The latest garbage from Ed Davey. The big Ifs in the red sentences, do of course, make the rest of what he says utterly pointless.
“Environmentally friendly” fracking!! Oxymoron, or just plain moron?
“With the right safeguards in place”!! Is this Davey saying there will be NO fugitive emissions? Is he saying that the gas burned will be instead of Coal, rather than in addition to coal?
As for the infographics, the first one is pathetic and the second has the nasty small print that the encouragingly strict seismic trigger to stop fracking is subject to review and is likely to change.
DECC Press release: Davey: UK shale gas development will not be at expense of climate change targets
09 September 2013
Secretary of State, Edward Davey, today made the case for the safe and responsible exploration of shale gas in the UK, in line with the UK’s climate change targets. In a speech to the Royal Society, Davey said that if shale gas could be developed in an economically viable and environmentally friendly way, it would benefit the UK – increasing energy security, providing more jobs and tax revenues.
Davey was responding to the findings of a new report which estimates that the carbon footprint of UK produced shale gas would likely be significantly less than coal and also lower than imported Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
The report by DECC Chief Scientific Advisor Professor David Mackay FRS and Dr Timothy Stone, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State, assesses the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the production of shale gas in the UK and the compatibility of such emissions with the UK’s legislated climate change targets.
With the right safeguards in place, the report concludes, the net effect on GHG emissions from shale gas production in the UK will be relatively small. In order to ensure that global cumulative GHG emissions to the atmosphere do not increase, worldwide shale gas production needs to be accompanied by additional international emissions-reduction efforts, including a global deal on emissions reductions and additional effort to develop low-carbon technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage, (CCS).
Though it is not the ultimate solution, shale gas is greener. With good regulation, during the coming decade it can do the most good worldwide in terms of cutting CO2 emissions and improving living conditions. Mindless subsidies that we cannot afford will not create a green economy; what will is investment in research and development to bring down costs, so that green energy eventually can outcompete gas.
“Shale gas is greener” – sorry, that is utterly wrong. You are falling for the industry spin hook, line and sinker! Burning gas instead of coal produces less Co2, but by the time you account for the absurd carbon footprint of producing shale gas AND the impact of the fugitive emissions of methane (20 times more potent, at least, than CO2 as agreenhouse gas) the impact is worse, and probably much worse (fugitive emissions are invariably under-estimated due to difficulties of identifying all of them). And given that shale gas will not replace coal, but be used on top of coal the impact on global warming can only possibly be to make it worse.
“With good regulation” – and what would that look like? There is no bespoke regulatory regime for this industry – just adapted regulations from the conventional oils and gas industry that are simply inadequateand/or inappropriate. The industry has a catalogue of falure ebverywhere it has been -including a 50% failure rate for Cuadrillas wells in Lancashire to date!
“Improving living conditions”? – by contaminating water supplies, inducing a wide range of health problems, devastating property values and or making property unsaleable, wrecking organic agriculture, ruining tourism, etc etc.
“Mindless subsidies” – for what? If you mean renewables, are you accusing the Germans and Danes of being mindless in providing a level of renewable energy that gives true energy security and produces virtually free energy in the long run? I guess you want to wait for the ‘markets’ to run their course. By which time we will be completely fucked (excuse my anglo-saxon language!)
So, Rocco, thanks for your contribution, but unless you can offer some empirical evidence to back up your tory spin stories, I suggest you open your mind a bit and reconsider.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Although I broadly agree Andy, that was a bit heavy handed.
Frustration getting the better of me perhaps!