Spot the difference. Fracking, which is climate-polluting and unproven in the UK, gets “all-out” government backing, with ministers steamrolling over local opposition. Onshore windfarms, proven to be low-cost and low-carbon, get undermined by the government, with local opposition given power to block applications.
The decision by the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, to overturn Lancashire council’s rejection of Cuadrilla’s plan to drill four fracking wells in the county is, therefore, nothing short of hypocrisy.
It is a vital win for the nascent UK shale gas industry. But these are merely the opening skirmishes. To really know if fracking can provide significant gas for the UK, hundreds - if not thousands - of wells need to be drilled. Given the hand-to-hand combat that accompanies even single wells at the moment, the frackers still have an uphill struggle.
But the government has their back. It has promised cash handouts to local people in fracking areas: compensation or bribes, depending on your point of view. Yet why are the same incentives not offered for windfarms? A key underlying reason for opposition to turbines is the feeling of invasion of a community which derives no benefit from the development.
Ministers cannot say they did not know. The government’s own public opinion poll shows nearly eight in 10 people agree that renewable energy developments should provide direct benefits to the communities in which they are located. The poll also shows 81% in support of renewables, with 4% against. Contrast that with fracking: 19% in favour and 31% against, with the rest undecided.
So why does the government persist? The heady fracking fumes drifting across the Atlantic from the US, where shale oil and gas have transformed the energy market, are intoxicating. Ministers initially argued that fracking in the UK would cut energy bills, only to discover than no one else agreed with them.
The US is huge, relatively sparsely populated and loosely regulated: a fracker’s dream. Europe is the opposite, meaning shale gas is unlikely to make more than small dent in its integrated gas market, particularly given widespread opposition across the continent. Shale gas could cost double to produce in Europe compared to the US, experts estimate.
This makes the energy department’s mantra - keeping bills low for hardworking families - another piece of hypocrisy. Backing fracking that won’t lower bills, while crushing low-carbon wind power, which will.
If not lower bills, then how about more secure energy supplies? North Sea gas is running out and a few thousand shale gas wells could significantly offset that. Such a shale gas boom would be needed to make the industry economic.
But, perversely, this could actually decrease energy security, according to analysts E&Y: “A shale gas boom in Europe could, in practice, weaken energy security in Europe through over-reliance on a single energy source.” A smart mix of renewables, efficiency, storage and interconnectors, as backed by the government’s own National Infrastructure Commission, the National Grid and industry group Energy UK, could deliver security cleanly and cheaply.
How about shale gas as a low-carbon fuel, as touted by its backers? Gas is only relatively low carbon if it replaces coal. But coal in the UK is already dwindling fast, before serious fracking has even begun, and the government has pledged a complete coal phase out by 2025.
Furthermore, the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, say the UK’s electricity system must be all but decarbonised by 2030. That’s gives just a 16-year window for the ramping up and closing down of a fracking industry that’s still in nappies, unless carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology comes to the rescue to bury emissions - and the government binned its flagship CCS policy in November.
Javid’s decision shows the government remains unwavering in its support for unproven, climate-polluting and unpopular fracking, whilst cracking down on proven, clean and popular renewables. The fight to deliver a smart energy policy is tough enough - supplies must be simultaneously affordable, clean and secure - without shooting yourself in the foot.
