Delaying ETS2 will not protect households from the next energy crisis

As EU leaders meet to discuss competitiveness and soaring energy bills, Italy, Poland and Czechia are pushing to postpone Europe’s new carbon market for road transport and heating fuels (ETS2). Their concern about rising costs is legitimate. But delaying ETS2 will not protect families from the next oil and gas price shock.

Affordable, reliable energy is a basic need. Governments have a responsibility to secure it through immediate support with bills and investment that reduces households’ exposure to future crises. European leaders have already recognised access to energy as an essential service. The question is how they intend to deliver it.

For a household that depends on a diesel car to get to work, or cannot afford to replace its gas boiler, an additional carbon cost is a real concern. Telling people to buy an electric car or install a heat pump is no answer if they cannot afford the upfront investment. Governments must make those alternatives accessible before carbon pricing starts.

Yet postponement leaves these households dependent on the same fuels whose prices are squeezing their budgets today. The costs of the carbon levy pale in significance to the current petrol and diesel premium that drivers are currently paying. Postponing the implementation of the EU carbon market for heating and transport fuels does nothing to reduce their exposure to global oil markets or disruptions to gas supplies.

The governments demanding a delay should understand this particularly well. Italy remains heavily dependent on gas, while oil and gas together accounted for around 40% of Czechia’s energy supply in 2024. Poland’s domestic coal resources do not protect drivers from global oil prices. Across all three countries, helping households reduce their oil and gas consumption would strengthen energy security and reduce their exposure to future price shocks.

The ETS2, set to begin in 2028, generates revenues that governments can use for climate and social measures. Whether households experience it primarily as an additional cost or as part of a route to lower fossil fuel dependence will depend heavily on decisions governments take now.

The sums available to support households are substantial. Under the Social Climate Fund’s baseline allocations for 2026–2032, Poland could receive up to an estimated €11.4 billion in EU funding, Italy €7 billion and Czechia €1.6 billion, subject to the applicable funding rules and approval and delivery of their plans. National co-financing would add to these resources. These governments should be explaining how they will turn that funding into affordable alternatives for their citizens.

The priority should be people who cannot finance the switch themselves. Affordable electric car leasing can help lower-income workers who need a car. Better public transport can give others a reliable alternative. Home renovation and clean heating can reduce the energy needed to keep a family warm.

These programmes take time to design and deliver. Governments need to identify who needs help, remove upfront costs and make support simple to access. Waiting until carbon pricing starts would be a failure of preparation.

Governments do not need to wait for ETS2 to start helping households. The Social Climate Fund starts in 2026, with early financing from auctions under the existing carbon market, ETS1. Separately, the European Investment Bank’s initial €3 billion frontloading facility enables governments to finance investments ahead of future ETS2 revenues. The tools to prepare are already available; governments must put them to work.

Sweden is already doing so. Implementation of its €533 million Social Climate Plan is under way with applications for support to buy or lease new or used electric cars opening in March. By June, more than 12,000 applications had been received and nearly half approved. The scheme targets lower-income households in rural areas and places with limited public transport. Sweden is already turning its plan into practical support, helping households switch before ETS2 starts.

Today’s discussion brings Europe’s energy choices into focus. Leaders want lower bills, stronger competitiveness and less dependence on imported fossil fuels. Achieving those goals requires helping households use less oil and gas, with public support for those who cannot afford to do so alone.

There will always be another political reason to delay. Governments’ responsibility is to prepare and make the transition affordable. Families need help with their bills today and a credible route out of fossil fuel dependence. Another postponement is no substitute for that plan.