but there is no particular reason why âgreen taxâ revenue should be earmarked for green projects - and there are actually reasonable arguments why they should not be. That sort of earmarking is an open invitation for government boondoggles.
I have no idea why the CFIB thinks that carbon tax revenue should be returned to them. Do they expect that of all taxes?
1 Like
They made cigarettes vastly more expensive and used âhealthâ as an excuse.
2 Likes
exactly and that money should be funnelled into the medical system to offset the costs of healthcare. common sense stuff here.
hang on a minute here. Who built all these roads and infrastructure to establish society as it is today? Sure wasnât the local chamber of commerce. Where did the money come from, to build it? taxation!
Now they have created a system that fully and wholly forces people to rely on this infrastructure, and then the tax the user base who rely on it?
fucking hell, I really need to go sit down
we have a few incentive schemes in Victoria for greener energy, one of which is solar electric HWS with heat pumpsâŚforgive me as im not big on the technology of this particular unit, but i wanted to look into it and every plumber i rang (3x) told me not to botherâŚthese are guys litterally talking themselves out of a job, not upselling a different productâŚone telling me his week gets filled doing change overs and ripping out the heat pumps.
i have a gas storage tank and an instantaneousâŚ(gas aswell)
some of the other incentives are goodâŚthinks like paying people to install cheap weather seals is ridiculous thoughâŚ
Iâm always happy to see more money going into the healthcare system here but I read an article recently which questioned the argument of tax revenue covering the costs of healthcare. For the life of me, I canât remember where I read it though.
I did see an article by Ash today the anti-smoking organisation (so figures taken with a big pinch of salt until verified elsewhere) arguing that smoking costs the UK around ÂŁ25bn a year while the taxes raise around ÂŁ10-12bn a year.
Well, we kept electing the dumbasses who thought that adding another lane to the highway would do anything other than making more farmland into suburban subdivisions until our commutes were right back where they were, so we own it.