Antwoord: duurzame energie.
Duitsland en Engeland worden getroffen door sterke prijsstijgingen voor elektriciteit. Onder de titel, 'EDF: We'll raise bills 11% – but only 2% is due to energy costs! Thank carbon emissions targets for the rest', legt Lewis Page uit welke factoren verantwoordelijk zijn voor de prijsstijging.
EDF Energy is the latest of the UK's Big Six energy suppliers to announce brutal price rises, in this case an increase no less than 10.8 per cent – yet the company openly admits that energy prices would call for a 2 per cent rise at most. Why on Earth does the firm think it's OK to implement a price rise almost six times that figure? ...
The company has seen a sharp increase in costs since the start of the year, with transmission and distribution charges rising by 9%, and the costs associated with the implementation of obligatory renewable, energy efficiency and social schemes increasing by more than 50%. The cost of buying energy has also risen by 4% for next year ... The cost of buying energy accounts for around 50% of a typical energy bill. The other half is made up of non-energy costs.
Or in other words, the cost of buying energy would justify a price hike of around 2 per cent. The other 9 per cent, the great bulk of the increase, is mostly down to "renewable, energy efficiency and social schemes" and partly from "transmission and distribution charges".
Maar er waren relatief weinig veranderingen in de subsidies voor sociaal zwakke groepen. De kosten voor het elektriciteitsnet zijn wel sterk gestegen. Maar ook die stijgingen hebben toch een beperkt effect gehad op de elektriciteitsprijzen.
So it's quite plain that the great bulk of this brutal price hike comes directly or indirectly from renewable power and energy-efficiency efforts. In other words, it comes from compulsory government programmes intended to cut our national carbon emissions. Without these programmes designed to force up our energy bills, there would be no windfarms and insulating your house would cost so much that it probably wouldn't be worth doing, especially as energy would be a lot cheaper.
You can now put a price on the government's lofty statements of carbon virtue - and that price is steeply climbing energy bills for the foreseeable future, as the Renewables Obligation scheme is on a pre-set progressive escalator and various other massive incentives to renewable power are being offered. People talk of "subsidies" to green energy, as though the taxpayer were paying them. That would at least be a bit fairer, as the tax system is progressive and takes more from the rich, but in fact most of this money is never touched by the government.
This system of cranking up everyone's energy bill hits the less-well-off disproportionately hard: and it's also dishonest, as politicians and energy firms alike decline to tell you bluntly why your bills keep going up.
Just remember that, then, the next time you hear a politician stigmatised as a climate sceptic. A vote for that politician is a vote against this sort of vicious price rise, this sort of stealth tax targeted on ordinary folk who find their energy bills a significant cost - the sort of hit that most of us will find pretty painful, given the current economic climate.
Lees verder hier.
Ik heb het al vele malen eerder geschreven. Dit is 'all pain and no gain', want het klimaateffect van dit alles is niet aantoonbaar. Daarover zijn vriend en vijand het met elkaar eens. Maar dit kwartje is nog steeds niet bij de politiek gevallen.
In Nederland is het allemaal nog niet zover gekomen als in Groot-Brittannië en Duitsland. Dat moeten we vooral zo houden. Laten de ervaringen in die landen een les voor ons zijn.