Fuel Poverty

Purple · 16 Jun 2022

T McGibney said:
I don't think I suggested either of those things. I did query your claim that lower income households "aren't going to be using Tumble Dryers or other high energy devices", which is itself nonsense.

So you think people should use descressionary items which they can't afford? That the notion that "I won't get a Tumble Dryer because I can't afford the cost" isn't going to cross people's minds? Rather they'll think they must use one or their child's jumper might be damp...

My contention is that people who can't afford to do things are less likely to do those things than people who can afford to do those things.
In this case "those things" are use higher energy devices which are not essential for everyday life.

Purple · 16 Jun 2022

T McGibney said:
Isn't working from home going to increase domestic energy use, and drive up bills?

The solution to high energy costs is to use less energy. That might mean using the car less or having shorter showers or not using the Tumble Dryer (if you can afford to have one ) or whatever. The solution isn't to whine about it and expect someone else to give you money to subsidise your usage.

odyssey06 · 16 Jun 2022

Purple said:
They could indeed, or the opposite could be true. Remember that if they've a plethora of kids then the social transfer they receive will move them out of the bottom third of households by income. Also remember that Pensioners are far less likely to live in poverty than children and, as a cohort, are the richest group in the country.

People on lower incomes have less money than people on higher incomes. In most cases they'll also probably have a lower disposable income. If you have less money you should be spending less on electricity and gas, as, well, you have less money.

Oh, hang on, do you think that heating (and drying clothes) is the only thing that consumed energy in a house?

It was your claim, not mine. I'm querying the basis for that claim because what has been put forward to justify it so far is anecdote and opinion.

So what's the breakdown of energy consumed in a house on essentials? How much of heating is 'essential'? Where's this accepted list of 'essentials'?

Sometimes because people have less money they have higher costs.

Would we expect people on lower incomes to be living in properties with lower BER ratings?
Would we expect people on higher incomes to be living in properties with higher BER ratings?
Maybe, for all we know, those on higher incomes can afford more efficient heating systems, properties, appliances etc
Or maybe it's the opposite.

Do we include transport costs too? Someone with an electric car might have a higher energy bill but overall be spending far less than some with an ICE engine on their costs.

So the claim that lower income households should have lower than average bills is very doubtful.
There are other factors in the mix such as household size, what types of property they are likely to live in etc etc

Purple · 16 Jun 2022

odyssey06 said:
It was your claim, not mine. I'm querying the basis for that claim because what has been put forward to justify it so far is anecdote and opinion.

So what's the breakdown of energy consumed in a house on essentials? How much of heating is 'essential'? Where's this accepted list of 'essentials'?

Sometimes because people have less money they have higher costs.

Would we expect people on lower incomes to be living in properties with lower BER ratings?
Would we expect people on higher incomes to be living in properties with higher BER ratings?
Maybe, for all we know, those on higher incomes can afford more efficient heating systems, properties, appliances etc
Or maybe it's the opposite.

Do we include transport costs too? Someone with an electric car might have a higher energy bill but overall be spending far less than some with an ICE engine on their costs.

So the claim that lower income households should have lower than average bills is very doubtful.
There are other factors in the mix such as household size, what types of property they are likely to live in etc etc

Yep, that's why we can only speak in general terms.
And no, transport costs are not factored in though if you have an electric car then clearly you aren't poor.
We do know that BER ratings don't vary that much between income levels but house size does so any variations probably cancel themselves out.

I agree that much of heating isn't essential. My parents house is like a furnace all winter as they walk around with light clothing. That's a disgraceful waste of energy.

Therefore I refer you to my previous point;

Purple said:
My contention is that people who can't afford to do things are less likely to do those things than people who can afford to do those things.
In this case "those things" are use higher energy devices which are not essential for everyday life.

If households are using the average or above average amounts then clearly they can afford to do so. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing so.

T McGibney · 16 Jun 2022

Purple said:
The solution to high energy costs is to use less energy. That might mean using the car less or having shorter showers or not using the Tumble Dryer (if you can afford to have one ) or whatever. The solution isn't to whine about it and expect someone else to give you money to subsidise your usage.

I haven't "whined" about anything. Nor have I even mentioned subsidy, let alone advocated for same.

PGF2016 · 16 Jun 2022

T McGibney said:
Isn't working from home going to increase domestic energy use, and drive up bills?

Yes it is. But that should be offset by the commute being eliminated. Unless it's a very short commute in which case ditch the car and then no energy is used.

If possible.

T McGibney · 16 Jun 2022

Purple said:
So you think people should use discretionary items which they can't afford? That the notion that "I won't get a Tumble Dryer because I can't afford the cost" isn't going to cross people's minds? Rather they'll think they must use one or their child's jumper might be damp...

Where did I say that? It's a fact of life that many people use discretionary items which they can't afford. Whether they should or shouldn't make those choices is a matter for them. Every such decision has trade-offs.

T McGibney · 16 Jun 2022

PGF2016 said:
Yes it is. But that should be offset by the commute being eliminated. Unless it's a very short commute in which case ditch the car and then no energy is used.

If possible.

Indeed, but that actually doesn't alter my what I said.

odyssey06 · 16 Jun 2022

Purple said:
Yep, that's why we can only speak in general terms.
And no, transport costs are not factored in though if you have an electric car then clearly you aren't poor.
We do know that BER ratings don't vary that much between income levels but house size does so any variations probably cancel themselves out.

I agree that much of heating isn't essential. My parents house is like a furnace all winter as they walk around with light clothing. That's a disgraceful waste of energy.

Therefore I refer you to my previous point;

If households are using the average or above average amounts then clearly they can afford to do so. Otherwise they wouldn't be doing so.

A lot of circular arguments and shifting of goalposts going on there.

PGF2016 · 16 Jun 2022

T McGibney said:
Indeed, but that actually doesn't alter my what I said.

Hmm.. The goal is to save energy / money. If working from home is possible and is cheaper (commute costs are higher than the increase bills through home energy use) then people should be encouraged to work from home where possible. Yes, as you said, domestic energy usage / costs may increase but if the nett result is lower energy costs over all is that not a good thing?

My initial point was that we shouldn't cut fuel tax across the board until all other alternatives have been considered.

T McGibney · 16 Jun 2022

PGF2016 said:
Hmm.. The goal is to save energy / money. If working from home is possible and is cheaper (commute costs are higher than the increase bills through home energy use) then people should be encouraged to work from home where possible.

That presupposes that the decision on whether or not to have people working from home should be predicated primarily or fully on whether it's cheaper in energy/money terms than having them turn up at the workplace, ignoring all other variables. That's quite a presupposition.

PGF2016 said:
Yes, as you said, domestic energy usage / costs may increase but if the nett result is lower energy costs over all is that not a good thing?

Well if costs the householder/worker more and saves money for the company who employs them, it certainly is good for the latter.

PGF2016 said:
My initial point was that we shouldn't cut fuel tax across the board until all other alternatives have been considered.

That's an entirely different question.

Purple · 16 Jun 2022

T McGibney said:
I haven't "whined" about anything. Nor have I even mentioned subsidy, let alone advocated for same.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting you were whining. That's certainly not your style.

Purple · 16 Jun 2022

T McGibney said:
It's a fact of life that many people use discretionary items which they can't afford. Whether they should or shouldn't make those choices is a matter for them. Every such decision has trade-offs.

True, but it's reasonable to say that people who can afford to do things that are descressionary are more likely to do those things than people who can't afford to do them.

Purple · 16 Jun 2022

odyssey06 said:
A lot of circular arguments and shifting of goalposts going on there.

Really?
I've shown that less then two thirds of households have a Tumble Dryer, as that small point seems to have become so important to the broader discussion, and thankfully that's been put to bed.
We are now left with my more general contention that people who can't afford to do things are less likely to do those things than people who can afford to do those things. In this case "those things" are use higher energy devices which are not essential for everyday life.

A more extreme example would be to say that rich people are more likely to charter a private jet than poor people. I have no proof to back that up but it seems like a reasonable assumption to me.
In the case of energy usage the idea that people on low incomes are luxuriating in long hot showers, leaving the heating on all day and have the place lit up like a Christmas tree without any consideration of the cost seems less likely than the private jet chartering household doing the same.
So we're back to the contention that lower income households are "less likely" to use as much energy as a higher income household. That is unless they are entitled and/or ignorant and making that sort of assumption would certainly not be nice.

T McGibney · 16 Jun 2022

Purple said:
True, but it's reasonable to say that people who can afford to do things that are descressionary are more likely to do those things than people who can't afford to do them.

Yes, but it's also reasonable to say too that the more money you have, the more likely you are to spend it on stuff generally.

Purple · 16 Jun 2022

Jazz01 said:
Don't think that is entirely true... or maybe it's my perception of what a poor area is ...

I may have forgotten to add the to the end of my post.

Purple · 16 Jun 2022

T McGibney said:
Yes, but it's also reasonable to say too that the more money you have, the more likely you are to spend it on stuff generally.

Exactly!

Peanuts20 · 16 Jun 2022

what's that old saying about people being asset rich and cash poor?

We do need to bear in mind however that in some cases (and pensioners are a classic example), they'll go through more fuel then younger people. My 90 yr old mother would have the heating on on a summer's day and still complain of the cold. If we visited, we'd be sweating and she is all wrapped up. She would not be unique in that respect.

Modern houses draw on more power anyway. Last night we would have had 3 laptops going at one stage in the house (student, work and shopping respectively), 2 proper PC screens as well as the TV (and Virgin box) for the youngest. Then the dishwasher, washing machine, a phone charging, wifi router. It all adds up and yet for most family's, it's not an unusual usage.

odyssey06 · 16 Jun 2022

Purple said:
Really?
I've shown that less then two thirds of households have a Tumble Dryer, as that small point seems to have become so important to the broader discussion, and thankfully that's been put to bed.
We are now left with my more general contention that people who can't afford to do things are less likely to do those things than people who can afford to do those things. In this case "those things" are use higher energy devices which are not essential for everyday life.

A more extreme example would be to say that rich people are more likely to charter a private jet than poor people. I have no proof to back that up but it seems like a reasonable assumption to me.
In the case of energy usage the idea that people on low incomes are luxuriating in long hot showers, leaving the heating on all day and have the place lit up like a Christmas tree without any consideration of the cost seems less likely than the private jet chartering household doing the same.
So we're back to the contention that lower income households are "less likely" to use as much energy as a higher income household. That is unless they are entitled and/or ignorant and making that sort of assumption would certainly not be nice.

You've gone from a tumble dryer, which is listed as a requirement for many rental properties to chartering a private jet.

From that strawman, it's clear your argument jumped the shark long ago.

I've really no idea what point you think you are trying to make, but if the point of your opening post was to convince other AAMers of your view, you've certainly lost me.

joe sod · 16 Jun 2022

PGF2016 said:
The last thing we should do is subsidize driving. First stop driving where possible (work from home). Then promote alternatives (walking, cycling and public transport). Lastly, if there's no alternative, then target any supports at those who need it only.

that attitude is just wilful ignorance because much of the workforce cannot work from home

Who manufactures the microchips here
Who manufactures the pharmaceuticals
Who runs the power stations
Who runs the hospitals
Who runs the food plants (Kerrygold is now the most bought brand in Germany)

All these plants are not situated in central Dublin, All these along with many others were essential services during the pandemic, they run 24 hours a day, their workforce is spread all over the country, there is no public transport infrastructure to service this.
The ESRI a government body also seems to be wilfully ignorant of this fact and wants to penalise this workforce that work unsociable hours and keep this country running

Fuel Poverty

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency