The UK's domestic properties need transformation if we are to meet out climate targets – and we need a carbon army of trained people to undertake that task.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
We need a carbon army.
What do I mean? A carbon army would be maybe half a million people employed in this country to transform our domestic energy supply.
We live in a country where it is entirely possible to generate a lot of energy by putting solar panels on our roofs. But most roofs do not have solar panels on them.
We live in a country where the housing stock is older than average for the world and where very large numbers of properties are lacking some very basic things like insulation or double or even triple glazing which would transform their energy efficiency.
The energy efficiency of buildings in the UK is very often well below the C grade which is considered the minimum requirement that we should be targeting during the 2030s, and so far below the A level that is required by 2050 if we are to meet our targets for climate change, that this investment is absolutely essential, and probably the single most useful thing that we could do to create a more efficient carbon environment for the UK.
And we need that more efficient carbon environment.
We need to consume less energy if we are to meet our energy targets. Because consuming less guarantees that throughout the energy cycle, there is no waste to put carbon into the atmosphere. And 25 per cent of all carbon we put into the atmosphere from the UK comes from our domestic properties.
So, we need to have people available who can do this essential task of bringing the UK's housing stock up to scratch so that we can meet that target and simultaneously do something which is also really important and that is end energy poverty in the UK, which as we all know is a massive factor in some people's lives.
The increasing cost of energy and our vulnerability to that price because of our dependency on energy imports is a serious issue for those people who are living on low incomes because energy now consumes so much of their available income. If we were able to reduce their energy consumption by increasing the quality of their housing, by removing the opportunity for energy to literally leak from it, which is the issue that they face, then we could solve that problem as well.
How could we do that? Look, this is really not rocket science. We need to invest in what I call that carbon army. People who will be trained to do these tasks which are fundamentally important to the future of our society. Tasks like insulation; tasks like fitting double-glazed windows, which would need to be made in the UK, and tasks like fitting new doors are deeply energy inefficient in most cases.
The question, of course, is how do we pay for this programme? And the answer is that it has to be funded upfront by the state. Because the capital available to do this is not in most people's possession. Remember that 70 plus per cent of people in the UK do not have sufficient savings to even manage the crisis that an unexpected bill might produce.
They are so poor in this sense that there is no spare capacity to, in any way, invest in their properties so that they can beat this energy crisis that we're all facing. Therefore, the capital has to come from somewhere else, and that has to come from the government.
I have suggested a source for that capital. It is very simple, and it is very straightforward. It is that all ISA funds should now be required to be saved in accounts that are linked to the Green New Deal, of which this idea of a carbon army is a part. And that money should be used to provide the capital for the purposes of undertaking energy transformation.
And yes, I know that ISA accounts can be withdrawn but if you look at the data on ISA account holdings over time, and we've got information for more than 20 years, almost without exception every year, the overall aggregate balance on ISA accounts grows, and as a consequence, we can use that money as capital because it is going to be left in savings in aggregate.
Therefore, If we change the rules on tax relief on ISAs so that anybody who wanted to take advantage of tax-free savings would have to make their money available for investment in the green economy, with the government guaranteeing a rate of return which would be market competitive at around the going interest rate, then we would end up with all the cash that is required to fund this carbon army to put the resources in place.
And the recovery of the money in question would come through future energy bills, which would be lower in the first instance simply because there would be less leakage. Therefore, overall, the consumer would pay less but would pay for the benefit that they get from insulation over the long term.
We would, therefore, get a series of advantages. We could beat our climate change targets.
We could put people to work in long-term employment in the UK, in the places where people live, doing jobs that will be secure for the long term where skills are required, and where there is, therefore, an opportunity for long-term careers.
And simultaneously, we could help beat the whole curse of energy poverty.
That, to me, is what a government who cares about this country should be doing.
And that's why we need a carbon army.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I suggest a read of this
https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/homes-for-heroes#:~:text=Our%20report%20on%20solving%20the%20energy%20efficiency%20crisis%20in%20England's%20interwar%20suburbs.&text=local_offer%20Policy-,Homes%20for%20Heroes%3A%20solving%20the%20energy%20efficiency%20crisis%20in%20England's,built%20between%201919%20and%201939.
One obvious idea might be to replace stamp duty with a requirement on house buyers to improve the energy efficiency of their purchase to a minimum level. This may also include fitting solar PV and battery storage and electric car charging for more efficient properties.
I would suggest that a survey should be conducted by an approved 3rd party before a property is put on the market which would outline the work that needed doing and an estimate of the cost. On purchase the buyers would have to deposit the money with the local authority which would then be used to pay invoices for the work needed.
If necessary the work could be done ‘in default’
There would need to be something different for Flats.
I would also suggest some sort of tax on ‘large’ properties to reflect their energy consumption and ‘high energy’ fittings eg private swimming pools and Spa’s
Thanks
I like that stamp duty idea: pay up front and then reclaim though, I suggest
It cannot be said enough that the transition to Net Zero – if done well – is a huge opportunity to revive the UK economy – contrary to what the likes of Farage have said. The UK (Scotland in particular) has huge renewable potential to exploit. At the same time the UK (again Scotland in particular) suffers from needlessly high energy prices which is compounded by an ageing housing stock lacking in heat efficiency. There is much to criticise the term efficiency whenever a politician or technocrat mentions it but insulating and retro fitting buildings is an example where efficiency is needed.
As you mention there is potential for providing jobs which could be enhanced if the materials used are procured locally rather than imported. The most significant benefit is less energy use is required to warm homes or other buildings. Energy prices should be lower as a result of lower consumption and people will be better off from not needing to heat homes as often. The added benefits from this are a healthier and less stressed society (resulting in less strain on the NHS and a healthier, more productive workforce), consumers with more money in their pockets and businesses benefiting from more spending by consumers and less money being spent on energy. It is a no brainer and if the UK government (as well as devolved administrations) were serious about improving economic growth/productivity and the NHS then this should be very high up their list of priorities. Cynically, I suspect people in high positions don’t want to upset energy providers/producers.
This issue is important for Scotland both in terms of economic performance and the NHS. During the height of the cost of living in the winter of 2022/23 I recall energy prices across much of Scotland were higher than the UK average with some of the highest prices in the Highlands – which is the coldest part of the UK. In December 2022 the mean monthly temperature was: 1.7C in Scotland, 2.9C in the UK and 3.9C in Southern England. The combination of paying higher prices for colder temperatures had terrible consequences with an uptick in people being admitted to hospital with hypothermia and shortly afterwards malnutrition in children – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64196889.amp, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64518568.amp.
The Scottish government could do more to deal with fuel poverty but they are constrained by the requirement to balance the budget, with a lack of sufficient tax raising powers to compensate David Cameron’s cuts, as well as energy being a reserved issue (though I believe heating isn’t reserved which could allow for off grid district heating systems). The Scottish government does have the autonomy over building standards and they, alongside other UK governments, should be requiring new buildings to be energy efficient and to have solar panels on roofs. Heat efficiency alongside changes to pricing (regional pricing, free or low cost energy for normal use and a premium for excessive use) would bring significant and wide ranging benefits. The possibilities to do so much good in the energy transition are many and profound and there is no excuse for the lack of ambition currently on display.
Thanks
” The Scottish government does have the autonomy over building standards and they, alongside other UK governments, should be requiring new buildings to be energy efficient and to have solar panels on roofs”
The Scottish Government has committed to introducing a Scottish equivalent to Passivhaus standard for all new build homes. There are already some completed. The last I read it is to be voluntary from 2026 and mandatory from 2028. It is a case of ‘watch this space’ as objectors try to water down the legislation for their own motives.
Not only should we be encouraging/financing solar roof panels – new build houses are still allowed to have gas boilers, and are nowhere near passive haus insulation standards.
We have a housing crisis and an energy crisis so why arent we mobilising along the lines Richard suggests -and as we did after the war – we built prefabs – apparently there are flat packs and other approaches which work well in other countries.
Labour’s policy of simply relying on the big builders who are already gaming the system is utterly useless.
I have felt for a while that what we need to make a difference is a moon-shot goal, like Kennedy said – ‘By the end of the decade we will go to the moon’. That’s a difficult, but very clear, goal.
‘A solar panel on every roof in the country by the end of the decade’ is much easier to target, measure, and justify investment, recruitment, training than on some vague ‘we’ll agree to reduce X by Y% a couple of decades from now’. We might not actually reach that goal in 5 years, but the effort made to build up to it will be much more beneficial than if we sit around doing very little and just hope our carbon emissions will magically reduce.
A clear stated goal like that could also be more useful politically – it signals to other countries what your priorities are, and it could make joining such a carbon army more desirable as some sort of patriotic movement.
Carbon green elves please. With certified training of installers, durable long lasting materials/methods, BS marked and quality independent inspection report as part of homeowners’ guarantee pack when they resell. No short cuts.
The climate crisis is the elephant in the room –
Yes, we need an International Carbon Army and the UK could set the pace, and yes, I agree with the Green ISA suggestion, but would prefer to see it fully linked to green initiatives, and yes, I like the stamp duty idea too.
Here in the South West, HMG is funding new initiatives via WECA to set up new organisations to help homeowners make their homes more energy efficient, but the information on what, how and how much will it cost is still diffuse as is good information about the grants available. Locally, there will be a big push in 2025 to improve the flow of information about retrofitting homes to reduce energy demand and let’s hope that the local carbon army get things moving more quickly.
But, whilst also agreeing that new housing should be much more energy efficient than it is, the bulk of the problem is with the existing housing stock which must be improved as rapidly as possible.
I’m aware that many homeowners (myself included) have benefited from the general increase in the cost of housing over a long period, https://www.nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk/resources/f/uk-data-series, and I believe we would be willing to sacrifice some of the gain that our properties have made, or might make in the future, in return for full government assistance in retrofit funding to improve the energy efficiency of our homes.
The reality of the housing market is that with a few exceptions, housing values have exceeded CPIH. For individual houseowners this capital gain is not taxed on sale, and only relatively lightly on death.
Why not give all homeowners a government funded loan at the current BoE base rate with zero monthly repayments. The cost of this loan to be repaid on the sale or inheritance of the house from any capital gain over and above CPIH. If there is no gain, there is nothing to pay, and the state absorbs the cost.
In the 1970’s, improvement grants were provided for substandard housing and administered by LA’s. Individual homeowners were encouraged to undertake the work themselves, but they had to do all the brain and legwork because they could keep the higher re-sale value of an improved house.
Locally we now have Retrofit West providing help and research on how to do the work, find tradesmen and companies to undertake the work. But most importantly much of the funding for this work must come out of income, savings, or loans with relatively little government help in relation to the cost of the most significant improvements that could be made.
In addition, we need good trained retrofit assessors capable of helping homeowners and overseeing tradesmen and good auditing procedures to ensure that money is well spent. (I doubt that the Energy Company Obligation expenditure is being adequately audited – what will the NAO uncover if and when they have a look…. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-and-social-schemes/energy-company-obligation-eco ).
COP28, HMG and our LA all claim we have climate emergency, but as yet, I see insufficient evidence of emergency action at a national level which supports this claim.
I’m going to muse on that loan idea
It’ sufficiently off the wall to require it.
No disagreement with the carbon army.
However, PV in the UK tends to produce when elec loads are low (in summer). It provides useful support in spring/autumn. Near Hull now – grey all day (grey yesterday) etc – but it is windy – & in fairness – a fair number of wind turbines – reasonable number of stand-alones – some wind farms. The UK is a windy country and more emphasis needs to be made on using local generation (a combo of wind & PV & batts & other storage) to meet local loads. This is a missing policy and the DNOs as usual are the road blocks & there is zero action to change that (Ofgem moving deck chairs does not count). PV has a role (why are not ALL warehouses fitted with PV? – at least they are close to load – which often exists even in the summer). UK needs a coherent engineering driven approach – which optimises the mix of generation & storage @ a given location. The DNOs are functionally incapable of doing this – now – & will never be organisationally capable because they are ALL, profit maximisng monopolies.
Thanks
Lots of good ideas. I remember my parents getting a grant for cavity wall insulation in 1970s, when oil prices and oil reserves seemed the main concern. In the decades since, my toes have curled at the snail’s pace of building standards. Having relatives in Scandinavia I’m very aware of how cosy a well-designed house can be. You’re right, we need to make up for lost time.
Training is crucial, as upgrading must fit the property, to avoid creating problems. Heat pumps are helpless if insulation is inadequate, older houses ‘breathe’ more and can get damp if given the wrong treatment.
Solar panels on buildings rather than on land make sense to me. If I had solar panels, I understand I’d have to search for a good price to sell at, if I had no battery capacity. If my panels were partly funded by LA (we can dream) then exporting surplus to them, stored locally, might work? I know that’s not how the national grid works, but if we produce more on rooftops, won’t the producers and sellers of electricity squawk and try to protect their profits?
Might government at national or local level compulsorily purchase long-empty (and suitable) property and upgrade for social housing? Also, take up the unsold ‘affordable’ housing that housing trusts are not taking up? It would be better available at social rents than as shared ownership, which is relatively expensive.
Now that I understand how such schemes can be funded, I’m a little more optimistic than when I bought the ‘taxpayers money’ story. Although of course, there are some very wealthy taxpayers who should pay more and help cool these ferocious housing prices.
Thanks everyone!
Going green in an older property isn’t easy. The epc you have be at best an estimate, based on how the building was constructed, many building will not have plans or a bill of materials, nor is any account for position or the surrounding of the property taken. Usually insulating walls either requires external cladding or internal insulation, challenging in older cottages with small rooms and low door ways. Once completed you can change to air source
heat pump which require larger pipes and radiators sized for the room, sometimes bulky triple rads. The solar panels on the roof will not offset the reduced performance of the heat pump in winter, our own 3kw panels have managed about 1.4 kwh per day this December.The house storage battery performance are also reduced by the cold by about 10 %. The Electric cars range fell from and indicated 220 miles to a real world 163miles lights some demisting 18miles of motorway and rain but mostly battery performance . You are right it will need a green army.
My 2019 new-build house came with 4 X 250Watt panels installed – at Weymouth near the south coast. In the last 25 days the panels have generated an average 0.54 units per day – sometimes showing just 0.01kWh units under anticyclonic gloom days. My roof does not offer any more efficient space for more panels. IMHO 12 panels is the minimum number worth having. My best month seems to be May – surprisingly.
I am strongly in favour of renewable energy, but I do wonder if PV panels are the best investment in cloudy UK. It is probably likely that a lot of domestic energy is consumed from evening through to morning – just when the panels are not performing. Then we have long winter nights and with days with low average generation. Batteries can help spread the generation, but they are expensive in money and RESOURCES. Should we spend the money on a Severn barrage – and others too?
I think you miss the lint that a sustainable energy system is just that – a system.