CCC: Shale gas will have "broadly neutral impact on global emissions"
Chris Broome
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kevin Anderson
To: Chris Broome <chris1...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, 18 November 2016, 18:31
Subject: Re: CCC have reported on impact of unconventional gas on global emissions
On 14 Nov 2016, at 21:32, Chris Broome <chris1...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hello Kevin,
I would like to draw your attention to the wider significance of the CCC’s recent report, at the weblink below:-Whilst it has been prepared for the Scottish Government, the analysis related to global emissions applies equally to the UK (and Europe) as a whole. The report’s summary [page 9], states “Initial evidence suggests that tightly regulated shale gas production is likely to have a broadly neutral impact on global emissions…” This appears to refute experts and campaigners’ assertions that fracking will make climate change worse. I therefore believe that it would be valuable if you – and ideally the Tyndall Centre, as an institution - could state an opinion on the CCC’s findings.I am not able to judge the quality of the modelling but can make some of my own observations on what the main body of the report says. I have listed these below, in case they are of interest.Overall, I suggest that the CCC is being overly cautious about criticising Government policy. Its evidence seems to point to a likely increase in global emissions, though I am currently minded to accept that this depends on whether the local geology is favourable. If it proves to be and extraction costs are therefore kept low, my conclusion could be reversed. However, there is also a serious risk that the Scottish, UK or both Governments could use the prospect of a new abundant, cheap onshore fossil fuels as justification to support the industry in a way that could be difficult to reverse, if conditions do not subsequently prove favourable.These are my observations:-1) The CCC’s conclusions regarding global emissions impacts are based on the assumption of the industry being “tightly regulated”. The “Test 1” described in the Summary and Chapter 4 is similar to that put to the UK Government and in both cases, a stronger regulation system is regarded as essential. The UK Government has declared that it already has a strong system and there must be some doubt as to whether Test 1 will be met.2) The prospects of meeting tests 2 and 3, that gas consumption and production emissions should be compatible with emissions targets, are clearly heavily dependent on widespread deployment of CCS. The UK Government has not shown the level of commitment so far that would indicate that this widespread deployment is likely. Thus energy policies that are not as dependent on CCS to succeed justify greater emphasis, based on this factor.3) On page 63 [first paragraph], it is stated “…estimated supply curves for unconventional gas tend to have higher costs than those for conventional gas, meaning that the modelling has to force in shale gas so as to assess its impact.” This implies the industry is likely to need subsidies to compete. Providing these would tend to undermine calls by the World Bank and many others to phase out such subsidies internationally. It could be argued that subsidising increased gas production would not necessarily increase global emissions, as the predominant impact may be to displace higher-carbon fuels. However, in practice it would prove impossible to make a firm distinction between subsidising gas sources from oil sources. This relates to my next point.4) On page 63, the second paragraph contains the bullet point “We would expect shale oil production to displace high-marginal-cost oil production elsewhere in the world, rather than affecting consumption of coal, gas or low-carbon energy.” If Government subsidies are introduced to enable UK shale oil to compete in international markets, this would clearly undermine the principle of phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies and other Government’s may follow suit. In the case of oil, with its higher unit emissions than gas, any resultant additional production would be bound to increase global emissions.5) The following bullet point states “However, there is a question over the extent to which domestic shale oil production would displace other sources of oil as against increasing total consumption.” No modelling is referred to but it seems obvious that both possible impacts mentioned would occur. The overall effect would be an increase in global emissions, due to the latter one. The CCC appears to give very little to consideration of oil as opposed to gas. This does not immediately appear to be a very objective approach, as the impacts of oil are more clear-cut. However, it may be justified if potential unconventional oil production is considered to be small, compared to that of unconventional gas.Beyond these points, I am also aware that you have questioned whether the UK’s Carbon Budgets represent this country’s “fair share” of effort to limit global average temperatures within the 2C limit, let alone a 1.5C limit. I have not speculated on the implications of that issue here.I look forward to hearing any comments you have on this subject.Best Regards,Chris Broome
Edward Hill
Thanks Chris
The main problem with this report is of course its assumption that fracking can go ahead against the wishes of those who will suffer the health consequences today and in the future. It mentions the tiny £100,000 payment to buy off communities, but where is the analysis of the fracking companies’ profits?
1. Most people in the UK do not want fracking. We understand that it is not worth poisoning ourselves, the countryside and the water table. The consequences for health (and house prices) have been well documented in the USA and elsewhere. People rightly have no faith in regulation. This report cannot cite examples anywhere in the world of fracking being properly controlled.
2. We have just had the largest ever rally against fracking
3. John Ashton spoke at the rally, who was closely involved in the Copenhagen negotiations. He resigned as a senior civil servant because he realised that the political class are simply unwilling to make the necessary drastic changes to the business growth model which are needed to confront climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz0oaQfnHp4
4. This report is disingenuously silent about the peer-reviewed evidence from the USA that fracking has been a health disaster. That is what we need to focus on.
“In North Texas, the "birthplace of modern hydraulic fracturing," residents have been suffering the consequences of living near the operations of the oil and gas industry for years — consequences that include, but aren't limited to, heart problems, breathing troubles, and birth defects. "I've been trying to sell my house," one resident told the Center for Public Integrity. "I've got to get out of here or I'm going to die." It is the poor, disproportionately poor people of color, who have been forced to bear the brunt of the often devastating ills imposed by fracking.” Jake Johnson
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/03/if-nature-sacred-capitalism-wicked
5. Local communities still have our ancient Magna Carta rights to unpolluted land, water and air, despite the government’s changing the trespass law to legalise fracking under our homes. It is up to each community to insist on those rights through direct action if necessary, like the ‘Lock The Gate’ anti-fracking movement in Australia. There, each local community conducts a 100% poll of residents, puts up public signs to indicate the outcome, and then non-violently bars the passage of drilling equipment.
Edward Hill, Greenwich