Why fracking debate does matter for future

Having said that, I also think it’s appropriate to change your mind sometimes.

Take fracking for example. Back in the day, I thought it was a really good idea. I saw the reports from the US about how fracking had transformed its energy industry, providing a cheap source of power.

If America could do it, why couldn’t we? It seemed perfectly logical, especially if the geology in the UK was suitable. Crack on, I thought. Get those drilling sites up and running and let’s take steps to securing our energy needs.

Of course, my enthusiasm for fracking failed to take into account the vastness of the United States with many of the drilling sites miles from centres of population. And of course we started to hear about the downsides of fracking including polluted underground water courses, ecological damage and earth tremors.

You might get away with some of those things in a remote American wilderness but the experience of those living near the Cuadrilla site in Preston New Road tells a different story – one man-made earth tremor is one too many.

That’s a very local effect of fracking but the question I then started asking myself is do we want to add even more fossil fuel extraction to our energy mix. You would have to be very uninformed not to see the effects of climate change happening now. Just think back to the summer when we had an unprecedented heatwave, so adding to the problem didn’t seem to make sense.

Oh, and any suggestion that fracked gas would lower your energy bill – as former Tory Chancellor George Osborne once stated – simply isn’t true because gas is bought and sold according to the international going rate.

So there we have it. I’ve changed my mind. On balance and after weighing up the evidence I’ve come to the conclusion fracking probably isn’t a good idea.

Maybe we should be prioritising onshore wind farms instead. Yes, I know the Tories don’t like them because the spoil the view from their Cotswold weekend cottages but I think we have to accept that all sources of energy generation come at a cost.

But if you think the fracking row this doesn’t apply to you, think again.

Most of Warrington is covered by fracking licences and Cllr Sarah Hall, Labour’s parliamentary candidate for the Warrington South constituency has gone public, saying that any fracking in Warrington could endanger areas such as Woolston, Rixton, and Penketh.

At this point, it would be easy to take a pop at the current Warrington South incumbent, Tory MP Andy Carter who appears on the face of it to have done something of a U-turn where fracking is concerned (but as I said earlier, we are all entitled to change our minds).

Three years ago Mr Carter applauded the government’s decision to impose a moratorium on fracking, saying: “I was clear in August that I did not believe there was sufficient evidence to proceed with fracking development following earthquakes in Lancashire…”

By last week, Mr Carter’s position seemed to have shifted somewhat when he said: “If we are to proceed in this country [with fracking] then extracting shale gas should only go ahead where there is local support, obtained through a local referendum that can be independently verified.”

Of course, that was the position he had to adopt when he voted with the government against a Labour motion in Parliament last week to ban fracking.

Without going into the farcical political strategies behind the vote, Tory MPs were put in an impossible position whereby they would have lost the whip if they didn’t vote against the Labour motion which meant Tories were, in effect, voting against their own government’s manifesto promise.

So don’t think too badly about Mr Carter. Obviously he voted so he could keep the Tory whip.

That means he can also maintain his place on the Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

And why is that important? Because that is the very committee which is currently hearing evidence against a certain Boris Johnson and whether he misled Parliament.

Politics can be a funny old game.