Skip to content

Climate Policies To Cost £66bn In Next Five Years

November 23, 2017

By Paul Homewood



The Office for Budget Responsibility has just published the latest fiscal supplementary tables following the Budget.

It confirms the rising cost of the Climate Change Act, which will reach £14.4bn in 2022/23.

The total cost over the next five years will be £66bn, equivalent to about £2500 per household.


2.7 Environmental levies

£ billion

Outturn Forecast

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
CRC Energy Efficiency scheme 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
Warm home discount1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Feed-in tariffs1 0.0 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6
Renewables obligation 4.7 5.4 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.9
Contracts for difference1 0.0 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.5 2.8 3.0
Capacity market 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4
Environmental levies 5.2 8.6 10.5 11.7 12.3 12.9 13.3
Memo: Expenditure on renewable heat incentive (RHI) 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1
Note: The ‘Environmental levies’ line above is consistent with the ‘Environmental levies’ line in Table 4.6 of the November 2017 Economic and fiscal outlook.
1 The ONS have yet to include Warm Home Discount, Feed-in Tariffs and Contracts for difference in their outturn numbers. If they were included, they would have been £0.3bn, £1.3bn and £0.1bn respectively.

The Climate Change Levy will add an extra £10.6bn to this cost over the next five years, but is classified as taxation revenue, whereas Environmental Levies are added to energy bills.

One other notable item is the projection for Fuel Duties.

Despite all of the efforts to promote electric cars, the OBR is still forecasting a steady rise in Fuel Duties:

2.8 Current receipts (on a cash basis)

£ billion

Outturn Forecast

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23

Fuel duties
27.9 27.9 28.0 28.6 29.2 29.9 30.6

  1. Dung permalink
    November 23, 2017 2:17 pm

    This does not seem to include all the cash they are throwing at electric cars in subsidies to manufacturers of these unwanted vehicles?

    • November 23, 2017 3:35 pm

      Plus a budget figure of £400 million to put more charging stations in place at public expense.

      No way to get fuel duty out of electricity bills.

  2. HotScot permalink
    November 23, 2017 2:35 pm

    No wonder there are people unable to get on the housing market; the NHS up to it’s eyeballs in debt and we are unable to pay for planes to go on our nice new carriers whilst we are paying for all this green crap.

    I’m ever hopeful that when we do complete Brexit, the government will come to it’s senses and stop chucking money down the green maw of wasted effort and cash.

    • Dung permalink
      November 23, 2017 4:32 pm

      Fortunately we have already signed a contract for the first 45 of the F35Bs so at least the carriers will have something to play with hehe

      • Athelstan permalink
        November 23, 2017 5:21 pm

        Might have some planes, haven’t got any escorts – carrier group, can do some manoeuvres in the Irish sea, if……………… we ask the micks nicely. Could be, a threat to mannymicron and blast Calais from Portsmouth. Better yet steam down to Galicia and wreck Spanish trawler fleet.

        waddaya think?

      • Dung permalink
        November 23, 2017 8:16 pm

        Totally agree Athers, Defence of the UK is lower down the Maybot’s agenda than fighting a non existent problem, exporting jobs and industry and wrecking the power generation industry?

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 24, 2017 1:44 pm

      Hotscot, the government will have little choice post Brexit as we expect a hit to government income of around £60bn and increasing welfare costs of around £20bn, so cash for dumb projects will be hard to find. And the salient point that most people miss is that this comes even if there is a deal with the EU because it is a result of Theresa May and Nick Timothy’s decision to leave the Single Market.

      • HotScot permalink
        November 24, 2017 2:26 pm


        I treat expectations about post Brexit financial disaster about as seriously as I do AGW.

        The fact is, no one knows what’s going to happen, not even the EU as they have never been through this either. The problem they have is they have 27 countries to persuade about anything, and several of the former Eastern Bloc countries have formed their own, unofficial alliance within the EU because they are so dissatisfied with the way its going. Germany’s political system is in turmoil right now and it’s energy policy has proven a massive, hugely expensive failure. Spain, Portugal and the UK’s replacement at the top table, Italy, are all growing more dissatisfied with the EU.

        The EU is not in a good place right now, quite apart from Brexit. 60Bn will seem like chickenfeed if there’s another financial disaster or another country leaves.

  3. mothcatcher permalink
    November 23, 2017 3:10 pm

    Paul –
    (Off topic but I don’t have your contact email – sorry)
    I just sent this msg to the BBC Newswatch program. They probably won’t use it – I’m always a bit too wordy – but some our your contribs might like to follow it up…

    The one o’clock news on Thursday 23rd had a longish section – trailed in the headlines – about how satellite views of the nightime Indian subcontinent showed how there had been a dramatic increase in illumination over a period of just four years.

    The piece from the outset was completely negative …
    ….”will have negative consequences for human health and the environment” and went on to explain at some length possible problems from light pollution, resetting of human body clocks, changes to bird migration, and so on. Not a single word at any stage of the huge positive side at all – how this increase in lighting should be a cause for joy, in that it shows that plentiful electric power is at last reaching some of the poorest people in the world – a liberation indeed. This article in your flagship bulletin was completely upside-down. I half expected the BBC was going to applaud the great example of the completely unpolluted nightime view of the northern half of the Korean peninsula.

    This is a very clear example of the Western-centric, liberal-green bias which many of us suspect pervades the innermost counsels of the BBC. Please get real and have a good look at yourselves.

    • November 23, 2017 4:30 pm

      The BBC WS interviewed a Professor of Pious Platitudes at the University of the People’s Republic of Exeter who was in a total wail-state about this. So, the 1% approx of the surface area of the world with a dense amount of lighting has gotten a bit more light, and that is worth a mega-moan!?

      I blame all those “clean-green” solar lights, enormous waste of natural resources for next to no benefit.

    • Rowland H permalink
      November 23, 2017 4:33 pm

      Meanwhile around 500 million Africans do not have access to reliable electricity and are positively discouraged from building modern coal fired power stations. See Powering Passed Coal on the BEIS site. Yeah, keep the developing world in energy poverty. No wonder there is mass emigration from those countries.

  4. November 23, 2017 4:40 pm

    Look at this pro bioenergy and BECCS propaganda put out by the Tyndall Centre, Manchester on behalf of their ‘Supergen Bioenergy Hub’. They want this simplified nonsense taught in schools.

    Disappointed to see that Prof. Patricia Thornley, Tyndall Centre, Manchester hasn’t caught up with the facts. ttps://

    But the Tyndall Centre itself can’t even agree on what the truth is. Here’s Prof. Kevin Anderson also of the Tyndall Centre, Manchester rubbishing the claims made for BECCS.

  5. November 23, 2017 4:45 pm

    All I can add is that it is Thanksgiving Day here. This morning I thanked the Lord that Donald Trump is President–as I have been doing since 3:40 am on the morning of November 9, 2016. I am thankful that I am smiling and have been for more than a year. It was nice to trade places with all those who thought Obama the second coming. I am smiling and they are not and I am thankful for that.

  6. Joe Public permalink
    November 23, 2017 7:18 pm

    Off topic – but will probably give the greenie health nazis apoplexy:

    “Deep fat fryers may help form cooling clouds – By Matt McGrath”

    I’m off to the local chippie to do my bit to save the planet …..

  7. Phoenix44 permalink
    November 24, 2017 9:05 am

    So the OBR downgrade growth forecasts because of low productivity growth and stagnant wages but utterly fail to draw attention to these forecasts for totally pointless costs and ineffeciencies heaped on consumers and businesses?

    Of course businesses use people rather than machines when energy gets more expensive, and of course we are al paid less when businesses have to pay more for inputs like energy.

    But let’s not mention any of that OBR.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      November 24, 2017 1:40 pm

      The OBR is also showing dereliction of duty in not making it clear that exports will crash from April 2019.

      • HotScot permalink
        November 24, 2017 2:26 pm


        Perhaps that’s simply because it’s unfounded speculation?

  8. November 24, 2017 6:23 pm

    Pretty sure that means just the increase in environmental levies alone (5.2 > 8.6) is more than the £3bn for Brexit planning and £2.8bn additional NHS spending.

    Thanks Miliband!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: