Green Prosperity
A Poverty Prevention Strategy for Warmer Homes, Lower Bills and a Cleaner Economy
Prepared by: Taxpayers Against Poverty July 2026
Purpose: To align Britain’s transition to Net Zero with the prevention of poverty, lower living costs and stronger regional prosperity.
Executive Summary
Britain should not be forced to choose between tackling climate change and tackling poverty. The right policies can do both.
Green Prosperity proposes a national programme to reduce household energy use, expand clean power, create skilled jobs and ensure that the benefits of the transition are shared fairly. Its central principle is that climate policy should lower costs and improve economic security for people on low and modest incomes, rather than asking them to carry a disproportionate share of the transition.
The initial priority would be a ten-year, area-by-area programme to upgrade Britain’s homes, beginning with households experiencing fuel poverty and communities with the least energy-efficient housing. Improvements would include insulation, draught-proofing, ventilation, solar panels, heat pumps where suitable, smart controls and access to shared or community energy.
The programme would be supported by a Climate Poverty Test, requiring every major climate and energy policy to assess its effects on household bills, fuel poverty, employment, inequality and regional prosperity before implementation.
Green Prosperity would help Britain reduce emissions while creating warmer homes, lower and more stable bills, better health, skilled employment and less dependence on volatile international energy markets.
It would turn Net Zero from something people are asked to pay for into a programme from which millions of households can directly benefit.
1. The Problem
Britain’s energy and climate debate has become trapped between two incomplete positions.
One argues that rapid decarbonisation must proceed regardless of its immediate social cost. The other presents Net Zero primarily as an expensive burden on households and businesses. Neither approach offers a credible long-term answer.
Climate change is already imposing economic and social costs through flooding, overheating, disrupted food production, damaged infrastructure and rising insurance risks. At the same time, poorly designed climate policies can place additional costs on households least able to absorb them.
The challenge is therefore not whether Britain should pursue cleaner energy. It is how the transition is designed, who pays for it and who receives the benefits.
Energy remains a major source of financial insecurity. Official projections indicate that around 2.36 million English households were in fuel poverty in 2025, while low-income households were expected to spend an average of 14.9% of their income on required energy costs. (GOV.UK)
Energy prices also remain volatile. Ofgem’s price cap for a typical dual-fuel household paying by Direct Debit is £1,862 a year for July to September 2026, following a 13% quarterly increase. (Ofgem)
Temporary bill support can prevent immediate hardship, but it does not solve the underlying problem. A poorly insulated home remains expensive to heat year after year. A household that depends on volatile fossil-fuel markets remains vulnerable to the next international price shock.
Britain needs to move from repeatedly subsidising high energy costs to permanently reducing the amount of energy households need to buy.
That is poverty prevention.
2. Why Energy Policy Is Poverty Policy
Poverty is not determined by income alone. It is also shaped by the unavoidable costs a household must meet.
A family may remain above the official poverty line on paper but experience serious hardship once rent, childcare, transport and energy costs are paid. High energy bills force difficult choices between heating, food, debt repayments and other essentials.
Cold and inefficient homes can also contribute to poor physical and mental health, missed education and reduced productivity. Government then pays again through greater pressure on healthcare, housing, welfare and local services.
A prevention-first policy addresses these causes before they become crises.
Improving a home so that it requires less energy creates a permanent reduction in household exposure to high prices. Unlike a one-off rebate, the benefit continues each winter. It also reduces carbon emissions, improves comfort and protects health.
Green Prosperity therefore starts with a simple principle:
The first homes upgraded should be those occupied by people who have the least ability to pay and the most to gain.
3. Policy Options
Option One: Continue Primarily with Bill Subsidies
Government can provide rebates, discounts and emergency payments when prices rise.
This offers immediate relief and remains necessary during periods of acute hardship. However, it is expensive, reactive and temporary. It pays part of an inefficient bill without reducing the underlying energy requirement of the property. In the current structure these interventions benefit the shareholders of private energy companies, where as it would benefit the nation if under pubic ownership
Bill support should remain a safety net, but it cannot be the principal long-term strategy.
Option Two: Universal Consumer Grants
Government can offer grants towards insulation, solar panels, heat pumps and other improvements to all households.
This can increase public participation, but universal grant schemes often benefit people who already have the savings, knowledge and confidence to complete installations. Lower-income households, tenants and people in complex properties may be left behind.
Universal incentives have a role, but they need stronger targeting and delivery support.
Option Three: Regulation Led Mainly by Mandates
Government can require landlords, developers and homeowners to meet progressively higher energy standards.
Regulation is necessary, particularly in the private rented sector and new construction. However, mandates introduced without finance, skilled installers or consumer protections can increase rents, provoke resistance or leave households facing unaffordable costs.
Regulation should establish the destination, but investment and practical delivery must make compliance possible.
Option Four: A National Area-Based Upgrade Programme
Government, combined authorities and councils can coordinate improvements street by street and neighbourhood by neighbourhood, beginning in areas with high fuel poverty and inefficient housing.
This approach reduces costs through scale, allows different technologies to be matched to local housing, gives households practical support and creates a predictable pipeline for training and employment.
It is the strongest foundation for Green Prosperity.
4. The Green Prosperity Proposal
We propose a ten-year Green Prosperity Programme built around five connected measures.
4.1 Warm Homes First
Britain should establish a national mission to bring fuel-poor and low-income households into warm, efficient homes as the first priority of the Net Zero transition.
Local authorities and combined authorities would identify neighbourhoods with high energy costs, poor housing efficiency and concentrations of vulnerable households. Accredited delivery partnerships would then undertake property assessments and install the most appropriate package of improvements.
Measures could include:
loft, cavity-wall and solid-wall insulation;
draught-proofing and improved ventilation;
double or secondary glazing where cost-effective;
smart heating controls;
heat pumps or clean heat networks where technically suitable;
rooftop solar and battery storage;
repairs needed before energy improvements can be installed.
The Government’s current Warm Homes Plan already recognises the need to cut bills and transform ageing housing stock. Green Prosperity would strengthen that direction by making poverty prevention and area-based delivery its organising principles. (GOV.UK)
No low-income household should be expected to take on unaffordable debt to participate.
4.2 Community Energy Dividend
Communities should be enabled to own or share in local renewable-energy generation and storage.
Solar installed on schools, council buildings, social housing, warehouses and community facilities could supply local energy schemes or generate revenues for local benefit. Community batteries could allow locally generated electricity to be stored and used when it is most valuable.
A defined share of the financial return should support:
discounted energy for low-income households;
local home-upgrade funds;
community facilities;
advice and debt prevention;
further clean-energy investment.
The transition should not merely place infrastructure in communities. It should create assets owned by or benefiting those communities.
4.3 Green Jobs Guarantee
Green Prosperity should be linked directly to a national industrial and skills strategy.
Britain will need large numbers of trained workers to install insulation, heat pumps, solar panels, electrical systems, district heating and grid infrastructure. It should use that demand to create secure employment in communities affected by industrial decline.
The programme would include:
paid apprenticeships;
regional retrofit academies;
guaranteed training routes for unemployed and underemployed adults;
support for small local installers;
public procurement favouring good employment standards;
investment in British production of clean-energy equipment.
This would connect Green Prosperity with TAP’s Made in Britain agenda. Public investment would not only improve homes; it would help rebuild productive capacity and create skilled jobs.
4.4 Fair Energy Reform
Energy costs should be rebalanced so that essential household consumption is affordable and the transition does not penalise those with the lowest incomes.
The Government should examine:
a social or protected tariff for households on low incomes or with unavoidable high energy needs;
reductions in excessive standing-charge burdens
automatic enrolment using existing benefit and income data
moving appropriate environmental and social policy costs away from electricity bills and into more progressive funding
safeguards for prepayment customers
clearer rights for renters to request reasonable energy improvements.
Support should be easy to receive and should not depend on vulnerable households repeatedly proving hardship to different agencies.
4.5 The Climate Poverty Test
Every significant energy, transport, housing and Net Zero policy should be accompanied by a published assessment answering:
Will it raise or lower bills for low- and middle-income households?
Will it reduce fuel poverty?
Who pays upfront, and who receives the long-term benefit?
Will renters benefit as well as homeowners?
Will it create secure, well-paid employment?
Will benefits reach all regions?
Could the policy unintentionally increase housing or transport costs?
What protections are needed for those unable to adapt without support?
A policy that advances emissions targets while worsening poverty should be redesigned—not abandoned but made fairer.
This would make social justice a core measure of climate-policy quality rather than an afterthought.
5. How Green Prosperity Prevents Poverty
Permanently Lower Bills
Insulation, efficient heating and local clean power reduce the amount of energy households need to purchase. That provides lasting protection against price shocks.
Improved Health
Warmer, drier homes can reduce the health risks associated with cold, damp and mould. Prevention can reduce pressure on the NHS and social care while improving quality of life.
Better Employment
A predictable national programme would support thousands of jobs in construction, engineering, manufacturing and maintenance. Those jobs should be distributed across the country rather than concentrated in a few areas.
Greater Energy Security
Domestic renewable generation, storage and efficiency reduce Britain’s exposure to volatile global fossil-fuel prices. That supports more stable household costs and a more resilient economy.
Reduced Inequality
Without deliberate intervention, wealthier homeowners are most able to buy solar panels, batteries and efficient heating, while poorer households continue paying higher bills in inefficient homes.
Green Prosperity reverses that order by directing early investment towards those with the greatest need.
Stronger Local Economies
Area-based programmes would support local businesses, training providers and supply chains. Community-energy revenues could circulate within local economies instead of leaving them entirely through external energy payments.
6. Funding and Delivery
Green Prosperity would require substantial investment, but it should be assessed against the long-term costs of high bills, poor health, emergency subsidies, unemployment, imported energy and climate damage.
Funding options could include:
long-term government infrastructure funding
green government bonds
pension-fund and institutional investment
energy-company obligations
revenues from carbon pricing
public development-bank finance
local-authority borrowing for investable schemes
land-value capture around major green infrastructure
responsible private co-investment.
Public support should be structured so that the financial return from installations does not flow entirely to contractors or investors while households carry the risk.
National government would set standards and provide long-term finance. Regional and local bodies would coordinate delivery, identify priority areas and work with trusted community organisations.
A national quality guarantee would protect households against poor workmanship, unsuitable technologies and aggressive selling.
7. Measuring Success
The programme should not be judged only by the number of installations or tonnes of carbon saved.
Success measures should include:
reduction in household energy bills
number of households lifted out of fuel poverty
improvement in home energy performance
reduction in cold- and damp-related illness
number and quality of jobs created
proportion of spending retained in regional economies
household satisfaction
emissions reductions
reduction in energy imports
distribution of benefits by income, tenure and region.
A climate programme that lowers emissions but leaves vulnerable households behind is incomplete. Green Prosperity succeeds only when environmental and social progress happen together.
8. Recommended First Steps
Within the first year, Government should:
Establish the Climate Poverty Test for major national policies.
Select ten urban, rural and coastal areas for Green Prosperity pilots.
Create a unified household eligibility system so support is automatically targeted.
Begin a national recruitment and training programme.
Establish clear consumer and installation standards.
Develop community-energy ownership and benefit-sharing rules.
Publish a ten-year investment and delivery schedule.
Create an independent Green Prosperity Commission to monitor outcomes and advise on fairness.
The pilots should test different housing types, energy systems and local delivery models before rapid national expansion.
Conclusion
Britain’s transition to Net Zero should not be presented as a sacrifice imposed on households. It should be designed as one of the greatest opportunities in generations to improve homes, reduce bills, create skilled jobs and strengthen economic security.
The country already spends heavily managing the consequences of fuel poverty: emergency assistance, poor health, debt, homelessness risk and lost productivity. Green Prosperity would redirect more of that effort towards prevention.
Its promise is straightforward:
warmer homes, lower bills, cleaner energy, better jobs and less poverty.
That is not climate policy added to an anti-poverty agenda. It is a single, joined-up strategy in which each objective strengthens the other.
Britain should not merely reach Net Zero.
It should become fairer and more prosperous on the way.
Comments