It prompted me to shake my head in disbelief that the UK is still embarking on a policy of self-harm, neither benefitting our economy or the planet. My conclusion is that what the IEA wrote and what I am about to, is in the words of Basil Fawlty, “a statement of the bleedin’ obvious.”

As an economist, I get frustrated with the argument used by some well meaning but badly advised individuals who claim that increasing supply of a good (such as gas) will not impact upon prices because it is a globally traded commodity. If they said any increase in UK supply may only have a marginal impact, at least that’s more accurate. But these same well-meaning individuals also make the case for not exploiting the reserves the UK has access to and they support decreasing the UK’s production of gas in the name of climate change.

Reducing UK production of gas (vast majority piped directly into our networks) with gas demand constant, will only lead to imported gas supplies to grow. Another obvious statement. But the economic consequences of this should be a concern.

Investment in UK extraction will fall, it won’t disappear just move around as capital does. Most likely to our North Sea neighbour Norway, who do not have the same political reservations as us. Jobs will continue to be lost in the UK half of the North Sea, while expanding on the other side. (Robert Gordon University is predicting a 1,000 UK jobs lost a month). UK tax revenues will fall, as duties and levies shrink, and as income tax and national insurance contributions drop. Consumption will take a hit, so VAT falls too. At the same time, welfare payments rise to pay for the unemployment created. It is all so “bleedin’ obvious.”

But what of the climate? North Sea gas piped into our networks emits a quarter of the production emissions of imported LNG, so if carbon is the driver of our North Sea gas policy, then what we should do is “bleedin’ obvious.”