Warm Homes Plan could cut bills and create more jobs than Rosebank
A study by thinktank E3G says the government’s £15bn Warm Homes Plan could cut household energy bills and create more jobs than developing the Rosebank oilfield. The comparison comes as ministers consider budget cuts to the plan and decisions on North Sea projects, highlighting competing claims about how best to support living standards and economic growth.
E3G estimates the plan could save households £1bn a year, create about 50,000 jobs and add £1.6bn a year to the economy, with insulation for up to 5m homes and £15bn in additional private investment. Rosebank is estimated to support about 1,100 direct and indirect jobs; separate analysis suggests it could generate £1.5bn in profits for its backers over 25 years, while costing the UK up to £258m in tax breaks. The article notes that oil and gas prices are set internationally, and that public decommissioning costs could outweigh Rosebank’s estimated economic contribution.
- E3G says the Warm Homes Plan could save households £1bn a year.
- It estimates about 50,000 jobs, compared with roughly 1,100 for Rosebank.
- The study argues home upgrades could spread economic gains across Britain.
New here? Start with this
The Warm Homes Plan is a proposed government programme to improve insulation and heating in homes, helping them use less energy. Rosebank is a large oilfield in the North Sea, where development could bring work and income for the companies involved.
The debate is about how investment in homes and new energy projects might affect household costs, jobs and the wider economy. E3G is a thinktank that has compared the possible effects of the plan with those of Rosebank; estimates for both depend on assumptions about spending, energy prices and future costs.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the Warm Homes Plan can argue that investing in insulation and cleaner heating would lower household bills, reduce exposure to volatile energy prices and support jobs across the country. They point to E3G’s estimates of annual savings, economic activity and private investment, and argue that these benefits could be broader and longer-lasting than those from developing Rosebank.
The case against
Those favouring Rosebank or a smaller Warm Homes Plan can argue that domestic oil and gas production may support energy security, supply-chain work and public revenues, while the plan’s projected savings and jobs depend on delivery and should be weighed against its £15bn public cost. They may also argue that investment should be prioritised where it offers the strongest near-term economic return, rather than relying on estimates that compare different kinds of jobs and benefits.
Business Economy Government Politics Research Science UK World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Guardian as “Heat pumps and insulation would cut UK living costs more than new oilfields, study suggests”.