How the U.K. broke its own economy
238 comments
·March 3, 2025ZeroGravitas
The last government intentionally banned the cheapest source of energy, onshore wind, from being built in England, by making it so that a single complaint could stop a project.
I cannot believe this article talks about planning constraints and energy prices and doesn't mention that.
Jtsummers
> Similarly, in the U.K., any individual who sues to stop a new project on environmental grounds—say, to oppose a new road or airport—generally has their legal damages capped at £5,000, if they lose in court. “Once you’ve done that,” Bowman said, “you’ve created a one-way system, where people have little incentive to not bring spurious cases to challenge any new development.”
Not directly stated about wind power, but there is this account of why lawsuits might be common, slowing and derailing projects because the damages if you lose in your complaint are capped at a relatively low figure (not low for the average person, but not that expensive either).
blibble
wouldn't have mattered
due to the screwed up energy pricing system, if there's a single watt of electricity in the grid produced by burning gas, we pay for the entire grid output as if it was gas
alvah
"The cheapest source of energy" trope again. Intermittent energy (electricity) != on demand electricity.
bryanlarsen
Cheapest source is accurate. It may not eliminate the need for expensive LPG, but reducing the amount needed is still a massive benefit to the economy.
cupcakecommons
This just isn't true, it's just simply not true - it's not true from a numbers perspective and it's not true from the perspective of common sense. It's just a weird self-destructive psyop. Building turbines in the ocean for low capacity factor power is not the cheapest source of electricity. It's also soul-crushingly ugly and remarkably bad for wildlife.
tuatoru
Check out "The Price is Wrong" by Brett Christophers[1]. It explains at length that what matters is not price, but how profitable an investment is. And how wind and PV don't look great without subsidies in various guises.
1. https://www.amazon.com/Price-Wrong-Capitalism-Wont-Planet/dp...
chrisbriard
Wind Energy, like Solar Energy can be stored in Battery Energy Storage Systems to provide reliability to the grid in the event of shortages.
cupcakecommons
Get grok to help you run the actual numbers over 100 years. Factor in large storms (or whatever destructive weather is common in the area you wish to build). Ask to factor in enough battery backup to bring it to 90% capacity factor over the life of the project. Compare to nuclear or natural gas. Should be absolutely clear.
cupcakecommons
the denial of capacity factor makes me want to tear my hair out
cycomanic
Capacity factor is calculated into lcoe, what's your point? Moreover, downtime for wind turbines is much less of an issue for a grid than large power plants (even with a significantly higher capacity factor), because you run into much bigger issues if your GW plant is down, compared to a couple of MW (and no the probabilities of all your renewables mix going down at the same time is very low, unless you're Luxemburg).
giantg2
I hate the large scale turbines. I'm sure small scale or other designs are OK. But screw the large turbines. Where I grew up they outsourced the jobs and then we were left with ugly giants ruining the once beautiful mountains. It's on par with strip mining (aesthetically).
cr__
I like em.
walthamstow
People forget that the natural landscape of Britain is forest. The enclosed fields people think are natural countryside are in fact an entirely human creation.
alabastervlog
They're one of the only pieces of technology that I think often (not always) improve the appearance of a landscape.
Maybe also lighthouses. Sometimes.
giantg2
I bet you like when they clear cut a mountain top for a solar project too.
lenkite
Aren't these also massive mass bird slayers ? The last I read, over half a million birds were killed (official under-estimate) by wind turbines in UK alone every year
cam_l
You are going to freak out when you find out how many birds are killed by buildings generally.
But you might want to sit down before i tell you how many are killed by cats.
tw04
Did you read a Donald Trump tweet? Because no reputable source has ever said wind turbines are a major risk to birds.
If you’re trying to save birds, the first place you should be looking is outdoor cats.
https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mor...
triceratops
And the Exxon Valdez and the Deepwater Horizon were good for birds?
Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all.
jimjimjim
I live in an area where there are a lot of wind mills along a nearby range of hills. There is also another taller hill which allows you to look down on the wind mills. In all the times I've driven up there and stopped to look out at the vista there were no birds at the base of the windmills. None. On any of them.
mulmen
I doubt that wind turbines are the only power source that kills birds. Marginal bird deaths per unit of power production is the interesting statistic. This MIT post [1] links to a 2009 study [2] which provides that comparison:
Wind/nuclear: 0.3-0.4 birds/GWh
Fossil: 5.2 birds/GWh
[1]: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds
[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601...
IncreasePosts
So, 500,000 birds out of 250,000,000?
Aka 0.2% of birds.
How many birds do coal power plants or other power sources kill?
patrickdavey
Fascinatng that `brexit` isn't mentioned once in that article. Making trading harder with your closest neighbour can't be a great move for the economy.
tacker2000
Yes that’s really funny. Im not sure how you can write an article like this and never even mention it once.
Brexit was the most stupid thing a country ever did to itself, and the full effects are just starting to come to the surface now. I dont think the UK will ever fully recover from it.
null
ethbr1
> Brexit was the most stupid thing a country ever did to itself
America: Hold my beer...
kmeisthax
Brexit is a symptom, not the cause. The people who were most screwed by Britain's prior mistakes voted for it in a vain attempt at fixing the problem by throwing misguided nostalgia at it.
nikkwong
The British economy was doing quite well before Brexit. Now it's absolutely crippled.
BuyMyBitcoins
I wonder how Napoleon would react to finding out that British voted to impose the continental system on themselves.
dboreham
Oh, based on the title I assumed the article was entirely about Brexit.
piker
My own [local government] is so stupid its own massive 7-figure park project got blocked by [local government] planning halfway through. For about a year instead of a park we’ve had two massive holes surrounded by fences. Too many taxes, too much nimbyism. This one really is that simple.
xyzzy123
This happens everywhere in enterprise and government because policies and processes are designed to avoid mistakes or embarassment at any cost (because those risks are internalised by the bureacracy and therefore "real") but do not account for the cost of not being able to get anything done, because those are externalised and everyone involved in the various committees and review processes gets paid regardless.
I wish there were better ways to align incentives here.
monkeycantype
I want to see more discussion from the perspective that the economy and government is not just a process, an institution, but a contest, an arena. Outcomes which are presented as a failure, are not merely a failure, but like a punch in a boxing match that misses its mark, occurs in a wider context, and against deliberate opposition. A failed project might be a failure for most, but for opponents it may be a victory, or even just collateral damage in a wider fight.
gosub100
Exactly. I think there's an entire political party that capitalizes on suffering, offering to jump in and rescue the poor victims. Like racketeering: create the problem and sell you the solution "if you just vote for us, we'll fix the devastating problems caused by $BADGUYS". but an absence of problems means you lose your voter base.
Sabinus
Are you referring to the libertarians who like to see government fail so they have a reason to dismantle it?
xyzzy123
Not the OP but look at the difference between what governments can do when there is a sense of urgency (i.e it is wartime or one is in recent memory) vs what they do when it's not.
My lizard brain interprets this in the following way: Elites in response to external competition or in the presence of existential threat experience strong incentives to make "real" progress.
When there's little external competition, leadership are more concerned with maintaining or slightly enhancing their relative status within existing power structures and this leads to stasis as their interest is mainly blocking or slowing any disruption which could change the balance of power.
Projects often fail because the forces of "keep things the same" beat the team that wanted the change to happen.
lurk2
> Not the OP but look at the difference between what governments can do when there is a sense of urgency (i.e it is wartime or one is in recent memory) vs what they do when it's not.
Every example I can think of involved rushing through legislation and policy changes that were not looked upon kindly given a moment of retrospection.
The New Deal, Japanese internment camps, the PATRIOT Act, Zero COVID policies, etc. The one exception might be something like the Space Race, but that also had a lot to do with Operation Paperclip, which had its own ethical dilemmas.
johnnyanmac
Yeah I argue that's human nature. When you're in danger (or perceived danger) you will make drastic moves to survive. When you're in a good spot, you are less incensed to rush things. And generally, status quo in not-bad times is the majority.
So on a macro level a progressive or simply sympathetic minority has to fight a conservative majority in order to keep pushing for change.
The only solace here is that the you rarely need a majority to enact change. Apparently movements need a critical capacity of 3.5% in order to start this network effect of people joining in due to popularity bias.
rahimnathwani
A new report, titled “Foundations,” captures the country’s economic malaise in detail.
shruggedatlas
The source report is a much better read. The article barely adds anything of value to it, outside of quoting it a dozen times.
throwaway2037
Wow, this report is savage. Thank you to share. I was no aware of the original report.
owenversteeg
>Per capita electricity generation in the U.K. is now roughly one-third that of the United States, and energy use per unit of GDP is the lowest in the G7. By these measures, at least, Britain may be the most energy-starved nation in the developed world.
Yikes. Housing is the big issue that gets everyone’s attention, but this is huge. Cheap energy drives economic growth at all levels. It’s incredible that the various British governments have let it get to this level. Maybe it’s time to import a few Chinese or Soviet technocrats?
lsllc
I have some friends over there and they (or their employers) are cutting back on their business expenditures, staffing and overall outlook. The new payroll taxes (unemployment insurance?) are going to bite both employers and employees alike.
Taxes are too high, there's too much red tape for businesses and successive governments have failed to invest in anything outside of the "south" (e.g. Greater London). I was (half) joking with them that the "north" would be far better off if it seceded and joined Scotland!
walthamstow
I don't know why you think the north and Scotland would be better off together. The south east would only get richer under such a scenario.
Taxes-too-high is a common refrain but income tax + national insurance takes 26% of my 95th-percentile income. Is that so bad?
jamie_ca
I'm in the 45-49 age bracket this year. In BC (Canada), a 95th percentile income for that age is $126,000 (2021 Census). Before any deductions (specifically retirement investments that reduce taxable income) I'd be looking at a 26.85% tax rate, with a marginal rate of 38%. So pretty much the same rate here.
Not to say that Canada's overall economy is particularly any better than the UK's, and especially Trump's tariff threats will do a number on us.
mistrial9
if you are an employee and that is direct compensation (not deferred capital gains) then your taxes are lower than California
asdf6969
Taxes are a lot higher because the higher brackets kick in at a much lower income while cost of living is similar. A top 5% income is not enough to live a dignified in London where most of those jobs are but it’s high enough that the government won’t let you make more. Very sad situation. Top 5% income in the UK is probably more like top 20% in the USA
lotsofpulp
Is this including the use of tax advantaged accounts like HSAs/401Ks/IRAs/etc?
In the US, it should be possible to get a 95th percentile household income ($300k, married filing joint) effective federal income tax rate down to 10% to 15%. Including total health insurance costs (employer + employee) plus some amount of deductible/out of pocket maximum for a family of 4 would bump it up to 20% to 25%. And then on top of that would be state + local tax liabilities like property and sales tax.
All in, I bet total proportion spent on taxes is less than 40%, even in California, at 95th percentile income, and 30% in a state without income tax.
Edit: I’m probably understating my numbers by 5% due to forgetting about social security and Medicare taxes.
laurencerowe
> The new payroll taxes (unemployment insurance?) are going to bite both employers and employees alike.
Increases to employers' National Insurance contributions. It's the equivalent to Social Security in the US. Mostly goes to pensions.
tester89
Very derivative of https://ukfoundations.co/ , which is mentioned.
null
bell-cot
British economic dysfunction is an old, old story. My favorite quip:
"This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time."
- Aneurin Bevan, British Labour politician, in a speech at Blackpool, 24 May 1945
pelagicAustral
I never heard this one before, and made my day... haha Thank you.
potato3732842
>British economic dysfunction is an old, old story. My favorite quip:
That doesn't mean it's not an existential problem. You can have a growth forever before the cancer gets bad enough to notice.
https://archive.ph/2025.03.03-161011/https://www.theatlantic...