Delaying ETS2 Will Not Protect Households from the Next Energy Crisis

T&E’s Kädi Ristkok explains why postponing the ETS2 is a bad idea 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. The electric fireplace at the center of our living room creates a lovely ambiance.

The ductless heat pump (upper left) efficiently provides the heat to keep us warm. October 16, 2026 33 seconds Transport & Environment (T&E) 0 Comments Support 's work through a Substack subscription, on Patreon, or on Stripe. Help us produce all of the high-quality, original content we publish week after week despite the challenges of content-scraping AI, antisocial media, inflation, and other hurdles.

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.