Ms Tara Connolly:

I think I can come in quickly. I reiterate that the life cycle carbon emissions do not just involve the fracking of the gas but also the embodied energy and carbon from cooling down that gas, shipping it across the Atlantic and regasifying it. Europe had the chance to get a handle on this through a methane regulation that is under debate. Unfortunately, the proposal that emerged from the Commission last December did not include any robust measures on imported energy. Given Europe imports 90% of its energy, this leaves us with very few tools to address this problem. There is a global methane pledge but it remains to be seen how valuable that will be.

Regarding where we are likely to get it from, last year, the US became the largest exporter of gas, primarily through LNG, so it is very likely it would come from there. Admittedly, there could be some coming in to UK LNG terminals. The question is whether us building an LNG terminal would encourage increased production in the US because that is a conversation happening there where it is being argued the US needs to ramp up to save Europe and Europe needs US gas. The question of how we build an LNG terminal without a 20-year contract with a supplier arises because that is normally what it wants.

I covered human rights in my opening statement. It is a question of whether we are jumping from the frying pan into the fire. It is a shame the last time Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, we did not use that opportunity to accelerate away. We would be in a much better position than we are now. Economics obviously stood in the way of that. Gas is always going to be cheaper than LNG. Very little was done and eight years were wasted. At the time, NGOs were really pushing for a much higher renewable energy target and energy savings target, which are on the table eight years later. There are no great options in terms of LNG imports either in terms of sources or volume. I again underline that we are in an incredibly tight global LNG market. There are serious concerns across civil society across Europe that decision-makers, governments and the Commission are focusing far too much on securing additional supplies over trying rapidly to accelerate the phasing out of gas demand. That is the best way for us to ensure energy security. Those with the least ability to pay will end up not just having to pay more but not being able to afford it at all.

Regarding green hydrogen, it is important to underline that 99% of hydrogen in Europe is produced from fossil fuels. We cannot underestimate the challenge of simply decarbonising that existing production, which is why I have been trying to emphasise that the scale is a challenge and, therefore, regarding conversations around just putting hydrogen into all of the existing gas infrastructure and having hydrogen heat our homes, I do not think this is even desirable. I would not like to have to pay for a hydrogen boiler or a hydrogen car. We really need to have a serious conversation about what happens to that gas infrastructure that will not be needed in a future with far fewer volumes of gas flooding into our residential sectors in particular.