Climate Catastrophe

They should do and did do at one time. The boost to the economy is bigger than the expenditure.

1 Like

Too much state interference. Brexit means the freedom to have cold homes.

I dont disagree, but the message will be giving people something for nothing. That’s a red rag to a bull for the Express.

Maybe they should just tell the Express to go fuck themselves?


Actually, it’s probably worth giving Express readers the benefit. Fuck all they can do then.

Just be careful not to single out, or leave out any particular group.

But there’s also a limit where you have to say that a certain group earning more than £x should sort themselves out. Not sure where that line should be to be honest.

1 Like

I can remember Roy Hattersley saying that the advantage of universal benefits is that they are generally accepted by everyone because everybody gets a fair share. If someone who is very wealthy says that they don’t want to receive that benefit, what they actually mean is that they don’t want anyone to receive it.


I couldn’t say, not really familiar with the UK building trade. We have had a succession of programs to incentive energy efficiency investments for the residential sector, going all the way back to the 80s. The most recent one is going to run out of money a year early in a matter of weeks. There is also a net zero energy building code coming down the pipe, which will define all new builds.

But the scale of the problem in the UK is staggering, simply because of how old the building portfolio is - here, the percentage of dwellings that are older than 1960 is really small, and a significant percentage of the housing stock is less than 20 years old. The effect is that while the 1980s building code is pretty tame by today’s standards, it is still something - and the vast majority of the housing stock is that or better. In the UK, the portfolio needs far more investment if there is a significant climate shift to more extremes. The same building envelope that swelters in 30+C will pour heated air into the winter -10 C snaps.

Current planning laws define required energy efficiencies, building details and so on. While they’re a million miles better than they were years ago, I’m not sure how they stand up to the extremes we’re discussing here.

I think it’s probably a reasonable safe assumption to assume that anything built before 10-20 years ago needs a look at. That’s scary! Then you’ve also got a whole raft of properties where little bits have been done but given their age they are still miles off.

My own property being a prime example. Not sure how I can rectify a lot of that. Trying for the big hitters I guess.

I was just trying to deduce what the E standard was in the MEES (the minimum for a rental, though there appear to be a huge number of exemption bases). In particular, what the relative weightings are - measures that save electricity such as LED lighting count toward improving the score, but not much use in this context.

There is significant administrative cost in applying qualification limits for these sorts of programs. Add in that the limits are often arbitrary and not well aligned with who really needs the benefit, and they just don’t make much sense outside of it being something that seems like it should be sensible policy

1 Like

Yep agreed. Can of worms

Yeah. I remember discussing it with the person doing our energy rating. It meant we qualified for a new boiler. Most welcome, but they said others qualified for simply some LED bulbs.

Honestly kind of useless to them, but I assume their property was in a far better energy rating band than ours.

The issue I had with it was unless you know the full construction of the property it very quickly becomes a guess.

1 Like

Not remotely a surprise, as this accelerating feedback loop is well understood and seen elsewhere in the North, but this analysis puts some hard numbers to it. Ice sheet is being replaced by wetlands, and methane embedded in the soil since before the last ice age is being released.


When will we learn?

Oh, that’s right: never.


Dragons Den last night.
Young girl with a small business, making useful and attractive items from recycled plastic.

Deborah Meaden, queen of green, “Great idea, love what you’re doing, but I wont make any money, I’m out”.

Fucking hypocrite virtue signaller

I think there’s quite a difference between an Etsy style business and one that can scale. A friend of my wife used to make bespoke cuddly toys (really unique things - we have a plushy shrimp that she made). She did try to sell the ideas to a toy manufacturer but they deemed the designs too complicated. They wanted something that could be mass produced in a factory in China. As far as I know she still does bespoke toys but it is very much a one woman business, not one that requires investment.


Yep, I get that.
But this girl wanted a small investment which wouldn’t have made a fortune, but didn’t sound like it would have lost Meaden money.
She put making money ahead of her hollow principles.
Sickening patroniser

… talk about sickening! :rofl:

Move along Manuel