Houthi rebels have seized control of Yemen’s entire Red Sea coast, giving them effective control of a key shipping corridor. Find out how this could give Iran, their backer, a critical advantage in its war with the US 👇 telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2…

Expensive gas behind ‘nearly 90%’ of rise in UK electricity bills. carbonbrief.org/revealed-exp…

🧾The "Bill that Policy Made" Megathread 🧾 For a while I've wanted to put something together to clearly show that your bill is high because of policy choices. Not gas shocks. Not Iran, and not Ukraine. Thread🧵and video📽️

I can't begin to explain how angry this makes me. My son is 12 — he will live with the consequences. This is nothing more than an appeasement to Trump. Burnham has destroyed the government's commitment to tackling the climate disaster. 🤬

Government support for drilling at #Jackdaw takes a wrecking ball to any pretence of UK climate leadership & pours fuel on an overheating world - and for what? It’s equivalent to just 2 months of UK gas demand, creates just 27 direct jobs & has *no* impact on energy bills🧵1/4

🚨 WATCH: Andy Burnham says he has an idea to ban VAR in Labour's next election manifesto "You'd accept it if it got decisions right, but it doesn't get decisions right"

The most pointless PM of all time.

@Ed_Miliband will never tell you the truth about this. He knows he’s lying and now we know he’s lying; so - he’s a liar.

3️⃣ Your bill has four main parts. 🔹Wholesale: the power itself 🔹Network: getting it down the wires 🔹Policy: government schemes and taxes 🔹Supplier: their running costs Ofgem cram CfD, Carbon tax and Capacity market into wholesale. Of the £870, only £232 is electricity.

One-marshmallow government.

FOOL BRITANNIA by @EdConwaySky While many countries face higher energy costs due to the events in the Middle East and Russia, few have seen quite as big a spike as Britain has. Industrial power costs are comfortably higher than in most developed nations, with domestic costs not far behind. To some extent, this is a function of bad luck and geopolitics. Britain is particularly dependent on natural gas to provide the critical baseload power for its electricity, not to mention much of its domestic heating. But higher energy costs are also the product of policy. Britain pushed faster and further towards net zero (the goal of diminishing carbon emissions to close to nothing in net terms) than most of its peers. The ambition, held by Labour and Conservative governments, was that the UK should be the global leader in decarbonisation – the flag-bearer for net zero. In one respect, the enterprise was a stunning success – Britain is one of the fastest-decarbonising major economies in the world. The main catch in – and the cardinal sin of – the make-things-cheap economy is how it affects energy bills. For all that Boris Johnson and Ed Miliband insisted (and as far as I can tell, sincerely believed) that renewables would mean lower costs, the opposite has happened. Unlike solar power, the cost of which fell precipitously as the Chinese mastered the mass production of arrays, wind power has remained comparatively expensive. And so Britain’s ambitious offshore wind programme happened largely thanks to a complex web of subsidies and price guarantees. Those interventions will lock in higher power costs in this country for years. There is a point – most likely a decade and a half in the future – at which the savings from net zero (less spent on gas and fuels) should outweigh the costs of building all the necessary infrastructure. But for the time being, the policy is expensive – nearly £30bn a year for the next five years, which is the equivalent of an extra 5p on the basic rate of income tax. One of the main reasons net zero is becoming so controversial (and will likely get more controversial) is that the majority of those costs end up on consumer bills. The other problem is that much of this decarbonisation was achieved through deindustrialisation. In the face of higher energy costs and rising environmental taxes, many manufacturers relocated overseas. Indeed, more than half of Britain’s carbon footprint is now accounted for by imported goods. Paradoxically, the more steel mills and chemicals plants shut down, the better the UK’s environmental credentials, since net zero plans ignore the embedded carbon in our imports and focus solely on what is puffed out of domestic flues and chimneys. Cover art by Doug Chayka

A national heat pump rollout makes no sense, in fact it would be economic nonsense. Heat pumps don't work as advertised - they life expire one third of the way through their most optimistic payback period. It’s an expensive gimmick. And therefore this £3 Billion heat pump subsidy fund makes no sense - add in that it’s for better-off families (a middle-class subsidy) that can afford to spend around £8k after the grant on a new heating system that will (on the data) probably put their bills up - while 5 million people struggle to pay the energy bills they have now - and it’s also immoral. Sales this year are down nearly 25% for good reason. Labour should take back this mis applied funding pot and spend it on something useful. Likewise the half billion fund that gives £4k to people in the market for a new car (1% of the population in any given year) - to encourage them to buy electric. Middle-class subsidy, gives net zero a bad name. Oh and carbon capture - oil industry scam, shut that down and save £20 billion more….:) buff.ly/NnaZ30I