Posted by: Philippa Ward
01/09/2009Research from the Energy Saving Trust released today says that one-third of householders are willing to pay more for a home that takes some energy from renewable sources. I am mildly amazed that it is that high - anecdotal evidence always suggests a great deal of public reluctance to pay more for the environmentally-friendly solution.
A survey from the US earlier this year also generated some surprising results: 60 per cent said they would be somewhat or very willing to pay more for energy from renewable sources.
Neither of these surveys are small – ICM questioned 2696 adults on behalf of the Energy Saving Trust, while in the US the Energy Learning Curve Report spoke to 1,001 adults.
A recent poll on this website (with a much smaller sample!) found that most people wouldn’t be prepared to pay more to live in an energy efficient house that reduced their fuel bill.
So which is the true picture? I suspect that there is a lot of goodwill out there: people like the idea of cutting their impact on the planet. However, making that jump – even switching to a green energy tariff, let alone putting solar thermal panels on your roof – is too complicated or untested an idea for most people to act on.
The financial benefits of renewable energy and generating your own electricity need to be clearer, feed-in tariffs must make it more attractive and the morass of grants out there need to be easier to access. Perhaps then these polls will start matching the reality on the ground.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (3)
Alan Savage | 01/09/2009 8:32 pm
And the funny thing is, 80pc of people don't believe in statistics.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
St Alban | 03/09/2009 10:21 am
If solar panels were supplied at cost, if surplus domestically generated energy was credited the same value as domestically supplied energy, if being green was put ahead of profits by major businesses, then more people would opt for green solutions. It is the message of being told that the public must carry the full cost of alternative energy that prohibits its uptake. The public want to do their bit, but not so that they can be ripped off even more by the energy companies, or taxed into poverty. Correct this perception and the ground level reality will grow.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Oli | 03/09/2009 11:37 am
Depends how much 'more' is. If I was offered technology that would halve my annual fuel bills then I would probably pay £1000 more, if I was planning to stay there fora few years. If 'more' is £5,000 then it's a different matter.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment