MPs: Ban fracking to meet carbon targets
AN influential committee of MPs has called for a moratorium on fracking on the grounds that it could derail efforts to tackle climate change.
The government’s drive for shale gas should be put on hold because it would lead to more reliance on fossil fuels, the Environmental Audit Committee said.
The cross-party committee also warned there were “huge uncertainties” about the environmental impact of fracking.
Ministers said shale gas development did not detract from cutting emissions.
In their report, the MPs said shale fracking was incompatible with UK carbon targets and could pose environmental and health risks.
“Ultimately fracking cannot be compatible with our long-term commitments to cut climate-changing emissions unless full-scale carbon capture and storage technology is rolled out rapidly, which currently looks unlikely,” said committee chair Joan Walley MP.
“There are also huge uncertainties around the impact that fracking could have on water supplies, air quality and public health.”The report warned that only a fraction of UK shale reserves could be safely burned if global warming was to be kept below two degrees – the target of international climate negotiations.
And by the time shale gas is likely to be commercially viable, carbon budgets are likely to have been tightened under the Climate Change Act.
Regardless of any moratorium, there should be a ban on fracking in protected areas, the MPs added.
“We cannot allow Britain’s national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty to be developed into oil and gas fields,” said Ms Walley.MPs on the committee will also attempt to amend a government bill on infrastructure on Monday to bar fracking of shale gas.
Responding to the report, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said it disagreed with the findings.”UK shale development is compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions and does not detract from our support for renewables, in fact it could support development of intermittent renewables. To meet our challenging climate targets we will need significant quantities of renewables, nuclear and gas in our energy mix.”
Prof Martin Mayfield, of the University of Sheffield, said the big issue around fracking was whether the UK could afford to extract and burn more fossil fuel.
“In terms of the shale gas under our feet, all we should do is understand how much we have and then leave it in the ground until we have no option but to use it, or until carbon capture technology is viable at sufficient scale to deal with the emissions,” he said.
However, Prof Quentin Fisher of the University of Leeds said the committee was putting the “ill-informed views of anti-fracking groups” ahead of evidence-based scientific studies.
“Gas will be a significant part of the UK’s energy mix for the foreseeable future and it is preferable that we are as self-sufficient as possible,” he said.
“Hopefully, MPs will reject the findings of this report and allow UK citizens to receive the economic and social benefits that shale gas extraction could bring.”Last week, planning officers at Lancashire County Council said plans for fracking at two sites near Blackpool should be rejected owing to “unacceptable” increases in noise and heavy traffic.
Shale company Cuadrilla has asked the council to defer the final decision to allow new information on noise levels and traffic to be considered.
Prime Minister David Cameron has said the government is “going all out” for shale gas, claiming it could create jobs and reduce reliance on imported gas. Opponents have argued the high-pressure fracturing of rocks risks health and environmental impacts and drives climate change.