Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 12:36 pm I must be the only person here in favour of this. What matters is consumption emissions, not production ones. Talking of which:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2026/ ... heat-pumps

Andy Burnham is considering radical plans that could cut household energy bills by £130 a year and make running a heat pump cheaper than a gas boiler.

In his speech on Friday as he became the new Labour leader, Burnham promised to reduce the price of “essentials”, and a cost of living package is expected to be one of his first announcements in Downing Street.

The energy proposal, drawn up by the thinktank Nesta and being examined by Burnham’s team, would change the way household gas is charged and remove some policy levies from bills, at a cost of £3.2bn a year to the taxpayer.

Making electricity cheaper relative to gas would make running heat pumps a more attractive option, and shave £130 off average bills.

Estimates for revenue from the new exploration seem to be all over the place, but they should help fund some of this. Or they don't, and we don't have to worry about the production emissions.

Over on Blueksy Anthony Painter made the point that you use the money to fund the green transition over jobs vs climate.

Just read the first few pages of this thread from four to five years ago. MW is somewhat sceptical of Burnham and the worrying thing is that none of the jibes and criticism have dated.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 1:12 pm
Over on Blueksy Anthony Painter made the point that you use the money to fund the green transition over jobs vs climate.

Yeah, I think this is the way to look at it. Electric cars and heat pumps become much more attractive with lower electricity prices.