The hunt for energy is not going to be pretty

„New technologies for extracting petroleum from Canadian oil sands, or natural gas from American shale beds are also controversial, because of their environmental impact. Does the BP spill make them seem unacceptably dangerous, or – relatively – more palatable? And what about nuclear power? The growing demand for energy, coupled with the desire to reduce reliance on fossil fuels has persuaded many countries to restart nuclear power programmes which had been on hold for decades (in some cases, since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986). Sweden and Finland have both recently decided to build new plants and the UK is about to start building a new generation of reactors to replace old stock.

But again, public opinion on nuclear power, post-BP, could shift. The raw materials of the nuclear industry are not difficult to extract, and tried and tested reactor designs can be easily replicated. However, the Deepwater Horizon spill hardly reinforces confidence in big companies' ability to operate safely, even if they say they can, and the consequences of a serious nuclear disaster are even more terrifying. Then there is the issue of securing investment in nuclear power, by its nature long-term and dependent on consistent government policy. Will governments indemnify the nuclear power plant operators – foreign, these days, in many cases – against not only their own accidents, but the backlash after someone else's?

The need to reduce our budget deficits is supposed to spell the end for big government. But the need to secure energy supply – and protect the public from environmental disasters – will require more state involvement, not less. The shift to new energy sources has always required government support: that is how the UK's shift from coal to gas was achieved. There is an awful lot of scope for making mistakes, for example by backing the wrong technologies.”