There are certain statements about matters economic which act as those little red flags. If someone can make such an argument, use such logic, then everything else they’ve got to say on the subject can be rejected. For the thing they’ve said, that red flag, is of such absurdity that clearly they’ve no understanding of the point at issue.

At which point we give you Caroline Lucas:

Why else would they be arguing for more fracking or further North Sea gas investment, supposedly to drive bills down, when they know that any gas produced would sell at today’s global gas prices and simply feed windfall profits?

Rather than any arguments - true arguments as it happens, for natural gas is not globally fungible - that the set up to the point is wrong let’s take it as being correct.

So, we increase supply and that increased supply adds to global supply. That therefore means that it is the global price of gas that is changed by that increase in supply. All 7 billion human beings therefore benefit from North Sea or fracking production of natural gas. Or, perhaps only the roughly 5 billion in advanced societies that use natural gas. Or possibly every farmer in the world as fertiliser prices reduce. Or, well, lots and lots of people through a variety of channels.

The argument being put forward by Ms. Lucas is therefore “We can’t do that because just everyone will benefit!”

We can therefore reject everything Ms. Lucas has to say on the subject because that is, clearly and obviously, a logical argument of the utmost, extreme, absurdity.