The Telegraph pulls off the trick beloved of tabloids today of giving a completely false impression by telling the truth. The headline reads "Greener energy will cost £4,600 each a year". The sub heading says: "The Coalition's plans to convert Britain to green energy would cost the country the equivalent of £4,600 per person a year, according to official forecasts."
And the first paragraph goes on: "Reducing dependence on fossil fuels and moving to renewable and nuclear energy would cost an additional £60 billion every year until 2050, the officials said."
Now the figure that's quoted is true. The country would spend the equivalent of £4600 per person on a plan to produce energy from renewable sources. But only later on do they make it clear that estimates show that other options, such as continuing to produce our energy the same way we do now would actually be more expensive even than that.
It's that little word "additional" that really gets to me, because if you stop reading there, you leave with the impression that you're going to be spending money you would not otherwise have spent.
But then they quote Professor David MacKay "doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions would prove even more expensive because of rising energy prices".
So the headline says green energy will cost us more. The figures in the article make clear that green energy will cost us less than going on the way we are.
The Guardian is more accurate, though it hedges its bets slightly: "UK switch to low-carbon energy 'no dearer than doing nothing'". Well, if it's no dearer and it saves on carbon emissions, let's do it.
Update: 7 p.m.
I'm indebted to Anne H for this: "Sunday Times bury wind farm survey after it reveals majority support". The statement by Yougov notes that there was a majority in favour of expanding wind farms even among Conservative supporters.
And the first paragraph goes on: "Reducing dependence on fossil fuels and moving to renewable and nuclear energy would cost an additional £60 billion every year until 2050, the officials said."
Now the figure that's quoted is true. The country would spend the equivalent of £4600 per person on a plan to produce energy from renewable sources. But only later on do they make it clear that estimates show that other options, such as continuing to produce our energy the same way we do now would actually be more expensive even than that.
It's that little word "additional" that really gets to me, because if you stop reading there, you leave with the impression that you're going to be spending money you would not otherwise have spent.
But then they quote Professor David MacKay "doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions would prove even more expensive because of rising energy prices".
So the headline says green energy will cost us more. The figures in the article make clear that green energy will cost us less than going on the way we are.
The Guardian is more accurate, though it hedges its bets slightly: "UK switch to low-carbon energy 'no dearer than doing nothing'". Well, if it's no dearer and it saves on carbon emissions, let's do it.
Update: 7 p.m.
I'm indebted to Anne H for this: "Sunday Times bury wind farm survey after it reveals majority support". The statement by Yougov notes that there was a majority in favour of expanding wind farms even among Conservative supporters.
