For those who couldn’t read the Welsh version……………

Fuel poverty is a serious issue in Wales, and up to a third of us are labelled fuel poor by Welsh policy. Yet most ‘fuel poor’ people consider themselves able to afford to keep their homes warm, even if they have to scrimp a little on household budgets. Compared to the living room temperature of 21°C (and 18°C in other occupied rooms) used to assess whether we’re in fuel poverty, most of us happily enjoy what we consider to be warm at temperatures that are few degrees cooler. In so doing, some of us can even claim to be doing our bit for the environment, as other Welsh policy tells us that turning our thermostats down by just 1°C can reduce our heating costs, and  environmental emissions, by up to 10%.

So, the question is this: should we be turning our heating up to the 21°C considered in the fuel poverty policy to be ‘satisfactory’, or should we turn the heat down to save a few pounds and in so doing do our bit to save the planet? If that confuses you then you’re not alone, it gave me and my colleagues at SBBS food for thought too!

Please do not misunderstand; fuel poverty is a serious business and it’s important to make sure the most vulnerable people don’t suffer. It’s also important for us all to make every effort to live in fuel-efficient homes. But, does fuel poverty policy prevent those thus classified from suffering, even after the building improvement grants and assistance being classed as fuel poor can bring have been completed? In fact, for the poorest people improving the energy efficiency of their homes doesn’t necessarily compel them to turn up the heating, in fact they’ll often keep their house at the same temperature and use the extra efficiency to free up a little extra cash. For many vulnerable people, including older, retired, people on small state pensions, and long term unemployed, will the building improvement assistance guarantee them a ‘satisfactory’ 21°C without a bigger income? In fact, if you live in a small, energy-efficient, home you could be classed as fuel poor simply because of a very low income, and all the building work available could do little to help you get much warmer.

For vulnerable people staying warm can mean the difference between life and death, and between an enjoyable or miserable winter existence. But fuel poverty isn’t necessarily clear cut for the rest of us, whether you’re ‘fuel poor’ can change with the wind: one minute you’re not, then divorce, unemployment, fuel prices, or even an unexpectedly cold winter throws you into it. Find a life partner, get a new job, or enjoy a warmer than normal winter and you’re back out again. And it’s possible you’ll not notice you were ever classed as ‘fuel poor’!. Similarly, you may have just got married and you’re buying your first home: do you buy a smaller one or accept a few years of hardship for the promise of a future asset in that slightly bigger and harder to heat one? Many would say that the latter is an investment in your future happiness and wealth if you can manage it, but in fact it’s the choice more likely to qualify you as fuel poor. So people making a short term sacrifice, to enhance their future wellbeing and security, are lumped into exactly the same category as the vulnerable people who didn’t choose to be there. And that’s only one example: suffice it to say that ‘fuel poverty’ doesn’t discriminate between people who are really likely to suffer from it in the long term and those who are there temporarily and potentially even don’t notice they’re there at all.

So, why is 21°C considered ‘satisfactory’? Well, if you’re going to assess fuel poverty you need some sort of temperature requirement, and the one chosen decades ago was the advice of the World Health Organisation (WHO). Basically they consider it a good middle ground between potentially unhealthy long term effects of anything below around 18°C or higher than 24°C (for vulnerable groups it’s a couple of degrees different). So you’d expect that, if you’re a healthy adult, as long as you keep yourself around 18°C most of the time, you’re likely to be fine, and even the WHO say that satisfactory temperatures may be lower if we allow ourselves to acclimatise to them, or wear warmer clothing. Which brings me to the question of why we have these fuel poverty temperature criteria that the majority of homes never realise? And, is fuel poverty policy telling us that because we often heat our homes below the ‘satisfactory’ temperature, we actually putting our physical and mental health at risk?

In fact, a couple of decades have passed since fuel poverty first emerged as an issue, so what was a sensible arbitrary temperature originally is now out of step with our ever increasing awareness of energy efficiency needs. So in that time we’ve not just recognised the importance of being able to afford to be warm, but also the need to be sensible in how we go about ensuring we are. That’s why we’re advised to reduce our thermostats by 1°C: because such a small change isn’t likely to have much effect on non-vulnerable people, is easily acclimatised to (especially with some warmer clothing), will save you a lot of money, and whether you benefit from housing improvements or not it’ll significantly reduce your greenhouse gas emissions. So no, energy efficiency policy doesn’t seem to be putting us at risk by asking for a 1°C reduction, so why shouldn’t fuel-poverty policy be asked to do the same? Given all those benefits is it really too much to ask for national policy to be consistent in encouraging us to do our bit to make a difference to the state of our planet. And doing it would have an added advantage: it would reduce the enormous number of ‘fuel poor’ closer to the number who really need, or even want, our help.

That’s why we’ve submitted a response to the Welsh Assembly’s review of fuel poverty, calling for a reduction in the ‘satisfactory’ temperatures and more research into how we can learn from the fuel poor the ways we can all go about coping with slightly cooler homes. You can read it here [link]. One thing is for sure, the ‘fuel poor’ are actually the people most likely to be using energy and fuels sustainability: we need to learn from them as well as helping improve the lives of the vulnerable and most in need.

With thanks to Dr Andrew Thomas for his contribution (chocolate to follow…!)

The content of this blog does not reflect the opinion of Bangor University