The threat of another energy crisis raises a simple question: did we actually learn the lessons from the last one?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a surge in energy prices that drove household bills sharply higher. The shock had a profound impact on the UK economy and on household finances. Government support reportedly cost around £80 billion, and without emergency intervention typical household bills could have reached over £4,000 a year. Even now, prices remain more than a third higher than before the war.
But the crisis was not just economic. It was also a public health issue. New NHS data shows a sharp rise in cold-related illness between 2020 and 2025. Pneumonia admissions increased by 66%, hypothermia cases rose by 45%, and incidents linked to excessive cold climbed by 33%. Freedom of Information data recorded 4,701 admissions in England, with a further 1,127 cases in Scotland.
This should focus minds. Cold homes do not just affect comfort or bills. They affect health, and they place real pressure on the NHS, particularly for the most vulnerable.
Now there are warnings that rising tensions in the Middle East could trigger another spike in energy prices. If wholesale costs rise again, those pressures could return just as we approach another heating season.
So the question is whether the UK is becoming more resilient to energy shocks.
The government has brought forward around £15 billion through the Warm Homes Plan to 2030 to help households reduce their dependence on gas and improve energy efficiency. That works out at less than £3 billion a year. Given the scale and cost of the last crisis, it is unlikely to be enough on its own, particularly when awareness of the support available remains low among both households and policymakers.
For many households, there is also an opportunity to take more control. Investing in technologies such as heat pumps, solar panels and home batteries can reduce exposure to volatile international energy markets. In effect, it allows households to generate and manage more of their own energy.
The benefits go beyond lower bills. More resilient homes mean warmer and less polluting homes, reduced exposure to global price shocks, and fewer vulnerable people ending up in hospital during winter.
* Mark Hofman has been a Councillor on Watford Borough Council since 2012.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
How many councillors has Reform UK lost since the May 2026 elections?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
7 Comments
Thank you for an important and timely article!
Alas, the deep, controlling attitudes and policy of this and previous governments to prioritise money ahead of resources is profoundly mistaken and already palpably deeply damaging.
With our soverign currency, H. M. G can, and does, create money, directly and indirectly, immediately on a keyboard. Improving home and business insulation takes years as does building sufficient properly insulated homes etc. in the first place. (1)
The sooner our national leaders understand/use the reality that money is only a medium of exchange and not a resource and use long-term forward thinking to ensure the provision of sufficient “fit for use”, housing, heath care, education and secure, quality food for all etc. the better and stronger our society will be.
(1) Inflation is best managed by differentiating between “Internal Inflation Factors” and “External Inflation Factors” which need to be addressed differently.
P. S. What about some leadership forward thinking and actions concerning water?
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/03/14/global-water-bankruptcy/
” Improving home and business insulation takes years ”
Yes. especially when govermment schemes don’t work properly and leave home owners saddled with further bills to remove inappropriate materials or indeed left with unsaleable homes.
Energy for heating our homes is only part of the issue. There’s transport. It is used for manufacturing fertiliser and many other industrial processes. If there’s less oil available, there is isn’t any easy way we can somehow switch to alternative sources quickly. There will inevitably be severe economic consequences if the current situation doesn’t improve shortly.
@ Steve,
Sure, the government can create ££. But it can’t create oil! Resources, not money, are always the limiting factor.
Indeed, at least, some maintain that the duties of governments are be to protect natural resources, including children, to develop resources for all to live well and to encourage international agreement so that natural reources are traded equitabl,y with a minimum of conflicts threats and theft.
Might this article be relevant?
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/03/14/the-printing-money-myth/
P. S. The government certainly cannot create the power source which is oil but might it be able to create/buy through research/development, another source of power, which is solar?
P. P. S.Might the Chinese government have demonstrated the effectiveness and wisdom of doingso?
I am deeply troubled by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Speaking from an engineering background I am also deeply troubled by the fact that so few people seem to understand energy, surplus energy, and that fossil fuel has afforded us, over 150 years, “modernity” at levels that even ancient Kings and Queens could never have envisaged.
Whilst fossil fuel is presently on the environmental “naughty step”, I can assure you that a lifestyle that we in the West consider “Modernity”, cannot be maintained without those “dirty” fossil fuels. My even greater fear is that this brutal energy truth, will be a shock education if those Hormuz constraints are still with us.
@ Tom,
I, too, am an engineer and agree with those like yourself who question that net zero can realistically be achieved solely through the use of solar, wind and tidal power. If we are to move away from fossil fuels, and we should, then the use of nuclear power has to be an essential part of the package.
I’m with James Hansen, the world renowned climate scientist who has been advocating for nuclear power for many years.
https://www.weplanet.org/post/climate-scientist-james-hansen-the-opposition-to-nuclear-power-is-truly-insane
Thank you Peter, I agree that Nuclear is likely the best solution to a future, but even massive additional Giga Watts of electricity would not solve some physics problems. Many companies have tried to design heavy duty electric battery agricultural machinery, articulated trucks for mass food deliveries and even aircraft to commercial passenger flight. Electric conversion to these daily use machines, just doesn’t scale up. You cant make plastics from electricity. There are two camps of thought. One says we must rid ourselves of fossil fuels. The second (including me), believe that fossil fuel is “leaving humanity” over the next 30 years. And, it really doesn’t matter which camp you are in. The result is exactly the same. I could write much more, but I’m mindful of the word limit.
When that day comes that we must rely solely on energy from wind, solar, hydro, tide and a massive base load of Nuclear, our lifestyle at that point, will be closer to Amish than the modernity we enjoy today. Far better explained by John Micheal Greer in his essay, “Collapse now and avoid the rush”