The ‘real’ cost of cutting the green crap

See the full report on the Green Britain Foundation website

In 2013, then-Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to “cut the green crap,” signalling a shift away from supportive policies for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The central idea was that green measures were too expensive and that scaling them back would lower costs for households. Ten years on, current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has echoed this approach, slowing or reversing certain environmental targets. The report sets out to measure the real-world impacts of those decisions across four key areas:

1. Onshore Wind Ban

2. Reduced Support for Solar

3. Scrapping of Major Home Insulation Programmes

4. Elimination of the Code for Sustainable Homes

According to the analysis, these four moves added a combined £15 billion to households’ energy bills between 2013 and 2023. In 2023 alone, the additional cost was approximately £5 billion, with some of the hardest-hit households paying up to £1,500 more per year than they would have otherwise.

Policies Affected

(a) Onshore Wind

• What Changed: New planning rules from 2015 onward made it far more difficult to gain approval for onshore wind projects, effectively resulting in a ban.

• Impact: Development rates dropped significantly. According to Ecotricity’s data, onshore wind capacity could have approximately doubled if the previous regulations stayed in place.

• Costs and Emissions: In 2023, household bills were an average of £13 higher due to lost onshore wind capacity, amounting to £360 million in additional costs nationwide. Over the decade, this translated into £1.4 billion more in collective bills and avoidable carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels in lieu of wind power.

(b) Solar Feed-in Tariff

• What Changed: Successive cuts to the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) from 2011 to 2015, followed by a complete shutdown of the scheme in 2019, sharply curtailed residential and small-scale solar installations.

• Impact: The reduced support led to repeated “cliff edges” in installation numbers. The report estimates that ongoing high installation rates would have added many more rooftop systems, significantly lowering electricity bills for households.

• Costs and Emissions: In 2023 alone, the average household using solar could have saved £1,265 on energy. Cumulatively, the UK paid £4.6 billion more in energy bills over the decade for electricity that could have otherwise been locally generated—and produced far fewer emissions.

(c) Home Insulation Cuts

• What Changed: Programmes such as the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) and other schemes aimed at subsidising insulation were scrapped or replaced by less effective measures (e.g., the so-called ‘Green Deal’).

• Impact: The number of annual loft, cavity, and solid wall insulation installations plunged after 2012. Tens of thousands of homes that could have been insulated missed out on subsidies or faced higher out-of-pocket expenses.

• Costs and Emissions: In 2023, households collectively paid an extra £1.5 billion for energy due to higher usage in under-insulated homes. Over the decade, this figure rose to £5.5 billion. Meanwhile, avoidable emissions from additional gas usage accumulated year by year.

(d) The Code for Sustainable Homes

• What Changed: The Code (launched in 2006) sought to achieve net zero carbon for new homes by 2016 but was scrapped in 2015.

• Impact: New homes constructed since then are built to a lower efficiency standard, costing owners significantly more in heating and electricity.

• Costs and Emissions: In 2023, homeowners in new-build properties paid about £700 more on energy (collectively £1.2 billion) than they would have if the Code was still in effect. Over the decade, this lost efficiency is valued at £3.8 billion in extra bills.

Methodology

The report relies on a combination of government statistics, industry data, and modelling:

• Baseline Scenarios: For each policy area, the authors estimate what might have happened if 2012-era support levels (for wind, solar, insulation, and new-build standards) had continued, then compare this hypothetical scenario to actual data for 2013–2023.

• Data Sources: These include the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ), Ofgem, the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) for solar installations, and various cost and emissions conversion factors used by industry bodies.

• Cost Calculations: Market data on retail energy prices (for gas and electricity) is combined with typical home consumption, generation, or energy saving data to gauge net household expenditure differences. Upfront system or installation costs (e.g., for solar or insulation) are factored in to derive net savings or additional costs.

• Emissions: Avoided CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) is estimated by referencing standard government conversion factors for the UK’s electricity and gas mix.

Headline Findings

1. Overall Additional Costs: Households collectively paid £15 billion more over the past decade than if these green policies had remained fully in place.

2. 2023 Impact Alone: The added cost across all households reached £5 billion. Individual households most affected—those who might otherwise have benefited from solar or thorough insulation—spent up to £1,500 more on energy bills.

3. New Build Homes: For properties built in the last ten years, the cost of scrapping the Code for Sustainable Homes amounted to about £700 extra per household in 2023.

4. Carbon Emissions: Approximately 13 million tonnes of CO₂e could have been avoided in 2023, and up to 60 million tonnes over the entire decade.

Broader Implications

• Higher Bills vs. Lower Bills: Despite claims that reducing green policies would bring down costs, the data reveals the opposite happened. Energy has been more expensive, particularly during the 2022–2023 price spikes.

• Lost Decarbonisation: The country missed out on significant emissions reductions, making it harder and more expensive to reach future net zero targets.

• Systemic Hurdles: The partial or total removal of subsidies and stricter planning conditions effectively stifled growth in renewables and insulation efforts.

• Policy Lessons: Short-sighted cuts to climate policies can create significant economic downsides and hamper the development of a clean energy infrastructure.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale for Future Policy

“The Cost of ‘Cutting the Green Crap’” report vividly illustrates that rolling back green initiatives in the name of cost savings can lead to higher overall energy bills and increased carbon emissions. Over a decade, these cuts have collectively cost UK households £15 billion in extra energy expenditure. The four policy moves—banning onshore wind, reducing solar feed-in tariffs, cutting insulation programmes, and scrapping higher homebuilding standards—did not deliver promised savings but rather burdened both consumers and the environment.

As political discourse again questions the pace and expense of net zero strategies, this analysis serves as a warning. Far from being an unmanageable cost, supportive green policies often reduce household energy bills and accelerate carbon reductions. Reinstating or strengthening these measures could reverse the trend of lost savings and missed environmental targets, demonstrating that protecting “green policies” is not merely about climate action—it’s also about economic prudence for individuals and society as a whole.