The Government energy strategy that we wrote about last week has finally been pushed out into the wild, though the absence of the usual  pdf copy suggests that work was ongoing on it late into last night. Much as expected, it’s heavy on nuclear, announces a new independent technical review being conducted by the British Geological Society on fracking, and persists in supporting the further extraction of North Sea oil and gas.

What is perhaps more interesting is the discussion of renewables, in particular the very vague commitments on offshore wind. “The Government,” it says, “recognises the range of views on onshore wind.” Despite increasing calls for local planning rules on onshore wind farm becoming ever more vigorous, the Government has declined to look at the matter, instead preferring to “consult this year on developing local partnerships for a limited number of supportive communities who wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure”.

We imagine that questions might start to be asked about exactly where the Government is sourcing its “range of views”. Polling consistently demonstrates that support amongst the general population for onshore wind projects is high, with a majority agreeing that rules should be changed to encourage development. This is no doubt tied in with the general concerns around sustainable energy security and supply that we discussed in last week’s piece.

So if public support is consistently high, then what’s stopping the Government from making changes to promote growth? The answer is likely to be a little closer to home. In the lead up to the release of the strategy, almost 100 Tory MPs and ministers were reported to have been lobbying against changes to allow more onshore wind, something which no doubt contributed to the delayed release  of the strategy.

Their motivations range from claimed environmental concerns, to efficiency all the way to the old favourite: aesthetics. With public support higher than ever though, are they fighting a ghost battle? Interestingly, research commissioned form YouGov back in 2018 indicated that MPs consistently overestimate the degree of opposition amongst the general public to onshore wind. In that survey, more than 50% of MPs believed that strong opposition to onshore windfarms ran at 20% of the population, instead of the actual figure, which was 2%.

The Government is naturally concerned about the optics of a huge revolt on energy issues, but with temperatures running high over energy supply, costs and security, are they likely to find themselves on an even more tricky to navigate knife edge if they back themselves into a corner on onshore wind? Perhaps the more optimal solution, rather than giving into the, what seem to be ill-founded, fears of their own backbenchers, might have been rather than shutting down the idea, to announce a consultation and engagement programme looking at the matter.

With concerns mounting about energy, and a strategy that seems to be not much more than an aspirational ‘business as usual, but with more nuclear and more fracking’ model, they might be well advised to ask if people would prefer to have a wind farm or a nuclear reactor in their back gardens. So what’s the solution? Where there is a significant disconnect between the public and the Government, and with costs rising and no clear solutions in place it seems only likely to become more significant, maybe it’s time for a broader consultation and engagement programme on the future of energy supply in the UK.

Such an exercise would allow the Government to collect the opinions of the general public and work up an energy policy that could carry public support in the sort of long-term way that is required for proper strategic planning, particularly when considering longer term challenges such as climate change and geopolitical instability. It can hardly be insignificant that this morning on Sky News the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy had to admit that the strategy was “more of a medium three, four, five-year answer”. He was talking within the context of more short-term energy concerns, but the same could easily apply for more distant considerations.

Consultation and engagement could also help to bridge the gap between MPs and the public, and give the Government political cover for a bolder, more transformational programme. Boris Johnson has always been a man with an eye on his political legacy, his mind ever on living up to his idol, Winston Churchill. What better legacy could there be than leaving behind a true long-term energy security strategy? The BBC reported today a Downing Street source commenting that this is now being seen as an “energy supply strategy”, which seems a little less evolutionary.

So would consultation help? It could certainly give a better appreciation of the current situation and what the population would be more inclined to look favourably on. At the moment, the Government could be playing with fire, assuming people will be fine with things that have proved intensely controversial in the past. If the strategy is to work- they need public buy-in.

The key question for this strategy will be how it matches up when it meets the cold, hard realities of the world. Will gambling on nuclear pay off when it comes to actually building reactors? If the Government concludes that fracking is safe following the review, how will Tory backbenchers feel when applications start flooding in for shale gas extraction sites (many of which are thought to be in red wall seats)? Will they regret blocking onshore wind, and will the Government regret not asking the country how they feel? We should be just starting to see the first fruition of this strategy around the next election. It could be inconvenient timing.