Windfall tax would cushion gas hikes

IT was good to see Mike Butterfield’s letter on April 1. It seems we’re in agreement on most things after all. MB agrees with the need for Net

Zero policies and presumably the rest of the arguments which were stated in my letter on March 31.

I certainly agree with him that low-income earners should not bear the costs of transition. But that is not a reason to cut back on the transition which must be financed by those who can afford to. I suspect he would agree with that too.

I certainly don’t think I know everything and in fact I don’t know very much at all. But I try to learn by reasoned discussion. I’m pleased to learn Mike was not being patronising or rubbishing my argument because of my age, as I mistakenly thought; the clarification is appreciated.

The ‘pain’ of Net Zero is a lot less than the pain of failing to reach Net Zero. And perhaps there could be a lot more ‘gain’ than ‘pain’ if it is done well. Why are the poorest being forced to bear the brunt of the gas price hikes? A windfall tax would cushion that very well, as happened in France. The Prime Minister’s statement that we cannot afford to stifle investment is a clear indication that he is very prepared to force the poorest to bear the brunt even when he has an alternative.

He knows as well as anyone that the energy companies are using the vast profits to enrich shareholders and buy back shares, not for any investment that will benefit ordinary people. Exposing the truth and confronting the powerful is what will protect the poorest.

India Hollow By email