You'd think Greens would be delighted by the shale gas bounty under
our feet. Here is a plentiful energy supply which does not emit soot (as
coal does), nor jam estuaries (as tidal turbines do), nor starve
Africans (as biofuels do), nor slaughter rare birds
(as wind farms do). It does not require public subsidies (as both
nuclear and renewables do). On the contrary, it will generate a healthy
stream of tax revenue for the Exchequer. It will diminish our reliance
on nasty regimes, from Tehran to Moscow – precisely the sorts of regimes
that Greens march against. Oh, and it will reduce our carbon emissions,
by displacing coal in electricity generators.
What, then, is the problem? Some campaigners talk of water pollution;
others, a touch histrionically, of earthquakes. If either was a
remotely serious prospect, we'd know by now. There has been a great deal
of fracking in the United States, but not a single instance of
groundwater being contaminated. As for earthquakes, well, yes,
technically any tremor qualifies as an earthquake, but the kind caused
by fracking is, according to the most comprehensive report to
date, “about the same as the impact caused by dropping a bottle of
milk”. The process has been pronounced safe by the Royal Academy of
Engineering and by the Royal Society.
READ MORE: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100223838/greens-dont-like-fracking-because-they-dont-like-prosperity/
No comments:
Post a Comment