Skip to content

Treasury Net Zero Review

October 20, 2021
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

Coinciding with the publication of the Net Zero strategy, the Treasury has also published its own review of the costs and implications:

 

 

image

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-review-final-report

 

It begins with the usual nonsense that “we must do something”, and how the UK is already suffering from climate change (apparently we never had floods before). But it doesn’t come to the obvious conclusion that whatever we do here will have no impact on climate at all.

 

They rightly agree that we cannot possibly forecast what the economy will be like in thirty years time, but then proceed anyway to discuss possible economic growth and green jobs that might result from the Net Zero agenda.

But what we do have a pretty good idea of is the costs of the transition in the next decade or so. And they come up with this chart of the additional capital expenditure needed. (Note that this is not TOTAL expenditure, but ADDITIONAL to the base expenditure we would need anyway without Net Zero – eg the extra cost of buying electric cars or heat pumps compared to petrol cars or gas boilers):

image

So we are looking at between £50 and £60 billion a year up to 2037, about £600 billion. Obviously this is just the start – additional spending on heat pumps will continue at a high level for many years after, for instance.

The Treasury have also assumed that prices of heat pumps and electric cars fall in the next few years, so they may be on the optimistic side.

The next question, of course, is who will pay. The report gives an indication that the cost won’t be loaded onto the National Debt. Instead taxes will have to rise:

image

 

I’m not quite sure how handing over to your children a wrecked economy, high taxation and living costs can be described as “intergenerational fairness”!

However the cost will have to be borne ultimately by households one way or another:

 

image

The report also discusses the role of green finance, as if it was some sort of panacea:

 

image

They clearly expect householders to borrow money to finance heat pumps and the like, which would simply be unaffordable otherwise. It does not seem to have occurred to them that mortgages have to be repaid!

This will no doubt turn into a nice little earner for the banks, but it poses the very real problem that finance will be curtailed for other, arguably more important, uses. While we’re busy installing heat pumps and insulation, where will the money come from to invest in new factories and production lines, technological breakthroughs and infrastructure?

23 Comments
  1. Broadlands permalink
    October 20, 2021 2:22 pm

    “…in order to deliver net zero sustainably” ???

    What is net zero sustainability? They either reach net zero emissions or they don”t.

    • October 20, 2021 3:36 pm

      Digging more and more *sustainable* holes in the ground to get masses of copper, lithium, rare earth minerals, etc. But future increases in energy use will outstrip whatever they produce that way, so even running to stand still is optimistic.

    • Post BREXIT permalink
      October 20, 2021 4:41 pm

      Classic #Group Think Speak’ to confuse the masses into thinking the Govt has a plan!

  2. October 20, 2021 2:37 pm

    Humanities graduates once again showing their total dearth of critical thinking skills. Quelle surprise – NOT

  3. Mack permalink
    October 20, 2021 2:46 pm

    And note that before HMG actually comes up with any concrete policies to try and fund this nonsense, they are promising ‘expanded carbon pricing’ now in ‘supporting the transition’ to the Year Zero. Which in layman’s terms means imminent government mandated tax hikes on gas, petrol etc etc. On the plus side, I can’t see the government surviving a combination of a cold winter and huge tax rises without a serious revolt from the great unwashed. On the minus side, the political opposition in the U.K. are even more committed to economic suicide than the current rabble. Grim times ahead.

  4. Captain Flint permalink
    October 20, 2021 2:50 pm

    This is one of the scary bits:-

    While we’re busy installing heat pumps and insulation, where will the money come from to invest in new factories and production lines, technological breakthroughs and infrastructure?

    Another mystifying and scary issue is how did so many people fall for this climate emergency BS?

    • Sylvia permalink
      October 20, 2021 3:11 pm

      If only we knew !!! Somebody must be paying these people an enormous amount of money for such LIES !!!

      • Douglas Dragonfly permalink
        October 20, 2021 4:57 pm

        The way main stream media refers to Prime Minister Johnson as ‘Bojo’ in an attempt to make him sound like a loveable cuddly toy seems too familiar in these serious times.

        Plus as well as constantly using the term ‘green’. It is a lazy and shallow use of our language as it is slang; with no defined meaning that most people can agree upon. No longer does it read as shorthand but rather they dumbing down science. Using a name of a colour for everything deemed good.
        Maybe they’re trying to package the real looming crisis, the financial one, as something friendly and to be sought after. Something friendly and safe.
        The more I see these same faces the more I’m convinced they are criminally insane.
        Take a look at these two as Bill Gates supposedly hands Prime Minister Johnson a paltry £200mn towards green investment.
        Peculiar behaviour when the government had found a money tree forest last year to fund the extensive furlough scheme.

        https://www.rt.com/uk/537887-bojo-bill-gates-green-cash/

  5. JimW permalink
    October 20, 2021 3:00 pm

    The only way spending money improves the economy is if it leads to higher productivity. Breaking glass windows and replacing them might increase GDP but it is wasted investment of time and resources. Purely in economic terms this whole exercise is a nonsense on a massive scale. Planning to employ many more to create the same output is economically stupid. Creating new vulnerabilities to supply chains , even more reliance on resources from an adversarial nation, these are economically illiterate moves.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      October 20, 2021 3:41 pm

      Absolutely correct JimW.

      We are substituting an efficient, effective power generation system for one which is more expensive, less efficient, less reliable and less productive. Ditto for heat pumps, EVs etc.

      The benefits are all negative. The only way they could be positive is if the “climate impacts” were so severe AND could be fixed by these actions that the cost-benefit analysis was positive. As we know, this was only achieved on paper by using absurd discount rates (eg Stern). The best strategy for putative climate change would be to wait and see plus adaption.

      Meanwhile in the real world the “climate breakdown” and “global heating” exist only in computer models and the febrile and gullible minds of environmental idiots, readers of the Guardian, BBC staff and MP’s.

      God help us and our children. Its not climate change that’s the problem, its climate change policy that will destroy our economy and way of life.

      • Jack Broughton permalink
        October 20, 2021 5:11 pm

        Excellent summary of the situation: simple and clear, sadly not likely to be read by those who need to be educated.

  6. Sylvia permalink
    October 20, 2021 3:09 pm

    God these people are SO STUPID it beggars belief that people still vote for them in the numbers they do !!! What do we do about such ignorance on the natural world ???!! Shame they can’t read and inform themselves of the truth about our wonderful planet and how it works !!!!

  7. John Peter permalink
    October 20, 2021 3:35 pm

    People have been converted to mainly looking at a ‘virtual world’ through their smart phones and listen to the propaganda without checking what happens in the real world. Neither do they know or remember what happened in the past, so they believe in the more heat, less heat, more drought, more rain and storm etc.
    Germany in the thirties showed that an elite can convince the people to gladly follow a path towards their self destruction. We are seeing a conservative party turning green and actually introducing something akin to a Sovjet five year plan where nothing is made or done without subsidy money. Everything you read about now needs an input from the Government – i.e. us the tax payer. This can’t continue as the demise of USSR demonstrated.

  8. Ilma630 permalink
    October 20, 2021 3:49 pm

    Heard Boris on the radio (BBC R4) this morning deflecting the costs question away from the individual to the overall economy, but was not challenged on either the true cost of Net-Zero or the necessity for it. He claimed the ‘green’ economy was already benefitting us. Didn’t say how though.

  9. Cheshire Red permalink
    October 20, 2021 4:37 pm

    So 600 billion quid and counting in order to achieve Net Zero.
    Yeah sounds like a plan. What could possibly go wrong?

  10. Gamecock permalink
    October 20, 2021 5:43 pm

    I am reminded of a news story I read in the 1970s. It said that raising a child would cost $140,000 dollars (this is 1970s money).

    I knew families with kids who were never going to make that much money, let alone have it available to spend on their kids. But I was confident they would indeed raise their kids.

    Perfect analogy for Net Zero. All the talk about what it will cost is ridiculous. You won’t have the money. Economic suicide isn’t going to make you richer; it’s going to make you broke.

    ‘Global action to mitigate climate change is essential to long-term UK prosperity.’

    Then move now while you still can.

    ‘The majority of global GDP is now covered by net zero targets.’

    ‘Targets.’ I don’t think that means what they think it means.

    “As Britain decarbonises, businesses and households across the country will be dragged down.”

    Fixed it.

    The world is increasing its carbonising. It’s not a secret. ‘As the world decarbonises’ is an absurdity. HM Treasury lives in a fantasy world.

  11. tom0mason permalink
    October 20, 2021 6:03 pm

    HM Treasury again displays that the UK’s government is rapidly reaching ‘Peak Stupidity’.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      October 20, 2021 7:35 pm

      I thought we had reached 11 on the stupidity index last year, But just when I think it can’t get more absurd, it keeps going up.

      We are going to need a sequel to Spinal Tap where the volume goes to 21 fairly soon.

      Currently at 14 or 15 on the stupidity volume I think.

  12. HotScot permalink
    October 20, 2021 7:26 pm

    Laughably, no government official can bear to say the unsayable; just how much this will all cost the householder and the Taxpayer in the short, medium or long term.

    They are dribbling out little bits of ‘abstract’ projection here and there, not so cleverly disguised in the hope no one will notice the “additional” bit praying no one will notice and blow the whistle.

    But it’s coming. When people begin to get hurt by rising Gas and Electricity prices and others begin howling about the true cost of Heat Pumps and everything else they’ll have to pay for to even begin to make them useful, the MSM will turn on the entire climate change scam.

    The MSM are like rabid rats and will never go down with a sinking ship.

    • Gamecock permalink
      October 20, 2021 10:33 pm

      BWTM: The moves now, like heat pumps, are incremental. They DO NOT get you to Net Zero. All the pain of implementing by 2035, or whatever, is irrelevant. Net Zero means no power. None. So you change to a heat pump, eventually, you won’t even be able to run that. Not running your gas boiler is a lot cheaper than not running your heat pump.

  13. cookers52 permalink
    October 20, 2021 8:39 pm

    In response to the disastrous 2007 flooding, parliament passed legislation to make sure mistakes in management, oversight and governance didn’t happen again.

    The act is The Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and you would expect with the ongoing climate emergency that this legislation would be enacted by government without delay.

    You would be wrong, the legislation has been delayed by government, subject to interdepartmental in fighting, and some sections of the act abandoned all together by government.

    Select committees wring their hands because if the 2007 rainfall event happened again, the response from government at all levels would be chaotic, much the same as in 2007.

    And of course it would all be blamed on climate change.

  14. Graeme No.3 permalink
    October 21, 2021 2:03 am

    Genius! I have the solution. Move the UK south to about the latitude of Morocco.
    Less need for heating (although more for ‘heat pumps’ used for cooling) but much more solar PV generation (and it would be more regular too).
    This would be cheaper and more reliable than some, if not all, solutions to the Climate Crisis.

    • ThinkingScientist permalink
      October 21, 2021 9:27 am

      Are you suggesting the UK can be saved by neo-colonialism and an invasion of foreign lands?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: