I'm still on annual leave this week so here's another guest post. This one's from our Head of Climate Change Policy, Harry Huyton.
The debate over fracking for shale gas has taken over the environmental agenda in the past two weeks and voices on both sides are getting more and more shrill by the day. You can learn more about our position here.
RSPB submitted its first objections to two fracking sites last week and signed a joint statement with other environment NGOs in the Sunday Times. Our position led to coverage across broadcast and print media over the weekend and has caused debate amongst some of our members and supporters. So it’s worth examining the reasons we have voiced our concern now.
We don’t have any objection to new technology being used to help us produce energy – this is an exciting and important area of research. However we have, and always will, oppose individual developments in our countryside which have the potential to harm wildlife, be it a wind farm, a drilling well, a road or an airport.
Fracking at Singleton in Lancashire – where Cuadrilla have proposed a well – may not disturb the thousands of wintering pink footed geese and whooper swans which arrive nearby each Autumn. It may not pollute water sources and it may not lead to us overshooting our climate targets.
But the unquestionable fact is that we just don’t know. This is untested technology in the UK – a very different prospect to the US where fracking is now widespread. Developers do not need to fully investigate the impact drilling will have on the local environment. And the Government has not explained how extracting more fossil fuel from the ground will help us meet our climate targets.
These are the central questions we are raising. But this debate is really another example of a deeper, underlying challenge our environment faces in the UK.
The choice between renewed backing of fossil fuel extraction in the UK or continuing the transition to low carbon, renewable energy is a fundamental one. Too often, however, the currency of the debate is money. The Prime Minister recently talked about how “we cannot afford to miss out” on the benefits of fracking, for example, whilst the Environment Minister Owen Paterson talked of shale as a ‘god-given’ windfall. Fracking opponents often take a similarly human-centric approach, arguing about house prices and aesthetics.
These are important considerations, but their dominance in Government’s thinking is a reflection of how disconnected politics has become from our natural environment. It has been argued that our dire economic straits make cashing in on our natural resources necessary, but recession is not an excuse to shed our values. The biggest single piece of wildlife protection legislation in this country was developed during the Second World War, yet today’s leaders appear to be clambering over themselves to reel in environmental progress at the mere whiff of economic benefit.
Over in the ‘desolate’ North, along the banks of the Ribble, there remains a richness of wildlife that could inspire even the most urbanite Southern peer. In the spring and summer, you can see waders like avocets, redshank and godwit roaming the mudflats and wetlands. In autumn, hundreds of thousands of pink-footed geese arrive from as far as Siberia, providing an awesome wildlife spectacle. If you pay a visit, be sure to pop into Hesketh Out Marsh, one of our reserves in the area where you can see all this and more. It is our job as the RSPB to protect these special places, for wildlife, for people and for future generations.
We are here to defend nature when it is under threat, whatever that threat may be. Without any reliable evidence that fracking is not a threat we will continue to do everything we can to stop it in its tracks.
You can get involved in writing letters and e-mails to support RSPB campaigns and use your voice for nature. Click through to find out how you can campaign with us.
Hi all
Thanks for your comments and sorry for not replying earlier. I had a few days off enjoying the gannets around bass rock among other things...
You will have seen that Martin has posted a follow up blog today that addresses some of these comments, but here are a few further thoughts:
Water contamination is an important concern given the nature of fracking and the US experience. The BBC posted a good article on some recent research (www.bbc.co.uk/.../science-environment-23724657). The Environment Agency is currently consulting on draft guidance on the regulatory framework for onshore oil and gas exploration (including shale gas) but this just brings together existing regulation, it doesn't propose to strengthen it or bring in any new regulation. However, we understand they intend to review this before shale gas moves into a commercial phase. We will engage in both of these processes.
Water demand in areas under water stress could also be an important issue and would expect any proposals for fracking in water stressed areas to demonstrate that they're not going to increase the pressure on water resources in that area further.
Ultimately, it's the cumulative impacts of large-scale commercial development of fracking that concerns us the most, however - both in terms of ecological impacts and climate impacts. One well pad development isn't necessarily going to have serious impacts (if sited appropriately) but the cumulative impacts associated with thousands of wells could be enormous. As one of the other bloggers mentioned, the number of wells needed for fracking shale gas is greater than for conventional oil and gas extraction, and there’s potentially a very large resource available that developers are going to want to tap into. We’re concerned about how effectively the planning and regulatory systems are going to be able to assess, manage and monitor these cumulative impacts across multiple sites.
On the substitution of gas for coal as a transitional phase, our concern is the size of the challenge of meeting UK emissions reduction targets. To achieve this, the Committee on Climate Change have recommended that we need to virtually decarbonise UK electricity supply by 2030. Gas is lower carbon than coal but it isn’t low enough for us to be able to use it in large quantities and still decarbonise electricity supply as quickly as we need to, unless used in conjunction with CCS which is unproven at a commercial scale.
Neal B - I agree that we need to have a full, open and more encompassing debate, considering all the evidence available.
In relation to onshore wind, we do take the potential impacts on birds and wildlife very seriously. We invest considerable resources in assessing the impact of proposed wind farm developments and ensuring any that threaten protective or vulnerable sites and/or species do not go ahead. We will take the same approach to assessing the potential ecological impact of shale gas developments. However, the big difference between shale gas and onshore wind is the carbon emissions they emit: shale gas risks adding to climate change while onshore wind will help to prevent it.
Bryce - thanks for your comment on contacting local groups. We will be looking to provide information to local groups, particularly in relation to the specific ecological risks posed by fracking in their area. We're also worried about the recent planning guidance and whether this constrains the ability of local planning authorities to object to proposals for fracking in their area. We hope to provide information to local authorities that will help them to identify and steer development away from areas that are going to be most sensitive to fracking.
Red kite - Useful insight, thank you. I agree on a case by case approach with regards to local impacts and that is indeed the approach we are taking, however, as noted above we do need an effective means of considering cumlative risks/impacts too. The climate change test needs to be addressed at the national level; unfortunately this hasn't happened yet.