The industry funded Task Force on Shale Gas has today released its third report Assessing the Impact of Shale Gas on Climate Change.
The report brings nothing new to the table and rehashes existing information whilst coming to their own conclusions. It also has some massive holes in it, no least its central argument that shale gas is “cleaner” (aka “less dirty”) than coal and by displacing coal can help us to decarbonise. The conveniently misses the point that our coal fired power stations are due to close by 2023 and rather than displacing coal shale gas would displace Liquefied Natural Gas and that the emissions benefits of shale gas against LNG are at best marginal. This self appointed industry funded “task force” is suggesting that shale gas is a bridging fuel to a decarbonised economy. This is the same argument used by UK Methane and Cuadrilla’s chief geologist who said at a seminar in Bath a year ago that the solution to climate change was more and more gas. Despite giving a seminar on fracking in Bath he didn’t seem to know anything about the Bath Hot Springs or the local geology and presented a slide from DECC which had been doctored to make shale gas emission intensity look less – on the basis of wishful thinking rather than evidence. On the other hand DECC’s former Chief Scientific Advisor very clearly stated (twice) in his report on greenhouse gas emissions that:
“Without global climate policies (of the sort already advocated by the UK) new fossil fuel exploitation is likely to lead to an increase in cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and the risk of climate change.”
The task force report conveniently ignores global cumulative emissions which are what actually matters. For a full analysis and commentary on the task force’s climate change report have a look at Carbon Brief’s take on it.
The potential impacts of climate change and in particular sea level rise on Somerset are profound. Let’s hope that DECC (read George Osbourne who has actually taken oven energy policy) will stop listening to this so called task force and start listening to its scientific advisors, the Environmental Audit Committee and the Committee on Climate Change whose job it is to provide this kind of advice without first filtering it through a gas industry prism. However, Ministers seem to prefer to trumpet the views of the task force rather than their statutory advisors.
Thanks to Jill Sutcliffe for pointing out this reference: A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas