The Centre Party and Finns Party argue over which did more in government to curb pump prices – Yle checked the facts

The two governments used different mixes of taxes, renewable-fuel rules, and climate policy. Marin’s government aimed to reduce transport emissions, while Orpo’s government focused more directly on motorists’ rising costs. The choices matter because pump prices reflect both government decisions and energy-market changes.

Marin’s government raised fuel taxes, removing a paraffinic diesel tax relief in stages. During the 2022 energy crisis, it lowered the distribution obligation by 7.5 percentage points, to 12 percent. Orpo’s government cut fuel taxes at the start of 2024, then raised VAT to 25.5 percent. It also cut fuel taxes again and reduced distribution-obligation levels for 2024–2027.

The result is a mixed comparison. Expert Hanna Kalenoja says Orpo’s government reduced motorists’ costs more overall. Marin’s government advanced transport electrification and kept stronger long-term environmental pressure. Orpo’s government retained the distribution obligation but created a slower, more realistic increase toward future climate requirements.

The clearest numerical difference concerns the fuel tax on 95-octane petrol. Marin’s government increased the tax as part of its effort to reduce transport emissions. Orpo’s government later reduced the tax to ease the costs faced by motorists. These figures describe tax effects, not every movement in the final pump price.

Under Marin, the tax increase raised the price of 95-octane petrol by 6.6 cents per litre. The government also phased out a tax relief for paraffinic diesel between 2021 and 2023. Under Orpo, the first fuel-tax reduction at the beginning of 2024 lowered the petrol price by 4.4 cents per litre. Later, the government announced a further three-cent reduction.

That three-cent reduction was divided into two equal parts. The first took effect at the beginning of the relevant year, while the second was expected in January 2027. Orpo’s VAT increase to 25.5 percent subsequently added roughly two to three cents per litre, partly offsetting earlier relief.

The fuel-distribution obligation is a rule requiring oil companies to mix renewable fuels into petrol and diesel. It is a climate-policy tool. By increasing the renewable share, policymakers aim to reduce the use of fossil fuels and lower transport emissions. The rule therefore affects both environmental outcomes and fuel costs.

The renewable component is usually more expensive than fossil fuel, according to the article. A higher obligation can therefore increase the cost built into each litre. During the energy crisis, Marin’s government reduced the requirement by 7.5 percentage points, bringing it to 12 percent. The article estimates that this kept petrol about 10–12 cents cheaper than it would otherwise have been.

The obligation does not change pump prices instantly. Fuel distributors make long-term, annual purchasing contracts. Existing contracts can delay the effect of a rule change. Orpo’s government kept the obligation on an upward path, but lowered the required levels for 2024–2027 instead of abandoning the policy.

The required renewable share creates a trade-off between cheaper fuel and lower transport emissions. Renewable fuels used in the blend are generally more expensive than fossil fuels. A higher obligation can therefore add to the cost of a litre. A lower obligation can reduce that cost, especially when energy prices are already putting pressure on households.

During the energy crisis, the distribution obligation was lowered by 7.5 percentage points, to 12 percent. The article estimates that this kept petrol around 10–12 cents per litre cheaper than without the reduction. Orpo’s government later set lower obligation levels for 2024–2027, reaching 19.5 percent instead of the previously targeted 29 percent.

The environmental consequence runs in the opposite direction. Lower renewable content means less immediate emissions reduction, while higher content supports stronger climate progress. The article notes that freezing the obligation, as Sweden did, would significantly increase transport emissions. Price effects can also arrive late because distributors use long-term contracts.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 changed the policy situation sharply. The article describes the result as a major energy crisis. Fuel and energy costs became an urgent problem, while Finland’s longer-term goal of reducing transport emissions remained. The government therefore had to manage immediate household costs alongside environmental commitments.

Marin’s government chose to lower the distribution obligation by 7.5 percentage points, to 12 percent. Because renewable fuels are generally more expensive, the change was estimated to keep petrol 10–12 cents per litre cheaper than it otherwise would have been. Hanna Kalenoja describes the government as being caught between two difficult choices and needing to act quickly.

The compromise did not remove the climate policy. The obligation remained in place, and Kalenoja says even a future Marin government would probably not have restored the old target path through one large increase. Orpo later created a slower rise, reaching 19.5 percent rather than the earlier 29 percent target for the period.

There is no precise government-versus-crude percentage in the source article. It does not say that Finnish decisions control a specific share of the petrol price. Instead, it compares monthly 95-octane prices with the average price of Brent crude and marks major tax decisions. The comparison shows those decisions affected pump prices only a little in either direction.

The article gives concrete examples of tax effects. Marin’s fuel-tax increase added 6.6 cents per litre, while Orpo’s first reduction lowered the price by 4.4 cents. Orpo’s VAT increase then raised petrol by about two to three cents. These are measurable policy effects, but they do not establish a fixed percentage of the total price.

The remaining movement is connected in the article’s analysis to international oil-price changes, represented by Brent. Other factors, such as renewable-fuel contracts, can delay or complicate the effect of policy changes. Therefore, the source supports a comparison, not an exact split.

Brent crude oil is a widely used reference price for crude oil from the North Sea. The article uses the average Brent price as an international market indicator. Comparing it with Finnish petrol prices helps show how much pump prices move alongside the underlying oil market rather than only after Finnish tax decisions.

The article’s graphic compares the monthly price of the most-used transport petrol, 95-octane, with the average price of North Sea Brent oil. It also marks the dates of major tax decisions by the Marin and Orpo governments. Those decisions appear to have affected pump prices only slightly in either direction in the comparison.

Brent is useful because it supplies a consistent external reference. Finnish governments can change fuel taxes, VAT, and the distribution obligation, but they do not set the global crude-oil price. The comparison therefore helps separate domestic policy effects from broader energy-market movements, although the article does not provide a precise percentage split.