Well it's week 3 and the time's flying. This week we are learning all about the environmental considerations. Oh boy, there are plenty of conflicting opinions amongst the experts on just how clean, or conversely how dirty, shale gas is. The arguments are continuing to be well debated on the course.
There is a lovely phrase, which is "the bridge to a low carbon society". A few words that make the extraction of shale gas by fracking seem such a logical thing to do. The argument goes something like this. Energy emissions from shale gas are about 40% cleaner than coal, so let's use shale gas as a replacement for coal on our journey (hence the 'bridge') to something even cleaner. Sounds good! But then along came a guy called Howarth who looked at fugitive emissions (leakages of methane gas during fracking going straight into the atmosphere) and he concluded that when viewed on a timescale of 20 years, the greenhouse gas footprint for shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great as coal. Wow!!
Well of course Howarth really did rock the boat until Cathles offered his response and argued that Howarth's analysis was "seriously flawed" because he had overestimated the fugitive emissions. So who's right? We don't know because there isn't enough evidence to make a judgement. Now that in my opinion is the real worry. The 'bridge' is beginning to feel a bit wobbly.
As well as greenhouse gas emissions, we also learnt about other concerns like seismic activity, water pollution and the possible harmful effects on health. There is a tremendous amount of data but really no firm conclusions because many of the findings were by inference rather than evidence-based. I haven't trawled through all the comments that have been posted, but it would appear the views are very polarised for or against fracking. That said, there are many well-thought-through arguments to support each stance. Have I changed my anti-fracking views? No, but I do feel I am becoming much better informed.
No comments:
Post a Comment