The United Kingdom has announced a major pivot in its energy strategy, pouring billions into a domestic shale gas revolution while geothermal energy remains a tantalising but commercially elusive prospect. The move is a pragmatic, if contentious, response to the ongoing energy crisis and the need for energy security. Yet from a climate perspective, it represents a gamble that could either stabilise emissions or derail the nation’s net-zero ambitions.
Geothermal energy, which harnesses heat from the Earth’s crust, is abundant beneath the UK. Hot rocks at depths of 5 to 10 kilometres could theoretically provide a baseload of clean electricity and heat for centuries. However, the technology remains expensive. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), which require fracturing hot dry rocks and circulating water, cost upward of £20 per megawatt-hour more than onshore wind or solar. Drilling costs alone can exceed £10 million per well, with no guarantee of viable flow rates. For context, the UK’s heat demand is roughly 1,000 terawatt-hours per year, and geothermal could meet a large fraction, but not without massive upfront capital.
The government’s decision instead to champion a ‘British shale revolution’ is a bet on cheap, abundant natural gas. The Bowland Shale formation in northern England is estimated to hold trillions of cubic feet of gas. Fracking, the process used to extract it, is proven in the United States, where it transformed the energy landscape. But the UK is not the US. Population density, regulatory hurdles, and public opposition are far greater. The government argues that domestic shale gas could reduce reliance on imports, lower prices, and provide a bridge fuel to a low-carbon future. Methane emits roughly half the CO2 of coal when burned, but leaks during extraction and transport can negate this benefit. Moreover, burning any fossil fuel emits CO2. The government claims that new monitoring and capture technologies can limit fugitive emissions to under 1%, but independent studies suggest real-world rates are often higher.
From a climate urgency perspective, the calculus is sobering. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report is clear: to keep warming below 1.5°C, global emissions must peak before 2025 and decline 43% by 2030. Every tonne of CO2 counts. Shale gas locks in a new fossil fuel infrastructure that will operate for decades. Meanwhile, geothermal, though expensive now, is on a cost decline curve similar to that of solar and wind a decade ago. Public investment could accelerate that decline. Ironically, the expertise from drilling for shale gas directly applies to deep geothermal. The same drill rigs, seismic imaging, and fracturing techniques can be used for EGS. A coordinated industrial strategy could develop both resources, with short-term gas production funding long-term geothermal scale-up. The UK’s current approach, however, appears to pick one over the other.
The environmental impact of shale extraction is not negligible. Induced seismicity, water contamination, and land use are real concerns. Yet they are not insurmountable with robust regulation. The challenge is political will. The government has streamlined planning permissions and removed local veto powers, a move critics call a democratic deficit. Supporters argue it is necessary to counter a vocal minority that blocks all development.
For the public, the narrative is one of trade-offs. Cheap energy now versus a stable climate later. The government frames shale as a solution to high bills and energy insecurity. But the scientific reality is that maintaining the status quo of fossil fuel infrastructure is incompatible with the Paris Agreement. The UK has pledged to reduce emissions 78% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels. Without a rapid phase-out of gas, that target is unachievable.
I have interviewed geologists, engineers, and policy makers. The consensus among independent experts is clear: geothermal is the superior long-term bet for clean, reliable baseload power. The UK has a world-class resource in the Weardale Granite, the East Midlands, and Cornwall. Pilot projects exist but remain small. The £100 million committed to geothermal research is a fraction of what is needed. In contrast, billions are earmarked for shale.
In my reporting, I have seen how political cycles favour the tangible: a drilling rig, a gas flare, a lower price at the pump. Geothermal is invisible, buried deep, and pays off only after years. But the planet does not respond to election cycles. It responds to cumulative emissions. Every unit of shale gas extracted and burned adds to the stock of CO2. The question is whether we can afford that addition.
The UK’s shale revolution is a dramatic headline. But the most dramatic story may be the one unfolding silently beneath our feet: the heat of the Earth, waiting to be tapped, if we have the patience and the will to invest.
