Energy gap

When significant quantities of gasproducing shale were identified in Britain, one of the great cheerleaders for its exploitation was Boris Johnson. He wrote in 2012 that it represented “unadulterated good news” that would create thousands of jobs in a new industry, help meet carbon reduction targets, and reinforce the country’s energy security. A few years later, when public opposition to fracking proved hard to break down, Mr Johnson suggested communities with reserves beneath their land should have a commercial interest in its exploitation.

Now Mr Johnson presides over a Government that has just announced a ban on fracking. Green campaigners are overjoyed, but the majority of the population are entitled to feel somewhat perplexed. Here was a great opportunity to emulate America’s success in cutting prices for consumers, reducing dependence on imports and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. But now it has been abandoned on what look to be as much political as scientific grounds.

The likelihood of the Conservatives reviving the idea if they win the election and earthquakes can be eliminated seems remote. The ban is blamed on an earthquake in August that was well above an albeit unrealistically low threshold for acceptable drilling impacts. The industry has not helped its cause by breaking promises to limit seismic events.

But the Government and the other parties contesting the election now owe it to voters to spell out where Britain’s energy future – especially the security of supply – now lies. They are keen to tell us what they are against, whether it be shale, nuclear, oil, gas or even wood. What we want to know is how they propose to keep the lights on.