Going green costs

Share this article
0
Have your say

As energy bills rise again, our political leaders continue to 
insult voters by calling on us all, yet again, to consider switching suppliers while not admitting that the other companies will also be hiking bills in the next few weeks – making it pointless to move.

It is time for the government to come clean and admit that it has lost control of the energy market while stubbornly insisting that it refuses to cut the huge unnecessary green taxes based on questionable blinkered ­science of the part man contributes to any climate change.

If the coming winter is cold, the government may have a major health crisis because of people not affording to heat their homes.

Sadly, that might be the only way to finally wake up Mr Cameron and his government into realising the huge damage they are doing to our country with their determination to expand green energy at any cost.

Iain J McConnell

East Lothian

Despite having double glazing and wall and loft insulation, I keep getting calls offering me free or discounted insulation. With the publicity given to rising fuel costs and the subsidy being paid to cover the cost of the above policies, it seems to me equivalent to a well-meaning parent offering the daughter a lovely Christmas present, only for the son to find out it is being paid out of his pocket money.

Why cannot the government of the day pay for its policies out of income tax, which spreads the costs fairly? The poor would pay nothing but the better off would pay according to their income and taxable assets.

I know putting up income tax is not a vote-earning action but it is not dishonest, which is what hiding these unpopular charges elsewhere could be regarded as.

Putting up the tax level by 1 per cent would cost me personally £270, which would more than cover the eco-friendly charges on my fuel bill.

Any balance could go to decreasing the national deficit. The highly paid executives and their bonuses, which I presume are taxed, as well as the overpaid footballers, would make a greater impression than my contribution, but it could be an alternatively to the continually expressed wish for economies which so often leads to painful redundancies.

James Goldie

Edinburgh