Commenting on reports that the Prime Minister has dismissed fuel bill levies that fund energy efficiency measures, as “green crap”, Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:
“These levies include funding for energy efficiency measures which help low income households cope with soaring energy prices.
“Whatever language the Prime Minister has used to describe them, his determination to roll them back says everything about his contempt for the most vulnerable, and his lack of interest in serious action to tackle climate change, or to bring down fuel prices in the long term
“By focusing the debate on green levies, which represent only a fraction of energy bills, the Government is obscuring the real reason for rising costs – which is the increasing wholesale price of gas, and the profits of the Big Six energy companies.
“If the Prime Minister really wanted to help families with their fuel bills, he’d be investing in a major energy efficiency programme to super-insulate the country’s housing stock. This would bring nine out of ten homes out of fuel poverty, quadruple carbon savings, and create up to 200,000 jobs.”
London Green MEP Jean Lambert also added her voice to the debate.
Ms Lambert has challenged the Prime Minster to set out some alternative proposals for reducing energy use and helping fund the next generation of clean, renewable power generation.
She said: "Given that the green taxes Mr Cameron is today reported to have described as 'green crap' are designed to reduce energy use and help pay for the next generation of power through clean renewable sources, the question is: how will he achieve those goals by other means?
"As over 60% of the rise in bills is due a rise in wholesale prices of energy from 2010 to 2012, how will bills be reduced if there is no comprehensive effort to reduce energy consumption and provide alternative, domestic renewable resources?
"There is much the Government could do to improve the way in which this money is spent in order to reduce the amount of energy people use and they should concentrate their attention there, not on cutting revenue for essential measures - unless they plan to pay for them in other ways, in which case - let's hear those proposals, if they exist."
“These levies include funding for energy efficiency measures which help low income households cope with soaring energy prices.
“Whatever language the Prime Minister has used to describe them, his determination to roll them back says everything about his contempt for the most vulnerable, and his lack of interest in serious action to tackle climate change, or to bring down fuel prices in the long term
“By focusing the debate on green levies, which represent only a fraction of energy bills, the Government is obscuring the real reason for rising costs – which is the increasing wholesale price of gas, and the profits of the Big Six energy companies.
“If the Prime Minister really wanted to help families with their fuel bills, he’d be investing in a major energy efficiency programme to super-insulate the country’s housing stock. This would bring nine out of ten homes out of fuel poverty, quadruple carbon savings, and create up to 200,000 jobs.”
London Green MEP Jean Lambert also added her voice to the debate.
Ms Lambert has challenged the Prime Minster to set out some alternative proposals for reducing energy use and helping fund the next generation of clean, renewable power generation.
She said: "Given that the green taxes Mr Cameron is today reported to have described as 'green crap' are designed to reduce energy use and help pay for the next generation of power through clean renewable sources, the question is: how will he achieve those goals by other means?
"As over 60% of the rise in bills is due a rise in wholesale prices of energy from 2010 to 2012, how will bills be reduced if there is no comprehensive effort to reduce energy consumption and provide alternative, domestic renewable resources?
"There is much the Government could do to improve the way in which this money is spent in order to reduce the amount of energy people use and they should concentrate their attention there, not on cutting revenue for essential measures - unless they plan to pay for them in other ways, in which case - let's hear those proposals, if they exist."