The battle of Balcombe, misinformation and not much on climate change: a week in shale gas
After months of rhetoric, the reality of shale gas exploration arrived with a thump last week to the tune of protest songs in East Sussex. Carbon Brief assesses how the Battle of Balcombe is changing the PR battle lines over Britain’s newest fossil fuel.
Views on Balcombe
What does shale gas development in the rural home counties mean for us? Energy minister Michael Fallon deviated from the government’s largely positive line on shale gas when he wondered aloud what the mostly southern-based ‘commentariat’ would make of gas flaring at the end of their drives, rather than somewhere vaguely north of London.
But perhaps they’ll prove Fallon wrong. Dominic Lawson, prominent member of the ‘commentariat’ and son of shale gas boosterist, Nigel Lawson, says he’s ” thrilled” that oil and gas company Cuadrilla is active in his beautiful corner of England. Cuadrilla’s activities are a natural continuation of the area’s industrial history, apparently. Says Lawson:
“..The visible pattern of the Wealden communities, with their churches, post offices and filigree criss-crossing of roads, is the residual superstructure of the human exploitation of natural resources harnessed for the sole benefit of man. Just like the oil and gas which Cuadrilla is working to find.”
Lawson also points out that the company isn’t yet sure whether it will be doing any fracking in Balcombe – and it’s exploring for shale oil, not shale gas. But it doesn’t seem to matter to the media. Campaign group No Dash for Gas has announced it will run an anti-fracking camp in the area on 16 – 21 August.
Despite the obvious strength of feeling against the current attempt at exploration, a poll out today from Nottingham University appears to show more people are “warming up” to the idea of shale gas in the UK:
“Their results show that despite warnings about earthquakes, water contamination, and increasing carbon emissions, the UK public increasingly approve of the exploitation of shale gas as an energy source.
…The number of people who associate shale gas with being a ‘cheap fuel’ has risen from 40 per cent in the first survey [in March 2012] to 55 per cent now, and the positive rating for shale â?¦ is +33.4, up from +11.4 in the first survey, and steadily rose throughout the period.”
But perhaps opposition increases with the prospect of living next door to a potential frackpad. BBC interviews with Balcombe residents appear to indicate mixed feelings on the matter.
Can we all please calm down
Chief executive of Cuadrilla Francis Egin used a Mail on Sunday article to attack environmentalist claims about the impacts of fracking on the environment:
“By spreading misinformation and scare stories, without any credible, verified evidence, extremists deliberately alarm and frighten people. They also seek to stifle debate and understanding.”
But the magazine New Scientist points out that the anti-shalers aren’t the only ones making exaggerated claims:
“Safety concerns over fracking are overblown – but so are the boosterish claims made for its environmental and economic benefits”
The Financial Times suggests it might be a good idea to suspend drilling at Balcombe while everyone calms down a bit:
“Given the heat now surrounding Balcombe, the best thing might be to pause. The industry and the government could seek an alternative location where drilling would have less impact and enjoy more support.”
Climate change?
For Professor Paul Ekins from the UK Energy Research Centre, the battle of Balcombe just isn’t necessary. He says:
“[I]t seems that an important element of the UK’s energy policy will be fought out, quite unnecessarily, in the British countryside around places like Balcombe. It is unnecessary because there is absolutely no need to bulldoze fracking through the planning system with little or no consultation with local communities – unless, that is, you are a shale gas believer and determined to see and benefit from the fruits of fracking before the next election, as would appear to be the case with the Chancellor, George Osborne.”
Ekins points out the evidence that UK shale gas will reduce gas prices is weak – and the evidence that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions even weaker:
“It seems â?¦ that mere concerns about climate change, despite the evidence everywhere of its alarming acceleration, and the acceptance of the vast majority of climate scientists that greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause, cannot stand in the way of a putative boost to the UK economy before 2015.”
The New Scientist agrees there may be a problem:
“So, frack on or frack off, in both local and global terms, environmentally and economically, shale gas is unlikely to be a magic bullet. Used wisely, it could be part of the climate solution. But in the real world, economics and energy policies being what they are, its emissions will come in addition to coal’s, not instead of them. In the crucial coming decades when we need to begin reducing emissions fast, that is no help at all.”
But the impacts of shale gas on climate change aren’t featuring heavily in the debate at present. In the light of the Balcombe protests, the news that fracking licences have been granted in 13 cabinet ministers’ seats may ultimately have a lot more impact on what happens for shale gas development in the UK.