Their CEO, as reported in the media, suggested that if gas is going to be used in our energy system, he had no objection to it being from the North Sea. He argued that its carbon emissions would be lower than imported gas. I welcome the admission.

If carbon emissions are the enemy, then we have a duty to reduce and then eliminate them if we are to get to net zero. According to the CCC we will be using gas for decades to come, even if that role is just for power generation back-up. So, using gas from the North Sea, transporting it via pipes produces fewer carbon emissions than importing it from Qatar or the US. I don’t think there is any disputing that fact. So why not extract what gas we can from our own waters rather than importing it?

But emissions should not be the only consideration. Importing gas, rather than using our own, has a negative impact upon our balance of payments. So why inflict the problem on ourselves?

Paying UK workers to extract gas for our use, means our economy keeps the rewards. These workers get taxed and what they have left they spend in our shops. It’s good for economic growth. Their taxes go towards paying for public services. And put bluntly, workers pay into the system, unemployed, former gas workers take out, giving less for the NHS, schools etc.

I know firms operating in the North Sea complain about the higher tax rates imposed on them recently, but if the government take nearly 80 per cent of the profits in tax, which means more money available to fund public services, why shut down the North Sea operations? Firms will be buying goods and paying for services here in the UK, which again is good for economic growth.

So, is the opposition to North Sea gas really about emissions? Or is it simply virtue signalling. Telling the world to look how good we are, while we inflict harm on our economy.