Council unveils clampdown on rented homes with poor EPC rating

The claim to need to "reduce carbon emissions" is scientific piffle, CO2 only comprises 0.04% (this hasn't changed for at least 50 years) of the Earth's atmosphere and at 0.02% plant life starts dying, by how much does the Council think that all that work will actually impact on that?

I doubt there are many properties at an F or G rating and it's very very easy to come up to an E...they make it sound as though they're doing God's work.

Getting low scoring properties to a C is a totally different matter, though.

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 17/04/2023 - 13:20Please provide the data for your claim concerning C)2 levels which I believe to be in error. Chat GPT gave the following tex
t on the subject:-
"The level of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing over the past 50 years due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the global atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from an average of about 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1959 to over 410 ppm in 2021.
This increase in CO2 concentration is primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels for energy, which releases large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Deforestation, land use changes, and other human activities also contribute to the increase in CO2 concentration.
The increase in CO2 concentration is a major contributor to climate change and global warming, as it traps heat in the atmosphere and leads to rising global temperatures. Scientists are working to find ways to reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere and to develop technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide."

Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 17/04/2023 - 14:11
CO2 at 410ppm is 0.041% duh!

Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 17/04/2023 - 14:11
I've heard the very same figures of historic 0.03% CO2, with 0.04% at today and plant life dying off at 0.02%.

It was recently reported by a number of media outlets last week in the form of a video of Californian Representative Doug LaMalfa questioning witnesses at a House Transportation Committee about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act from a couple of weeks back.

I very very strongly suspect with such a 'woke', 'current' and certainly controversial topic as atmospheric CO2 and associated climate change (along with race issues, trans issues, Left v Right, Trump, CBDCs, Covid and all manner of 'hot topics'), ChatGPT will be heavily selective by its programming on such matters. That's not to say it is wrong, but the last source of info I'd rely on for facts on such a topic would be ChatGPT. It has it's uses, but this will be 'narrative-driven'.

Reply to the comment left by Allan from Wales at 17/04/2023 - 15:37
+Thank you for the educational comment, with a doctorate in Physics I had missed that point.

Reply to the comment left by Luke P at 17/04/2023 - 15:40
Luke whatever the figures there is little doubt that CO2 levels have increased substantially over the last seven or so decades, and that is all I can say. I do not knw, for I am not a climate scientist, whether this contributes towards global warming or not. My point is that Moneymanager was incorrect in his statement that CO2 figures had not increased.

There's a useful video about this here: https://propertyhub.net/forum/topic/18861-how-epc-ratings-could-make-your-property-illegal-video/

They (PropertyHub) wrote in the Sunday Times recently that the legislation (which I think still hasn't been passed) is likely to be delayed as it makes little sense to remove loads of otherwise decent property from the market for, as noted above, relatively small benefits.

I think what may happen, over time and depending on the area and availability, is that properties with poor ratings will attract lower rents.

I doubt Landlords will be awarded for improving the EPC (rents are high enough as they are - even if the reasons are valid) just penalised for poor ratings.
It's not necessarily about saving minute amounts of CO2 - it's about the cost for the tenants for heating the home, and we all need to do what we can to improve that.

Reply to the comment left by ARC at 18/04/2023 - 11:33
You're right, we do. Spending £10k of our money to save the tenant £40-100 annually...hmm!

It would be cheaper to just pay them the forty quid!

Why pressure us - why not insist the utility companies give 'hard-done-by' tenants a discount?

It's disproportionate and it's unevenly applied.

Is this news?

The article seems to refer primarily to the the EPC E rules, which came in ages ago and most LLs will have complied. For those who haven't, the Council is right to enforce (with fines, where appropriate) as no-one is above the law and all LLs should be required to operate to the same standards.

The more pressing issue is the proposal to move to EPC C, discussed on Property 118 and elsewhere ad nauseum. That of course, in its selectiveness of PRS only, and the likely costs impact/fines to be levied, will kill off whatever is left of the PRS.