We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Green Deal is a useless middle-class subsidy

The_Green_Man_2
Posts: 217 Forumite
An interesting article in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/13/green-deal
"There should be a cast-iron rule for all public policy: it must not discriminate against the poor. No tax or charge should be approved which transfers money from the poor to the rich.
The rule should not even need stating when it comes to green measures. Part of the point of protecting the environment is to defend the interests of all people, including those who have not yet been born. An environmental policy which harms the interests of a society's poorest people offends one of the fundamental tenets of what I believe environmentalism to be. "
"The government's own projections show that its green deal and Energy Company Obligation (ECO) schemes starting later this year, which are supposed to improve the energy efficiency of our homes and help people to cut their energy payments, will lead to higher bills for the poor, but almost no change to the bills of the rich. They will also greatly reduce the amount spent on insulation and energy efficiency while doing almost nothing to address fuel poverty."
This same individual was also one of those to speak out about FITS:
"Two years ago, I warned that the feed-in tariff, a tax on energy bills which pays for people to produce their own low-carbon electricity, would be deeply regressive. To install solar electricity, for example, you would need your own roof plus £10,000 or more in cash. If you were lucky enough to possess both these assets, you would be making, at other people's expense, one of the most lucrative of all possible investments. It would give you a state-guaranteed return of 5-8%, fixed for 25 years, which was both index-linked (making a nominal return of 7-10%) and tax free.
Those who angrily denounced my analysis claimed that it could in fact be a progressive scheme, as communities of poorer people could be helped to cash in. They're still claiming it, even though the facts deserted them long ago."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/jan/13/green-deal
"There should be a cast-iron rule for all public policy: it must not discriminate against the poor. No tax or charge should be approved which transfers money from the poor to the rich.
The rule should not even need stating when it comes to green measures. Part of the point of protecting the environment is to defend the interests of all people, including those who have not yet been born. An environmental policy which harms the interests of a society's poorest people offends one of the fundamental tenets of what I believe environmentalism to be. "
"The government's own projections show that its green deal and Energy Company Obligation (ECO) schemes starting later this year, which are supposed to improve the energy efficiency of our homes and help people to cut their energy payments, will lead to higher bills for the poor, but almost no change to the bills of the rich. They will also greatly reduce the amount spent on insulation and energy efficiency while doing almost nothing to address fuel poverty."
This same individual was also one of those to speak out about FITS:
"Two years ago, I warned that the feed-in tariff, a tax on energy bills which pays for people to produce their own low-carbon electricity, would be deeply regressive. To install solar electricity, for example, you would need your own roof plus £10,000 or more in cash. If you were lucky enough to possess both these assets, you would be making, at other people's expense, one of the most lucrative of all possible investments. It would give you a state-guaranteed return of 5-8%, fixed for 25 years, which was both index-linked (making a nominal return of 7-10%) and tax free.
Those who angrily denounced my analysis claimed that it could in fact be a progressive scheme, as communities of poorer people could be helped to cash in. They're still claiming it, even though the facts deserted them long ago."
0
Comments
-
It's a con, whatever class.
Designed by the loan companies to keep expensive installers in business.
Lots of hoops, which means lots of kickbacks.
Would be better for money to be spent on compulsory energy reduction.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards