Govt too much in thrall to fossil fuels

THE Government insists the British people will not accept the additional cost burden required to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and achieve net zero.

But why would households pay more when removing tax breaks and subsidies provided to fossil fuel companies could fund much of the change we need?

The Government could change the rules around planning applications for onshore wind turbines so they aren’t disadvantaged compared to other infrastructure projects. That would reduce electricity prices.

Now clean energy dominates our electricity supply, it no longer makes sense to peg electricity wholesale prices to the price of gas.

A restructuring of the pricing algorithm would reduce our bills by reducing the price of electricity relative to gas. In turn, that would encourage greater adoption of heat pumps and electric vehicles.

New houses could be built to be more energy-efficient. Proper insulation, heat pumps and solar panels could be included with minimal impact on the purchase price and would give savings and comfort to home owners. The government can choose to make this happen.

New estates could be built with ground-source district heating which is even better value than individual heat pumps. Hot water in disused mine shafts could be used to deliver heat to homes and industry.

Surplus electricity that we get when the wind is blowing strongly need not be wasted, and could be used to make green hydrogen for fertilisers, currently made from natural gas.

There are so many options where reducing emissions and reducing costs go hand in hand. If the Government were capable of planning strategically and not in thrall to vested interests in the oil, gas and property sectors. Catriona Lawrie