I BELIEVE that anthropogenic climate change is real and that we must move to a low carbon economy as soon as practically possible. This by definition means a significant reduction on our reliance on fossil fuels. I do however stress the phrase “as soon as practically possible”.
Richard Dixon, Director of Friends of the Earth Scotland (Letters July 27), calls on a wide-ranging set of objections against fracking: public opinion is against it, fracking causes house prices to fall, has been banned elsewhere, is bad for public health, causes earth earthquakes, increases traffic, as well as causing climate change.
The first three of his arguments, public opinion, house prices and being banned elsewhere, are self-fulfilling prophesies. Get enough people to believe in them, and then that is what will happen. In themselves, these arguments say nothing about whether fracking per se is a good or bad thing.
The argument that fracking could have a deleterious effect on public health could equally well be thrown at many of our industries which if not properly regulated could impact health of nearby people and the environment. We do not close these industries down, we erect appropriate legislative frameworks and monitor the operations. I cannot see that fracking is anything other than another well-understood industrial process and subject to very tight regulations. The earthquake argument is nothing but an emotive statement again designed to sound like a “bad thing”. In the UK there are no documented cases of fracturing operations causing subsidence or tremors large enough to cause damage at the surface. Larger earthquakes, reported from the US, are associated with waste water re-injection, a different process altogether.
Dr Dixon’s reference to traffic increase as a “bad thing” also requires examination. Traffic will certainly increase significantly during the period of fracking operations and will have to be managed. On the other hand, increased traffic implies increased economic activity. If you need a job, maybe you will welcome this?
This leaves climate change as the only true argument against fracking. Increased use of this process could potentially unlock a hitherto unobtainable Scottish gas reserve and thus have a negative impact on global warming. However, this position does not look at the problem in the round. We have created a society that will not function without cheap fossil fuels. For example, virtually all our houses have gas heating. This situation will not change for many decades. Yes, we must transition to a low-carbon society but we must be clever in how we do so to have minimum impact on our societal well-being.
Fracked gas is mainly methane gas and as such has the lowest level of carbon emission per unit of heat energy released for any fossil fuel. So while potentially a problem, methane is the least worst culprit. Despite the efforts of campaign groups like Friends of the Earth, our society will continue to use fossil fuels for many years to come. Given that, I would hugely prefer locally produced, relatively clean gas to dirtier fossil fuels produced from distant locations such as oil from the tar sands of Alberta. As long as we recognise that Scottish fracked gas is a potential stepping stone to a low-carbon economy, then I am for it.
Bob Downie,
66 Mansewood Road, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel