Yes, let's have a debate about shale gas - we're up for it

Tony Bosworth

18 March 2013

Articles from eminent environmentalists embracing shale gas and fracking are manna from heaven for an industry with a PR problem and whose progress is being slowed. So last Friday's Guardian comment from Fred Pearce entitled 'Fracking: the monster we greens must embrace' will have been welcomed in the boardroom of Cuadrilla.

In the article, Mr Pearce doesn't seem to be as pro-fracking as the headline would suggest. He raises some key issues that need discussing:

• Is shale gas extraction compatible with tackling climate change?
• Can shale gas be a 'bridging technology' or will it lock us into more fossil fuels?
• Are the local environmental risks too great in a crowded island like Britain?
• Can the industry be properly regulated?
• What can we learn from the US experience?

He also complains that "in most of the environment movement there doesn't appear to be the willingness to have a public discussion on the pros and cons of shale gas'" I can only speak for Friends of the Earth, and not for the environment movement as a whole, but we say yes, let's have a debate. We're up for it and we think we have a very strong case why fracking for shale gas is the wrong direction for UK energy policy.

But there's no point in a debate if the Government's mind is already made up. A real debate would start with the Government saying something like "we're calling for a halt for 18 months - we won't allow any more drilling or fracking and we won't hand over any more licences allowing fracking until we have had a real public debate about whether this is the right direction for energy policy".

But at the moment the signals are clear from David Cameron, George Osborne and Ed Davey: shale gas is going ahead. The discussion is more 'fracking is going to happen - how can we convince you to love it?'.

Would the debate be balanced? Last week I was at the industry-dominated initial stakeholder meeting of the Government's new Office for Unconventional Gas and Oil (no representatives from local communities were invited). The message came through loud and clear from the industry: the problem is public perception, being fuelled by misinformation. And it was clear who was considered responsible for this problem: the opponents of fracking. In his keynote speech, Ed Davey also talked about perception and myth.

A proper debate would not start with dismissing the legitimate concerns of local communities about the risks to their local environment and their health as being based on misinformation. As Mr Davey said, we need a properly-informed debate.

And would the industry and its supporters be up for a debate? Last week Francis Egan, CEO of Cuadrilla, complained that 'it is a bit frustrating that people keep asking more questions". If we are going to have a real debate, the industry has to be prepared to answer a lot more questions.

Over to you David Cameron, George Osborne, Ed Davey and Francis Egan.....