Joined up thinking? Or not.

[Cousin Jack]

So, our govt has carbon targets, house building taeget, and many other targets. IMO many of them are unattainable, some of them just plain impossible.

Seem that a Professor agrees, and has calculated that meeting the 300k pa house building target will bust the decarbonisation target all by itself.

We desperately need new houses, and the rate of replacement, even at 300k pa is woefull. Most of the rest of the world pays lip service to decarbonisation, it is good until it suits them to do something different.

Time to accept, and learn to live with, global warming?

Or pack 2 families per house as the norm, and bugger the inconvenience of old, damp, draughty houses that are 200 years old?

Or what? Suggestions to No 10 Downing St please.

[KungFooBob]

Nothing a good cull couldn't fix.

What we need is a global pandemic, or maybe a war.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Why do we desperately need new houses?

[Dodgy69]

Nothing a good cull couldn't fix.

What we need is a global pandemic, or maybe a war.

and ball glamps for certain families.

[Horse]

Nothing a good cull couldn't fix.

What we need is a global pandemic, or maybe a war.

and ball glamps for certain families.

Is that bollocks the shape of yurts?

[DefTrap]

Seem that a Professor agrees, and has calculated that meeting the 300k pa house building target will bust the decarbonisation target all by itself.

What Professor? And who funded him to make this calculation / write this paper?

[Horse]

Seem that a Professor agrees, and has calculated that meeting the 300k pa house building target will bust the decarbonisation target all by itself.

What Professor? And who funded him to make this calculation / write this paper?

Several news sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... says-study

[Cousin Jack]

Like he said ^

Dr Sophus zu Ermgassen, from the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent.

Dr Kate Simpson from Imperial College London, who was not involved in the study, said: “This is an ambitious paper that highlights some of the big problems with the current UK housing system, our collective lack of a cohesive strategy to meet carbon budgets, and fundamental biodiversity considerations. We urgently need more joined-up thinking like this."

[Gregor]

Why do we desperately need new houses?

So the buy to let gang can snap them up, rent them out and continue leeching off those who can’t afford something so basic as a roof over their head....maybe.

[Yorick]

Why do we desperately need new houses?

So the buy to let gang can snap them up, rent them out and continue leeching off those who can’t afford something so basic as a roof over their head....maybe.

That worked for us

[Skub]

Too.Many.People.

Once that's fixed,we'll be fine.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Where are all these people that "need" houses living at the moment?

[Count Steer]

Why do we desperately need new houses?

To bring down the price of second homes, so that more houses can stand empty, which puts pressure on the housing supply and keeps the price of houses up. Erm.

[MrLongbeard]

Where are all these people that "need" houses living at the moment?

On the French Coast in shanty towns just dying to cross the ferryman's hand with silver

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Why do we desperately need new houses?

To bring down the price of second homes, so that more houses can stand empty, which puts pressure on the housing supply and keeps the price of houses up. Erm.

The Ministry of Defence owns a load of empty housing near us, I suspect there's loads more up and down the country.

[Mussels]

Why do we desperately need new houses?

So the buy to let gang can snap them up, rent them out and continue leeching off those who can’t afford something so basic as a roof over their head....maybe.

Have you not seen the problem of climbing rents due to a shortage of landlords? Taxing those greedy landlords out of the market worked out so well for tenants.

[Cousin Jack]

Why do we desperately need new houses?

So the buy to let gang can snap them up, rent them out and continue leeching off those who can’t afford something so basic as a roof over their head....maybe.

Because IIRC we are replacing our housing stock about every 400* years. Now some houses are still in use 400* years after they were first built, but not many.

*Can't recall exactly how may 100s of years, but it is a loooong time. A huge amount of housing stock is Victorian, and, unless gutted and effectively rebuilt, is well past it's sell-by date.

[Count Steer]

Why do we desperately need new houses?

To bring down the price of second homes, so that more houses can stand empty, which puts pressure on the housing supply and keeps the price of houses up. Erm.

The Ministry of Defence owns a load of empty housing near us, I suspect there's loads more up and down the country.

Exactly how is that going to siphon taxpayers money off into the builder's pockets? You can't put 'help to buy' money in to inflate the prices of those.

No. What we need is more houses built by the big builders in places people want to live. (The best way of stopping people wanting to live somewhere is to build on every square inch of it).

Anyway, there wouldn't be a shortage if those selfish retired couples weren't all living in 12 bedroom mansions.

PS. When was the MoD property built? If it's of a certain age, they may not have stripped the asbestos out yet.

[Le_Fromage_Grande]

Why do we desperately need new houses?

So the buy to let gang can snap them up, rent them out and continue leeching off those who can’t afford something so basic as a roof over their head....maybe.

Because IIRC we are replacing our housing stock about every 400* years. Now some houses are still in use 400* years after they were first built, but not many.

*Can't recall exactly how may 100s of years, but it is a loooong time. A huge amount of housing stock is Victorian, and, unless gutted and effectively rebuilt, is well past it's sell-by date.

And yet people manage to live in Victorian houses.
There are loads of empty houses up and down the country, we don't need any more, leave things alone and they'll sort themselves out.

[Yorick]

So the buy to let gang can snap them up, rent them out and continue leeching off those who can’t afford something so basic as a roof over their head....maybe.

Because IIRC we are replacing our housing stock about every 400* years. Now some houses are still in use 400* years after they were first built, but not many.

*Can't recall exactly how may 100s of years, but it is a loooong time. A huge amount of housing stock is Victorian, and, unless gutted and effectively rebuilt, is well past it's sell-by date.

And yet people manage to live in Victorian houses.
There are loads of empty houses up and down the country, we don't need any more, leave things alone and they'll sort themselves out.

Is the population growing?