Share this post:
The Tories are trying to ruin the environment again.
Here‘s the BBC:
The Conservatives are promising to roll back green energy rules to cut energy costs, amid an emerging election battleground over the cost of household bills.
The party has announced it would scrap carbon pricing and “rip-off wind subsidies”, claiming they add 20% to electricity prices.
I’m deeply sceptical about this. Let’s break it down carefully, point by point.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/
Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/
Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/share
Discord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGm
Telegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Would scrapping carbon pricing and wind subsidies cut bills?
Carbon pricing is a fee on fossil fuels that reflects the environmental cost of CO₂ emissions. Removing it might shave a small amount off bills directly, but it’s not huge compared with wholesale market prices, which are set largely by global gas prices.
Wind subsidies and renewable incentives have costs built into bills, yes, but they also drive competition and bring more electricity online over time. Once the infrastructure exists, renewables are very cheap to run. Cutting subsidies doesn’t reduce ongoing costs—it just slows new projects.
Most of the cost of energy for households comes from wholesale gas prices, grid costs, and company profits.
Simply removing “green levies” is unlikely to deliver anywhere near the promised £165 per household per year.
Energy companies could easily pocket the difference as extra profit rather than passing it on to consumers.
Would this affect climate change and the planet?
This plan would definitely affect climate change and the planet as a whole – negatively:
Scrapping net zero targets means less pressure to cut emissions, so the UK would continue burning fossil fuels longer.
The plan would likely increase reliance on natural gas and imported fossil fuels, which are high-carbon. That would directly worsen the UK’s carbon footprint.
The longer the UK delays the transition to renewable energy, the harder and more expensive it becomes to meet climate goals later—so it’s really a short-term “savings” strategy at the planet’s expense.
Would it reduce reliance on foreign fuels?
The idea that we would be less reliant on foreign fuels is based on what appears to be a deliberate decision to ignore the facts (because Tories and their advisors must know how the system works).
Renewable energy is domestic—wind, solar, hydro—so expanding it reduces reliance on imports.
Removing renewable incentives and stopping net zero work increases reliance on gas and oil, much of which is imported.
So under this plan, the UK would likely remain, or become more, dependent on volatile international energy markets.
Would energy companies pass savings on to consumers?
It is unlikely that energy companies would pass on any savings in any event.
Energy markets are oligopolies, dominated by a few big suppliers.
They set prices to maximise profit.
Any cost reduction from scrapping subsidies or carbon taxes could easily be absorbed as higher profits unless regulation is introduced, forcing savings to be passed on.
In other words, households may see only a fraction of the £165 “savings” – if anything at all.
The bigger picture
Let’s summarise this in bullet points:
-
The Tories’ plan seems politically motivated: it appeals to short-term household cost anxiety.
-
Economically, it is a short-term gimmick, unlikely to materially reduce bills for most people.
-
Environmentally, it is a step backwards, worsening climate impact and energy security over the medium term.
The best way to look at this plan is mostly as a messaging play.
The planet – and your household – won’t win.
Even if technically “reducing green levies” could cut costs slightly, energy companies could keep prices high, emissions would go up, and reliance on imports would probably worsen. This policy would be a disaster.
Share this post:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tory ‘back to fossil fuel’ plan is environmentally disastrous – and WON’T cut your bills
Share this post:
Here‘s the BBC:
I’m deeply sceptical about this. Let’s break it down carefully, point by point.
Would scrapping carbon pricing and wind subsidies cut bills?
Carbon pricing is a fee on fossil fuels that reflects the environmental cost of CO₂ emissions. Removing it might shave a small amount off bills directly, but it’s not huge compared with wholesale market prices, which are set largely by global gas prices.
Wind subsidies and renewable incentives have costs built into bills, yes, but they also drive competition and bring more electricity online over time. Once the infrastructure exists, renewables are very cheap to run. Cutting subsidies doesn’t reduce ongoing costs—it just slows new projects.
Most of the cost of energy for households comes from wholesale gas prices, grid costs, and company profits.
Simply removing “green levies” is unlikely to deliver anywhere near the promised £165 per household per year.
Energy companies could easily pocket the difference as extra profit rather than passing it on to consumers.
Would this affect climate change and the planet?
This plan would definitely affect climate change and the planet as a whole – negatively:
Scrapping net zero targets means less pressure to cut emissions, so the UK would continue burning fossil fuels longer.
The plan would likely increase reliance on natural gas and imported fossil fuels, which are high-carbon. That would directly worsen the UK’s carbon footprint.
The longer the UK delays the transition to renewable energy, the harder and more expensive it becomes to meet climate goals later—so it’s really a short-term “savings” strategy at the planet’s expense.
Would it reduce reliance on foreign fuels?
The idea that we would be less reliant on foreign fuels is based on what appears to be a deliberate decision to ignore the facts (because Tories and their advisors must know how the system works).
Renewable energy is domestic—wind, solar, hydro—so expanding it reduces reliance on imports.
Removing renewable incentives and stopping net zero work increases reliance on gas and oil, much of which is imported.
So under this plan, the UK would likely remain, or become more, dependent on volatile international energy markets.
Would energy companies pass savings on to consumers?
It is unlikely that energy companies would pass on any savings in any event.
Energy markets are oligopolies, dominated by a few big suppliers.
They set prices to maximise profit.
Any cost reduction from scrapping subsidies or carbon taxes could easily be absorbed as higher profits unless regulation is introduced, forcing savings to be passed on.
In other words, households may see only a fraction of the £165 “savings” – if anything at all.
The bigger picture
Let’s summarise this in bullet points:
The Tories’ plan seems politically motivated: it appeals to short-term household cost anxiety.
Economically, it is a short-term gimmick, unlikely to materially reduce bills for most people.
Environmentally, it is a step backwards, worsening climate impact and energy security over the medium term.
The best way to look at this plan is mostly as a messaging play.
The planet – and your household – won’t win.
Even if technically “reducing green levies” could cut costs slightly, energy companies could keep prices high, emissions would go up, and reliance on imports would probably worsen. This policy would be a disaster.
Share this post:
Like this:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
Like this:
The lies that smashed the unions and destroyed our coal industry
Like this:
We have an Education Secretary who wants to overwrite history with lies
Like this:
Like this: