I wanted to believe Keir Starmer would make Cop29 the moment he made good on his earlier green promises (Editorial, 12 November). In one sense, he didn’t disappoint, stating that he would oversee a cut in emissions of 81% by 2035 on 1990 levels. Great. But how? Essentially decarbonising the grid but “not telling people how to live their lives”.
As a retrofit project coordinator working in social housing, I fear this means Starmer is following his predecessor Rishi Sunak down the route of “we still care about net zero, we just don’t want it to cost votes from landlords or make people think they will have their gas boilers forcibly ripped out” (the latter was never on the cards, new boilers just wouldn’t have been installed). This matters because 20% of UK carbon emissions come from domestic properties. If we don’t tackle our draughty and leaky housing stock – the worst in western Europe – we will never reach net zero by 2050. We need to be retrofitting 1.5 homes a minute.
But this isn’t just a game of carbon accountancy. Nor is it about pleasing the “tofu-eating wokerati”. Retrofitting homes cuts emissions and makes them warmer in winter and cooler in summer. It prevents people dying from temperature extremes, reduces the amount the NHS spends on chronic health conditions and saves families money on their fuel bills. The physical and financial benefits of retrofit are experienced immediately by both residents and the Treasury.
It’s a great shame that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have bought into the rightwing narrative that cutting emissions on a household level equates to a nanny state controlling and diminishing quality of life. I’ve witnessed the exact opposite through my work.
Charlie Chamberlain
Norwich
• Keir Starmer’s pledge to cut carbon emissions by 81% by 2035 would be a lot easier if he brought back the feed-in tariff for small-scale electricity producers and unlocked millions of pounds of investment in green energy from individuals – on their own roofs.
Empowering people to invest, with guaranteed payments for the electricity they produce, is a win-win for the country. The cost is borne by individuals while the nation gets the benefit. Pay a small premium over the cost of the power they generate, and millions will invest.
These micro-generators can come online immediately without waiting years for National Grid upgrades, and, best of all, it would cost the exchequer virtually nothing.
Alastair Nisbet
Dorchester, Dorset
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
