Spending less on climate to do better - sounds good to us

Greenpeace - and The Guardian, reporting on the claim - is outraged that Britain isn’t spending lots and lots of money on the sorts of things that interest Greenpeace (and The Guardian).

The UK spends less on low-carbon energy policy than any other major European economy, analysis has shown, despite evidence that such spending could lower household bills and increase economic growth more than the tax cuts the government has planned.

Spending on low-carbon measures for the three years from April 2020 to the end of April 2023 was about $33.3bn (£26.2bn) in total for the UK, the lowest out of the top five European economies, according to an analysis by Greenpeace of data from the International Energy Agency.

Italy topped the table for western European economies, having spent $111bn in the period. Germany spent $92.7bn, France $64.5bn and Spain about $51.3bn.

The data includes spending on electricity networks, energy efficiency, innovation on fuels and technology, low-carbon and efficient transport and low-carbon electricity.

Tsk, eh?

One obvious point to make is that they’re not, in fact, measuring what Britain spends. Their source database is:

Clean energy investment support includes all government spending that directly underpins increasing levels of clean energy investment.

Imagine that a place noted - as is so often claimed - that renewables are cheaper than any other form of energy generation. So, and therefore, that place simply let people be to install that cheapest form of generation, with no subsidy. Given that renewables are that cheapest form - they are, aren’t they? - then that place would have soaring renewables installation, falling emissions and also, by the standards of this database, be spending absolutely nothing, not a single bean, on doing so.

This measure is therefore a measure of the percentage of the tax take that Greenpeace (and The Guardian) get to influence rather than one of how well climate change is being addressed.

But that’s just to read the footnotes, the more important issue is OK, so, spending. To what effect?

EU emissions seem to have fallen by 4% or so over the past three years. UK emissions:

In 2022, net territorial greenhouse gas emissions in the UK were estimated to be 406.2 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), a decrease of 3.5% from the 2021 figure of 421.1 million tonnes, and 9.3% lower when compared to 2019, the most recent pre-pandemic year.

Now true, those aren’t exactly the same time periods. Nor even the same measurement basis - territorial or consumption. Anyone who wants to rebase either or both of those numbers to gain an entire and wholly correct comparison is entirely welcome to do so - even to tell us of their results.

It is not, to be very mild indeed, obvious that the UK is doing worse in the Great Decarbonisation Game than places spending very much more tax money upon said Great Game. But Greenpeace (and The Guardian) are measuring success by how much tax money is spent, not by the results thereof, or that more important point, overall results.

Which is the point where we tell Greenpeace (and The Guardian) to go boil their heads. For that is the correct reaction to exhortations that we must spend more to less effect, right?