This exchange is really important. Sam’s argument is that if we’d gone faster on renewables and energy efficiency then we’d currently be having to buy less gas and bills would be lower. This is objectively and demonstrably true.
https://twitter.com/samuelhall0/status/1478076931811819529
Andy from the IEA’s response is that if we’d invested more in domestic gas supplies and been less ‘dogmatically’ focused on net zero we’d have to import less gas and bills would be lower. This is entirely hypothetical and based on at least three questionable assumptions: 
1. That you could build a large shale gas industry in the UK in defiance of massive local opposition and planning constraints.
2. That you could convince North Sea investors to fund a new dash for gas at a time when economies are committed to decarbonisation, renewables are more competitive than ever, and CCS development is badly lagging. Witness what just happened with Cambo.
3. That any increase in domestic gas supplies would happen quickly enough and at sufficient scale to impact global gas prices. This is the most heroic assumption of all.
And there’s a fourth assumption. That it’s wise to deprioritise decarbonisation in the midst of a climate crisis, gas price crisis, global clean tech revolution, and surge in voter support for environmental action.
There’s considerable agreement between critics and supporters of net zero, including businesses, on the need to curb energy bill hikes through scrapping VAT and reforming levies on electricity bills.
But the idea the UK can unilaterally solve the gas price crisis by ramping up gas exploration is based more on wishful thinking than any serious analysis. Meanwhile, the potential to invest in competitive renewables and efficiency improvements are sitting right there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
