Sir, with reference to the letter by Martin Lack (below), the problem with his approach is that it looks at only part of the global warming - or to be more precise increase in carbon dioxide problem.
At present the main thrust of the renewable resources lobby is to maximise the use of wind power whether on or offshore. Use of this technology requires the construction of a large number of gas-fired fast reaction power stations to supply the power when there is low or indeed very strong wind, when the turbines cannot supply power. Without new sources of British gas either large imports from Russia or (equally bad) large imports of liquefied gas from the Middle East, Australia or similar are required. In both cases substantial leakage and use of transport power is required exacerbating the greenhouse gas problem.
Fracking provides the opportunity for substantial British employment, savings in imports, lower greenhouse gas liberation and lower costs for all.
From Martin Lack* (Rec’d & Pub’d 23 July, Amended 10 August)
With reference to the recent letter by Prof. Styles (below), I am afraid that if anyone thinks hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is the answer, then they are asking the wrong question. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the public meeting at Burlington House recently but have now viewed it online via the Society’s website. Having done so, I do not see how the Society can admit (November 2010) that anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) is a real problem that we must address and yet fail to point out that burning all the Earth's fossil fuels simply because we can will make ACD much more expensive to mitigate.
Fracking is technically difficult and highly energy-inefficient. It is also financially and potentially environmentally costly; and pursuing it will only benefit the oil companies themselves. Non-renewable fossil fuels will get more expensive if demand increases and supply decreases; whereas renewable energy will get cheaper if both demand and supply increase.
If burning fossil fuels is causing the Earth’s climate to change, continuing to do it when we do not have to would not only be unwise - it would be illogical. Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity was... “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Therefore, pursuing fracking would appear to be more than indicative of collective hypnosis or hysteria - it would appear to be insane.
I appreciate that government must initiate the phase-out of fossil fuels (as promised at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh in 2009) but, in order to ensure that prudent decisions are made, is it not incumbent upon the Society to be intellectually coherent and consistent in the public statements that it makes? Just because we can frack does not mean that we should. In short, now we know we are in a hole, is it not time we stopped digging?
I note with interest that the recent Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering report specifically excluded consideration of "climate risks associated with the extraction and subsequent use of shale gas". (Geoscientist, 22.07, p.9)"
* Author of the Lack of Environment blog - 'On the politics and psychology underlying the denial of all our environmental problems….'. You can follow Martin on Twitter @LackMartin