This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/02/richest-uk-households-should-pay-more-to-fund-clean-energy

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Richest UK households 'should pay more to fund clean energy' Richest UK households 'should pay more to fund clean energy'
(about 5 hours later)
The richest households should pay £410 a year more towards supporting energy subsidies for wind farms, solar rooftops and home insulation schemes, government-funded researchers have urged.The richest households should pay £410 a year more towards supporting energy subsidies for wind farms, solar rooftops and home insulation schemes, government-funded researchers have urged.
The UK Energy Research Centre (Ukerc) said that shifting environmental and social levies off electricity bills and instead loading them on to general taxation would reduce the cost of energy for more than two thirds of households.The UK Energy Research Centre (Ukerc) said that shifting environmental and social levies off electricity bills and instead loading them on to general taxation would reduce the cost of energy for more than two thirds of households.
The researchers argued the current approach to funding low-carbon power and energy efficiency was regressive. The poorest households spend 10% of their income on heating and keeping the lights on, compared to 3% for the richest.The researchers argued the current approach to funding low-carbon power and energy efficiency was regressive. The poorest households spend 10% of their income on heating and keeping the lights on, compared to 3% for the richest.
The report by Ukerc found that shifting the costs to taxation would save the poorest 10% of households £102 a year, “a significant difference for them”.The report by Ukerc found that shifting the costs to taxation would save the poorest 10% of households £102 a year, “a significant difference for them”.
Meanwhile the 10% of the country with the highest income would pay an extra £410 a year, “a relatively small difference” for such earners. The two high income brackets below the richest group would see rises of between £26 and £102 a year, while the remaining 70% would see no change or a decrease.Meanwhile the 10% of the country with the highest income would pay an extra £410 a year, “a relatively small difference” for such earners. The two high income brackets below the richest group would see rises of between £26 and £102 a year, while the remaining 70% would see no change or a decrease.
John Barrett, professor of energy and climate policy, who worked on the analysis, said the status quo was hurting the switch to greener energy. John Barrett, professor of energy and climate policy at the University of Leeds, who worked on the analysis, said the status quo was hurting the switch to greener energy.
“The key finding at the moment is we’ve created a system that pits social justice and equality against climate change. That creates opposition to some of the costs associated with climate change,” he said.“The key finding at the moment is we’ve created a system that pits social justice and equality against climate change. That creates opposition to some of the costs associated with climate change,” he said.
He said it was only fair that the richest should shoulder the burden of paying for clean energy, because they use more energy and they can afford it.He said it was only fair that the richest should shoulder the burden of paying for clean energy, because they use more energy and they can afford it.
Subsidies for low-carbon power cost billpayers £5.2bn in 2016-17 but are projected by the Treasury to rise to £8.6bn in 2024-25 as new wind farms and other projects come online.Subsidies for low-carbon power cost billpayers £5.2bn in 2016-17 but are projected by the Treasury to rise to £8.6bn in 2024-25 as new wind farms and other projects come online.
Campaigners have said for years that funding green energy subsidies through energy bills is regressive because the poor are disproportionately affected, but there has been little political appetite for a change.Campaigners have said for years that funding green energy subsidies through energy bills is regressive because the poor are disproportionately affected, but there has been little political appetite for a change.
Barrett admitted one potential weakness of shifting to general taxation is that clean energy budgets could be subject to political shifts on an annual basis by the Treasury, but said that was a price worth paying for a fairer system.Barrett admitted one potential weakness of shifting to general taxation is that clean energy budgets could be subject to political shifts on an annual basis by the Treasury, but said that was a price worth paying for a fairer system.
Renewable energyRenewable energy
EnergyEnergy
Energy billsEnergy bills
Consumer affairsConsumer affairs
Household billsHousehold bills
Energy industryEnergy industry
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content