Should we pay less VAT on energy-saving goods?

It would be a double incentive and I agree in principle, but having worked for just over 5 years in the postcode area with the highest level of deprivation outside of Inner london, I realise now (and I admit I did not before my current job) that for many people buying anything that is not utterly essential now, this minute, is out of the question. The problem is exacerbated by schemes such as pre-payment meters which penalise the poverty-sricken by charging them more for essentials than the rest of use who use credit tariffs, for example. As such, whilst buying 3 energy saving bulbs for £1 at ASDA is probably affordable, buying more efficient (supposedly) appliances, which are usually priced a little (or indeed a lot) more than less efficient models may well be simply out of the question.
It seems immoral to me to that people in such a position should be penalised.
A better solution, but one which I doubt the government or the energy companies would go for, would be for the energy companies to offer vouchers or some other *real* discount which can be redeemed against only high efficiency appliances (gas and electric) and which would bring the price down to a similar level as the cheaper, less efficient, models.
Cynical people might suppose that the energy companies won’t want to do this because they *want* people to use more energy, especially if they are on higher tariffs, as this makes profit for them.
The other measure which I would like to see, and which I again suspect would never be accepted by the government nor industry, would be a penalty or surcharge of some kind on the purchase and installation of awful appliances like outdoor heaters for patios and outside pubs, and wasteful commercial lighting such as that left on overnight in shops and offices. These are completely non-essential energy guzzlers and my feeling is that people who insist on having them should be made to pay a higher rate of something-or-other than the rest of us.
Hope this makes some sense.

Absolutely agree! Patio heaters should never have been permitted to start with and should be made illegal at the earliest legislative opportunity.

ABSOLUTELY! Really well put. And your last sentence really and truly hits at the truth of the matter: saving down the line. I’ve argued ’til I am blue in the face that all these crackpot schemes to get us to throw away perfectly good appliances and buy new “green” ones is, to mis-quote a different Which? topic, “greenwash”. People cannot afford to waste perfectly good appliances just to save a few ergs here and there (erg, for anyone who doesn’t know, being just about the smallest unit in which energy can be measured).

Taking a slightly off topic slant on this though, not only can people not afford to do this, but we should not be doing it even if we can afford: the energy which is wasted in making new goods that we don’t actually need, and the environmental damage that is done in disposing of old goods outweighs the energy and environmental saving of using a newer item millions of times over.

I still support B&Q in their aim: but it has come at a bad time and encouraging people only to replace when they have to rather from the sake of it would be an even better idea.

(where they need to buy a prouct at all)

EXACTLY – as per my comment further up – buy efficient appliances but don’t buy any at all unless you NEED to – “need” is not the same as “Want” nor is it the same as “latest fashion”!!!

And also, as per many of my comments on other WHich? and other boards, be VERY very cautious: the so called efficient new appliances are often NOT as efficient as older models: there are seemingly endless loopholes in the various schemes used to rate the efficiency of electrical and gas appliances and I have, to my shock and shame, fallen foul of at least 2 of these and my neighbours, who are also pretty savvy and do lots of research, have also fallen foul of at least one. Remember “statistics can prove anything”!

Well said!

Of course, the governments of the world know this, but it isn’t a vote winner because it involves capital expenditure by governments and industry, which in turn means higher public spending and heavy investment at the expense of shareholder profits, which in turn lead to lost votes for any government or opposition party proposing these moves.

Terrible idea. Have you any idea how much it costs to administer such a hair-brained scheme?

And Ecover and most green cleaning products are rubbish. You cannot keep a kitchen properly clean with low levels of germs by using non-chlorine/bleach based products.

In our house we have seriously cut down on the amount of bleach we use, but its elimination is what has been responsible for the national increase in food poisoning.

As we live in a very hard-water area, we had a water softener installed 25 years ago. We use barely a third of the quantity of soap or detergent than recommended. We therefore conclude that over the years we have been far greener than anyone using Ecover or similar products because our usage has been far lower.

There is absolutely no way that you can keep work surfaces, dish cloths, sinks, drains and similar surfaces clear of germs as effectively as using bleach. Used sensibly, bleach is safe. All the stories about kids drinking it or mixing it with household acids is scare-scaremongering. Note the words: used sensibly.

But this is now off topic. Partly my fault.

The topic is encouraging energy saving not green goods in general. The point I was making is that so many green ideas are just poorly thought out and a total waste of money.

Dishcloths can be disinfected with boiling water, so that there is an alternative to bleach. There is no need to use bleach on work surfaces (unless perhaps they are used for changing babies). Some have argued that exposure to bacteria and other microorganisms can help humans develop immunity to infection and be less susceptible to allergies.

But why would I pay up to £2 for 400g of Ecover bleach when I can buy 2 litres of Tesco bleach (that lasts us over a year) for 29 pence?

That’s five to six times the cost for an inferior product with doubtful benefits the environment.