Monday
Apr162012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Conservatory tax scrapped
Apr 16, 2012 Climate: Parliament Energy: other Greens A few days ago I mentioned new measures that would have required homeowners to spend thousands of pounds upgrading the energy efficiency of their homes if they wanted to introduce a home improvements such as a conservatory or a new boiler.
Yesterday the Mail reported that these plans have been dropped.
Ministers are to scrap plans for a ‘conservatory tax’ following a massive Tory backlash.
A senior Government source told the Mail that the proposals are ‘dead in the water’.
This latest abrupt U-turn comes only a week after we revealed the move which would force homeowners to fork out hundreds of pounds extra on measures to improve energy efficiency when they build an extension or fit a boiler.
Reader Comments (32)
Not before time. No doubt the chief troll will be along to refute this.
The power of Bishop Hill :)
A related article. Someone called Huhne?
Guardian:Green deal under fire from climate change sceptics
Interesting that they equate opposition to the plan as from "climate change sceptics".
Yet another example of ill-thought out policy. I believe it was a crazy lib-Dem idea with no thought given to the consequences - just like deciding wind turbines are a good idea as a means to power the future.
The conservatory tax story reminded me of when we built a conservatory. Because of the large glass/ground ratio, regulations said we couldn't connect it to the existing central heating system but had to put in a separate system (despite the fact that we would use thermostatically-controlled valves and would rarely want to heat it). I won't say how we got round the problem.
Phil,
Did you just do it anyways? :)
Regards
Mailman
Mailman: Of course - sense trumps regulations.
George Orwell wrote '1984' as a dreadful warning of how the power of the state could overcome individual freedoms.
It seems that many in Whitehall are using it instead as a textbook. :-(
I saw a comment here a day or so ago that the Sunday Times had reported that Osborne was about to pull the plug on on-shore wind subsidies, but have heard or seen nothing more about this. I am beginning to think I dreamt this. A withdrawal of subsidies would be very significant and welcome - though they need to scrap the subsidies for off-shore wind, wave and tide and run-of-the-river hydro likewise - they are all a waste of time and money in terms of the limited amount of energy they produce.
Countryfile last night dia a piece about how we can expect twice as many onshore installations as we have now. They took the line "It's the EU, mate, innit" so they wouldn't have to discuss (i.e. justify) why we need to do it at all.
I think the line was " 1984 was meant as a warning, not a blueprint", whatever, the LimpDems are a dangerous liability to the country, sad that conservatory even got an airing.
The entryism of the green-ecofacists is astonishing, They get in where no 60's Trot could ever have dreamed of. Can you imagine slogans like "Submit to the Discipline of The Party" on the walls of Marks and Spencer? Yet M&S walls are now adorned with messages about fighting Climate change, English and Irish operations being Carbon Neutral by 2015, sustainability objectives, and improving the lives of workers in its supply chain. And you wondered where those graduates with useless arts degrees would find employment? Britains only growth industry - BS.
R4's Today program covered this.
Senior Govt spokesman confirmed its dead but LD allies of Huney Monster are fighting back for reinstatement of his proposals.
According to DM there are no more onshore Wind Turbines to be approved but there are so many already approved in the pipeline it is no victory,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130041/Hot-air-Minister-says-onshore-wind-farms-thousands-pipeline.html
I’m pretty sure I heard someone on the Today program just now suggesting that this was still on the table. He was, or was quoting a LibDem, however, and still appeared to regard Chris Huhne as next-in-line to God. That problem should go away if he gets locked up, though...
BoFH
Glad I wasn't dreaming it - that would be worrying!
LC
"1984 was meant as a warning, not a blueprint"
That would be funny if it were less true.
BTW, can someone explain how anything more complicated than a Petunia can be 'carbon neutral'?
BoFA - me too. But what is the favoured mechanism? Is it to be a change through planning guidance, or a reduction in the subsidies? The former will be good for England (and Wales?) but leave the SNP here in Scotland to continue carpeting us with inefficient and expensive windmills, which very few people outwith the renewable industry want. It has to be a UK approach and termination of the ROCs and FiT subsidies, otherwise developers who were planning on subsidy farming in England will just put even more pressure on Scottish sites and local authorities, who are already up to their necks in applications for schemes in insensitive and inappropriate areas.
Apr 16, 2012 at 9:25 AM |James P
BTW, can someone explain how anything more complicated than a Petunia can be 'carbon neutral'?
I suppose the simple truth is that everything is carbon neutral. It is simply a question of timescale. The laws of conservation of energy about which I know nothing seem to indicate that nothing is ever created or destroyed simply transformed. Also, Entropy, also about which I know nothing, would seem to suggest that everything will , in time, return to its natural state. Even the shiniest 4by 4 if left long enough will reduce to a pile of rust and decayed plastic. There was a 110 foot German e-boat wrecked on our coast in 1946 (the tow broke) and now apart from the remains of two engine blocks there is nothing there. In another 100 years they will be gone too.
@james p
'He was, or was quoting a LibDem, however, and still appeared to regard Chris Huhne as next-in-line to God. That problem should go away if he gets locked up, though...'
Huhne still seems to have a hotline to the grauinad, who have published his latest rantings here
'http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/15/chris-huhne-ministers-green-deal'
Pleasingly, even at that shrine to ecolunacy, he is getting a good thrashing in the comments. I would join in if I weren't banned...but there's nothing to stop anybody else from voicing their opinions.
How Huhne ever got appointed to any job more responsible than pencil sharpener monitor is a mystery. He seems to have little intellect, few friends and no charm. Perhaps it is just his monstrous ego that got him to the Cabinet? And the same that will (deo volente) get him into a long long holiday in the Scrubs.
I hear that Chris Huhne is mortified! How on earth did such an idiot ever get to the position of Secretary of State anyway? Thank goodness he has goone. However, I worry that the LibDem leadership might also make a noise. Now is the time for Cameron to put his foot well and truly down.
http://forum.housingenergyadvisor.com/cavity-wall-insulation/topic351.html
Anybody who has ever tryed to pull a chart with a horses says that Carrots work better than sticks
lapogus 8.57am
I would have thought that run-of-the-river hydro might well be something that is worth a bit of government backing for small scale development.
A friend of mine had a project (which came to nothing, I have to admit) for a scheme which would have produced sufficient power for the small housing development which was being built next to it. The idea was obviously that the power would be fed into the grid rather than used exclusively for the local houses for the sake of simplicity and reliability but he researched it pretty thoroughly and the figures seemed to add up.
His argument (we are going back to before the AGW scare, you understand) was that small, essentially "free" schemes would take the pressure off increasingly expensive fossil fuels.
EDF have two or three working schemes along the Romanche above Grenoble — slightly more (shall we say) precipitous! than what you find in Scotland — so it's a practical technology.
Instead of individual houses with solar panels feeding the occasional bit of power back into the grid (and getting paid excessively for doing so), small hydro schemes which theoretically can be marked as providing sufficient power for an identifiable group of properties would be "owned" by those properties who would then get their electricity at a discount based on the calculated input to the grid.
I don't think we should dismiss mini-schemes like this out of hand; just as long as we don't pretend we're doing it to "save the planet".
As so often happens, the editors in the Guardian article on the Green Deal mentioned by Jiminy Cricket at 7.43am have inserted "climate sceptics," into the headline, although it does not appear in the article.
Jiminy Cricket: 'Interesting that they equate opposition to the plan as from "climate change sceptics".'
Even more interesting that they didn't refer to us sceptics as 'deniers'.
Bish, you should be less credulous. Knowing the Mail, they probably got that 'dead in the water' response to their initial enquiry, but left it out so Booker could froth a bit. The u-turn is likely imaginary.
Dave
Just because it's in the DM doesn't mean it's not true.
This was a scheme dreamed up by Huhne, so the Cons have a perfect excuse to ditch it, which must be their instinctive reaction to such a plan anyway. They're not called 'conservatories' for nothing!
Mike - don't get me wrong - I am usually an advocate of hydro-electricity - my father was a senior engineer at Cruachan in the NOSHEB days (I used to play in the transformer halls long before Health and Safety had been invented!) and then went on to work in the Tummel & Breadalbane schemes and then Grid Control. I know these schemes very well also. So I am all for hydro. But just about every small tributary of the Tay and Tummel is now being exploited for micro-hydro schemes, which can impede salmon migration to breeding grounds upstream. Also, the generous subsidies only go to landowners and local communities get nothing. Unbelievably, even famous waterfalls like the Birks of Aberfeldy (subject of the Robert Burns song) which are very important to the tourism economy are also now under threat from totally inappropriate hydro schemes. Aside from the impact of putting up to 75% of the flow into a pipe, such that the waterfalls are always much the same in terms of flow, the main reason why I am against is because they tend to produce negligible amounts of electricity - rarely more than 1MW capacity - and when we need the power most in winter cold spells they produce nothing because all run-off either falls as snow or is frozen solid. Hence the subsidies for small scale run-of-the-river hydro have to cease. (Just to put this in context, the installed capacity of the existing post war storage schemes in Perthshire is about 250MW). So it is just micro-renewables and run-of-the-river schemes I am opposed to. I am not not against large scale hydro in appropriate places (but there are not many of these places left), as they are still by far the best of the renewable sectors.
Mr Hulme instead of building ECO houses
Why not look after the houses you,ve aready got .More importantly begin to start looking after the actual people that live in those houses
Mr Hulme if you want to look after the Enviroment drop the Authoritianism and adopt a humanist approach and start looking after the people who actually live in it
A definitian of humanism is someone who put the welfare and prosperity of ordinary people before their own beleives and values, What ever the the truth about Climate Change there are a lot of people who
over exagerate or delieberatley scare and lie about its effects to further their own self interests
Thats is illmoral and wrong they are deliberatley creating unnessary hardship for others
Check out a Sarah Beeney TV show on 4OD and Youtude called
Help My House is Falling Down
Title is pretty self explanetary, it a reality horror show and some of the homeoowners are in utter despair
All the damage is avoidable and repairable They were lucky the TV company paid for their structural surveys that they should have had in the first place .Easy mistake to make cant blame
Anyone from the GWPF or Right Wing Think Tank offshoot reading my mad ramblings
COUNTER PROPOSAL Instead of increasing taxes and costs
Get the Goverment to cut VAT and income for everything associated with the Construction industry
Spend a few million Upgrading Maintaining and Renewal of the Excisting Housing Stock
Saves a few billion on The NHS less Asphma ,Less home Accidents, improved energy consumption less fuel bills less stress better quaility of life for everyone More work for building workers just a few of the bennefits. Dont need solar panels just houses that dont need repairs and clean gutters
ALL THAT EQUALS LESS CARBON- MORE ECONOMIC GROWTH - LESS UNEMPLOYMENT
Nigel Lawson ( the great man ) was at the 1983 Tory Party rally with Kenny Everwett and his giant rubber hands. Also there cheering for Maggie was Roger Scouton ( not so great man ) jumping from the Blue Band wagon to the Green one
Roger now writing for the Guardian read by people who think they should run the country not Sun readers who only want a goverment full of large breasts
Problem is we got a bunch of big tits running things already
Roger Scouton big hot shot philoshere and i cant spell Explain about MACRO economics
Cut Taxes Cut public spending get everyone working .Gives people pride self reliance and a work ethic
With less taxation they buy in their own eduction and health care got the discipline of the market place Get the best value for your money, Anyone that has ever won the lottery took their kids out the local comprehensive and straight into the best local private school before the houses cars and the holidays
Now we all love the NHS but its rubbish compared to Germany Singapore and the USA
Hugh Laurie dodgy accent Dr House MD automatically sends his Patients to the MMR Scanner
quick diagnosis ,Why has the UK got the lowest number of scanners and lowest Cancer Survival Rate
And all the patients have seperate rooms with see through perplex walls so when the cleaners mop the floors the Germs stop at the wall not with the next patient so not much MRSA
Macro economics is in China Singapore Hongkong and Switzerland and none of them need a Bail Out
And if Switzerland has such low taxes and is full of foriegn Tax Exhiles why hasnt gone skint like Greece
And Roger if you are such a top Tory thinker why are you advocating Tax Increase
lapogus
Point taken.
You obviously know a lot more about the subject than I do. Perhaps a better description would be "ruin-of-the-river" schemes?
I do enjoy Jamespid's braindumps, especially the bit about Sun readers. Not sure what it does to the credibility of the thinking skeptic, but you should definitely have your own blog :)
Jamesp
"Just because it's in the DM doesn't mean it's not true."
True, but the Daily Mail loathes Cameron for various "reasons", e.g. he doesn't hate immigrants, doesn't want to string up every criminal, isn't Gordon Brown etc., so there are ways of putting stories over to make them as damaging as possible to the coalition, including - oh fearless and edgy reporting - putting -gate at the end of every title. So tentative thoughts can be cast iron plans which are then withdrawn in a humiliating (or Huhnemiliating) climbdown.
From The Register today, a quote by Energy Minister Barker:
"There is a requirement to rethink the economics of green. We have to have a more nuanced and sophisticated policy. Basically, that means reducing costs quicker, looking to commercialise sooner, and thinking more carefully about the use of public subsidy,” said Barker.
To paraphrase: Holy Shit this is crazy expensive. We are going to chop this stupidity. Throwing money at these schemes costs us more votes than we thought. We have to stop wasting money on these projects when we have to borrow the money from from China.
The problem for us in Scotland is that these backlashes against the conservatory tax and windfarms comes from the English middle class. If we ever become independent who is to protect us from the worst excesses of an SNP government firmly in the pockets of the envirofascists.
In Europe poker sites that are licensed inside the EU are able to offer their citizens tax-free poker winnings; how do you think rules in the US regarding poker winnings will be once poker is legalized?