• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • British "Green Energy" Plan To Cost 17 Times As Much As Benefits

    The Telegraph reports:

    The Government’s plans to increase the proportion of Britain’s energy generated by “green” sources is set to cost between 11 and 17 times what the change brings in economic benefits.

    The figures are buried deep in the Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy paper produced last month.

    According to the document, while the expected cost will total around £4bn a year over the next 20 years, amounting to £57bn to £70bn, the eventual benefit in terms of the reduced carbon dioxide emissions will be only £4bn to £5bn over that entire period.

    The White Paper has also calculated that household gas and electricity bills will have to rise by up to £249 a year, although Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband has insisted that new measures to improve consumers’ energy efficiency would reduce the extra cost to an average of £92 a year per home.

    And that is from Britain’s liberal government. Here in the States, the Center for Data Analysis paints a just as bleak, if not more so, picture for what Waxman-Markey will do to the American economy. From the report:

    • A family of four can expect its per-year energy costs to rise by $1,241;
    • Including taxes, a family of four will pay an additional $4,609 per year;
    • Aggregate GDP losses will be $9.4 trillion;
    • Aggregate cap-and-trade energy taxes will be $5.7 trillion; and
    • Job losses will be nearly 2.5 million;
    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to British "Green Energy" Plan To Cost 17 Times As Much As Benefits

    1. Joe Kline, Gilroy, C says:

      Human impact on the environment? If you stood all 6.6 billion people on the earth shoulder to shoulder, front to back, alloting each one a square foot of space, they would take up an area of only 210 square miles….about 1/2 the size of the area of Houston,Texas. Sort of puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

    2. Damian Hockney, Lond says:

      The two largest parties in the UK have developed a great ability to distort statistics about the likely costs of their legisaltion by factoring unproven and generally unspecified 'savings' into their press releases and statements. The idea that these new measures by government might help reduce costs through energy savings are fatuous, but are reported with an apparently straight face even by right-of-centre newspapers like the Daily Telegraph. Sadly, the British Conservative Party has the same approach in this type of area – at one point suggesting it would, for example, ration the flights of the British people (but not, of course, the flights of British politicians!).

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.