The surge in gas prices is why we need a Green Deal

Gas prices just leapt by 50% in a day – we need a new Green Deal now!

UK gas prices have leapt by 50% in a day after QatarEnergy stopped production following attacks on its facilities. This underscores the need for a publicly owned Green New Deal to end the UK’s reliance on global markets, address spiralling climate change and lower energy prices.

No-brainer

If the Labour government brought solar panels to just 1% of the UK, it would meet the entire country’s energy needs. Investing in AI and automation may need more power, but there’s clearly solar capacity for that including the possibility of offshore solar.

Energy secretary Ed Miliband has said “our reliance on gas sold on volatile international markets” has risen costs for people and businesses. But instead of piecemeal investment in renewables, a fully-fledged Green New Deal would lower prices and nationalise energy in one fell swoop.

The government is the sovereign issuer of fiat currency – it’s economic constraints are not monetary, but of resources and expertise. A Green New Deal would require labour and could deliver jobs through a training programme. It would also require resources such as silicon and aluminium. But, globally speaking, we have enough resources to power the entire world with renewable energy.

With that in mind, there are no fiscal constraints on a Green New Deal.

Climate issues

In 2025, climate disasters impacted more than 87 million people. Syria faced its worst drought in 37 years, a drought in Kenya impacted the food supply for more than two million people and a drought in Nepal affected the food supply for 1.2 million.

These are just a few examples of how climate change is spiralling. The 2015 Paris climate agreement was to limit global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. That was already surpassed in 2024. We are currently heading for a temperature increase of up to 2.7°C, which would be even more catastrophic.

We need a Green New Deal immediately.

Featured image via unsplash/the Canary

Comments 3

D71 says:

3 months ago

The problem with your analysis is marginal pricing. Currently, all electricity is charged at the rate of the most expensive, which is always that electricity generated by gas, which is like everyone in a restaurant being charged the same price as the dickhead who orders lobster. It’s an absurd “pricing mechanism” designed to ensure elevated profits, guarantee no losses and prevent competition. Until gas is removed, no amount of cheaper renewable generation will lower the price. Currently, if we switched away from marginal cost pricing (a scam, as said), electricity prices would halve, right now, and the cost of gas would only affect its direct use cost, not inflate the cost of electricity. Any analysis or policy recommendation that doesn’t include this, is yours doesn’t, is a failed analysis and is a waste of the author’s and the reader’s time. It shows a significant ignorance of the issue. It’s the problem that most writing about the energy cost crisis and affects We Own It as well. Critical journalists (rather than MSM client hacks), really need to get it right, as it misses a key point, we already have much cheaper electricity, we’re just being deliberately overcharged for it, in a faux market to the benefit of capitalists once again. You need to keep making this point – marginal pricing (directly a consequence of privatisation) will keep prices high, whatevervthe price of renewables.

Jorge says:

3 months ago

Any stable energy supply has to be multi-source and based on long-term planning. UK prices are based on profit extraction for purposes unrelated to national need, short-termism, lack of regulation, political meddling and utter stupidity. Do we buy gas on the spot market instead of long-term contract? Yes, a conscious decision based on lack of planning. Do we have gas storage reflecting our supply dependency? No, we decided that the Rough field should be closed down because it was expensive to maintain when gas was cheap. Did we ensure we kept the North Sea oil wealth in a sovereign fund? No, we let oil companies squander it, unlike Norway which is now wealthy. Did we put all our supply eggs in one basket? Yes, we decided that Russia must be punished so we cut off imports of cheap energy to please the US. So now we depend on US LNG, which is vastly overpriced and environmentally hideous, as it requires diesel sea shipping aside from its inherent carbon footprint.
I’m keen on renewables. But heat pumps are a poor retrofit choice at best. New-build subfloor heating, yes. Victorian or Edwardian urban housing, bad choice. Solar panels – great during summer. Mine are useless from October to March due to climate and low sun angles. Wind, yes, but erratic so not on its own. Nuclear, sadly, always a background requirement to backstop the rest. Oddly, the most climate-friendly option is high-efficiency wood stoves, which turn a byproduct of carbon-capture forest management into heat.
Do we need a Green New Deal? Not now. I wouldn’t trust this government to manage a grocery, much less something likely to be crucified on the altar of mate’s rates, selective bid-free contracting, or any other form of network management prone to WEF meddling. This government is far too corrupt and dishonest to be trusted with national strategy. Any Green New Deal will have to be one involving community self-help and advice untainted by politics or politicians. Maybe when the current crisis of neocolonial mismanagement and global war has passed, we can think of Roosevelt. But don’t forget, our entire ruling class is hellbent on stopping anything like Roosevelt’s economic programme including Keynesian spending and anti-trust laws. Anything like that will get the Corbyn treatment.

- Airlane1979 says:
  
  3 months ago
  
  A well-argued response. One aspect, though: burning wood indoors, whatever its supposed efficiency, is extremely unhealthy and must be swiftly ended.
  
  “In the study, published in Nature’s Scientific Reports, researchers monitored a number of homes in Guildford, Surrey, that used a range of heating stoves and clean solid fuels, including seasoned wood, kiln-dried wood, wood briquette, and smokeless coal. After measuring pollutant levels, such as ultrafine particles (UFPs), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), black carbon (BC), and carbon monoxide (CO), GCARE found open fireplaces produced the highest emissions, increasing PM2.5 exposure up to seven times compared to modern stoves.
  
  Multifuel eco-design stoves followed, emitting more UFP emissions than standard eco-design (top-rated for low emissions under a UK certification scheme). Wood briquettes and smokeless coal increased ultrafine particle exposure by 1.7- and 1.5-times, respectively, compared to seasoned wood, challenging assumptions that these manufactured fuels are cleaner alternatives.
  
  While improved stoves reduced pollutant emission overall, even the best models caused significant spikes in indoor pollution during lighting, refuelling, and ash removal. In many cases, pollutant levels exceeded World Health Organization (WHO) good practice statement for 24-h averaged values of 10,000 particles per cubic centimetre on ultrafine particle source emission control.
  
  “Even in homes using ‘cleaner’ stoves and fuels, we saw pollutant levels rise well beyond safe limits – especially when ventilation was poor or stoves were used for long periods. Many people simply don’t realise how much indoor air quality can deteriorate during routine stove use. This research shows the need for greater awareness and simple behavioural changes that can reduce exposure.” (Abidemi Kuye, PhD researcher at the GCARE)
  
  Short and long-term exposure to pollution from wood-burning sources has been linked to a wide range of health effects, including chronic respiratory conditions, heart disease, lung cancer, and even damage to the kidneys, liver, brain, and nervous system.”
  
  (‘The hidden health risks of wood-burning and eco stoves in homes’, University of Surrey 15 July 2025)