realistic for who, over a 3rd of the country won't be able to afford it come October, can completely forget about any form of heating for millions of people which will ultimately lead to thousands of unnecessary and completely avoidable deaths.
Realistic in terms of what the product actually costs.
Not sure why you're throwing the "
avoidable deaths" line in there except as an unnecessary appeal to emotion - that energy has to be paid for somehow and by someone. So we could force suppliers to continue to sell at a substantial loss, they go bust, people lose their jobs and nobody can buy energy because there is nobody left to buy from, or, the government bails the suppliers out and we all pay for it through taxes, or, people get millions in handouts to pay for it and we all pay for it through taxes. There is no magic solution where we somehow get cheap energy without paying for it.
Not all energy companies have gone bust though. They would’ve owned money to the energy producers it shouldn’t have nothing to do with the tax payers.
No they haven't, the bigger companies who either had enough in cash reserves which allowed them to absorb the losses, or who bought enough energy far enough in advance that the rises didn't affect them
YET have not gone bust
YET, but it doesn't take a genius to understand what will happen to companies who are forced to sell their product at a loss long term - it's just not sustainable. Eventually either they'll run out of reserve money, or the energy bought in advance will run out and they'll be forced to buy more at current prices.
Curious if there is any legislation to prevent an energy company from just deciding to wind up? If the market is artificially untenable, then why would you want to keep operating in it?
