Skip to content

UK Climate Change Bill Goes Up To £330bn

December 1, 2012

By Paul Homewood



The long-held figure of £200bn that is said to be needed to secure the UK’s energy future is in fact £130bn short of what will actually be required, claims a new report.

The London School of Economics and Political Science claims that £330bn will need to be invested by 2030 in the UK’s energy infrastructure to ensure a secure energy supply, meet carbon emissions reduction targets and protect the economy.


Professor Samuel Fankhauser, co-director of the Grantham Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and author of the report, said the study “shows how fragile and delicate the equilibrium of factors is for protecting the future of the UK energy industry”.

“A slight change of emphasis in policy, a weakening economic picture or a preference for cheaper energy sources over low carbon energy generation could result in very different operating environments for UK businesses,” he said. “It is crucial UK businesses take action now to overcome the potential challenges they may face.”

The Grantham Institute, of course, is the part of the Grantham Foundation, whose aim is to “raise awareness of urgent environmental issues and supports individuals and organizations working to find solutions. Our grantmaking supports communication and collaboration in environmental protection, with an emphasis on climate change. “ It is unlikely then that they would be exaggerating the costs involved with reducing our CO2 emissions.

The report was commissioned by utility RWE npower and its chief executive Volker Beckers said: “£200bn by 2020 has been the long-held figure recognised as being key to a secure energy future. However, this report shows that almost the same amount again is needed just 10 years later to provide the right environment to balance cost, carbon and continuity of supply. It is therefore crucial that the UK energy industry, government and businesses work collaboratively to ensure this level of investment is secured and foundations are set for economic and environmental prosperity by 2030.


To put the numbers into perspective, £330bn over the next 18 years is equivalent to an annual cost of about £800 per household.

For some reason, our politicians don’t seem too keen to tell us about this.

  1. MD4U permalink
    December 1, 2012 6:22 pm

    There is no such thing as CO2 being the driving force for warming the planet. Therefore spending even 1 penny is excessive. 200bn is irresponsible and 330bn is obscenely negligent. The IPCC pubescent authors of the climate bible have wrought a burden upon humanity which is unparalleled. These young men and women in their early 20s lacking PHD credentials are weighting the economic forces for an agenda that will only bring misery.

    So a cost comparison between dumb and dumber is in of itself a tactic reenforcement of the mythology of CO2. The tragedy must stay focused that CO2 is a benefit not a liability. Any expenditure of resources to sequester or avoid CO2 is dangerously deviant financial malpractice.

  2. Terbreugghen permalink
    December 3, 2012 4:49 am


    I recently ran a “test” of some very vocal and committed AGW debate partners. I’m wondering if you think it was “fair”.

    I asked what the approx. solar energy hitting the earth’s surface was, aprox. how much carbon is released per year by all sources, natural and artificial, approx. how much carbon is released per year by human activity, what is the major chemical influence on the greenhouse effect, and how many ppm CO2 there is in the Martian atmosphere. It was a multiple choice test and all the asnwers I gave were intentionally wrong. I then suggested that if anyone answered any of the questions by picking one of the choices,they didn’t have sufficient basic knowledge to commment coherently on the issue.

    Was that a bad thing for me to do?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: