Andy Hall wrote:

Eeyore said:
Jim wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
David Hansen wrote:

Your point is moot.

It's highly relevant to the wider issue of building expensive alternative
energy generation when half our homes aren't insulated to the the latest
standards.

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at
notional cost IMHO.

The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.

Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.

Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.

There is virtually *never* a legitimate reason for state nannying -
certainly not with this. If the case is compelling, then people will
implement. This is an indication that it is not.

Waiting for the case to be 'compelling' (i.e when energy costs become crippling) is
likely to mean plenty of people won't bother with a sensible level of insulation.

Building regulations exist for the thermal performance of NEW homes. I have no
problem seeing why at least some expectation of reasonable performance shouldn't be
made of older ones, especially if accompanied by grants to help..

I'd rather see public money spent on reduction of energy use than tokenist 'green
generation'.

I'm sorry, but with the average IQ at 100, most people simply aren't smart enough to
behave in their own best interests much of the time. You would apparently have the
idiots hold sway. I've seem the idiots in action and I don't want any part of it.

Graham