Misleading Taxpayers’ Alliance claims about green energy costs

Yesterday it was claimed in both the Mail and the Telegraph that energy prices were likely to increase by almost a third to £1,900 by the end of the decade.

Green energy 3

Yesterday it was claimed in both the Mail and the Telegraph that energy prices were likely to increase by almost a third to £1,900 by the end of the decade.

The claim was based on a report by the Taxpayers’ Alliance and was really intended to show how energy bills were being driven up by green taxes.

The TPA report claimed that electricity bills would increase by 29 per cent between now and 2020 due to green measures, and 100 per cent by 2030 – based on a report by Liberum Capital.

However as Damian Kahya puts it at the Greenpeace Energydesk blog:

“Energydesk contacted the TPA to ask how they’d worked this out. Their response is somewhat confusing…What they are saying here is that the government wants gas bills to be high because otherwise people will revolt against rising electricity bills to pay for clean energy. If this were true, it would be the story of the century and act of political self-destruction on an epic scale. But it’s not….

“Most people, including The Committee on Climate Change and The government and The CBI say gas prices have risen (driving up bills) and will probably rise more. But they do not predict they’ll rise because of a conspiracy to ensure they keep pace with green energy.

“They predict they’ll rise because gas is getting more expensive. In fact, that tends to be cited as a reason to use green energy – so as to protect consumers from rising gas prices.

“If, as some others predict, gas prices do not rise, then the pressure on consumers paying a gas and electricity bill will be reduced. In other words, they will be more able to afford any increases in their electricity bills.

“In short, the claim made by the TaxPayers’ Alliance – which underlay two national stories and a parliamentary campaign – has no evidence to support it at all.”

Definitely worth a read.

14 Responses to “Misleading Taxpayers’ Alliance claims about green energy costs”

  1. brossen99

    Come to think of it this article infers that like I always said the greens were working in the interest of the oil companies the proof is the fact that it was BP Shell and Tesco backing Corporate-Nazi Gordon Brown to push for global Co2 trading at Copenhagen back in 2009 !

    http://nollyprott.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/the-corporate-nazi-arch-plan-for-the-uk-agenda-21/

  2. Theyareviciousscammerchants

    OAP killers

  3. SadButMadLad

    The reason gas prices and electricity prices are soaring IS because of green energy. Because the power companies have to buy green energy at huge inflated prices as opposed to what the real price is. All to compensate and subsidise the green energy providers so that they go and make more green energy machines.

  4. brossen99

    You are really afraid of my articles to take them down so much for democracy apparently none on the left ?

  5. Jimmy

    The TPA?

  6. blarg1987

    And what is the alternative? Rape North Sea, Oil and Gas, and shale gas, large amount sof pollution and then when we have used up all those finite resources then what? A mad rush for nuclear and renewables which will mean fare greater hikes in concumer bills and a proportion of income then we currently face.
    In the short term your ideas are good if we are selfish, however long term they are very bad for consumers in the longer term.

  7. SadButMadLad

    Well yes, Labour and Tory governments did rape the north sea oil. They taxed it (which is right and proper) but they didn’t use that money to save for a rainy day. They spent it. And now that we are having that rainy day, there are no saving to spend on the nice projects that would keep people employed. Keynes himself said that its right for the state to spend to get out of a doldrum, but only if it had saved up during the good years.

    With shale gas, which will flood the market with cheap fuel, prices will come down. Shale gas should be taxed. But after being used to help cut the debt (not just the deficit) it should be put aside like the Norwegians do into a sovereign fund. It is finite, but only after a very long time. Long enough to build up a good fund. But then many politicians are only interested in the next election and don’t think long term.

    But don’t worry, technology will have advanced in the future to mean that we can get more of the last bits of oil and gas out of the ground. Fracking has been used in normal oil drilling since the 1950s but the technologies related to it have advanced that it can now be used to recover shale gas.

    Do we give up now and say that we have reached peak oil or do we carry on knowing that technology will have advanced as it inevitably does to make it cheaper in the future to get more fuel. Generally the later case is true. Just look at computers. Initially very expensive and only used by scientists, now so cheap that even greater processing power is thrown about into toys. Same will happen with getting gas or oil.

    As for nuclear, that already works, but the government (Labour & Tory) didn’t plan ahead and allow new ones to be built to replace the current ones that are at the end of the life. If we had new nuclear stations built, we wouldn’t have this stupid arrangement of wind turbines being built at a cost per GW that is greater than nuclear. Yes, turbines are cheap, but they don’t produce much power.

  8. blarg1987

    Whis is all down to lack of investment in the first instance, the policies that the TPA advocate will mean we will be in the same situation now in 20 – 30 years time as shale gas reaches its peak.

    Most of the innovation is down to prices being so expensive that it is now economical to reach those resources. The computer example you set is right, however it was the push of the state (contracts requiring smaller lighter computers) that created the momentum that has benefited everyone.

    I do partially agree with your points except that the shale gas we should use to invest in the next generation of energy and so become an export nation creatingg far more jobs and long term economic growth.

  9. SadButMadLad

    Sorry, the state said that smaller lighter computers were required? Seriously? Are you trying to troll me? That is just wrong. It was innovation within the computer industry that did it. The state didn’t tell the semiconductor manufacturers to keep pushing Moore’s law. It was them trying to squeeze more power out of out their chips to beat their competitors.

  10. Cole

    Eh?

  11. blarg1987

    Lets see, The space programme / military programmes, all asked for abilities to process many calculations into units as samll and light as possible, the worlds first official computer was ordered to calculate gunnery tables, who issued these contracts? The state.

    Yes the private sector innovated off that i.e found other markets, but things like the ARM chip came of the back of the BBC schools computer programme which was a state contract.

    You look at smart phones, the vast majority of their technology can be traced back to state contracts, all that has happened is the innovation to combine several off the shelf parts into a product for the mass market.

  12. SadButMadLad

    Oh that fallacy. Yes the state did encourage such inventions but no way did it stipulate what it should be. Business decided that itself by competing with each other to get the tenders from the state. And if the state wasn’t there, the inventions would still have been carried out.

  13. blarg1987

    No it is fact, as I said the state created the market and the private sector is good at innovating from the thigns that are produced.

    Yes I agree inventions would still have been carried out, however I do not think we would have landed on the moon, and have gps, or many other things we take for granted. If we did we would only be having it now or when the markets believe it is economically viable. As these things cost more, then fewe industries are willing to take the risk.

    Also of note, many private companies do get paid to do the R and D, the F 22 and F 35 have clauses which mean that all tenderers get paid to submit a tender at no cost to themsleves .

Leave a Reply