Following on from the Paris Climate Agreement of December 12th 2015, where “representatives of 195 nations reached a landmark accord” to lower carbon emissions, in order to ensure global temperatures do not breach the “acceptable” 1.5C rise threshold, it would be fair to assume that the environmental wellbeing of Britain would be on the forefront of Prime Minister David Cameron’s mind.
Sadly, for the Great British National Parks, this does not seem to be the case, as the government “rowed back on its earlier acceptance of new environmental protections” in order to allow fracking companies to begin drilling under national parks.
What’s the problem with fracking? The process of fracking involves drilling for miles underground, before “water is pumped down” at high pressure, in order to break into methane filled pockets of gas found within the shale bedrock. The water used contains “up to 600 chemicals” including mercury, hydrochloric acid and lead, with only 30-50% of the water being recovered, the rest of which is absorbed into the ground. Fracking has been found to contaminate “drinking water sources, made nearby residents sick” and turned pristine landscapes into industrial zones.
In addition to this, another drawback to fracking is that the process has been linked to a rise in earthquakes. In 2011, two earthquakes were recorded between April and May, near Blackpool, Lancashire. The British Geological Survey (BGS) who investigated the earthquakes, found that “the quakes were linked to Cuadrilla’s fracking activities” as the “epicentre of the second quake was within 500 metres of the drilling site”.
So the real question is, why would the Conservative Party give fracking companies the rights to drill under national parks, when they themselves state on page 54 of their manifesto, that they will “clean up our rivers and lakes, protect our stonewalls and hedges, and help our bees to thrive”.
The answer is simple. Natural methane gas is a far cleaner energy than traditional fossil fuels, such as coal, which creates nearly twice as much “carbon dioxide per unit of energy”.
Fracking is therefore Cameron’s way of using methane gas as a “bridge fuel” as it can “help nations lower carbon emissions while they transition more slowly from fossil fuels to renewable, carbon-neutral forms of energy”. By promoting fracking, Cameron is able to cut the UK’s carbon emissions, to fall in line with the Paris Agreement, at the cost of our national parks, which will not affect the agreement, as carbon emissions are the focus of the agreement, not ground pollution.
Another benefit of fracking, is that during the last decade, the UK has gone from being “self-sufficient in gas” to relying on imports to meet around half our gas supply needs. Fracking allows the UK to regain its energy independence from Russia, which “provides about 30 per cent of Europe’s gas imports of about 440bcm a year”. By reducing the UK’s energy reliance on Russia, Cameron is ensuring that Britain will not be held to ransom if Russia decides to impose sanctions on its energy supply, such as the “energy blockade against Kiev”, if tensions between the two countries increase.
So, if coal is out, oil is out, and fracking is out, what other options does the government have? Well maybe we should take a leaf out of Australia’s book and “focus on innovative and emerging technologies” including investment in solar energy. Granted the occasional sunny half an hour of British weather is never going to produce as much solar energy as even an average Australian morning, but that does not mean we should give up, as “panels in London generate 65% as much energy as in Madrid, and the panels work more efficiently in cooler temperatures”. Just as the computer has advanced from being the size of a large room in the 50’s, to being able to fit in your hand with smartphone technology, solar panel efficiency could also improve, if given the right investment.
It is therefore frustrating that following the Paris Agreement, the Conservatives have not only licenced out fracking contracts in our national parks, they have also decided to cut subsidies to householders installing rooftop solar panels by 65%. The effect of the reduced subsidies will surely “do irreparable damage to Britain’s rapidly expanding renewable energy industry” as people become less willing to pay for the high installation cost, without the prospect of regaining some of that cost through subsidies.
So what has the last few weeks taught us? It has taught us that although the environment is on the governments mind, it is still yet to fully commit itself to the cause of a cleaner Britain. Carbon emissions may come down, but at the cost of our national parks. To add to this, the investment in solar energy power looks to be cut, which will keep Britons reliant on fossil fuels, with the costs of solar panels too high for some homeowners. Is there a silver lining to all of this? Yes, the government is slowly reducing our dependence on foreign energy providers, which should keep energy prices stable. Plus we are reducing the carbon emissions, which will hopefully reduce the effects of global warming, as much of Cumbria and Yorkshire currently lie “swamped by rising [flood] waters” at the hands of “Storm Frank”. However, to do this by contaminating our national parks, and reducing solar panel subsidies by 65% shows that the government has global rather than domestic prestige on its mind.
Some of the coverage you find on Cultured Vultures contains affiliate links, which provide us with small commissions based on purchases made from visiting our site. We cover gaming news, movie reviews, wrestling and much more.
