Up to 100,000 households could be helped with their fuel bills under a deal agreed between the UK's big six energy companies and the government.
The energy firms have agreed to boost their collective annual spending on social assistance programmes by £225m over the next three years.
Spending will go up from £50m in the past financial year to £100m this year, £125m in 2009-10 and £150m in 2010-11.
The deal was brokered by Energy Secretary John Hutton.
'Eradicating fuel poverty'
If all the extra money was used to offset bills it could remove up to 100,000 homes from fuel poverty, although fewer would benefit if it was spent on more permanent energy efficiency measures. But consumer group Energywatch recently said social tariffs reached only one in 15 of the most vulnerable households.
A home is judged to be in fuel poverty if 10% or more of the household income is spent on energy bills.
full article
Monday 14 April 2008
Biofuels: a blueprint for the future?
Our cars and other forms of transport are the third-largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the UK and the only one likely to have increased by 2020. Any serious attempt to tackle climate change requires us to dramatically step up our efforts to reduce these emissions. So a clean, renewable energy that can be mixed with fossil fuels to power our cars has great attraction.
This is exactly what supporters of biofuels believe they offer. They say they are one of the few existing, feasible ways of slowing the growth of carbon emissions from transport. They point as well to their advantages in reducing dependency on imported fossil fuels at the same time as providing opportunities for developing countries to grow and refine the "green" energy source.
These arguments and the evidence that supports them have convinced many countries to promote their production and led the government to take cautious steps to encourage their use through the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. The RTFO, which comes into force tomorrow, requires 2.5% of the fuel sold on garage forecourts to come from renewable sources, a figure set to rise to 5% after two years.
But the government also recognises increasing concern about biofuels. Critics say there is very little "green" about them; in their view, savings of greenhouse gases have been exaggerated, if not invented. They warn that the dash to grow palm oil, sugar cane and other crops from which biofuels are made is leading to widespread destruction of forests and wildlife habitats around the world - and worsening food shortages as farmland is switched to industrial crops. This is something that must be examined closely. As Alistair Darling outlined at the weekend, the government has asked the World Bank to look into food markets and the impact of subsidies in time for the next G7 meeting in June.
Ruth Kelly and Peter Ainsworth
full article
This is exactly what supporters of biofuels believe they offer. They say they are one of the few existing, feasible ways of slowing the growth of carbon emissions from transport. They point as well to their advantages in reducing dependency on imported fossil fuels at the same time as providing opportunities for developing countries to grow and refine the "green" energy source.
These arguments and the evidence that supports them have convinced many countries to promote their production and led the government to take cautious steps to encourage their use through the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. The RTFO, which comes into force tomorrow, requires 2.5% of the fuel sold on garage forecourts to come from renewable sources, a figure set to rise to 5% after two years.
But the government also recognises increasing concern about biofuels. Critics say there is very little "green" about them; in their view, savings of greenhouse gases have been exaggerated, if not invented. They warn that the dash to grow palm oil, sugar cane and other crops from which biofuels are made is leading to widespread destruction of forests and wildlife habitats around the world - and worsening food shortages as farmland is switched to industrial crops. This is something that must be examined closely. As Alistair Darling outlined at the weekend, the government has asked the World Bank to look into food markets and the impact of subsidies in time for the next G7 meeting in June.
Ruth Kelly and Peter Ainsworth
full article
Friday 4 April 2008
Protesters promise a fight to halt eco-towns
Four proposed new towns of 15,000 homes or more are on a shortlist of 15 sites for the eco-town programme published by the government yesterday.
The list will be cut to 10 successful bids in the next six months, each of which will have to be zero-carbon as a whole and an "exemplar" in at least one area of environmental sustainability.
The programme, which aims to have towns of between 5,000 and 20,000 homes under development by 2020, is expected to provoke strong local opposition.
Many of the most controversial bids among the 57 submitted have survived the first round of competition for the first new towns in England since the 1960s.
They include Pennbury, south-east of Leicester, in which the Co-op is a leading partner, and Rossington, South Yorkshire.
A proposed 5,000-home development near Weston-on-the-Green, Oxfordshire, where Tim Henman's father has been a leading objector, is also on the shortlist.
Anthony Henman said: "This will destroy our village community as we know and enjoy it ... If we wanted to live in a town, we would, but we love village life."
full article
The list will be cut to 10 successful bids in the next six months, each of which will have to be zero-carbon as a whole and an "exemplar" in at least one area of environmental sustainability.
The programme, which aims to have towns of between 5,000 and 20,000 homes under development by 2020, is expected to provoke strong local opposition.
Many of the most controversial bids among the 57 submitted have survived the first round of competition for the first new towns in England since the 1960s.
They include Pennbury, south-east of Leicester, in which the Co-op is a leading partner, and Rossington, South Yorkshire.
A proposed 5,000-home development near Weston-on-the-Green, Oxfordshire, where Tim Henman's father has been a leading objector, is also on the shortlist.
Anthony Henman said: "This will destroy our village community as we know and enjoy it ... If we wanted to live in a town, we would, but we love village life."
full article
Thursday 3 April 2008
Warm Front's heating scheme leaves the elderly cold
We're not surprised when cowboy builders fleece pensioners.
But when a £350million-a-year government-funded scheme is accused of doing the same, it's a different story.
Warm Front pays for new central heating systems and insulation for some of Britain's poorest households.
But last week MPs lined up to accuse Eaga plc, the firm running Warm Front, of ripping off pensioners and the taxpayer.
Advertisement
Click here to find out more!
We've heard horror stories of our own. Retired Jack and Elizabeth Thompson, of Barnsley, South Yorks, got a £2,700 Warm Front grant after their boiler burst.
But they were asked to pay £2,100 for extra work that their son Andrew said wasn't needed and he should know - he's a former Warm Front contractor.
Disabled Gary Thomas from Liverpool has gone though two broken boilers and three water pumps since Warm Front offered to replace his boiler.
Eighty-year-old Matthew Carroll, from Leeds, was left with a hole in his roof and a £130 repair bill after a visit from Warm Front engineers.
Since its launch in 2000, the scheme has helped to heat 1.6 million households and cut their fuel bills.
But something appears to have gone wrong. Labour MP Robert Flello told the House of Commons: "The trickle of complaints coming to my desk has turned into a flood."
He's worried that an "excellent idea" is being abused and cited the scandal of a Warm Front customer being charged for scaffolding - although he lives in a bungalow.
Reports by Warm Front's independent "quality assessor", released to us under the Freedom of Information Act, show the number of unhappy customers has almost trebled since 2006 to 14 per cent.
We met Eaga's boss John Clough at the firm's Newcastle HQ and he said the same assessor called the scheme "very competitive" and insisted the true level of upheld complaints was less than half a per cent.
But the assessor also warned of a "potential void" because, until recently, inspectors only checked work done - not work billed for. In one case, a woman paid £350 towards work not carried out. This was only spotted by chance by the assessor, who arranged a refund.
The assessor concluded: "The extent the scheme is being abused cannot be determined."
When Warm Front was launched, the standard £2,500 grant almost always covered the work needed.
Now 40 per cent of householders needing new heating systems are asked to top up the grant. Eaga currently has 131 sub-contracted installers. Six have left since 2005, seven are suspended and six more are being closely monitored.
Clough, who's been paid £1.5million in two years as Eaga's chief exec, says: "If you are doing 250,000 homes a year, then there are some instances where sadly we do fall short of the standards we set ourselves.
"We are not perfect. But we refute the accusation of ripping off the government."
Trickle of complaints has turned into a flood
full article
But when a £350million-a-year government-funded scheme is accused of doing the same, it's a different story.
Warm Front pays for new central heating systems and insulation for some of Britain's poorest households.
But last week MPs lined up to accuse Eaga plc, the firm running Warm Front, of ripping off pensioners and the taxpayer.
Advertisement
Click here to find out more!
We've heard horror stories of our own. Retired Jack and Elizabeth Thompson, of Barnsley, South Yorks, got a £2,700 Warm Front grant after their boiler burst.
But they were asked to pay £2,100 for extra work that their son Andrew said wasn't needed and he should know - he's a former Warm Front contractor.
Disabled Gary Thomas from Liverpool has gone though two broken boilers and three water pumps since Warm Front offered to replace his boiler.
Eighty-year-old Matthew Carroll, from Leeds, was left with a hole in his roof and a £130 repair bill after a visit from Warm Front engineers.
Since its launch in 2000, the scheme has helped to heat 1.6 million households and cut their fuel bills.
But something appears to have gone wrong. Labour MP Robert Flello told the House of Commons: "The trickle of complaints coming to my desk has turned into a flood."
He's worried that an "excellent idea" is being abused and cited the scandal of a Warm Front customer being charged for scaffolding - although he lives in a bungalow.
Reports by Warm Front's independent "quality assessor", released to us under the Freedom of Information Act, show the number of unhappy customers has almost trebled since 2006 to 14 per cent.
We met Eaga's boss John Clough at the firm's Newcastle HQ and he said the same assessor called the scheme "very competitive" and insisted the true level of upheld complaints was less than half a per cent.
But the assessor also warned of a "potential void" because, until recently, inspectors only checked work done - not work billed for. In one case, a woman paid £350 towards work not carried out. This was only spotted by chance by the assessor, who arranged a refund.
The assessor concluded: "The extent the scheme is being abused cannot be determined."
When Warm Front was launched, the standard £2,500 grant almost always covered the work needed.
Now 40 per cent of householders needing new heating systems are asked to top up the grant. Eaga currently has 131 sub-contracted installers. Six have left since 2005, seven are suspended and six more are being closely monitored.
Clough, who's been paid £1.5million in two years as Eaga's chief exec, says: "If you are doing 250,000 homes a year, then there are some instances where sadly we do fall short of the standards we set ourselves.
"We are not perfect. But we refute the accusation of ripping off the government."
Trickle of complaints has turned into a flood
full article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
