With the belated advent of a proper spell of cold weather we’ll all be cranking up the heating and trying not to think about the fuel bill that will drop onto the mat in a couple of months’ time.
It seems opportune, then, to return to the topic of domestic energy usage, especially in the light of recent comments by specialists at Strathclyde University that cast grave doubt on the viability of the government’s environmental targets unless we reduce consumption.
And we’re not just talking about turning off the lightbulb when you’re not in the room, but shaving 30 per cent off of our usage.
That’s one hell of a challenge for the average household, but not an insurmountable one. Tackling domestic energy consumption requires a two-fold problem to be addressed – that of inadequate technology combined with the unhelpful behaviour of the vast majority of us.
The technology – and in this we include basic structural factors such as adequate insulation – in most homes is simply not up to the mark when it comes to energy efficiency.
It has been noted before that our understanding of how much energy we are using, and what it is costing us, is limited by an incomprehensible metering system designed to inform the utility suppliers and not householders themselves.
‘Smart metering’ that shows the direct relationship between usage and cost has proved a hit with homeowners during trials, and should become a priority for utility companies.
The behavioural factor is, if anything, even more important. As always where technical progress is concerned, benefits will only flow if we use it wisely and well.
To encourage us to make more of an effort in the lagging, switching-off and powering-down departments, maybe it’s time for a new approach. Instead of using extra tax as a big stick to beat us with if we don’t do the environmentally right thing, how about rewarding us with lower taxes if we do? A council tax reduction for adoption and use of energy efficient technology, added to the benefits of lower power bills that would follow, would be a great way to ensure that the battle against emissions begins at home.
Andrew Lee
Editor
The Engineer & The Engineer Online
Andrew, you are living in a dream world if you expect governments or councils to charge lower taxes for doing the right thing when they can make more money by charging penalties. It is the same with recycling – pay more if you don’t recycle but no rebate for extra recycling.
The government targets are clearly headline grabbing nonsense, and the members of the government setting the targets will be retired by the time we can measure the achievement. I predict they will not be achieved and the public will get the blame – or, more likely charged penalties for not meeting the targets.
Excellent idea to offer a reduction in Council Tax for those households that have installed energy saving measures such as wall insulation. I have done this on a special offer from our council.
Also I am fed up with being taxed by the government if I generate carbon. What happened to the money from this tax – does it go to the general coffers or does it go to improving the environment by building CHP local plants for example. This measure alone would, I believe, reduce our carbon emissions by 30%. Similarly if the government were serious about reducing carbon emissions from vehicles they would impose a fuel ration. It is not the car that emits carbon, it is the fuel it burns. Thus those people who want a gas guzzler can have one – but they wouldn’t be able to drive very far. There is no point in councils charging more for parking a gas guzzler. A parked vehicle does not emit carbon!
It needs some joined up thinking like you are proposing – keep up the good work
You missed the government’s point. The extra tax in not a stick to beat us with to make us use less energy. The need to use less energy is used as an excuse to justify a big tax. Apart from a few token examples (electric vehicles being exempt from the London congestion charge) every ‘environmental’ issue (and many others too) require a large tax to enforce it but the tax will never be spent on actually solving the issue.
We built our own house 10 years ago and put in 100mm cavities and heavy block work inner leaf to make the house a giant storage heater. High performance windows mean lots of solar gain and passive insulation. We heat using wood (collecting and cutting this also keeps you fit, but there is only so much to glean in any one area) to fire a Rayburn driving under floor heating, with a bit of back up nightstore and for water in the summer. I am sitting here writing this with long johns under trousers, and a waist coat over a heavy jersey. How the heck do we save another 30%?
As to taxation, I have a very poor view of government’s designing taxes to achieve particular results. Take the waste problem – they tax waste and cause fly tipping. The correct answer is to tax at source and avoid unintended consequences. If you want to reduce energy consumption then tax energy use. It’s unfair, regressive and hits the “wrong” people hardest but it does get peoples attention. It just requires real guts and leadership. Oh – now I see the problem.
Andrew, G. Sharman’s comments, apart from “you’re living in a dream world”, strike a responsive cord with this Canadian. Your logic and common sense approach /suggestions will probably fall on “deaf ears”. However this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try!
It’s not just the householders who could save energy, just have a walk down your local high street in the early hours of the morning and see how many lights are left on overnight. OK, a lot of it is for security purposes but surely this is one of the reasons there are so many cameras on our streets?
Your comments on energy saving in the home bring me to ask the most simple question:
why not remove or reduce the VAT on all energy saving products?
I, like many other house owners, find my self building an extension to improve the size of our living space as our families grow. In Oxford, most of the houses are 1930 built with little, or in some cases no, insulation.
As an attempt to do my bit to counter the green house effect, I intended to fit a roof of solar tiles on my extension roof. Not only is the cost prohibitive but planning is just about impossible.
How are we to work towards making saving on energy usage if the government and local councils are not going to do their bit?
Lowering of cost of energy saving systems would raise the demand for this clean option. This, added to increased pressure on local planning to allow such structures such as solar tiles, would surly help.