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 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/22/the-guardian-view-on-greening-the-economy-the-price-is-worth-paying

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
The Guardian view on greening the economy: the price is worth paying The Guardian view on greening the economy: the price is worth paying
(6 days later)
The government’s energy policy is chaotic. On the one hand, with time running out before the Paris climate change summit in December, it is committed to agreeing tough international targets, backed by demanding European and domestic programmes for carbon reduction and renewable energy growth. But then there are Treasury-driven cuts to subsidies for renewables, and a cabinet that looks set to back off from existing schemes such as the Green Deal to incentivise energy efficiency. The government’s energy policy is chaotic. On the one hand, with time running out before the Paris climate change summit in December, it is committed to agreeing tough international targets, backed by demanding European and domestic programmes for carbon reduction and renewable energy growth. But then there are Treasury-driven cuts to subsidies for renewables, and a cabinet that looks set to back off from existing schemes such as the Green Deal to incentivise energy efficiency.
It is easier to offer consumers a cheap fix for energy bills by removing the small element that pays for investment in renewables than it is to pay an incentive for boiler modernisation. Lower efficiency standards for starter homes have been announced, a new committee set up to take the decision on a third runway at Heathrow is packed with supporters, and fracking has the greenest of lights. Under cover of the drive for austerity, and reinforced by a desire to appease Tory voters opposed to onshore windfarms, the foundations of a green economy are being undermined one by one.It is easier to offer consumers a cheap fix for energy bills by removing the small element that pays for investment in renewables than it is to pay an incentive for boiler modernisation. Lower efficiency standards for starter homes have been announced, a new committee set up to take the decision on a third runway at Heathrow is packed with supporters, and fracking has the greenest of lights. Under cover of the drive for austerity, and reinforced by a desire to appease Tory voters opposed to onshore windfarms, the foundations of a green economy are being undermined one by one.
Britain’s complex, interrelated package of incentives and subsidies for renewables has been remarkably successful in modifying behaviour. Together with other inputs, like an unexpectedly fast decline in the use of coal and the drop in demand caused by the recession, last month the independent Committee on Climate Change found that greenhouse gas emissions had fallen by 8% over the previous year, ahead of target. But the report sounded a cautionary note, not only because the rate of reduction was slowing. It was published after the new energy secretary, Amber Rudd, announced an end to subsidies for onshore wind and before she called time on those for solar power and other renewables, and it warned that without greater certainty over the long-term policy framework, investment will not happen. Related: Climate change and the case for funding energy-efficiency schemes | Letters
It is true that some of the incentives have been too successful. No one had anticipated quite how fast the cost of some renewables would come down, nor that offshore wind would generate so much more power. It is not fair that homeowners with a roof can get subsidised solar power not available to tenants or people in flats. But it is possible to build a system that reflects these variables and tapers subsidies. Britain’s complex, interrelated package of incentives and subsidies for renewables has been remarkably successful in modifying behaviour. Together with other inputs, like an unexpectedly fast decline in the use of coal and the drop in demand caused by the recession, last month the independent Committee on Climate Change found that greenhouse gas emissions had fallen by 8% over the previous year, ahead of target. But the report sounded a cautionary note, not only because the rate of reduction was slowing. It was published after the new energy secretary, Amber Rudd, announced an end to subsidies for onshore wind and before she called time on those for solar power and other renewables, and it warned that without greater certainty over the long-term policy framework, investment will not happen.
The green economy is a model of the kind of infrastructure development to which George Osborne so often sounds committed. An analysis by the lobbyists Green Alliance of the link between private-sector investment and GDP growth over the last parliament found it matched the investment in renewables. Just like fracking and nuclear, greening the energy supply needs intervention. It will not be cheap. But for future generations, not doing it will cost far more. It is true that some of the incentives have been too successful. No one had anticipated quite how fast the cost of some renewables would come down, nor that offshore wind would generate so much more power. It is not fair that homeowners with a roof can get subsidised solar power not available to tenants or people in flats. But it is possible to build a system that reflects these variables and tapers subsidies.
The green economy is a model of the kind of infrastructure development to which George Osborne so often sounds committed. An analysis by the lobbyists Green Alliance of the link between private-sector investment and GDP growth over the last parliament found it matched the investment in renewables. Just like fracking and nuclear, greening the energy supply needs intervention. It will not be cheap. But for future generations, not doing it will cost far more.