The majority of British households expect to restrict their home heating this winter to try to keep rising costs in check, according to research released as the price cap that dictates most bills rose again.
The fuel poverty charity National Energy Action said 58% of households told its survey they were likely to trim their energy use, a nine-percentage-point increase from the level in January.
Such a terrible surprise to some that budget constraints exist, that there really are opportunity costs.
Everyone, always faces budget constraints because there are always opportunity costs. Whatever energy prices – or whatever whisky prices – there’s always a trade off between how much heating, how much whisky one can have.
Tradeoffs apply to everyone. Elon Musk doesn’t have to worry about whisky or heating, true, but even he cannot buy both Wyoming and Luxembourg, a choice – a trade off because budget constraint – has to be made.
Historians in a free country will look back on climate change and marvel that so many people could be taken in by such a stupid idea.
If you asked a Green how much CO2 there should be in the atmosphere she would scream “NONE!” ignorant of the fact that would mean nothing green could exist on Earth and therefore not only would all the Vegans die but so would all life on the planet…
There was a nice bit of hypocrisy from the BBC a couple of days ago. Lauding a new train Oop Norf that uses dry ice to clear leaves on the line by freezing them so they disintegrate and that the dry ice simply becomes a gas, specifically failing to say that dry ice is frozen CO2.
Commercial dry ice is produced from CO2 that is a by-product of industrial processes (such as nitrogen fertiliser manufacture). So doesn’t of itself increase atmospheric CO2.
Well it does, because although it may be a by-product, someone has captured it which means at that point it hasn’t added to atmospheric CO2.
Then they have decided to let it go, at which point it WILL add to atmospheric CO2. I thought this was the whole point of Carbon Capture and Storage…..
If it weren’t used to manufacture dry ice, it would be released into the atmosphere. CCS works only on the lab bench.
The obvious course of action to solve the problem of heating cost would of course be to reduce energy prices by removing green subsidies, punitive taxes and over-regulation and allowing fracking. That’s of course not what National Energy Action is proposing
The obvious course of action is to force households into using the most expensive energy source possible and ‘invest’ in inappropriate heating sources at the same time as committing the country to replicating the whole energy transmission system to support EVs
Simultaneously you increase the UK reliance on imported energy supplies from some of the most unstable parts of the word
Er
B
No! Budget constraints do not exist for the State. Tim Worstall, you are a neoliberal fascist.
Isn’t that the idea behind making everything expensive so we use less?
Or turn to the black market.
How do I heat my home with black market gas?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPM2JKlz9Ck
Do not do this, these devices are dangerous, but more importantly, they release particulate pollution into the atmosphere, and worst of all they are capable of burning fuels that haven’t been subject to the Climate Change Levy.
Black market power – wasn’t there an ‘80s telly show about thieving Liverpudlians where the opening credits showed them having rigged up wires from the streetlight to power their house?
Sound like “Bread”. I detested it and stopped watching about 10 mins in to the first episode.
But then the government awards pay rises, and the private sector is forced to, so everyone has more money and can buy more again. I think the term for this is “inflation”.
There is a lag – although I see your point.
Rising energy prices incentivise using less energy ≠ Rising energy prices inevitably result in more fuel poverty.
I only have a Facebook account to keep in contact with old mates I never see and who are spread throughout the world, so please don’t judge me.
Anyway, over the last week or so, Facebook has been absolutely riddled with ‘news’ ‘stories’ from various ‘news’ organisations warning me of a ‘study’ (or studies) purporting to show that log burners are as injurious to health as smoking.
These come from outlets as diverse as Black Country Live, JOE, the Liverpool Echo, Wales Online etc etc.
Why I should get these notifications, and simultaneously, is unclear, given that I live nowhere near any of these and am not remotely a Yamyam/Irishman/Scouser/Taff).
Could it be in any way related to the facts that
i) all of these outlets receive large sums in government advertising and ‘grants’
and
ii) the government will struggle to tax wood?
I have a large garden with a lot of trees. The fallen wood could either be burnt in my very inefficient open log burner or in a big succession of bonfires.
The outcome of both courses is that the wood is burnt and smoke, heat, CO2 and water vapour are returned to the environment. So a ban on log burners would have no positive impact. The negative impact would be using more gas to keep the house warm.
I have a wood, Andy, and ditto. Fuck them, I’m burning it one way or the other.
Aren’t we being just a tiny bit callous here?
Gamecock is impressed that 42% of Brits are unburdened by the cost of energy.
“Elon Musk doesn’t have to worry about whisky or heating, true, but even he cannot buy both Wyoming and Luxembourg, a choice – a trade off because budget constraint – has to be made.”
Well, Wyoming has nuclear weapons, so there’s that, if you have your own rockets.
Funny how there isn’t a “tradeoff” when it comes to “how much water you can have”.
Reject the framing, nobody should be in a position where they work (or have worked and then retired) but have to worry about paying for heat.