Joe it was that for an hour on the spot market, and refining costs are up because their are fewer refineries, most are independent now as the big boys got out due to lower profits.
And among those different issues could be a health issue. Or having to spend more money in the long run on heating trying to dry out the consequences of the extra moisture you are generating. Which is different to times past e.g. if you were drying the clothes beside a coal fire that was burning all day / or on radiators heated by a soild fuel back boiler. Try that now and tell me how much it costs today versus back then.
Shirts/tops and trousers are cheap and can be bought in Dunnes or Penny's. The jumper is the only expensive bit. You just buy them a bit big at the start of the year. I've got three of them through school without a dryer. If it was a real emergency the radiator or one of those dryers at the petrol stations is always an option.
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.
I think you're really stretching things now. The regulations for rental accommodation are ridiculous. The house I rent certainly isn't up to the required standards and that doesn't bother me at all.
I agree. Particularly with the WFH option. But vested interests will shout loud on this issue and put pressure to get ppl back into city centres.
Yes, but neither you nor I are heading a low income household. Doing so brings all sorts of pressures. For example a single parent may find it difficult to get to a petrol station at short notice if there's no-one else there to mind children. And radiators may well be insufficient for thorough drying of clothes.
It was part of your opening argument, that lower income households should have lower than average energy requirements.
I head a single parent household.
Lower income households will have less stuff; fewer TV's, Gaming Consoles, etc and, of course, they will be more tuned in to saving money. That's why you don't see takeaway's a Bookmakers and Off-licences in poorer areas...
And...?
And what?
There's a limitless amount of whataboutery that you can throw at this but suggesting that a Tumble Dryer is an essential, or worse that the absence of one can be a health risk, is nonsense.
Don't think that is entirely true... or maybe it's my perception of what a poor area is ...
Either we keep doing things as we have been doing them and just throw money at the problem. Or else we change our behaviour and work from home more (where possible). Less energy use. Less commuting. Better quality of life. Less housing pressure in the cities. We can't keep pandering to vested interests. Those in fuel poverty have an interest in the decision also.
A lower income household might have more members, kids and teenagers, which means more washing, more heating, more cooking etc.
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.
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.
Isn't working from home going to increase domestic energy use, and drive up bills?