And it saves money, and creates four times as many jobs per pound invested as building a gas power station, the cheapest on offer.
More jobs means higher costs because opportunity costs.
And Lean is of course entirely missing the point:
That is where this week’s row comes in. Under the boringly entitled Proposed Changes to Part L (conservation of fuel and power) of the Building Regulations, ministers are consulting on obliging householders who are erecting extensions, converting lofts and garages, installing new boilers or replacing a set percentage of their windows, to spend an extra 10 per cent of the cost on energy-efficiency measures – something they believe will lead to a million more homes installing insulation by 2015.
Crucially, the measures would have to be “proportionate” – such as by draughtpoofing, lagging cylinders, and insulating lofts and walls – and would be eligible for the Green Deal, which means that they should cost householders nothing: indeed, if the repayments of loans were to exceed the expected savings, they could refuse to comply. The original extensions, etc, have to be notified to councils anyway, and it causes less trouble and costs less to do such work when the builders are already in. Oh yes, and conservatories smaller than a generous 30 square metres are exempt.
It all seems a far cry from various claims that a “crippling” tax on “any building project in the home” would “grab from incomes”, make householders apply for special planning permission and force them to “fully insulate” their homes “from top to bottom”, leaving them “tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket”.
That\’s not the complaint. The complaint is that in the middle of a cold snap, if a boiler blows up (which they do occasionally for a not very explosive value of blow up) and needs replacing our shivering granny now has to wait for the council to give her permission to send someone round to B&Q for a new one.
It\’s not the costs being complained about it\’s the stupid bastards with their clipboards that are.
And again not getting the point:
Better still, the Government could, like many of its European counterparts, use money it is getting from carbon taxes. At present the £4 billion it is due to get annually from measures such as setting a new “floor price for carbon” is heading for the Treasury’s maw. Instead – a report by Transform UK, an alliance of green and consumer groups shows – the cash could take 90 per cent of affected homes out of fuel poverty and support up to 200,000 jobs.
The whole idea of carbon taxes is that they are revenue neutral. We move from taxing good nice and lovely things like jobs and profits and instead tax nasty uncuddly things like emissions.
That\’s why the money goes to the Treasury. Because three\’s absolutely nothing about carbon, emissions, climate change or global warming that says that we need to have a tighter fiscal policy, a rise in the general as opposed to specific tax rate nor even that the wankers in Westminster get to spend more of our money. Only that they get to play Onan with a different portion of it, not more of it.