Skip to content

REVEALED: The £1.3 trillion Net Zero cost estimate called ‘more realistic’ by Treasury, suppressed by government

March 5, 2021

By Paul Homewood



BRITS were misled about the cost of the Government’s net zero carbon emissions target by 2050 after Whitehall officials played down the estimated £70billion annual hit.

In bombshell emails released after a two-year FOI battle, Treasury civil servants admitted to then-Chancellor Philip Hammond that the cost of going green would likely be £20billion a year more than the £50billion figure they were told to champion publicly.

Ex-PM Theresa May legally committed the UK to Net Zero by 2050 before Boris Johnson took over in 2019 – meaning any harmful gases and emissions will have be offset.

Internal government modelling from the Department for Business showed it would be 40 per cent higher – reaching £1.275trillion by 2050.

At the time, No10 played down an estimated one trillion pound total cost of switching to a totally carbon neutral economy by 2050 and dismissed the reports that it might mean public spending would have to be cut in other areas.

Andrew Montford, Deputy Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation which pushed the FOIs, said last night: "This shows that despite being aware of a more credible higher estimate for the cost of net zero, ministers and officials chose to conceal vital information.

"We now need to see the methodology behind these estimates, so that Parliament can properly scrutinise the cost of decarbonisation policies.”

Graphs showing the difference between the two estimates were also released

Graphs showing the difference between the two estimates were also released

Victoria Hewson, Head of Regulatory Affairs at the Institute of Economic Affairs, added: "To scrutinise new environmental regulations properly, Parliament and the public need access to all the relevant information.

"It is disappointing that the Government chose to withhold this crucial cost assessment for so long, and that the Treasury’s view seems to have been based on such vague projections."

Climate researchers argue that the true cost of climate change will cost even MORE in the long term if nothing is done now.

Then-PM Theresa May was keen to rush out the commitment to net zero before she left office in 2019.

But Mr Hammond was understood to be worried about the cost to the economy in the long run, and wanted to be honest with the public about the eye-watering costs.

  1. Philip Mulholland permalink
    March 5, 2021 10:40 am

    I think it is time to say good bye to the bide in.

  2. George Lawson permalink
    March 5, 2021 10:45 am

    “It is disappointing that the Government chose to withhold this crucial cost assessment for so long, and that the Treasury’s view seems to have been based on such vague projections.”

    It’s more than disappointing, it’s downright disgraceful. Will anyone in government be held responsible for lying to the nation?

  3. grammarschoolman permalink
    March 5, 2021 10:46 am

    Can we sue?

  4. Devoncamel permalink
    March 5, 2021 11:00 am

    The green zealots will not care, there’s a climate emergency you know.

    • March 5, 2021 12:53 pm

      A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.

  5. Jackington permalink
    March 5, 2021 11:03 am

    Some of us have been aware of this for years but good to see Andrew Montford has got this scam into the MSM.

  6. March 5, 2021 11:13 am

    Bottom line, decarbonisation means shutting down industry.
    An attack on the foundation stone of all life on Earth, Carbon Dioxide, is insanity on steroids.
    John Doran.

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 5, 2021 12:06 pm

      Funny you should mention stone as you return to the neolithic.

      • March 6, 2021 6:44 pm

        My guess is that the 1%s want a return to Medieval serfdom.
        Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball’s little booklet for the layman:
        Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History.
        Only 121 pages, well illustrated, reveals the people & motives behind the Fraud.
        John Doran.

  7. Peter F Gill permalink
    March 5, 2021 11:17 am

    £1.3 trillion is almost certainly a considerable underestimate of the total costs. The question that should really be posed is what is the cost of committing economic suicide for a developed nation. We will of course waste a huge amount of money in the meantime but eventually people will wake up to the impracticality of the pointless aims embodied in the disastrous Climate Change Act. Having lots of blackouts and brownouts and big energy bills will not help the project nor will publicising deaths due to hypothermia for those poor people who make wrong choices about the use of what cash they have. Exactly what will cause the inevitable adoption of common sense remains to be seen. It would not surprise me to see the emergence of a new political party as the existing major parties are all following the same flawed “science”.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      March 5, 2021 12:24 pm

      Peter, the West is gradually becoming a colony of China – without that country having to spend a penny or lift a finger to let it happen. I fear that the ‘new party’ you wish to take us out of all this will be not unlike the CCP.

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 5, 2021 12:33 pm

      ‘On the contrary, Mr Bond, I think you’ll find those wounds quite fatal.’

      A Net Zero economy can’t support £1.3 trillion. They talk of costs way beyond the scope of the entire economy. They decadently believe they can destroy the economy, and still spend the money the old economy produced.

  8. Chilli permalink
    March 5, 2021 11:21 am

    Good job with the FOIs but £50Bn or £70Bn – meaningless numbers to most people. Need to put the figures in context as number of hospitals / schools / roads, or as a proportion of all income tax paid – to give the plebs an idea of just how much money we’re being forced to waste on this shyte.

  9. March 5, 2021 11:38 am

    The cost may be suppressed from the public and maybe the press but it is surely well known within the government and to boris. Is that right?

  10. Mad Mike permalink
    March 5, 2021 11:51 am

    On a personal level, I’ve just worked out what my energy bill would be if I used the same amount of energy as I do now in my house if it was all electric. My annual combined bill atm is around £1400 but, if all electric, it would be £3680 and that is without charging an EV.

    If such exercises were done by the general public all this Green stuff would quickly become history.

  11. MrGrimNasty permalink
    March 5, 2021 11:54 am

    The estimated cost of upgrading housing stock ALONE – anything from £2-£3Trillion.

    Of course after inflating the cost of energy to 5 or 6 times the current price with their renewables, they can then claim it is less, because you have energy savings at the inflated cost to deduct.

    The logic of the insane asylum.

    This is, even best case, multiples of times more costly than the also completely unnecessary manufactured covid crisis.

    And Boris is flying high in the polls – it just shows how deliberately deprived of important information and unawares the public are.

    The lack of true information about the covid vaccine, and therefore the inability for anyone to give informed consent, is the biggest invisible government scandal in history and a reckless gamble/experiment.

    In all areas now it seems that our government no longer does what the people want, it decides what it wants, and then subjects the populace to relentless bullying marketing and propaganda campaigns.

  12. It doesn't add up... permalink
    March 5, 2021 12:00 pm

    Just “more realistic”? It really doesn’t begin to capture the costs, and that’s before we start adding up the value of the list GDP as industry goes offshore and the UK ceases to have an international credit position that allows it to borrow. We atr headed for economic destruction on the scale of Mao’s Great Leap Forward.

  13. March 5, 2021 12:16 pm

    Time for another Petition to Parliament to force discussion on the whole matter of the Net Zero self flagellation forced on the British public by the worst PM evah!. May’s treason with regard to Brexit was bad enough, but, deliberately destroying the economy is an order of magnitude worse. Maybe it was in her contract with the EU.

  14. Vic Hanby permalink
    March 5, 2021 12:41 pm

    It’s time more attention was paid to the claim that not to implement this madness would be even more costly.

    • Ian Miller permalink
      March 5, 2021 1:20 pm

      My question is: If such a low concentration of CO2 as there is in the atmosphere, even if doubled or even trebled for argument’s sake,  it would still only bring it to around 1/10th     of one percent of the atmosphere. How then can this Gas, – possibly affect the world’s Climate ?
      Answer is – IT CAN’T !

      • Broadlands permalink
        March 5, 2021 1:30 pm

        Ian…the geochemists have already found that CO2 in the late Eocene was more than double today’s value and the climate then was mild. The models are wrong.

    • Ian Miller permalink
      March 5, 2021 1:27 pm

      My question is: If such a low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, if doubled or even trebled for argument’s sake,  it would still only bring it to around 1/10th     of one percent of the atmosphere.
      You couldn’t even find a CO2 molecule 1 / 2,500 parts – if you looked !!
      How then can this concentration , – possibly affect the world’s Climate ?

  15. Mack permalink
    March 5, 2021 12:52 pm

    I see the BBC is all over this story. Not. All I can find is another grumbling article from Hairbrain with contributions from the usual suspects bemoaning the government’s lack of a coherent climate plan. He doesn’t appear to be interested in how much it all costs. And, as has been noted above, the £1.275 trillion figure is a woeful underestimate of the true figure. There is also a rather eye catching piece with a couple of sexy charts detailing how climate hysteria, sorry, change is going to impact the National Trust under the ‘Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse’ scenario as advocated by the aforementioned scribbler. Apart from that no mention of the entire population being impoverished by a project dreamed up on the scientific equivalent of Fantasy Island.

  16. Broadlands permalink
    March 5, 2021 1:26 pm

    “Climate researchers argue that the true cost of climate change will cost even MORE in the long term if nothing is done now.”

    The problem. They haven’t defined quantitatively what they want to do NOW. NET-zero means negative emissions of CO2…industrial CCS technology. The only quantitative goal I’ve seen is that promoted by NASA’s James Hansen who says we must go back to 350 ppm to be safe. Today that would mean ~65 ppm which translates to 500 gigaton CO2. That is quite impossible. But if it were to be attempted at $100/ton the cost would be giga-pounds. So, until some climate researchers provide and justify a quantitative goal it’s quite meaningless to estimate the cost of Net zero. And especially by 2050. Absurd.

  17. Patsy Lacey permalink
    March 5, 2021 1:34 pm

    The public accounts committee have criticised the government for not setting out a clear path to net zero – whether this is tongue in cheek not sure but the message is getting through

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      March 5, 2021 2:45 pm

      Good article from Ross Clark. With some very positive comments.

  18. Bill Hutchison permalink
    March 5, 2021 1:35 pm

    Please don’t just sit there! Get on to your MP and Councillors NOW. Mostly they will not have heard any voices raised against Global Warming, the Climate Emergency and Net Zero. Andrew Montford and the GWPF have done very well persisting with their FOI for two years against stiff Treasury resistance. This is just the beginning but, now that the Treasury have had to break cover, we can keep on keeping on until we expose the whole cost and the stupidity of Net Zero to public view. Please give our front runners like Paul, Andrew, John Constable, Benny Peiser and others some support against the Green Blob near you. If the MSM are largely a lost cause, we either have to find a Farage and a new party or run a siege against the current establishment. We all know Joe Public is not going to put up with the consequences of Net Zero so let get it changed before too much damage has been done.

  19. iananthonyharris permalink
    March 5, 2021 1:54 pm

    Dissenting voices are disallowed. The Beeb refuses to allow on air what they call ‘climate-change deniers’ subconsciously linking them with Holocaust deniers. Whatever dissenting scientists come up with they are ignored or vilified in spite of the fact that it’s obviously complete nonsense, will costs trillions, and will be a disaster. Meanwhile the Chinese and and Indians are building coal-fired power stations as fast as they can, and the rare earth minerals vital to the project are being mined in slave conditions in third-world countries.Out of sight-out of mind!

  20. March 5, 2021 2:15 pm

    Between Greta, Floyd and covid, these three hoaxes are the biggest ever money grab scam in the history of the world. The winner, the IMF.

  21. March 5, 2021 2:23 pm

    Today’s PR trickery
    National Trust’s climate change threat map a ‘game-change
    The charity says the number of its sites facing a high level of threat *could* rise from 5% to 17% by 2060.
    But the map also predicts the wider threat to communities *if there is no intervention*

    .. (bottomline, there are interventions, floodwalls are built, rivers are dredged, sluices are controlled etc)

    • Gamecock permalink
      March 5, 2021 3:37 pm

      Or, most likely, people will just move. Water coming up too close to your building? Move inland some.

      Behind all of this is the belief in national socialist government. The national government has NO RESPONSIBILITY for people’s buildings. You built too close to the water? It’s YOUR problem. As national socialist government takes responsibility for private property, they will start to express authority over private property. It can’t not happen. The cynical will see this as being on purpose. The issue is never the issue.

  22. It doesn't add up... permalink
    March 5, 2021 2:27 pm

    I suppose the £1.3 trillion might be about right if you consider it as the damage to annual GDP. i.e. per year.

  23. Vernon E permalink
    March 5, 2021 3:51 pm

    The key to the Scientific Method is understanding the past then predicting the future. There are solid reports of earlier CO2 concentrations of over 3000 ppm. Even if not as high as that it is unquestionable that historic concentrations were much higher than today. So do we understand what mechanisms caused these changes – down as well as up?

  24. bluecat57 permalink
    March 5, 2021 5:05 pm

    Is that each taxpayer? Sounds about right.

  25. David permalink
    March 5, 2021 7:02 pm

    I’ve written to my Conservative MP several times. She just ignores the letters


  1. REVEALED: The £1.3 trillion Net Zero cost estimate called ‘more realistic’ by Treasury, suppressed by government – Dreaming 🐦 Freedom

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: