This week’s news that a large gas field has been discovered in Lincolnshire should be treated with caution. We here at Cliscep are sceptics, after all. There has been much excitement in some quarters about the possibility that vast amounts of gas could potentially be extracted and that this could enhance the UK’s energy security. A recent BBC article cited claims by the company that made the discovery (Egdon Resources) to the effect that it could generate a GDP contribution of £140bn and up to 250,000 direct and indirect jobs and offset 202 million tonnes of CO2 associated with imported gas – said to be equivalent to the annual emissions of “over 40 million cars”. When renewable energy companies make claims of this type I tend to be highly sceptical, and I will also reserve judgement in this case. It’s simply far too early to tell. There are also suggestions that any gas there might be will be capable of extraction only by fracking, and local people are concerned about this possibility. I think that concerns about the safety of fracking are overdone but, just as I believe that worried locals confronted with industrial scale wind, solar, pylon and BESS developments should be listened to, so should locals concerned about fracking. National infrastructure projects relating to the UK’s energy needs and security should be subject to a fair and objective planning regime, and not one driven by dogma one way or the other.

Which brings me to the nub of this issue. Now that fracking is potentially back on the agenda, it’s worth taking a look at the utterly inconsistent and hypocritical way in which our current government seeks to treat locals concerned about fracking and locals concerned about renewable energy projects and their associated industrial-scale infrastructure. A couple of internet articles cast some light on this topic. First, an article from Drill or Drop? in October 2022. Second, an article in the Metro from December 2024.

The first article was written around the time of Liz Truss and her ill-fated and short-lived government, which proposed to remove the ban on fracking. Ed Miliband, now Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, was then the Shadow Climate Secretary, and he took the opportunity to visit what the article described as the “shale gas village” of Misson in Nottinghamshire (a company had drilled a shale gas well nearby in 2019, though it had not yet secured planning permission to start fracking). Speaking in the village pub, Mr Miliband said he would stand with local communities and would ban fracking for good – 70% of village residents had signed a petition opposing the shale gas well. It is, I think, worth looking at what exactly Mr Miliband said, and comparing (and contrasting) it with what he and the Prime Minister have to say about people who oppose their favoured energy infrastructure projects. Here’s what he said to the inhabitants of Misson:

Labour will stand with communities in opposing the Conservatives’ dodgy plans to impose expensive, dirty and dangerous fracking on the British people.

Fracking would make no difference to energy prices and could risk the health of local communities, nature and water supplies.

Labour will stand up to Liz Truss’ unjust charter for earthquakes, including her plans to outsource decisions about local consent to fracking companies.

He is reported as having more to say, too. He described as “insulting” the suggestion that residents would be offered cash for consent. He said the government could not be trusted. Fracking would industrialise the local landscape and would ruin local businesses, leading to a loss of local employment, he said. There were cheaper, quicker, renewable alternatives to tackle the energy crisis, he added, in a statement of great dubiety.

Fast forward just over two years to the Metro article, with Mr Miliband now in a position of power, and it’s clear that all the things he held dear when talking about fracking don’t apply to his plans for renewable energy and associated developments. Unlike Liz Truss, he can be trusted! It seems that offering residents cash for consent is no longer insulting. Instead, he is reported as saying “The principle for this government is, if you host clean energy infrastructure in your community, you should benefit from it.” Among the other incentives offered to people living near such sites will be “community funds for solar and wind” he added. He now thinks:

It also means making some decisions that I think are the right decisions, but some people may not support – for example, the need for large onshore wind farms.

His concerns, when he was in opposition, no longer seem to count. His 2022 worries about industrialising the local landscape, ruining local businesses, and a consequent loss of local employment bother him no more. Also ditched is any plan to stand with local communities concerned about the imposition on them of expensive, dirty and dangerous industrial infrastructure. Risk to the health of local communities, nature and water supplies can now be ignored. Concerned that a BESS scheme on your doorstep might be dirty and dangerous? Bothered about local water sources, nature, health? Forget it. Sir Keir has vowed to defeat what he calls a challenge culture by taking on the Nimbys, as he so charmingly puts it.

It gets worse, too. Members of this government have repeatedly said, both when in opposition and now that they are in power, that they intend to “ban fracking for good”. In response to the Lincolnshire discovery, the Telegraph reports a spokesman for DESNZ as saying:

We intend to ban fracking for good and make Britain a clean energy superpower to protect current and future generations. The biggest risk to our energy security is staying dependent on fossil fuel markets and only by sprinting to clean power by 2030 can the UK take back control of its energy and protect both family and national finances from price spikes.

Whilst respecting the wishes of locals who are anxious about fracking, I regard the above comments as both imbecilic and undemocratic. What does banning fracking for good mean? Do they have the arrogance to assume that they can somehow prevent a future sovereign Parliament elected by voters some years hence from pursuing its own energy policy? What are they going to do? Booby trap the gas fields? Probably they think they can cap all existing shale wells in order to make future exploitation more difficult and more expensive. As for energy security, seeking to guarantee that in no circumstances will the UK in future be able to exploit its own energy resources has to be one of the crassest policies imaginable. By all means, as Labour has a constitutional mandate (albeit not a popular one, since only around 20% of the electorate voted for them) pursue the energy policy today that you believe in. I disagree with you, but that’s my problem – living in a democracy means that I respect the outcome of the election even though I disapprove of it. But how dare you purport to legislate for the future? This reflects comments in the early House of Lords debate about Great British Energy (GBE) to the effect that steps should be taken to “future proof” GBE against attempts by a future government to undermine it. Such sentiments are unacceptable in a democracy. I’m not very keen on hypocritical politicians either.