Climate change advisor 'in favour' of fracking

The Argus: Green MP Caroline Lucas protests at a drill site in Balcombe earlier this year Green MP Caroline Lucas protests at a drill site in Balcombe earlier this year

Fracking has been given the thumbs up by the Government's top climate change advisor, potentially paving the way for the controversial drilling technique in Sussex.

Lord Deben, head of the government's official advisory board on climate change, dismissed environmental concerns and urged ministers to press ahead with fracking.

He argued exploiting underground shale gas reserves could give the country a secure source of energy without damaging the environment.

Environmentalists say fracking, which involves pumping water and chemicals deep underground to fracture rock and release gas, could contaminate water and increase carbon emissions.

The high-level intervention was made after Celtique Energie submitted an application to drill 3km into South Downs National Park to explore for oil, gas and shale.

The firm has a second drilling application pending in Wisborough Green and a third approved near Broadford Bridge.

Meanwhile Cuadrilla carried out exploratory drilling in Balcombe over the summer and has applied to complete further testing at the rural site.

Lord Debben said: “It just isn't true that fracking is going to destroy the environment and the world is going to come to an end if you frack. And yet to listen to some people on the green end, that's what they say.

“I'm in favour of it. The carbon budgets have already assumed that we are going to use gas well on through the 2020s and into the 30s.

“There will be a need for gas (and) much better to have it from us and as soon as we can because I do genuinely think people ought to be worried about the security of our energy supplies.”

Chancellor George Osborne announced tax breaks to encourage investment in shale gas.

However Max Alderton of Keep Kirdford and Wisborough Green, argued fracking would harm the environment.

He said: “He's a Conservative member of the Government so he's biased and his opinion isn't valid.

“Of course fracking would cause environmental damage. If you have drilling sites every three miles across the countryside there's going to be huge environmental damage.”

Helz Cuppleditch, of Frack Free Arun, added: “West Sussex is heavily populated so we're not going to be able to just ignore fracking.

“It's not going to take place in a remote corner; this is going to impact on everyone in the county.”

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:19pm Thu 12 Dec 13

theleftygiraffe says...

You would have thought a climate change advisor would know that fracking would exacerbate the whole situation, really...
You would have thought a climate change advisor would know that fracking would exacerbate the whole situation, really... theleftygiraffe

5:54pm Thu 12 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

In my view, Lord Deben as Selwyn Gummer MP was (when you consider the situation at the time) a relatively better environment secretary than those Labour, Conservative and Liberal ministers that have succeeded him (not hard!). I do take what he says on environmental matters seriously. I would like to see the context in which he made the speech.

My personal objection to fracking is not the technique. If regulated properly, I wouldn't rule out that fracking possibly can be done without a major environmental impact, though I wouldn't bet on cheap extraction and limitless reserves if that is the case. I also don't get the argument of cheaper gas as the UK gas price is linked to the world price and gas extracted by private companies looking to maximise profit. A bit of fracked gas in the UK is not going to make a jot of difference to World or UK prices.

My primary objection to fracking is the exploitation of yet more fossil fuel reserves when we already have more identified than can possibly be used without disastrous levels of climate change. If we are to exploit reserves of gas by fracking, what do we leave in the ground? Did Lord Deben address this?
In my view, Lord Deben as Selwyn Gummer MP was (when you consider the situation at the time) a relatively better environment secretary than those Labour, Conservative and Liberal ministers that have succeeded him (not hard!). I do take what he says on environmental matters seriously. I would like to see the context in which he made the speech. My personal objection to fracking is not the technique. If regulated properly, I wouldn't rule out that fracking possibly can be done without a major environmental impact, though I wouldn't bet on cheap extraction and limitless reserves if that is the case. I also don't get the argument of cheaper gas as the UK gas price is linked to the world price and gas extracted by private companies looking to maximise profit. A bit of fracked gas in the UK is not going to make a jot of difference to World or UK prices. My primary objection to fracking is the exploitation of yet more fossil fuel reserves when we already have more identified than can possibly be used without disastrous levels of climate change. If we are to exploit reserves of gas by fracking, what do we leave in the ground? Did Lord Deben address this? HJarrs

6:57pm Thu 12 Dec 13

PorkBoat says...

Taxpayers will be liable for cleaning up the (inevitable) pollution, should a "fracking" company go bust:-

http://www.theguardi
an.com/environment/2
013/dec/11/taxpayers
-fracking-pollution-
companies#start-of-c
omments

An examplel of today's weird mix of left and right wing economic and social policies. Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses. Just like the banks do.
Taxpayers will be liable for cleaning up the (inevitable) pollution, should a "fracking" company go bust:- http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 013/dec/11/taxpayers -fracking-pollution- companies#start-of-c omments An examplel of today's weird mix of left and right wing economic and social policies. Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses. Just like the banks do. PorkBoat

7:54pm Thu 12 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

PorkBoat wrote:
Taxpayers will be liable for cleaning up the (inevitable) pollution, should a "fracking" company go bust:-

http://www.theguardi

an.com/environment/2

013/dec/11/taxpayers

-fracking-pollution-

companies#start-of-c

omments

An examplel of today's weird mix of left and right wing economic and social policies. Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses. Just like the banks do.
You are becoming a real leftie.
[quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: Taxpayers will be liable for cleaning up the (inevitable) pollution, should a "fracking" company go bust:- http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 013/dec/11/taxpayers -fracking-pollution- companies#start-of-c omments An examplel of today's weird mix of left and right wing economic and social policies. Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses. Just like the banks do.[/p][/quote]You are becoming a real leftie. HJarrs

9:39pm Thu 12 Dec 13

PorkBoat says...

HJarrs wrote:
PorkBoat wrote:
Taxpayers will be liable for cleaning up the (inevitable) pollution, should a "fracking" company go bust:-

http://www.theguardi


an.com/environment/2


013/dec/11/taxpayers


-fracking-pollution-


companies#start-of-c


omments

An examplel of today's weird mix of left and right wing economic and social policies. Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses. Just like the banks do.
You are becoming a real leftie.
I prefer "libertarian". The left/right paradigm is redundant nowadays I think, except on the extreme ends of each.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: Taxpayers will be liable for cleaning up the (inevitable) pollution, should a "fracking" company go bust:- http://www.theguardi an.com/environment/2 013/dec/11/taxpayers -fracking-pollution- companies#start-of-c omments An examplel of today's weird mix of left and right wing economic and social policies. Privatise the profits, Nationalise the losses. Just like the banks do.[/p][/quote]You are becoming a real leftie.[/p][/quote]I prefer "libertarian". The left/right paradigm is redundant nowadays I think, except on the extreme ends of each. PorkBoat

11:33pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Kamacan says...

It's painfully obvious that the "climate change advisor" needs a knowledgeable advisor. He's either profoundly ignorant of the environmental dangers of fracking or else he's up to his neck in oil and gas like the rest of this lamentably corrupt government.

I strongly urge anyone who wants to know the truth about the horrors of the shale-gas industry to spend half an hour doing a bit of internet research. Don't rely on the main stream media or your government for information. They're lying to you.
It's painfully obvious that the "climate change advisor" needs a knowledgeable advisor. He's either profoundly ignorant of the environmental dangers of fracking or else he's up to his neck in oil and gas like the rest of this lamentably corrupt government. I strongly urge anyone who wants to know the truth about the horrors of the shale-gas industry to spend half an hour doing a bit of internet research. Don't rely on the main stream media or your government for information. They're lying to you. Kamacan

1:35am Fri 13 Dec 13

fredaj says...

Kamacan wrote:
It's painfully obvious that the "climate change advisor" needs a knowledgeable advisor. He's either profoundly ignorant of the environmental dangers of fracking or else he's up to his neck in oil and gas like the rest of this lamentably corrupt government.

I strongly urge anyone who wants to know the truth about the horrors of the shale-gas industry to spend half an hour doing a bit of internet research. Don't rely on the main stream media or your government for information. They're lying to you.
He has an opinion that differs to yours so he is either ignorant or corrupt?

Or are you just arrogant?
[quote][p][bold]Kamacan[/bold] wrote: It's painfully obvious that the "climate change advisor" needs a knowledgeable advisor. He's either profoundly ignorant of the environmental dangers of fracking or else he's up to his neck in oil and gas like the rest of this lamentably corrupt government. I strongly urge anyone who wants to know the truth about the horrors of the shale-gas industry to spend half an hour doing a bit of internet research. Don't rely on the main stream media or your government for information. They're lying to you.[/p][/quote]He has an opinion that differs to yours so he is either ignorant or corrupt? Or are you just arrogant? fredaj

8:07am Fri 13 Dec 13

ragamala says...

Mr Jarrs

The context was that Lord Debden hijacked news reporting of the new report of the Climate Change Committee which he chairs.

This has been summarised as urging the government NOT to reverse its policy on climate change, as George Osborne fully intends to do. It issued new figures showing that the intended measures would cost us dearly, not only in failing to stave off change effects, but financially. The Independent rported that the etrxa cost of the new policy to scrap targets could amount to £200 billion on energy bills, or £8,000 per household.

Debden himself confirmed the current policy was more cost-effective, according to the Guardian.

One can only wonder why the Telegraph and Mail preferred to report Debden's support for shale. Perhaps they want to turn a blind eye to the fact that Cameron's and Osborne's support for shale on grounds of bringing down fuel bills is now clearly seen as a sham.
Mr Jarrs The context was that Lord Debden hijacked news reporting of the new report of the Climate Change Committee which he chairs. This has been summarised as urging the government NOT to reverse its policy on climate change, as George Osborne fully intends to do. It issued new figures showing that the intended measures would cost us dearly, not only in failing to stave off change effects, but financially. The Independent rported that the etrxa cost of the new policy to scrap targets could amount to £200 billion on energy bills, or £8,000 per household. Debden himself confirmed the current policy was more cost-effective, according to the Guardian. One can only wonder why the Telegraph and Mail preferred to report Debden's support for shale. Perhaps they want to turn a blind eye to the fact that Cameron's and Osborne's support for shale on grounds of bringing down fuel bills is now clearly seen as a sham. ragamala

8:47am Fri 13 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

ragamala wrote:
Mr Jarrs

The context was that Lord Debden hijacked news reporting of the new report of the Climate Change Committee which he chairs.

This has been summarised as urging the government NOT to reverse its policy on climate change, as George Osborne fully intends to do. It issued new figures showing that the intended measures would cost us dearly, not only in failing to stave off change effects, but financially. The Independent rported that the etrxa cost of the new policy to scrap targets could amount to £200 billion on energy bills, or £8,000 per household.

Debden himself confirmed the current policy was more cost-effective, according to the Guardian.

One can only wonder why the Telegraph and Mail preferred to report Debden's support for shale. Perhaps they want to turn a blind eye to the fact that Cameron's and Osborne's support for shale on grounds of bringing down fuel bills is now clearly seen as a sham.
Thank you for the clarification.
[quote][p][bold]ragamala[/bold] wrote: Mr Jarrs The context was that Lord Debden hijacked news reporting of the new report of the Climate Change Committee which he chairs. This has been summarised as urging the government NOT to reverse its policy on climate change, as George Osborne fully intends to do. It issued new figures showing that the intended measures would cost us dearly, not only in failing to stave off change effects, but financially. The Independent rported that the etrxa cost of the new policy to scrap targets could amount to £200 billion on energy bills, or £8,000 per household. Debden himself confirmed the current policy was more cost-effective, according to the Guardian. One can only wonder why the Telegraph and Mail preferred to report Debden's support for shale. Perhaps they want to turn a blind eye to the fact that Cameron's and Osborne's support for shale on grounds of bringing down fuel bills is now clearly seen as a sham.[/p][/quote]Thank you for the clarification. HJarrs

5:43am Sat 14 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

Its fact that fracking undertaken professionally with appropriate controls is completely safe, although the topic is a convenient distraction for the mess we are making in the locality with our green 'sic' policies.

Would all the usual non working, benefit grabbing, Marxist wasters interested in a protest, please apply early as demand is going to be high.
Its fact that fracking undertaken professionally with appropriate controls is completely safe, although the topic is a convenient distraction for the mess we are making in the locality with our green 'sic' policies. Would all the usual non working, benefit grabbing, Marxist wasters interested in a protest, please apply early as demand is going to be high. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree