In September 2013, UK Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change, Edward
Davey supported the safe and responsible exploration of shale
gas in the UK, in line with UK’s climate change targets. He believed that shale gas, as the cleanest fossil fuel, would be help in UK's efforts to move
away from coal.
Meanwhile, a Telegraph report mentioned that debate within EU countries remains highly
polarised, with countries such as France, Bulgaria, Denmark and the Czech
Republic either banning exploration or planning to do so. Within the
European Commission, opinion was divided between the need for firms to do more to
track methane emissions, and the view that Europe's energy industry cannot be
sacrificed at the expense of unrealistic climate change goals.
| Photo by: Bill Baker on Flickr |
A study conducted by Rabe and Boric (2011), based on a survey conducted on residents in Pennsylvania, suggested that public views on fracking could be positive. The people generally believed that the benefits arising from the shale gas extraction out-weighed cost. Interestingly, the survey revealed that there was general distrust in the authorities on the issue.
In another study on public perception of communities near shale gas locations, Theodori (2009) found that respondents generally felt that the shale gas operations had contributed towards worsening traffic conditions and competition for freshwater resources. Nonetheless, respondents also acknowledged the improvement in economic and service-related areas such as healthcare arising from such developments.
In my last post, we had a glimpse of how scientists remain divided over the carbon dioxide and methane's mitigation potential arising from fracking operations. Politically, various countries have taken differing stance towards adoption of the fracking technology. The surveys discussed in this post on public perception appeared to be rudimentary studies, and more work remains to be done in order to better understand the communities' sentiments towards shale gas extraction.
Fracking will likely remain controversial for some years. Meanwhile, I would suggest that it may be prudent for policy makers to consider taking a more conservative position on shale gas extraction, while awaiting for the scientific community and the industry to ascertain the risks and benefits of fracking.
Fracking will likely remain controversial for some years. Meanwhile, I would suggest that it may be prudent for policy makers to consider taking a more conservative position on shale gas extraction, while awaiting for the scientific community and the industry to ascertain the risks and benefits of fracking.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood post - It's interesting think about the different perceptions people have on fracking. I think you are right in taking a more conservative view as some, including those in influential positions, do not fully understand risks. This post piqued my interest and I found this just now - demonstrates your point pretty well - any thoughts?http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/oct/24/dame-helen-ghosh-fracking-wind-turbines-national-trus
ReplyDeleteThank you for the kind comment.
DeleteAs I understand, the new Director-General of the National Trust, Dame Helen Ghosh was formerly Permanent Secretary of DEFRA. She would likely have some knowledge on the on-going debate, but she might have chosen to remain neutral on the issue. I might also suggest we consider the possibility she might have been quoted out of context.
I therefore checked the National Trust website, and it is heartening that they do mention that they are mindful of the downsides of energy use, and are committed to generating half of their energy from renewable and cleaner energy sources by 2020.
(http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/article-1356394030132/)
So my view is that the organisation as a whole, they are committed towards the global effort in fighting climate change.
I completely agree with you about policy makers to be prudent about this. It is always good to have more scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteAnd now that you mention Dame Helen Ghosh, there's an interesting blog post in the Guardian about this, if you want to check it out:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/oct/24/dame-helen-ghosh-fracking-wind-turbines-national-trust
Thank you for your views.
DeleteIt would indeed be interesting to understand the context and rationale behind Dame Helen Ghosh's remarks. I nonetheless believe that National Trust as an organisation remains committed towards the promotion of climate-friendly renewal energy sources.
Interesting stuff. I'm doing an 'independent study' module on shale gas and have been analysing the arguments used by various actors either for or against shale exploitation. I find it strange how the UK government is so committed to shale exploitation. Ed Davey seems more ambivalent as to the benefits of shale when compared with Cameron and Osborne who continue to make the erroneous claim that fracking in the UK will reduce gas prices despite recognition by companies and experts that it won't. If you have any thoughts about why government is so pro-fracking I'd be interested to hear them!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. My view is that the UK government has set an ambitious target of 80% carbon reduction by 2050 using 1990 baseline. In line with Ed Davey's support for nuclear, perhaps the government sees a fundamental need to invest in a diversified portfolio of energy options in order to ensure energy security and to meet its obligations for carbon reduction.
Delete