Skip to content

Scrapping green subsidies would be a much faster route to cheaper energy bills than price caps

May 14, 2017

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Short and to the point – Booker on green subsidies in the Telegraph today:

 

 

image

I would defy anyone unfortunate enough to hear the Today programme at 8.10 last Tuesday morning to have made head or tail of an interview in which our Business Secretary, Greg Clark, droned on for 10 minutes with Justin Webb about the Tories’ promise of a “cap” on energy bills. The essence of this flood of deathly jargon was that, thanks to something called the Competition and Markets Authority, this could save 17 million households a total of £1.4 billion a year.

What Clark and Webb never mentioned, of course, were the figures recently published by the Office for Budget Responsibility, showing the soaring cost of those green subsidies and taxes we all pay for through our energy bills. These are officially projected to more than double by the end of this Parliament, from £7.3 billion last year to £14.7 billion, or from £292 a year for each household to £565.

In other words, even if Theresa May’s “cap” on energy saves £1.4 billion a year, this will be dwarfed by the additional £7.4 billion a year due to be added to our bills under the Climate Change Act. But if you ask any candidates in this make-believe election what they think of those figures, almost certainly they will never have heard of them. If they come to your door, try it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/14/scrapping-green-subsidies-would-much-faster-route-cheaper-energy/

Advertisements
16 Comments
  1. May 15, 2017 5:54 am

    Greg Clark is no different from his predecessors (Rudd, Davey, Huhne, Milliband). None of them understand anything about the electricity ‘market’ or the climate change scam – they are just told what policy is by the greenblob in the civil service. When it comes to energy policy, there is no significant difference between the policies of Lib, Lab or Con. We remain stuffed for the foreseeable future.

    The only positive outcome of a ‘cap’ on energy bills is that the lights will start to go out earlier than would otherwise be the case.

    • Tom O permalink
      May 15, 2017 1:08 pm

      There is no one that is pushing the “green scam” at higher levels that aren’t fully aware of what the intent is. The question, in my mind, has always been why do people buy into something designed to depopulate the world.

      I cannot conceive that even moderately intelligent people would not recognize that “in the beginning,” they are useful idiots, working for “the cause,” defined as sustainability, but they will end up in the garbage heap, for the most part, with all those they betray with the “green scam.”

      The only “barrier” between death by hypothermia in a cooling climate is copious, reliable energy. The world is cooling, even as they juggle figures to say otherwise. The dumbed down public may not see beyond the MSM, but intelligent people that think for themselves have to stop telling themselves that this is about a dumb thing – it’s not.

      It’s about a deadly intent to massively reduce population, and it’s heading at you like a runaway locomotive. And time IS running out. In a cooling world, when enough of the reliable energy sources are taken off line – and immediately destroyed – we will hit the “tipping point” beyond which recovery is not possible without the loss of billions of lives.

      Stop finding people to “blame” for this, and take on the responsibility of denying it and its deadly product – the deaths of generations yet to be born, and those that can not survive in the present world if the “green scam” continues unabated.

  2. manicbeancounter permalink
    May 15, 2017 5:57 am

    The worst part is that our politicians are blaming others for the harms that they have caused. Back in 2013, when Ed Miliband proposed price caps, I looked at the profits the big six energy companies over the years since the Climate Change Act was introduced. Profits had not changed much, but the fixed costs had. This is where all the subsidies are included.

    https://manicbeancounter.com/2013/12/18/labours-hypocrisy-on-rising-energy-bills/

    Labour’s little video from 2013 implying the energy companies were to blame is below.

  3. Richard111 permalink
    May 15, 2017 6:23 am

    When all these solar panels and wind turbines become redundant will there be any recycle value? Just curious.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      May 15, 2017 6:52 am

      There would be an opening for a firm to remove the electrical part of a turbine and recycle the metals/rare earths. No-one would spend money taking down the nacelle or the metal tower; probably best to convert them into homes for bats and birds.
      It is just possible that Grand Designs would use some in various expensive and improbable episodes. I might even watch if Kevin McCloud were lowered on a rope from a helicopter (although I think his actual words would be censored).

    • RogerJC permalink
      May 15, 2017 8:40 am

      I live on the south coast where a huge array of these ugly monsters is currently being assembled off shore spoiling the entire horizon. I am told that they are designed to have an economic life of twenty years. What worries me is that at the end of that time they will be replaced by something bigger. Even if they were to be scrapped you can bet the concrete bases will remain under the water (as with North Sea oil rigs) to catch fishing nets and render fishing impossible. It is this type of knock on cost that never gets calculated.

      As an aside, the local press has been full of a story about an excavator that was digging a trench across the beach, to bring the power cables ashore, that broke down and got submerged. When it was still there a week later the local paper had a naming competition. Predictably “Digger McDigface” won.

  4. May 15, 2017 8:21 am

    Voting for any party that supports the Climate Change Act is an invitation to be screwed for yet more money on energy bills.

  5. Coeur de Lion permalink
    May 15, 2017 8:39 am

    Does anyone in the media ever ask the killer question – what is the renewables campaign FOR? Reduce CO2? Save fossil fuels?

  6. May 15, 2017 9:23 am

    When is a tax not a tax? — When it is a Green subsidy?
    This presents me with a problem when it comes to my Self Assessment return.
    First my energy bill provides no information on what the amount is. Next there is no box in the system where I can place this amount as tax paid, or perhaps designate it as say negative income.
    Can anyone advise me (aka- mushroom) on this dilemma?

    Meanwhile I anticipate a period of “Green Austerity “.

  7. Ex-expat Colin permalink
    May 15, 2017 9:46 am

    I note meter standing charges are rising dramatically…more than 50% over last year. I guess these won’t be capped or held in check. Seen on First Utility Tarriffs a few days ago. Mind, they play a real game with those charges.

  8. May 15, 2017 10:40 am

    O/T Still Worth tweeting FakeNews Qns to local news like EDP Argent.
    Missed this:
    Friday local papers invited you to tweet in your FakeNews questions.

  9. John Ellyssen permalink
    May 15, 2017 4:09 pm

    Paul, or anyone, Does the U.K. still subsidize gas/oil/nuclear energy? I know the U.S. does which bothers me some. I feel that no subsidies should be provided and then let the market balance the costs. In Booker’s title, he says to drop green energy subsidies which I agree with, but just wanted clarification if there are other energy subsidies out there.

    • May 15, 2017 4:56 pm

      There’s certainly no subsidies for oil/gas. North Sea oil still pays money into the Exchequer, though Greenpeace/BBC likes to label “tax breaks” as “subsidies”

      For the record North Sea oil has always paid a higher Corp Tax rate than other companies.

      As far as nuclear is concerned, Hinkley will get a generous subsidy, but older plants have to compete on the open market

      • John Ellyssen permalink
        May 15, 2017 7:47 pm

        Thanks

  10. Derek Colman permalink
    May 15, 2017 10:53 pm

    This is absolutely right. These extra charges impact most on the poor, the very people least likely to gain anything from the various home insulation and feedback schemes. It amounts to a regressive tax. If these taxes are to be levied they should be on general taxation, not on fuel bills, so that each pays according to his means. Poor families mostly live in the lowest grade BTL landlord properties, which are unlikely to have home insulation, solar panels or wood burning stoves, and they are unlikely to claim the £5,000 subsidies on new EVs, all of which are paid for by these fuel bill charges. The poor are effectively paying towards the lifestyle of the affluent middle classes. Is this really the kind of country to be proud of?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: