logo
Ed Miliband's dash for Net Zero could cost every UK household £389 a year by 2030, bombshell research warns

Ed Miliband's dash for Net Zero could cost every UK household £389 a year by 2030, bombshell research warns

The Sun4 days ago
ED Miliband's Net Zero policies will cost every household £389 a year by 2030, Tory analysis today reveals.
The Labour government has pledged to totally decarbonise Britain's energy grid within the next five years.
4
They plan to do this by splurging vast amounts on new wind and solar farms as well as banning new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.
Brits have already spent £700 million this year to pay wind farms to STOP producing energy because the National Grid cannot cope with energy surges.
The government's dash to go green will send the cost of bills rocketing to a whopping £22.8 billion by 2030, Tory number crunchers say.
This will leave the government's pledge to cut £300 from energy bills in tatters, according to the research.
Instead it will end up adding another £389 to the cost of household bills for 27 million UK Brits.
Tory MP Nick Timothy - who carried out the research - said: 'Energy becomes more expensive with each day Ed Miliband remains in office.
4
'While Miliband blames fossil fuels for higher bills, he is pumping up prices by throwing more government-imposed costs onto energy bills.
'Wind and solar are being propped up by a complicated web of hidden cash to hoodwink you into thinking they are cheap. But they are not.
'Renewables will cost billions more. This is Ed Miliband's world – and you're paying for it.'
Sir Keir Starmer is under massive pressure to act on UK energy costs - which are some of the highest in the world.
In stark contrast the US - which uses more fossil fuels - has far lower prices.
Donald Trump used a meeting with the PM in Scotland earlier this week to launch a blistering attack on wind farms for pushing up prices and scarring the countryside.
In toe-curling scenes, the PM sat ashen-faced as the US President unleashed both barrels on his wind farm push - branding them a 'con job'.
Speaking at his Turnberry golf course, Mr Trump fumed: 'Wind is the most expensive form of energy, and it destroys the beauty of your fields and your plains and your waterways.'
Urging the PM to lift the ban on new oil and gas drilling, he added: 'You can take a thousand times more energy out of a hole in the ground this big - it's called oil and gas.'
The analysis carried out by Mr Timothy's office looked at the hidden cost of renewable energy by trawling through official figures and research papers.
4
It found that Brits pay billions of pounds to subsidise the building of renewable energy plants, like wind and solar.
But the National Grid - which carries electricity from power plants to peoples homes - is very old and cannot cope with large surges of energy.
This results in a barmy situation which means the government actually PAYS wind farms to stop turning when it is too windy.
Some £700m has already been paid this year to turn wind farms off.
Wind farms are also paid more for their energy than fossil fuel providers, the analysis found.
Offshore wind will cost £113 per MWh under the latest contracts. The average cost of electricity last year was £72 per MWh.
These direct subsidies for renewables inflate the cost of energy bills.
There are also extra costs known as 'Balancing Costs' - the name given to the process the National Grid has to pay to ensure balance and supply of power is maintained daily.
These charges end up being passed onto consumers in higher bills, researchers said.
The study found the hidden cost of renewables on our bills was £12.3BN in 2023/24.
This is predicted to hit £22.8BN by 2030.
This is just the estimated cost to Brits's bills over the next few years - and the overall cost of going green by 2050 is far higher.
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated it will cost a massive £803 billion to hit Net Zero by 2050.
4
A spokesman for the department for Net Zero said: 'These claims are fundamentally misleading.
'They wilfully ignore the benefits of clean power and wrongly assume the required network infrastructure will not be built over the next five years.
'Only by sprinting to clean power by 2030 can the UK take back control of its energy and protect both family and national finances from fossil fuel price spikes.'
IT was the most excruciating television I have seen in years.
Sitting next to the Prime Minister, Donald Trump said Labour's taxes on North Sea oil and gas 'make no sense' and he called Ed Miliband's wind farms a 'con job'.
Keir Starmer looked like a rabbit in the headlights, because he knew what Trump said was true.
The eco policies this Labour government is pursuing simply make no sense.
They are spinning us a lie.
The government tells us we must urgently hit Net Zero targets because the cost of fossil fuels are unaffordably high.
But renewables cost more money and push up bills.
They say Britain must build more wind and solar farms so we can wean ourselves of foreign gas and become energy sufficient.
But at the same time No10 bans new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea - leaving us more dependent on imports.
And the government tells us this dash to go green will create thousands and thousands of new jobs.
Yet the trade unions who actually represent energy workers say Labour's zealous eco policies could cause tens of thousands of well-paid British workers to be laid off.
It is a mad Alice in Wonderland world where down is up and up is down.
Ed Miliband has gone through the Looking Glass. His policies are the stuff of the Mad Hatter.
And today I can reveal that Labour's Net Zero drive will cost an estimated £23 billion a year by 2030.
That is the equivalent of slapping another £389 a year onto the cost of living for households.
It is a cost this country cannot afford.
Let me give you a few examples to show you just how barmy our energy policy has become under 'Red Ed'.
First- the oil and gas industry.
Just weeks after winning the election, Labour banned new licences to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea.
Furious trade unions said that up to 30,000 UK jobs could be lost, but their dire warnings fell on deaf ears.
But the most ridiculous thing is that Britain still imports oil and gas taken from the very same seabed from Norway.
So, Norway gets to keep the taxes, profits and jobs, while the UK goes without.
It is a grotesque example of self-harm.
Second - the bizarre case of the Drax power station in North Yorkshire.
It imports wood from halfway around the world to burn, yet the UK taxpayer has spent billions of pounds in green subsidies on the power station.
This simply makes no sense.
Third - the sky high cost of wind and solar energy.
Labour has set the UK insane targets to quadruple offshore wind and double onshore wind in just five years.
But energy produced by these wind farms is actually MORE expensive.
Ed Miliband has promised wind farms a fixed price of £113 per MWh for the next 20 years.
That is 50 per cent HIGHER than the average cost of electricity.
The cost of building new wind and solar farms is also enormous.
An estimated £40 billion a year will be spent upgrading the National Grid, and rolling out new pylons and battery storage sites.
Worst of all, wind and solar are even paid NOT to produce energy.
This is because our creaking National Grid cannot handle big surges of energy.
So when it is particularly windy they have to pay wind farms to switch off.
This year alone we have paid £700 million to wind farms to STOP generating power.
It is bananas.
Brits also have to pay for environmental levies. These are extra charges baked into energy bills to pay for the development of new greener energy supplies.
Labour are sending environmental levies hurtling towards £14.8 billion in 2030.
The PM promised he would cut energy bills by £300 by the next election.
But the opposite is true. They are getting bigger and bigger.
No wonder President Trump thinks we are mad.
Our energy costs are twice those in America. As a result their economy is booming while ours is stagnating.
The US President could see the truth and was unafraid to say it.
Britain needs to completely change course.
It's time to junk the clean power target and support energy policies that actually work.
We should take the US President's advice and 'drill baby drill' in the North Sea.
We should expand nuclear energy.
And we should ditch our expensive green energy levies and subsidies.
Otherwise we remain Ed Miliband's mad world – and we will all pay the price.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working
Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working

Times

time4 minutes ago

  • Times

Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working

T he Home Office's latest move to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy feels more like political theatre than a serious solution. Announcing a plan to share data with food delivery businesses such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats, specifically around asylum hotel locations, sounds bold on paper. But in reality, it is unlikely to achieve much. The government wants these companies to flag and cancel accounts repeatedly active in 'high-risk' areas. But this relies on the flawed assumption that such monitoring will deter or even detect illegal workers. It won't. The simple fact is that account sharing is incredibly easy to get around. More information will be shared with food delivery companies such as Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo ALAMY And the reality is that these companies do not have a genuine incentive to stop it. Unlike traditional employers, they are not subject to a penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. So why would they invest in better checks or policing their own systems? The simple fact is that gig economy companies do not know who is using their apps, and who is engaging with their customers under their brand name, making illegal work easy, effortless and undetectable. If ministers were serious about tackling this issue, they would demand more — facial recognition or real-time identity verification every time a job is accepted could make a real difference. Illegal workers simply would not be able to operate. But until that's mandated, and until companies face real consequences, nothing will change. Worryingly, the issue does not end with gig economy firms. There is a troubling lack of understanding among traditional employers about their own compliance risks. Since 2022, businesses have been allowed to use digital verification services for right to work checks on British and Irish nationals. But many are using the same checks for foreign workers without realising that doing so leaves them legally exposed. Employers are surprised to learn that they are not establishing the all-important statutory excuse for their foreign workers. Large organisations — including NHS trusts, local authorities, universities and household organisations — are unknowingly putting themselves at risk. They believe using digital verification is enough — but it does not give them the legal protection they think it does. When foreign workers lose their right to work, or even exceed their permitted hours, employers are shocked to be slapped with penalties from the Home Office. Both the gig economy and traditional employment are riddled with loopholes. And while the government focuses on symbolic gestures such as data sharing, illegal work will continue, unchecked and undetected. If this crackdown is to mean anything, there needs to be more enforcement, starting with the government holding the platforms and third-party providers accountable. Emma Brooksbank is a partner at the law firm Freeths

Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties

Times

time4 minutes ago

  • Times

Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties

E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article

Angela Rayner calls on China to explain redacted images in super-embassy plans
Angela Rayner calls on China to explain redacted images in super-embassy plans

Leader Live

time6 minutes ago

  • Leader Live

Angela Rayner calls on China to explain redacted images in super-embassy plans

The Deputy Prime Minister, who as Housing Secretary is responsible for overseeing planning matters, has given Beijing two weeks to explain why areas of its plans for the sprawling new embassy site in central London are blacked out. China hawks in Westminster have raised alarm that the embassy site could be used to conduct surveillance from British soil. Pro-democracy campaigners from Hong Kong, as well as Uighurs and Tibetans, meanwhile, fear that intimidation and reprisals from the Chinese state could result from the embassy going ahead. This follows reports that bounties have been issued by China for dissident Hong Kongers now living in the UK. In a letter seen by the PA news agency, Ms Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government asks planning consultants representing the Chinese embassy to explain why drawings of the planned site are blacked out. The letter gives two weeks, until August 20, for an explanation to be provided. It also suggests that a final planning decision on the embassy site, at Royal Mint Court, just east of London's financial district, will be made by September 9. Copies of the letter were also sent to the Home Office and the Foreign Office by email. It notes that the Home Office requested a new 'hard perimeter' be placed around the embassy site, to prevent 'unregulated public access', and acknowledges this could require a further planning application. Plans for the super-embassy were previously rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022, with the Chinese opting not to appeal. However, Beijing resubmitted the application a fortnight after Sir Keir Starmer's election victory last year, believing Labour may be more receptive to the application. Since entering office Sir Keir's Government has sought closer links with Beijing after a cooling during the final years of Conservative Party rule. The final decision will be made by Mr Rayner in her role as Housing Secretary. Alicia Kearns, the shadow national security minister, said: 'No surprises here – Labour's rush to appease Xi Jinping's demands for a new embassy demonstrated a complacency when it came to keeping our people safe. Having deluded themselves for so long, they've recognised we were right to be vigilant. 'The disturbing bounty notes urging British citizens to kidnap and deliver their Hong Kong neighbours to the current CCP embassy laid bare the risks – yet the Foreign Secretary didn't even summon the Chinese ambassador in the face of direct threats to those seeking refuge in our country. 'CCP ambitions for a larger embassy would only amplify opportunities for espionage and transnational repression.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store