@majordennisbloodnok could you post the actual figures, I will compare them with the ones I got from ofgem.  As you say they aren't consistent which is weird.  The ofgem figures were price cap rates from the point the cap was introduced, Octopus tracker claims to be based on wholesale price but I can't see that obviously explains the difference.

Of course hrst pumps aren't just about saving money or carbon.  Correctly installed and operated they deliver a higher standard of comfort.  However nobody talks about that for some reason.

I wonder why @deltona hasn't posted again give he asked the question.

Posted by: @batpred

↑

...

I am happy I am not advising government and surely the gov of the time would have been well advised. 

I admire your optimism, @batpred, and I'd love to hope you're right.

Where you are certainly right, though, is that there's a lot of overlap in what we each are saying. From my perspective, I agree that ideally the cost of fossil fuels should not just include the cost of obtaining it but also the cost of dealing with the consequences of its use. However, that's not a financial jump many people can afford to make and penalising those less well off to ease the overall public conscience is neither appropriate nor practical. If I had a strategy that could sort out that conundrum perhaps I'd run for election but I don't and I'm not. Please note, I'm not suggesting for a moment that you might be advocating any form of penalising; I'm merely laying out the fundamental disconnect between where we are now and where we want to be in the future.

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

However, that's not a financial jump many people can afford to make and penalising those less well off to ease the overall public conscience is neither appropriate nor practical.

Er not sure it penalises the less well off who use less fuel.

If tt cost has to be paid it has to be paid somehow either through charges or tax or catastrophe if nothing is done.  The less well off generally comes out worse from any catastrophe. 

Your argument is the standard 'we can't afford it' argument which is frequently made by rich people who can (I'm not saying you are in that category, just saying that a lot of the 'we can't afford it arguments' are put forward by rich people who are immune from the consequences and can afford it, but don't want to.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

@majordennisbloodnok could you post the actual figures, I will compare them with the ones I got from ofgem.  As you say they aren't consistent which is weird.  The ofgem figures were price cap rates from the point the cap was introduced, Octopus tracker claims to be based on wholesale price but I can't see that obviously explains the difference.

...

No problem. Here you are.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

...

Of course heat pumps aren't just about saving money or carbon.  Correctly installed and operated they deliver a higher standard of comfort.  However nobody talks about that for some reason.

...

I agree, but in most cases I suspect those nuances aren't relevant to boiler owners who haven't experienced a heat pump serviced house. My guess is they don't know what they don't know and so are already satisfied in their ignorance*.

*Not meant to sound condescending; ignorance in its true meaning without the snide baggage.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

However, that's not a financial jump many people can afford to make and penalising those less well off to ease the overall public conscience is neither appropriate nor practical.

Er not sure it penalises the less well off who use less fuel.

If tt cost has to be paid it has to be paid somehow either through charges or tax or catastrophe if nothing is done.  The less well off generally comes out worse from any catastrophe. 

Your argument is the standard 'we can't afford it' argument which is frequently made by rich people who can (I'm not saying you are in that category, just saying that a lot of the 'we can't afford it arguments' are put forward by rich people who are immune from the consequences and can afford it, but don't want to.

If you have a household on the bread line and then simply hike the cost of gas with a carbon capture tax, you've backed that household into a corner they can't escape. That helps no-one.

The "we can't afford it" argument employed by many of the wealthy is, of course, a specious one since they patently CAN afford it. On the contrary, I'm not advocating we do nothing on the grounds of economics; I'm advocating that we use more carrot and less stick instead. The cost of electricity is grossly inflated at the moment, bearing little connection to the cost of production and supply, so my first inclination is towards trying to reduce the leccy cost to make a shift from fossil fuels easier for lower income families - reducing their barriers to change rather than increasing penalties to stay as they are. However, I'm painfully aware the pricing link between gas and leccy is a complex one that makes my head hurt, so it would take a better man than me to draw up an actual workable plan for put into place my preferences.

@majordennisbloodnok 

The optimist in me thinks the extra costs on electricity are being used to fund the upgrades that will make it a credible low carbon option, even to the sceptics. Perhaps that measure was acceptable since the electricity industry will profit in the end, through increased consumption?

Gas could only dream of being decarbonised since hydrogen is not going to be available in high volumes from non carbon sources any time soon and the carbon capture is at small pilot stage. If it had legs to stand on, every gas power station would be now capturing and storing the CO2 it emits?

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

If you have a household on the bread line and then simply hike the cost of gas with a carbon capture tax, you've backed that household into a corner they can't escape. That helps no-one 

Benefits could go up to compensate.  I'm not saying this combination is the right idea but if it does make sense for the polluter (rather than taxpayers or randomly chosen victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) to pay then make it so and deal with the negatives by another means!

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @majordennisbloodnok

↑

If you have a household on the bread line and then simply hike the cost of gas with a carbon capture tax, you've backed that household into a corner they can't escape. That helps no-one 

Benefits could go up to compensate.  I'm not saying this combination is the right idea but if it does make sense for the polluter (rather than taxpayers or randomly chosen victims who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) to pay then make it so and deal with the negatives by another means!

Quite true. That’s certainly another way of tackling the problem.

To be frank, I don’t care how we rebalance things as long as the burden sits with those who can shoulder it and those who can’t are protected - the way I’d hope any civilised society would want to operate. That last part is my only key criterion for the method of change used.