UK’s Rishi Sunak Bans Fracking But Government Green Lights New Coal Production

What the frack?

Britain’s approach to fossil fuels is nothing if not inconsistent.

Hot on the heels of re-banning hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking) in the UK, British prime minister Rishi Sunak just cut a deal with the United States to import even more natural gas from America. Around 5 billion extra cubic feet of U.S. natural gas will come to Britain from America over the next twelve months, according to press reports.

That deal will increase the total imports of U.S. natural gas to about 10 bn cubic feet, with almost 7 bn of that produced by fracking.

There’s another way of looking at this: Britons as a whole are too precious about extracting vital natural gas from its own plentiful deposits across its own territory. They think as long as Britain isn’t doing something that the government doesn’t think is safe, it is is still ok to consume similarly extracted gas only its from another country. (BTW this is almost the definition of NIMBY —Not In My Back Yard — attitude.)

Meanwhile, while Rishi Sunak is taking care that Britain doesn’t frack, the same Conservative government decided it was acceptable to give approval for the development of the first new coal mine in 30 years, earlier this week.

Its hard to see how this gels with the environmental concerns that were used when banning fracking.

Coal is mega dangerous, especially to children and also to the miners who extract the fossil fuel. It is known to contain significant levels of the toxic metal mercury which is linked to causing “Neurological and behavioural disorders,” according to Word Health Organization. Put simply, this solid black energy is really bad stuff.

One of the reasons given for allowing the mine to open is that it will provide jobs in an economically deprived area. How long will those jobs last? Not long probably. Most western countries have pledged to eliminate coal as a fuel in relatively short order.

Fracked natural gas on the other hand would provide a cleaner energy than coal (when burned it produces carbon dioxide and water) and jobs in a cutting-edge part of the economy. And those jobs will likely last far longer than those in the approved coal mine.

Question for Mr. Sunak: What’s going on a Number 10 that could explain these inconsistent moves?