5 ms·

The best approach I've heard to solving climate change involves a carbon tax. High gas prices are a proxy for that. It's already driving discussions people just

The best approach I've heard to solving climate change involves a carbon tax. High gas prices are a proxy for that. It's already driving discussions people just weren't having before - how can I make my home more energy efficient? What can I do to save energy? In many ways, high energy prices are a positive thing for society (in the long run). The problem is, of course, that high energy prices are a huge negative for those who can't afford them. All the proposed carbon tax schemes I've seen are a carbon tax and dividend - you tax carbon, and redistribute the profits to those who can't afford the higher prices. Right now, we've got the carbon tax, but the dividend is going into the pockets of oil companies - exactly the people you don't want to be building up cash reserves in the fight against climate change. The other issue we have in the UK (and maybe elsewhere) is that the cost of energy is borne by the tenant, but the cost of renovations would be borne by the landlord. This means that landlords have no incentive to improve the energy efficiency of their houses, and tenants have no ability to. We should be changing that - make landlords of energy inefficient houses pay for it.

cjrp 5y ago
There are quite a few grants available for things like improving insulation, but you're right; a landlord doesn't really have an incentive to go through the hassle of applying for it and arranging for the work to be done. An EPC (Energy Performance Certificate) is required when you let a property, and it has to be at least an "E" rating (A: best, G: worst) but that's not really saying much.
- leoedin 5y ago
  Yeah - the EPC is a joke. It's just a tick box exercise. It doesn't take much effort to get a good enough rating to let. High energy costs could be an incredibly powerful tool to drive changes in the UK housing stock. It's only when energy is expensive that the payback time starts to make sense. That would need sensible and cohesive policy decisions from people with a good understanding of high efficiency housing. Clearly we don't have that.
  - cameronh90 5y ago
    Aside from a few very simple improvements (LED lights, loft and cavity insulation, double glazing), is there really anything that can be done to an old house to improve its insulation that is actually cost effective? My 1930s house is a D, so I had an energy contractor round to cost up some improvements. All the obvious cheap-ish ones have already been done. The next ones on the list were things like solar panels which would take 15 years to pay off, solar water heating which would take 30 years and exterior wall insulation which would cost around £40k and take nearly 300 years to pay off! And arguably worse, they couldn't guarantee that sealing up the house wouldn't cause damp problems to emerge since the damp proofing and construction of old buildings can be inconsistent. Even things like a heat pump would either need an incredibly beefy drop in boiler replacement, costing more than £30k, or I would need to install a hot water tank, previously mentioned insulation, larger radiators and upgrade my pipes - and even then savings would be marginal because electric costs so much more than gas. Is it worth spending all this money upgrading old housing stock, or is it better spent on things like solar farms, wind farms and hydrogen (or synthetic natgas) generation. Even district heating might easier than trying to retrofit heat pumps to our old leaky houses. Ultimately the goal is net zero. Insulation helps, all else being equal, but if the energy production is zero carbon then the energy efficiency of the homes is basically irrelevant. Given that, where is it more efficient to spend the money?
    - leoedin 5y ago
      Whether something is cost effective is directly proportional to energy prices - hence rising prices suddenly reduce payback periods for energy saving. Sealing houses up without accounting for moisture can cause issues, but it's not insurmountable. Rather than ventilating through accidental means, you seal the house until ventilation needs to be intentional - and then you can do it using mechanical ventilation with heat recovery - which effectively keeps 80% of the heat in the air and transfers it to incoming fresh air. Equally insulating without moisture management can cause issues - but as long as the insulation is designed with vapour barriers and ventilation in the right place, it's perfectly doable. The problem is that it's very easy to do it wrong, and not realise until years later all the timbers are rotting because of condensation. I'd argue that (at least in the UK) we have far too many old houses not to deal with them. Space heating accounts for 27% of our national energy consumption. So much energy, which could be useful, is just wasted. I can't speak for your situation, but the costs you suggest for external wall insulation seem very high - eg https://www.checkatrade.com/blog/cost-guides/external-wall-insulation-cost/ https://www.checkatrade.com/blog/cost-guides/external-wall-i... suggests it's more like £6-£20k depending on house size. Speaking as someone working in the energy industry, we are a very, very long way from zero carbon energy. Renewables only work intermittently - we don't have a solution to fill the gaps in dark winters or calm days. Batteries are at least a couple orders of magnitude too small, pumped hydro needs very specific geography, and all other energy storage methods are unproven or highly inefficient.
- beojan 5y ago
  So long as the rating is shown in estate agent's listings, tenants can take it into account when deciding what to rent.
  - lbriner 5y ago
    I guess that by itself that would be helpful but the truth is that most people wouldn't really pay any attention to it or certainly not much attention compared to price, location, what the place looks like etc. There is definitely room for a lot of improvement in the UK housing stock but every possibility is poisoned by the large numbers of people it would affect. Not all Landlords are fat cats and not all tenants are poor, which is why things move so slowly. Even in new-builds, the quality of insulation work can be somewhere between shocking and non-existent. What do you do? You need umpteen million new houses and don't have enough skilled tradespeople to be able to fire those that do a crappy job. I think a much bigger win would be further back where we need to align incentives and opportunities for school leavers to the industries that are short of workers. It seems daft to me that people can choose "Health and Beauty" courses when we already have a million of those and a massive shortage of engineering trades.
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      They would pay attention to an actual number "cost to heat this property per year".
frobozz 5y ago
> the cost of energy is borne by the tenant, but the cost of renovations would be borne by the landlord In addition, as house prices are so high, owner-occupiers often don't have the means to make these improvements until they have been in the house for five or more years. Landlords get to claim the cost of improvements as a business expense and can save an enormous amount of tax on making those improvements. Owner-occupiers have to pay out of their net income. So if it costs me 10k, it only costs a landlord 6k. But they still don't do it. Forcing rented accommodation to have EPC E or better is a really low bar. I think it should be compulsory for landlords to carry out all EPC recommendations to a certain value within a sensible period.
- antisthenes 5y ago
  > Landlords get to claim the cost of improvements as a business expense and can save an enormous amount of tax on making those improvements. > You may not deduct the cost of improvements. A rental property is improved only if the amounts paid are for a betterment or restoration or adaptation to a new or different use. See the Tangible Property Regulations - Frequently Asked Questions for more information about improvements. The cost of improvements is recovered through depreciation. [0] Please explain your post. [0] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tips-on-rental-real-estate-income-deductions-and-recordkeeping https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
  - leoedin 5y ago
    The parent was talking about the UK, while your link is for the US?
  - frobozz 5y ago
    If you look at the actual HMRC guidance, rather than some random website, you'd see that "alterations due to advancements in technology are generally treated as an allowable repair rather than an improvement, if the functionality and character of the asset is broadly the same. For example, when single glazing is replaced with double glazing" So a more efficient heating system, better windows, better external doors, replacing loft insulation with material with a higher R-value are all within the scope of "allowable repair".
3D25157725 5y ago
>> In many ways, high energy prices are a positive thing for society (in the long run). If you don't mind, I wonder if you might expand on this? For me it seems a bit blithe. For instance, we know that higher energy prices cascade into many, if not most, consumer end items, and so I think it follows this decreases the standard of living generally. I understand the important consideration of negative externalities, and how fossil fuels negatively impact 3rd parties (the world generally/climate change). I think the economic argument that there should be a carbon tax to account for these externalities is quite right. This is true regardless of climate change. So let's assume for arguments sake, we're going to tax above and beyond that to account for climate change as well. Are we hoping then, by hiking the cost, it ushers in a new discovery of lower cost energy, with fewer externalities? And if this turns out to be the case, then these austerity measures if you like, turn out to be transient, and the temporary lower standard of living sacrifice is made for the betterment of posterity. Or is it simply we must accept a lower standard of living permanently lest we allow climate change to continue unabated, as it were? Sorry if this distracts from the main point you were making.
- dboreham 5y ago
  It stops people consuming energy they don't really need, and it makes people more likely to consume renewable energy which is often more costly.
  - 3D25157725 5y ago
    Right, and I agree to both. This also lowers their standard of living. My question was probably too vague. Maybe more directly, is raising costs across the board as a matter of policy more effective in our fight against climate change than other interventions? Like subsidizing research into renewable energies, etc. Have we given up on those? I am far from qualified in judging the effectiveness of alternatives, I just wonder if these taxes are draconian, and if so, have we given up hope on these alternatives. This was besides the point the parent was making, however, so I am regretting my digression now.
    - 5y ago
zdragnar 5y ago
Doesn't cold weather still kill more old folk than heat in the UK? High heating bills doesn't really move the needle any if they are also significantly subsidized. Out here in the midwest US, high propane and natural gas prices have caused a massive spike in the installation of wood heating. Our bill went up by nearly 50% this winter due almost entirely to supply issues. Unfortunately, heat pump installation is still too expensive (many years payback) and electrical heating isn't particularly green (resistance heating a house at -40 degree wind chills off of coal and natural gas at night is the worst outcome possible short of burning petrol generators). We are much better off saving residential heating for later and focusing on other carbon priorities until the grid itself is greener, I think.
- wcoenen 5y ago
  > Our bill went up by nearly 50% this winter What is happening in Europe is of a different magnitude. Gas prices on variable price contracts have tripled here in Belgium. See graph here: https://callmepower.be/nl/energie/gids/tarief/prijs-gas#gasprijs-in-belgie-evolutie-grafiek https://callmepower.be/nl/energie/gids/tarief/prijs-gas#gasp...
timthorn 5y ago
> All the proposed carbon tax schemes I've seen are a carbon tax and dividend - you tax carbon, and redistribute the profits to those who can't afford the higher prices. UK energy bills are something like this. About 15% of a dual fuel bill goes both on subsidising renewables and social payments. > The other issue we have in the UK (and maybe elsewhere) is that the cost of energy is borne by the tenant, but the cost of renovations would be borne by the landlord. This means that landlords have no incentive to improve the energy efficiency of their houses, and tenants have no ability to. We should be changing that - make landlords of energy inefficient houses pay for it. All rented properties (unless with an excemption) will have to achieve a EPC rating of "E" by 2023 and by 2025 will have to achieve "C". The intention is for that to rise to "B" by 2030: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/970192/non-domestic-prs-mees-epc-b-future-trajectory-implementation.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- cameronh90 5y ago
  Just to note that the exemptions on this are quite easy to get. Right now, you only have to spend £3500. If it costs more than that to get to the required EPC rating, you can get an exemption. There is also the "seven year payback test", which is as it sounds. What this means is yes, this may drive your landlord to install LED bulbs and thermostatic radiator valves, and maybe some double glazed windows, but it's not going to trigger a mass drive towards modern insulation and solar panels. Personally I think we should just force landlords to bear the cost of heating to 18c.
HPsquared 5y ago
The landlord/tenant thing would be mitigated by publishing the energy cost of the property to allow price comparisons. If prospective tenants knew the energy costs of the different options when looking, a place with higher energy costs would then attract a lower monthly rent (commensurate with the difference in energy bills) than an otherwise identical place with cheaper energy costs. Tenants would ideally see the combined cost of rent+taxes+energy+bills when comparing places. Edit: perhaps this could be an idea for a website.

cjrp 5y ago

There are quite a few grants available for things like improving insulation, but you're right; a landlord doesn't really have an incentive to go through the hassle of applying for it and arranging for the work to be done. An EPC (Energy Performance Certificate) is required when you let a property, and it has to be at least an "E" rating (A: best, G: worst) but that's not really saying much.

leoedin 5y ago
Yeah - the EPC is a joke. It's just a tick box exercise. It doesn't take much effort to get a good enough rating to let. High energy costs could be an incredibly powerful tool to drive changes in the UK housing stock. It's only when energy is expensive that the payback time starts to make sense. That would need sensible and cohesive policy decisions from people with a good understanding of high efficiency housing. Clearly we don't have that.
- cameronh90 5y ago
  Aside from a few very simple improvements (LED lights, loft and cavity insulation, double glazing), is there really anything that can be done to an old house to improve its insulation that is actually cost effective? My 1930s house is a D, so I had an energy contractor round to cost up some improvements. All the obvious cheap-ish ones have already been done. The next ones on the list were things like solar panels which would take 15 years to pay off, solar water heating which would take 30 years and exterior wall insulation which would cost around £40k and take nearly 300 years to pay off! And arguably worse, they couldn't guarantee that sealing up the house wouldn't cause damp problems to emerge since the damp proofing and construction of old buildings can be inconsistent. Even things like a heat pump would either need an incredibly beefy drop in boiler replacement, costing more than £30k, or I would need to install a hot water tank, previously mentioned insulation, larger radiators and upgrade my pipes - and even then savings would be marginal because electric costs so much more than gas. Is it worth spending all this money upgrading old housing stock, or is it better spent on things like solar farms, wind farms and hydrogen (or synthetic natgas) generation. Even district heating might easier than trying to retrofit heat pumps to our old leaky houses. Ultimately the goal is net zero. Insulation helps, all else being equal, but if the energy production is zero carbon then the energy efficiency of the homes is basically irrelevant. Given that, where is it more efficient to spend the money?
  - leoedin 5y ago
    Whether something is cost effective is directly proportional to energy prices - hence rising prices suddenly reduce payback periods for energy saving. Sealing houses up without accounting for moisture can cause issues, but it's not insurmountable. Rather than ventilating through accidental means, you seal the house until ventilation needs to be intentional - and then you can do it using mechanical ventilation with heat recovery - which effectively keeps 80% of the heat in the air and transfers it to incoming fresh air. Equally insulating without moisture management can cause issues - but as long as the insulation is designed with vapour barriers and ventilation in the right place, it's perfectly doable. The problem is that it's very easy to do it wrong, and not realise until years later all the timbers are rotting because of condensation. I'd argue that (at least in the UK) we have far too many old houses not to deal with them. Space heating accounts for 27% of our national energy consumption. So much energy, which could be useful, is just wasted. I can't speak for your situation, but the costs you suggest for external wall insulation seem very high - eg https://www.checkatrade.com/blog/cost-guides/external-wall-insulation-cost/ https://www.checkatrade.com/blog/cost-guides/external-wall-i... suggests it's more like £6-£20k depending on house size. Speaking as someone working in the energy industry, we are a very, very long way from zero carbon energy. Renewables only work intermittently - we don't have a solution to fill the gaps in dark winters or calm days. Batteries are at least a couple orders of magnitude too small, pumped hydro needs very specific geography, and all other energy storage methods are unproven or highly inefficient.
beojan 5y ago
So long as the rating is shown in estate agent's listings, tenants can take it into account when deciding what to rent.
- lbriner 5y ago
  I guess that by itself that would be helpful but the truth is that most people wouldn't really pay any attention to it or certainly not much attention compared to price, location, what the place looks like etc. There is definitely room for a lot of improvement in the UK housing stock but every possibility is poisoned by the large numbers of people it would affect. Not all Landlords are fat cats and not all tenants are poor, which is why things move so slowly. Even in new-builds, the quality of insulation work can be somewhere between shocking and non-existent. What do you do? You need umpteen million new houses and don't have enough skilled tradespeople to be able to fire those that do a crappy job. I think a much bigger win would be further back where we need to align incentives and opportunities for school leavers to the industries that are short of workers. It seems daft to me that people can choose "Health and Beauty" courses when we already have a million of those and a massive shortage of engineering trades.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    They would pay attention to an actual number "cost to heat this property per year".

frobozz 5y ago

> the cost of energy is borne by the tenant, but the cost of renovations would be borne by the landlord In addition, as house prices are so high, owner-occupiers often don't have the means to make these improvements until they have been in the house for five or more years. Landlords get to claim the cost of improvements as a business expense and can save an enormous amount of tax on making those improvements. Owner-occupiers have to pay out of their net income. So if it costs me 10k, it only costs a landlord 6k. But they still don't do it. Forcing rented accommodation to have EPC E or better is a really low bar. I think it should be compulsory for landlords to carry out all EPC recommendations to a certain value within a sensible period.

antisthenes 5y ago
> Landlords get to claim the cost of improvements as a business expense and can save an enormous amount of tax on making those improvements. > You may not deduct the cost of improvements. A rental property is improved only if the amounts paid are for a betterment or restoration or adaptation to a new or different use. See the Tangible Property Regulations - Frequently Asked Questions for more information about improvements. The cost of improvements is recovered through depreciation. [0] Please explain your post. [0] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/tips-on-rental-real-estate-income-deductions-and-recordkeeping https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
- leoedin 5y ago
  The parent was talking about the UK, while your link is for the US?
- frobozz 5y ago
  If you look at the actual HMRC guidance, rather than some random website, you'd see that "alterations due to advancements in technology are generally treated as an allowable repair rather than an improvement, if the functionality and character of the asset is broadly the same. For example, when single glazing is replaced with double glazing" So a more efficient heating system, better windows, better external doors, replacing loft insulation with material with a higher R-value are all within the scope of "allowable repair".

3D25157725 5y ago

>> In many ways, high energy prices are a positive thing for society (in the long run). If you don't mind, I wonder if you might expand on this? For me it seems a bit blithe. For instance, we know that higher energy prices cascade into many, if not most, consumer end items, and so I think it follows this decreases the standard of living generally. I understand the important consideration of negative externalities, and how fossil fuels negatively impact 3rd parties (the world generally/climate change). I think the economic argument that there should be a carbon tax to account for these externalities is quite right. This is true regardless of climate change. So let's assume for arguments sake, we're going to tax above and beyond that to account for climate change as well. Are we hoping then, by hiking the cost, it ushers in a new discovery of lower cost energy, with fewer externalities? And if this turns out to be the case, then these austerity measures if you like, turn out to be transient, and the temporary lower standard of living sacrifice is made for the betterment of posterity. Or is it simply we must accept a lower standard of living permanently lest we allow climate change to continue unabated, as it were? Sorry if this distracts from the main point you were making.

dboreham 5y ago
It stops people consuming energy they don't really need, and it makes people more likely to consume renewable energy which is often more costly.
- 3D25157725 5y ago
  Right, and I agree to both. This also lowers their standard of living. My question was probably too vague. Maybe more directly, is raising costs across the board as a matter of policy more effective in our fight against climate change than other interventions? Like subsidizing research into renewable energies, etc. Have we given up on those? I am far from qualified in judging the effectiveness of alternatives, I just wonder if these taxes are draconian, and if so, have we given up hope on these alternatives. This was besides the point the parent was making, however, so I am regretting my digression now.
  - 5y ago

zdragnar 5y ago

Doesn't cold weather still kill more old folk than heat in the UK? High heating bills doesn't really move the needle any if they are also significantly subsidized. Out here in the midwest US, high propane and natural gas prices have caused a massive spike in the installation of wood heating. Our bill went up by nearly 50% this winter due almost entirely to supply issues. Unfortunately, heat pump installation is still too expensive (many years payback) and electrical heating isn't particularly green (resistance heating a house at -40 degree wind chills off of coal and natural gas at night is the worst outcome possible short of burning petrol generators). We are much better off saving residential heating for later and focusing on other carbon priorities until the grid itself is greener, I think.

wcoenen 5y ago
> Our bill went up by nearly 50% this winter What is happening in Europe is of a different magnitude. Gas prices on variable price contracts have tripled here in Belgium. See graph here: https://callmepower.be/nl/energie/gids/tarief/prijs-gas#gasprijs-in-belgie-evolutie-grafiek https://callmepower.be/nl/energie/gids/tarief/prijs-gas#gasp...

timthorn 5y ago

> All the proposed carbon tax schemes I've seen are a carbon tax and dividend - you tax carbon, and redistribute the profits to those who can't afford the higher prices. UK energy bills are something like this. About 15% of a dual fuel bill goes both on subsidising renewables and social payments. > The other issue we have in the UK (and maybe elsewhere) is that the cost of energy is borne by the tenant, but the cost of renovations would be borne by the landlord. This means that landlords have no incentive to improve the energy efficiency of their houses, and tenants have no ability to. We should be changing that - make landlords of energy inefficient houses pay for it. All rented properties (unless with an excemption) will have to achieve a EPC rating of "E" by 2023 and by 2025 will have to achieve "C". The intention is for that to rise to "B" by 2030: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/970192/non-domestic-prs-mees-epc-b-future-trajectory-implementation.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

cameronh90 5y ago
Just to note that the exemptions on this are quite easy to get. Right now, you only have to spend £3500. If it costs more than that to get to the required EPC rating, you can get an exemption. There is also the "seven year payback test", which is as it sounds. What this means is yes, this may drive your landlord to install LED bulbs and thermostatic radiator valves, and maybe some double glazed windows, but it's not going to trigger a mass drive towards modern insulation and solar panels. Personally I think we should just force landlords to bear the cost of heating to 18c.

HPsquared 5y ago

The landlord/tenant thing would be mitigated by publishing the energy cost of the property to allow price comparisons. If prospective tenants knew the energy costs of the different options when looking, a place with higher energy costs would then attract a lower monthly rent (commensurate with the difference in energy bills) than an otherwise identical place with cheaper energy costs. Tenants would ideally see the combined cost of rent+taxes+energy+bills when comparing places. Edit: perhaps this could be an idea for a website.