The numbers are unravelling already

The latest scheme to reduce climate change:

\”After home insulation and more efficient boilers, we now need more intrusive things – double glazing, cavity wall insulation, solid wall insulation,\” he said.

\”We need much more of a whole house approach – one-stop shops where people can get a total report on what they need to do to their homes. It may be expensive – between £10,000 and £15,000.\”

The CCC believes that the cost of the scheme would be paid for by a combination of government subsidy and higher electricity bills.

Whether it\’s paid for by taxpayers, by electricity consumers of by householders directly, it\’s still a cost that has to be carried by the population.

Assume that there are 24 million houses (there aren\’t, there\’s 24 million households but this gives us an order of magnitude) at £15 k a piece. That\’s umm, £360 billion.

Stern told us that the costs of dealing with the problem would be 1% or so of GDP. About £14 billion a year. Well, there we go, there\’s 25 years\’ worth of that just in insulating houses. We\’ve not yet touched farming, transport, generation or industry.

It\’s going to cost us a lot more than 1%, isn\’t it? Which means that mitigation might not be the best solution, for if it\’s more expensive then Stern\’s cost benefit analysis no longer adds up. It might well be that adaptation is the best answer.

3 thoughts on “The numbers are unravelling already”

  1. Tim, I think you should start a list for all the taxes, levies and whatnot that politicians and other kooks expect the cornucopia that spews (real, not freshly printed) money to conjure up.

    By now I think it must be almost empty and booked up for the next millennium ;-D

  2. a quibble -if I spend £10,000 on a new green car, most of that money is providing me with car to get me from A to B, perhaps some of it is paying to alleviate climate change (perhaps a more expensive engine than I’d otherwise use).

    If I spent £10,000 insulating my home, most of that money is providing me with a warmer home and lower heating bills, however the power is generated. I don’t know that the right sum of money to account against the “cost of alleviate climate change” is, but it isn’t the total gross cost.

    I’m sure you’re right on the broader point that once you add up all the money supposedly allocated to addressing climate change, it would come to a whole heap more than 1% GDP

  3. “The CCC believes that the cost of the scheme would be paid for by a combination of government subsidy and higher electricity bills.”

    Phew! That’s good news, for a minute I thought we’d have to pay it ourselves but I see the bill will fall on… taxpayers, and… people who use electricity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *