Spending more on renewable power generated in the UK makes sense

LARK Cross (Letters, July 23) says that I am a spin doctor for the Climate Change Committee, led by Emma Pinchbeck. I enjoyed the joke but sadly it’s not true.

- 

Emma Pinchbeck’s job is to advise on how to bring emissions down to net zero by 2050, as part of global commitments on climate change. Clark wants to know whether I think her suggestion of moving subsidies from gas to electricity is a good idea. Electricity is far more expensive in the UK because we buy gas at world prices (including the small percentage still coming from the North Sea) which is then burnt to generate around a third of our electricity, for which we pay though the nose.

This high cost is passed on to consumers (note: electricity bills currently pay for gas). In addition, we Brits subsidise fossil fuels by £17.5 billion per year, dwarfing the £11 billion which goes to renewables, all to help customers and give British industry a chance.

Emma Pinchbeck thinks that it would be better to lower the price of electricity to help solve this dilemma by increasing the rate at which people are switching out of gas, which is also good if you are worried about climate change. It goes without saying that she recommends more renewables and energy storage for when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.