UK tells taxpayers to shut off heat in evenings for ‘climate change’
The UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) is telling taxpayers to turn off their heaters in the evenings to help the government achieve its “net zero” goal.
In its sixth “carbon budget” paper, the CCC recommends Brits “pre-heat” their homes in the afternoon to avoid “peak times”, which the advisory committee says will help His Majesty’s Government reduce its emissions by 2033-2037.
“There is significant potential to deliver emissions savings, just by changing the way we use our homes,” states the CCC, an independent council formed and funded by the government.
“Where homes are sufficiently well insulated, it is possible to pre-heat ahead of peak times, enabling access to cheaper tariffs which reflect the reduced costs associated with running networks and producing power during off-peak times.”
The CCC also recommends taxpayers use electric heating instead of gas boilers—though the CCC’s own chief still heats his home using a gas boiler, according to the Telegraph.
“Using electricity to heat a home opens the prospect of choosing a time when prices are lower, something that’s not possible with a gas boiler,” a CCC spokesman said. Electric heating
“Smart heating of homes like this also makes the best possible use of the grid and supports greater use of cheap renewable generation.”
Electric heating often employs the use of smart meters or smart thermostats, devices installed by the electric companies to both monitor and control the household’s electricity and heating usage. This has resulted in homeowners being unable to control their own heating, like when Coloradoans found their meters locked to 78 degrees Fahrenheit last summer.
Nevertheless, the British government has mandated a smart meter rollout with the goal of installing the devices in 80% of homes and 73% of businesses by 2025.
The recommendation to turn off heating in the evening comes as UK researchers from the University of Leeds recommend the government reinstate “World War Two-style rationing” to “fight climate change.”
In a research paper published in January, the authors conclude that “egalitarian rationing”—a Marxist concept in which everyone, including the rich, would be afforded the same portions of meat and energy—is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
They acknowledged that the idea of rationing is unpalatable to people, so lawmakers who were elected by the people may be averse to mandating rationing.
“Rationing is often seen as unattractive, and therefore not a viable option for policy-makers,” says the paper. “It is important to highlight the fact that this was not the case for many of those who had experienced rationing. It is important to emphasise the difference between rationing itself and the scarcity that rationing was a response to.”
But the researchers say that policymakers can and should mandate rationing because ration recipients during World War II went along with it.
“As long as there was scarcity, rationing was accepted, even welcomed or demanded,” they said in the paper.
“Of course, people did welcome the end of rationing, but they were really celebrating the end of scarcity, and celebrating the fact that rationing was no longer necessary,” they added.
So, in order to get people to “accept, even welcome or demand” rationing, governments must make supplies scarce. This can be done by regulating “polluters” such as oil and fuel companies, long-haul flights and intensive farming so that the public has less access to fuel, energy and certain foods.
The researchers note that propaganda used by the British government to promote rationing during World War II employed a moral argument: “RATIONING MEANS A FAIR SHARE FOR ALL OF US”, read one poster from the era. COVID-19 propaganda, similarly, urged people to don face masks and inject themselves with an experimental serum “TO PROTECT YOURSELVES AND THOSE AROUND YOU”.
