According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a wake-up call occurs when something happens that "should make you realise that you need to take action to change a situation".
Which begs the question, how many wake-up calls is it possible for one entity to have before they cease to be wake-up calls?
This is where the UK finds itself in relation to energy security. It was subject to one piercing alarm over Ukraine and did precious little. Now, with Iran, four years later, it is receiving the same. In that intervening period, steps could have been taken to plug the gap, to ensure that the UK did not have to import so much of its fuel. But oh no, the country finds itself hopelessly exposed to overseas energy shocks.
Take gas. The UK has only two days’ worth of gas storage. It pursues a ‘just-in-time’ policy, under which 75 per cent of the country’s needs come from its own fields in the North Sea and via pipeline from Norway. The rest is imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) via tankers and from storage tanks in Europe.
That clearly leaves the UK vulnerable to whatever is unfolding elsewhere, to being dependent on others. There may not be enough LNG to go around or if there is, the UK must meet rocketing prices. It could be interruption caused by conflict or weather – a prolonged cold winter in Europe will play havoc with Britain’s supply because other nations will ensure their own people are served first.
Meanwhile, the government is pushing ahead with a transition to renewables, which is proceeding at a snail’s pace.
Make that three wake-up calls where gas is concerned. There was Ukraine and now there is Iran, but the government’s own energy adviser, the National Energy System Operator (Neso), also said as much in its report last October. Neso signalled the UK could run out of gas by 2030 and flagged "an emerging risk to gas supply security".
This week, Sir Dieter Helm, professor of economic policy at the University of Oxford and a specialist in energy economics, produced a damning report, Britain’s energy security – what the Iran war reveals and the lessons that should be learned. In it, he says: "The central pillar of energy policy should be security. It is no good being 'green' if you cannot defend your country. In the British case, a central piece should be a gas security policy, not bleating on and on about 'getting out of gas'. We need gas and we will go on needing it for a long time to come. It is essential in the renewables strategy. It is not fossil fuels versus renewables. The reality is that it is both and it is going to continue to be both."
Sir Dieter’s view is echoed by Enrique Cornejo, director of policy at Offshore Energies UK, who told me: "The current conflict is a stark reminder of the importance of homegrown energy in delivering energy security. When domestic production declines, we do not reduce demand, we simply replace home‑produced energy with imports, including liquefied natural gas shipped from thousands of miles away," he said. "Internal Offshore Energies UK analysis has consistently shown that this increases costs, emissions and vulnerability, leaving households and businesses more exposed when geopolitical tensions disrupt global markets."
Cornejo added: "To prevent a repeat of this situation, the UK needs to take a more pragmatic approach to energy security. That means maintaining and investing in domestic oil and gas production during the transition, alongside accelerating renewables and low‑carbon technologies. Our response to the government's consultation on how to ensure a secure future supply of gas shows that a stronger focus on domestic supply could significantly reduce reliance on imported LNG, improving resilience while supporting jobs and lowering the overall carbon footprint of the energy we still need to use.
New policies
"This war should prompt an urgent re‑examination of UK energy policy. Energy security and the energy transition must move forward together. Recent policy discussions within OEUK have underlined the need for long‑term clarity, stable investment conditions and a realistic assessment of demand," he said. "Without that, the UK risks repeating cycles of exposure every time global events put pressure on energy markets."
This week, too, UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves warned the House of Commons of rising inflation because of the US-Israel strikes on Iran. Reeves will be mindful that a 10 per cent rise in the price of oil usually equates to a 1 per cent rise in inflation. Fuel prices are already climbing. Next, businesses will find they are paying more, then household bills will suffer. Aware of this as well, there is talk that the Bank of England may not reduce interest rates further this year and could actually increase them to combat the inflationary threat.
The missiles caught governments around the world by surprise. But it is a government’s job to prepare for surprises, to counter risk. Now, in the UK we have a situation where the Chancellor is heralding rising inflation and wishing the firing would stop. Reeves said "a rapid de-escalation" would be the best protection against a jump in prices.
Rather than put itself at the mercy of other nations and their foreign policies, and whether or not they choose to wage war, where its energy need is concerned the UK should be putting its own house in order and focusing on what it alone can control.
