Fracking equipment ready for use at Cuadrilla’s shale gas site at Preston New Road, 5 October 2018. Photo: Danny Vc Llew
UK anti-fracking campaigners claimed their case against shale gas was supported by today’s international report on the actions needed to limit global warming to 1.5 ºC.
The UK government made no reference to shale gas in its response to the assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the onshore oil and gas industry said carbon capture and storage and extracting hydrogen from methane could be cost-effective decarbonisation options.
The IPCC report concluded that limiting global warming to 1.5ºC would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.
It said there would need to be “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This meant that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.
Allowing the global temperature to temporarily exceed or ‘overshoot’ 1.5ºC would mean a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5ºC by 2100, the report said. The effectiveness of such techniques were unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development, it noted. Link to the report
DrillOrDrop has been looking at the reaction to the report.
“Urgent need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions”
Claire Perry, energy and clean growth minister
“I welcome the strong scientific analysis behind today’s IPCC report and it’s conclusions are stark and sober. As policy makers we need to work together to accelerate the low carbon transition to minimise the costs and misery of a rapidly warming world.
“In the UK we have shown great leadership with the passage of the world’s first Climate Change Act a decade ago, the most rapid decarbonisation in the G7 and a comprehensive Clean Growth Strategy detailing policies to cut carbon right across the economy. Our upcoming Green GB Week from October 15 will help us reflect on this progress but also the urgent need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions globally.”
“Need for democratic control and public interest decision making
Rebecca Long Bailey, shadow business, energy and industrial strategy secretary
“Today’s IPCC report is sobering – a call for transformative action to avoid dangerous climate change. That is Labour’s offer to the public. But we must be honest: it is something the Conservatives will never be able to deliver.”
She said it was not a lack of knowledge or technology that prevented action.
“What we do lack is an economic system in which major decisions about resource use are under democratic control.
“We also lack a political and economic system in which decisions are made in the public interest, for the many not the few.
“We need democratic control and public interest decision making to tackle climate change – but these two things are anathema to conservatives. That is why a Tory administration could never deliver on the scale required. Fracking is just one example of this.”
“Ban on fracking”
Bill Esterson, shadow energy and international trade minister
“CCS and methane reforming cost-effective options”
Ken Cronin, chief executive, UK Onshore Oil and Gas
“The Committee on Climate Change have expressed that ‘Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is part of the cost-effective pathway for an emissions reduction of 80% by 2050, and its absence could double the cost of achieving this reduction. CCS becomes even more important for deeper reductions by 2050 and is essential to reach net-zero emissions, committed to under the Paris Agreement’
“Several pieces of analysis have concluded that the least cost decarbonisation for sectors such as heating and industry involves methane reforming with CCS. The alternative requires a costlier and more intrusive intervention into the UK’s homes and businesses.
“As the UK has a 50% gas import dependency, which is forecast to increase to almost 75% by 2035 without UK shale gas production – the UK would have to achieve its decarbonisation targets with higher carbon imported gas, such as LNG and long distance pipeline.”
“Government pushing us towards climate tipping point”
Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP and former leader
“Today’s IPCC report is unequivocal: renewables need to supply 70-85% of ower by 2050.
“Fracking will put us on a dangerous path towards climate breakdown.”
“Government not on track to make changes”
Jonathan Bartley, co-leader, Green Party
“Time is running out”
Friends of the Earth
Rachel Kennerley, Friends of the Earth climate campaigner, said:
“Political will can get us out of this and the UK government can choose whether to heed this report’s findings. Currently, they’re choosing to ignore the full weight of scientific consensus and are directly funding climate chaos by supporting fracking and other dirty industries.”
“Consequences of new fracking industry can’t be ignored”
Greenpeace UK
“This is the last call for humanity’s journey to a liveable planet. From this point on, action on climate change can’t be kicked into the long grass. We’re now playing catch-up to limit the irreversible damage it will do.
“Every decision made by our government will have serious impacts on people’s lives and livelihoods. No longer can the UK government ignore the consequences of starting a new fracking industry, expanding aviation or failing to phase out polluting cars and deal with energy-wasting homes.
“As the room for mistakes shrinks and the cost grows, Theresa May’s government should rise to the challenge laid down by the world’s leading scientists and make Britain a true climate leader. Our children and grandchildren are watching and will remember.”
“Fracking is increasingly dangerous climate denial”
Keith Taylor Green Party MEP
“When climate scientists across the world are telling political leaders that the only way to avoid climate catastrophe is to remake the human world within a generation, it is unconscionable that the Tories are still pushing ahead with plans to fast-track the dangerous exploitation of new climate-destructive shale gas reserves. And planning to bypass local democracy in the process.
“Fracking has never been compatible with our binding climate commitments under the Paris agreement. Today’s IPCC report makes clear the brutal reality of the impact of global warming exceeding 1.5c. Failure to keep below that limit is assured if the Tories press ahead with fracking.
“Rather than jailing the fracking protesters heroically defending our planet and our future, Ministers must wake up and take urgent action to drop their support for the climate-destructive fossil fuel industry. Fracking is a form of increasingly dangerous climate denial.”
“We can’t have any new fossil fuels”
Fossil Free UK
“Why is UK fracking?
Frack Off London
“Today the IPCC stated to keep global warming to 1.50C in low-carbon energy technologies & energy efficiency would need to approximately double in the next 20 years, while investment in fossil fuels extraction and conversion decrease by a quarter. So why is UK fracking?”
Categories: Research
DRILL OR DROP? 
Claire Perry; we are sick of your reflecting in smoke and mirrors; either stand down or stop supporting new fossil fuel extraction.
‘misery ‘ is the understatement of the year!
‘Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, former UN high commissioner for human rights and former UN special envoy on climate change:
The IPCC report starkly sets out the challenges of securing a just transition to a 1.5C world, and the urgency with which this needs to be accomplished. This can only be done by a people-centred, rights-based approach with justice and solidarity at its heart. The time for talking is long past; leaders need to step up, serve their people and act immediately.’
and simply…..
CP doesn’t read DOD Sherwulfe.
Then she is being very remiss, Paul 🙂
Ken Cronin, chief executive, UK Onshore Oil and Gas
“The Committee on Climate Change have expressed that ‘Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is part of the cost-effective pathway for an emissions reduction of 80% by 2050, and its absence could double the cost of achieving this reduction. CCS becomes even more important for deeper reductions by 2050 and is essential to reach net-zero emissions, committed to under the Paris Agreement’
“Several pieces of analysis have concluded that the least cost decarbonisation for sectors such as heating and industry involves methane reforming with CCS. The alternative requires a costlier and more intrusive intervention into the UK’s homes and businesses.
“As the UK has a 50% gas import dependency, which is forecast to increase to almost 75% by 2035 without UK shale gas production – the UK would have to achieve its decarbonisation targets with higher carbon imported gas, such as LNG and long distance pipeline.”
Cost effective CCS? This statement is illogical, since CO2 and methane emissions resulting from gas and oil production in the UK will be in ADDITION to those already being processed abroad and presently imported. we have no ability to reduce overseas production to balance UK production one way or the other.
Rather than go for the usual expensive money making spin trap of jamming the CCS anti pollution finger in the dyke, we should be strengthening the dams against proliferation of CO2 and methane production in the first place by investing in renewable resources that dont produce the same level of CO2 and methane emissions into the atmosphere.
Even then we are all ready in deep climate change acceleration due to lack of appropriate action dating way back to the late 1970’s.
Denial it seems is only ameliorated by introducing yet another imposed money spinning industry of carbon capture rather than removing the problem at source, and that is stopping the process here before it gets out of any control whatsoever.
In other words the usual double speak from Ken Cronin.
Carbon ‘capture’ should be about natural ecosystems, trees, wetlands coupled with a massive reduction in emissions; only then and still a big maybe, will we survive.
The time is now, no more talking or call center diversions; action is what we need.
No, it does not.
To progress means you have to get from the present point to a future point. That future point is not even known. There are many ideas and possibilities but nothing certain. So, to get to that future point steps need to be incremental, and not in a straight line (remember the push for diesel? Wood pellet schemes in N.Ireland etc.?)
More expensive energy hurts most forms of economic activity which is what generates the funds for development of new technologies. There are already many cases of alternative energy “solutions” that have wasted resources and had no real benefit, apart from for those promoting them, often with large amounts of tax payer money.
The UK will not have any impact upon coal being used in developing countries, the UK will not make veggies out of the billions who are just moving to be able to afford to buy meat-because that is what they will do. However, the UK can cut emissions from transporting oil and gas half way round the world if we can produce it close to where we currently use it. (Change your moratorium Nicola.) The UK can avoid the currency costs of purchasing imports adding cost that could be avoided and utilised elsewhere. Equally, the tax revenue can then be utilised to support what the UK needs, whether that be the NHS or alternative energy development, just as countries like Norway have been doing for years.
But, maybe there is a real perverse wish to maintain austerity? (Rob Peter and Paul pays.)
“Equally the tax revenue can the be utilised to support what the U.K. needs, whether that be the NHS or alternative energy development”
Or alternatively it can be used to fund self harming projects like Brexit or it can be wasted on massive vanity projects like a Festival of Britain. Both foolish ideas brought to you by the incumbent government that currently stands alone politically in the U.K. in its support for fracking.
If only the U.K. had the good sense to conserve its North Sea reserves and to plow its revenue into a sovereign wealth fund like the Norwegians and to develop clean alternative energy sources during the good times rather than p!**!ng it up the wall.
Previous track records do not support this increased national wealth, improved public services theory. More austerity and fatter fat cats pockets ahoy!
Isnt the rhyme to rob Peter to pay Paul? Have you told Peter and Paul that? What about Mary? By what process does one propose to rob Peter and what does Mary have to say about it? That is an interesting philosophy?
The prospect of robbing anyone is bizarre enough from a supposedly civilised source, but then paying anyone else simply makes such a person a money launderer?
Back to Russian gangster money laundering again?
UK emissions reductions so far have been largely due to phasing out of coal for gas, plus the shutting down of heavy industry, thus offshoring such industrial emissions to China etc, from whom we are happy to import there manaufactured products, such as solar panels – never mind consumer goods. The ITN News journalist this evening got it wrong tonight claiming UK emission reductions were due to renewables only. So those who support renewables only, are usually against nuclear (FOE, Greenpeace, perhaps Corbyn????), so any gains renewables make henceforth will only backfill our loss of nuclear, by which time we will need to rebuild some of our renewables that are wearing out. If domestic heating has go zero emission & transport electrified, that means generation capacity will have to be greatly increased. Energy storage is a real challenge – the largest energy storage options are geological (underground energy storage of gases such as air, methane & hydrogen) or pump storage hydroelectric – for which we would have to dam up many valleys in our National Parks (“don’t let hydroelectric ruin all this” – could be a FOE fundraising advert?).
One of the things I have pointed out for some time is that campaigners who scaremonger about fracking reduce the confidence with the public (and hence elected policymakers) about our ability to engineer the subsurface – technologies vital for energy storage, geothermal & nuclear waste disposal.
Funny how the massively engineered underground infrastructures in high density populated parts of the UK, such as London, are never mentioned in the narratives of the campaigners.
Climate scientists such as at the Tyndall Centre are clear that we need to urgently and rapidly reduce our consumption of gas and that a UK shale gas industry is incompatible with that requirement (Are climate scientists “scaremongers” too?). They have much more credibility on how we should tackle climate breakdown than a geologist working with the gas industry. Also – such urgent and rapid reductions are possible as we have viable alternatives for electricity generation, space-heating (less easy but possible) and building insulation for demand reduction etc etc.
henryadamsuk – I have presented to the Tyndall Centre N. For some reason they have had a blind spot about decarbonising fossil fuel via CCS. That is their choice. Unless we are pragmatic – I said this over a decade ago – to TCN – we will not achieve the reductions at the rate required. Furthermore the Committee on Climate Change, also endorse the need for CCS, as does the latest IPCC report.
Disingenuous as always Nick, as soon as you mention scaremongering i switch off, since the accusation of scaremongering is, in itself scaremongering and defeats the argument entirely. Better not to use the usual silly epithets isnt it?
So, what else do we see here? Aside from unfounded comments of ” So those who support renewables only, are usually against nuclear (FOE, Greenpeace, perhaps Corbyn????),” The “usual” Corbyn sideswipe i notice? More scaremongering trying to make an individual non sequitur (it does not follow) attempt at point scoring isnt it?
UK emission reduction is more to do with the refining of industrial and domestic energy use isnt it?
its an ongoing process, it didnt stop with the end of the industrial revolution, we progress to better less polluting energy sources or have the pollution right on our own doorstep? We should have continued that trend to the present day, we should be using 100% renewables today and for thirty years or more, the signs were all there if we followed the fossil fuel lure all the way to the bottom, but that was all hidden and kept secret, profit and monopoly was more important, after all, it would be a long time before the sh(!)t hit the fan wouldnt it?
So, in the 1970s we threw that all away for greed and profit and it all unravelled and now today it is that long time in the future and where are we?
Exporting production, and hence pollution to the then third world countries did no reduce pollution, indeed, by employing far less efficient production sources and energy use abroad and shipping it backwards and forwards actually increased global emissions and was little more than economic insanity anyway.
Since if such production had remained here we would have made sure it was a lot less polluting and much more efficient and safe? But Oh no, labour is cheap to almost free abroad in third world countries and profit is king, not common sense and preserving UK as a manufacturing production centre of worldwide renown.
That was just economic warfare, the politicians landowners and manufacturers were determined to have their cake and eat it too at the lowest possible slave worker price and to hell with their own country. And when slavery was banned here, so the goods were shipped abroad to the slaves there and then we exported slavery to the very countries we stole them from.
All good economic and humanitarian insanity isnt it?
And now we have lost the ability to produce anything significant ourselves in any manufacturing process other than the slimmed down minimally supported service industries and by reintroducing slave wages, and austerity simply makes profit the prime motive at any cost to the environment which is where fracking and its associated avoidances of the word comes in and we all know what a negative pig in a poke that is dont we?
So it lose lose lose all the way round? This is not economic reality, it is economic insanity.
As for the silly comment of “Funny how the massively engineered underground infrastructures in high density populated parts of the UK, such as London, are never mentioned in the narratives of the campaigners.” Well how much gas and water and electricity is lost in the distribution systems through inefficiency of equipment, lack of maintenance repair and the sheer lack of effort to actually do anything about it?
Not to mention the profiteering of privatised energy companies to whom the monopoly game of owning the services was always the monopoly bankers nightmare and they are so inefficient we could run the entire country on their waste bins and gravy spills.
We could do without any additional gas production on the home front here if those vast gaping holes in the systems were plugged and made more efficient?
Any one proposing a nuclear dump under London the Dr Nick?
Note – comments about Carbon Capture & Storage & how the UK (Conservative) Gov. has damaged that subsurface technology, for which the UK & Norway are especially well placed to deploy. https://www.theccc.org.uk/2018/06/28/apply-the-lessons-of-the-past-decade-or-risk-a-poor-deal-for-the-public-in-the-next/
See also: https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2018/04/action-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Phil C you said “Disingenuous as always Nick, as soon as you mention scaremongering i switch off, “. Such personal judgement from you switches me off. Read my posts carefully please. Regarding my Corbyn comment I meant it in the context of him leading the labour party & therefore their policy. That’s the same Corbyn who wanted to re-open UK coal mines when he campaigned for the Labour leadership by the way. He is very confused on energy policy.
Scaremongering was your comment Nick not mine, perhaps you switch yourself off?
Personal judgement? What, like this one? ”So those who support renewables only, are usually against nuclear (FOE, Greenpeace, perhaps Corbyn????),” Is not that a “personal judgement”? It certainly isnt a true personal judgement but then again personal judgements are not required to be true are they?
I did read it, i rejected it.
Take my advice, switch off your personal judgement should it get in the way?
Phil C. FOE were formed as an anti-nuclear NGO. Greenpeace are anti nuclear power as well. Corbyn, I’m not sure – he keeps changing his mind (probably to follow the votes!). Note also I have criticised the Conservative government too. I think I have shown balance in my comments. I will not take your advice by the way. Thank you!
Then kindly dont accuse anyone else of making personal judgement……..Thank you!
In a word. No. Uk shale is intended to replace coal. While the most populous country on the planet is embarking on a massive expa sion is coal fired power anything we do is totally insignificant. The US has reduced co2 emissions more than anyone thanks to fracking.
…it has?