DEBATES over fracking tend to generate more heat than light.
Nowhere is that more true than in the UK, where the past week has seen a former government energy adviser suggest that the practice should be confined to the 鈥渄esolate鈥� north-east, even as vociferous protests erupted near a normally tranquil village in the prosperous Home Counties.
Safety concerns over fracking are overblown 鈥� but so are the boosterish claims made for its environmental and economic benefits (see 鈥�Fracking could accelerate global warming鈥� and 鈥�Frack on or frack off: Can shale gas really save the planet?鈥�). The British Geological Survey has so far assessed only the Bowland shale in the north of England, concluding that there is perhaps twice as much 鈥済as in place鈥� as previously thought. But it remains to be seen if this gas is recoverable or good for burning.
Advertisement
So drill and find out, say advocates. Not in my backyard, say protesters. Enough. Neither nimbyism nor bravado is appropriate given what we know about the risks and rewards of fracking. Better to bring that vigour to bear on a wider debate aimed at shedding light on the nature of a truly sustainable energy policy for the UK 鈥� and, for that matter, the world.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淢ore light, less heat鈥�
