Here we have it, straight from the horse’s mouth:
Radiators would have to run 10 degrees cooler under changes to homes needed for Britain to hit net zero, the public has been warned.
The Government has said it wants 600,000 heat pumps replacing gas boilers every year by 2028 to help decarbonise the country’s home heating, which accounts for 10 per cent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions.
We all know, from the imposition first of CFLs and then of LEDs that fighting climate change does mean dark. Now the other shoe is dropping and we’ve got to shiver as well.
To keep homes warm, that may require bigger radiators, underfloor heating and improved insulation, with full modifications estimated to cost on average £18,000.
And here we’ve got the perfect example of the stupidity with which people are approaching the problem. We are trying to maximise, optimise, the lifestyles of humans over time. So, there are costs to emissions, OK, but there are also costs to non-emissions. That utility is maximised where we do away with the emissions that bring less gain than their costs while still making the emissions that produce benefits greater than the costs.
British emissions are around the half billion tonnes a year mark. 10% of that is 50 million tonnes. The social cost of carbon is $80 per tonne CO2-3 (from Stern). So, household emissions from heating have a cost of $4 billion a year – call that £3 billion among friends.
There are 25 million households in the UK, £18,000 per household is £450 billion. There might be a universe in which spending £450 billion once (let’s assume once, to make it look good, not worry about replacement costs etc) to save £3 billion a year is a sensible idea but it’s not this one.
So, we shouldn’t be doing this, should we?
Darren Jones MP, the chair of the Commons business and energy committee, said: “It’s not the same as gas. You can’t just knock up the dial on your wall a little bit and suddenly it gets a bit warmer”.
It’s more expensive to be worse. Nope, shouldn’t be doing it.
The mistake here is that everyone’s listened to the economists saying that some action to deter, limit, reduce, climate change is economically justified. But what they’ve heard is that any action is so. The second being the thing that ain’t true.