What cost saving the planet? According to our investigation into home-generated green energy, the cost is very high indeed. Solar panels, ground-source heat pumps and roof-mounted wind turbines cost thousands and can take as long as 20 years before they pay for themselves. And if you are not put off by the cost, you probably will be by the nation’s army of pettifogging bureaucrats who seem more likely to approve a nuclear reactor on the patio than a wind turbine on the roof.

Inevitably, critics will blame the Government for not doing enough to encourage domestic microgeneration and will point to the impressive uptake in Germany, where subsidies help homeowners to make handsome profits by selling excess electricity.

But the Government should not be too hasty in dishing out taxpayers’ money on this cause. Just because wind turbines have replaced beards and Birkenstocks as the latest must-have eco-accessory, it does not mean that the authorities should spend millions to make the landscape resemble 17th-century Holland.

Too many people approach green issues with the zealousness of recent converts to a new religion. But we should not abandon reason or debate. It is right to question the efficacy of roof-mounted wind turbines, particularly in urban areas. We should also consider the “carbon footprint” left by the manufacture, marketing, installation and maintenance of these devices.

There is no doubt that home-generation is a sensible and sustainable way of providing energy for some homes, but it has not been proven that the environmental benefits justify the costs of implementation on a wider scale.

A cynic might suggest that a better way to help the environment would be to employ an army of lobbyists to petition the Chinese Government to abandon its plans to build more than 500 coal-fired power stations in the next 25 years. Of course, this is not very practical, and depressing events on the other side of the world should not stop us doing our bit to cut emissions. But my advice for anyone who wants a cost-effective way to reduce energy consumption is to turn down the thermostat and buy some thermal underwear.

Do you feel lucky enough to take a punt on variable rates?

Next week the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) will start deliberations on whether to raise the cost of borrowing for the second time this year. The debate will centre on complex issues, such as inflation expectations, risks to growth and the money supply. Most City analysts are predicting that the MPC will hold fire this month but increase the base rate to 5 per cent in November, a level not seen since August 2001. Opinions are divided on where rates will move after that.

This presents a difficult dilemma for homeowners looking to remortgage and first-time buyers taking their first steps on the property ladder. Should they opt for a fixed-rate deal to protect against higher borrowing costs or a variable rate to benefit from any potential fall in the base rate? As ever, the answer depends on attitudes to risk and the need for certainty in financial planning. Those who need, or want, to know exactly how much they must pay each month should always choose the best fixed-rate deal they can find. But borrowers who are prepared, or can afford, to take a chance with a variable rate could be richly rewarded.

The latest cycle of rising interest rates has been in response to higher inflation after two years of runaway energy and commodity price rises. But as we report on page 8, there are tentative signs that the cost of oil and gas has peaked and this should help to subdue inflation next year.

There are also headwinds developing in the global economy, not least in America, where house prices are falling and there is a significant chance of recession. With inflation under control, slowing economic growth should prompt central banks across the globe to lower borrowing costs. Recent falls in the interest rate swap market indicate that the balance of probability favours lower rates next year. Anyone considering taking a gamble on a variable-rate mortgage should take heart that borrowers with these deals have paid less interest than people with fixed rates over the past five years.

First-time buyers' gift horse looks more like an old nag

Alexander Pope once noted that there is a certain majesty in simplicity. Unfortunately, the architects of the latest government project to help first-time buyers cannot have read these sage words. As we report on page 2, the Open Market HomeBuy scheme is fiendishly complex and has more restrictions than hand luggage at Heathrow.

Analysts say that applicants will stand a better chance if they work in a job that serves the local community or makes a direct contribution to the local economy. Worryingly, applicants will be subject to the whims of housing authority officials who decide who receives the loans. Worse still, the loans do not even look good value, with hidden fees and rates about one percentage point higher than standard mortgages.

When the Government launched shared-equity schemes for key workers in 1999, critics said that it was an attempt to “close the stable door after the horse had bolted”. With average house prices now 150 per cent higher, it looks as if the horse has not just bolted but is on its lap of honour.

For more on consumer affairs visit www.timesonline.co.uk/consumeraffairs