When energy costs rise, people feel the hit directly. Not only do their own energy bills go up, but so too does the price of food, electronics, and almost all other goods. People are quick to act in situations like this, as the now outgoing Government of Kazakhstan learnt following large protests over the cost of fuel earlier this week.

In the UK, the Government has tried to mitigate against rising prices through tinkering with the energy price cap (which has only worsened the problem - as predicted in 2017) and extending loans to troubled energy producers. Whilst proposed solutions, such as increasing the Warm Homes Allowance and cutting VAT, may address the problem in the short term, it does nothing to increase overall market supply and resilience. 

This is where hydraulic fracturing (fracking) comes in. This process of extracting oil and natural gas through the use of pumping pressurised fluids deep under the earth could be a source of large amounts of cheap and relatively clean energy. 

Prior to 2019, the Government’s position was extremely favourable. Private companies were encouraged to explore and drill for natural gas and oil in this way, and it was widely acknowledged, even by environmental groups, that gas obtained by fracking was a ‘bridge fuel’ which would allow us to transition away from dirtier coal and towards nuclear and renewable fuel sources.

In the United States, it was fracking that finally allowed the nation to gain energy independence. It has provided the nation with trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and helped lower energy prices for all. This is desperately needed in the United Kingdom where inflation is soaring and energy price hikes are set to cripple households up and down the country.

Fracking is also a lot better for the environment than other forms of fossil fuels which we currently use. Shale gas is significantly better for air quality. Particulate matter (PM) are small particles which when inhaled, can cause cancer and other health complications. Research has shown that natural gas contains a PM2.5 footprint 400 times smaller than coal, and a 4000-fold reduction in sulphur dioxide. Natural gas also produces the least CO2 of any fossil fuel. This is not to say that we shouldn’t aim to move towards cleaner energy sources like nuclear and wind, but that fracking is a quick solution and enables an immediate improvement in air quality.

Sadly, the Government’s approach changed in 2019, when the ‘precautionary principle’ was applied and an immediate moratorium was announced on fracking given the difficulty in ‘accurately predict[ing] the probability of tremors associated with fracking.’

Whilst this may be true to a certain extent, we must assess the trade-off between preventing a small disruption lasting several seconds with the loss of an important and relatively green energy source. Not only are earthquakes from fracking exceedingly rare, when they do occur their impact is small and often unnoticeable. Almost all of these ‘earthquakes’ are in fact microearthquakes, which cannot be felt and score less than 1 on the Richter scale. The impacts that any eventual earthquake would have on surrounding areas could easily be addressed through sensible legislation, say introducing a pigouvian tax on earthquakes over a score of 1 on the Richter scale. Organisations undertaking fracking operations would then have to pay out a fixed sum to each household or community within a given radius. The benefits are two-fold - we could benefit from cleaner and cheaper energy whilst local communities would also see a boost to their economies.

More likely is that opposition to fracking from green activists stems from idealism. There is a nirvana fallacy that just because natural gas still emits some carbon emissions, it should be ruled out entirely. This approach fails to assess the trade offs and unforeseen consequences, which as Kazakhstan shows, are very real. Allowing fracking is a quick and affordable way to address the energy crisis, and a move that the Government should make as fast as possible.