So we’re more than paying for climate change then

Interesting:

The Office for Budget Responsibility said that cost of the subsidies, which are levied on household and business energy bills, is expected to rise from £4.6billion in 2015-16 to £13.5billion in 2021-22.

Add the effect of the fuel duty escalator (as Ken Clarke said, to pay for our Rio commitments) and we’re paying that £30 billion a year. Or, that $80 per tonne on 500 million tpa of CO2-e as a carbon tax that would be the Stern Review solution to climate change.

As Stern said, a carbon tax would be the cheapest way of dealing with it…..

11 thoughts on “So we’re more than paying for climate change then”

  1. Madness. especially when you consider that CO2 is a trace gas comprising a massive 0.04% of the atmosphere.

  2. Add in the EU’s 5% VAT on domestic fuel and perhaps, maybe, people might start wondering at the true reasons why their energy bills are so high, and it ain’t “greedy companies setting prices too high”.

  3. Please remember the art of taxation is like plucking a live goose- the aim being to get the maximum of feathers for the minimum of hissing. Hence it is prudent to hide from the people the amount being paid.
    It is always useful to have someone else to blame should any of the people discover what they are paying.

  4. Withdraw from all climate agreements and be–along with the Yanks, chicoms etc –the only nation not weighed down by this financial suicide pact.

    Plus Brexit–big steps towards a prosperous new future.

  5. @Pat
    “Please remember the art of taxation is like plucking a live goose- the aim being to get the maximum of feathers for the minimum of hissing. Hence it is prudent to hide from the people the amount being paid.”
    It shouldn’t be. It should be like putting the most on a horse without it’s speed,health or well being being harmed.
    (The horse being the economy, speed rate of growth etc).

  6. Don’t take it to heart Tim, we all love you and you’re allowed to have four or five blind spots where you’re absolutely wrong, this being one of them.

  7. If I ran a utilities company I would make sure that all of the bills sent out to customers had a breakdown of exactly how much governmental interference costs.

    X amount for VAT, Y amount for green levies, Z amount for buying Hinckley Point leccy rather than coal etc.

  8. “Fuck the Stern review. And the Bow review as well.”
    In spades.
    The central failing in dealing with the AGW myth was in not strangling it at its inception. Far from commissioning overpaid ponces to conduct studies on how to combat it,the advancers of the theory should have been required to provide some actual hard, verifiable evidence that it was occurring. Not models of models of what they want to be happening.
    But, what better gift could politicians have been given? The opportunity to tax a will.
    The scientific community should hang its head in shame.

Leave a Reply

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