The Telegraph reports this morning that the new Fiscal Risks and Sustainability Report from the Office for Budget Responsibility suggests that there will be what it obviously thinks to be a horrendous cost from tackling climate change:
Britain's move to a net zero economy will cost taxpayers more than £800bn over the next two decades, the UK's fiscal watchdog has said.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) said government plans to limit climate change will cost the public purse £30bn every year until at least 2051, as tax revenue from the sale of petrol and diesel fuel dries up.
This includes nearly £9.9bn of spending every year on tech investments – for example updating the electricity grid – as well as £20.5bn in revenue losses from declining fuel duty from petrol cars, as electric vehicles (EV) become more common.
What it fails to adequately note is that the cost of inaction is vastly higher. Even the scenario they note allows for a rise in temperature that will produce fundamental climate change, change to agriculture and massive inward migration as many in the world have to flee uninhabitable areas. But no action will, in the opinion of the OBR, result in scenarios where there is "an additional [cost of] 137 per cent of GDP (if there is higher damage to GDP from climate change), compared to the 2024 FRS long-term baseline projections." To put that in context, that is a cost of more than £3,3 trillion, and an entirely unliveable country.
Fraage, Badenoch and the Telegraph are future deniers. I chose the £800 billion. They clearly want none of it, and that is the reckless irresponsibility of right-wing politics writ large for all to see.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Whatever happened to sustainable cost accounting? That presumably would place the cost much much higher?
Why?
Please explain, in detail. You seem to be an expert.
The plan is to charge drivers per mile to make up the fuel duty loss. London already has the cameras, which are currently being used for ULEZ enforcement, and I’m sure you’ll all start seeing something similar where you live.
Of course it’s all nonsense because we don’t have enough raw materials to replace ICE vehicles with EVs, never mind replacing their batteries when they die in 20 years time. What a scam.
If thered is no sustainable way to have enough individual vehicles, why not look at public tgransport? Or redeucing the need for travel?
Reducing the need for travel is best
That said, I am working 7 miles from hime this morning, and I did come by car…
It is glorious and that stork is still about…
Not much in the way of public transport in our part of rural Ireland!
Lithium is recyclable as are other components. We are still at the stage when horses were replaced by ICE!
They are ensuring, once again, that the turkeys vote for Christmas. J P Morgan, the biggest bank in the world, certainly isn’t denying climate change. They are preparing for it, behind the scenes of course. The insurance companies too. The £800 billion is a bargain, but would have been far less if action had been taken two decades ago. It’s mostly too late now and it’s all just preparation and mitigation. We are going to pass 2⁰c of warming, and all the feedbacks that could lead to.
Much to agree with
Thank you, Tom.
Even then the younger members of the Koch family are, too.
As you say, the cost of doing nothing could eventually lead to a planet that is uninhabitable. As individuals (those with the resources…), all we can do is replace our fossil fuel run items with an electric equivalent, vote sensibly and live by example. Plenty of books out there to help.
Just in the middle of reading the following:
“The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It” by Genevieve Guenther.
Incredibly useful insights.
In related news, from today’s Bristol Post,
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/giant-wind-turbines-near-m4-10328923
There are so many things to pick up from that article, both political, and technical, but others are better qualified than me to point them out.
Our “leaders” have simply failed (deliberately?) to prepare for this, over many many years (while exhorting us all to “do our bit”).
Agreed
We are in an absurd situation due to the obsession with ‘markets’
I never understood what power generation had to do with markets. With electricity, there are no markets. There is no money!
Surely it’s the Office for Budget Irresponsibility?
I note that “Housebuilders to pay £100m to avoid legal decision” (9 Jul 2025) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d0740px42o
That’s enough money to build perhaps 2000 houses. Looks like a slap on the wrist, and suggests that the Competition and Markets Authority isn’t fit for purpose.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
No doubt, the BBC will give that nonsense and its authors airtime.
A year or so ago, at a gathering of islands sinking below the waves, the BBC hack asked about the positive side of climate change. Sic. The scoundrel then begged, “Surely, there’s some upside to climate change?”
The representatives were stunned. Some had studied in the UK and wondered to what depths the BBC had plunged.
It was all about giving both sides of the issue. The plus side of climate change! WTF?!
Precisely, WTF
I enjoyed watching this TED talk from Al Gore. A pretty emphatic case against climate inaction (driven by short-termism, ignorant short-sightedness and greed) and a passionate defence of the upsides of tackling the climate crisis. He’s scathing of politicians who’ve been captured been by fossil fuel interests and bemoans the impact of climate inaction on the global south.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztx0Bch3h9s&pp=ygUHYWwgZ29yZQ%3D%3D
Thanks