Page | 1

Fracking in Northern Ireland: Unconventional, unnecessary and unwanted…and why need to start delegitimising fossil fuels

Speaking Notes for Science Café debate

3rd November 2015

Professor John Barry

School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy

Queen’s University Belfast

Introduction

I welcome this debate and congratulate the Science Café for having it and for inviting me to contribute.

I want to begin by making a confession.

Hello, my name is John Barry and I suffer from addiction to a substance. I am an addict. I have had this addiction all my life…. Though I did not become aware of it until later in my life. This addiction like all addictions causes harm to others and myself. And I’m sadly not alone…everyone else in this room is also an addict, and addicted to the same substance …we are all addicted to fossil fuels.

Out entire ways of life, from the food we eat to the ways in which we travel, heat our homes and power our lives and work are dependence upon climate changing, non-renewable and harm causing fossil fuels.

If you are sceptical answer this question: name one thing in this room that has not been made in whole or part, or transported here in whole or part without the use of fossil fuels?

So I begin from the starting point that we and our societies and economies are systematically addicted to fossil fuels and that like addictions this causes harm….and also denial of course that we are addicted …or that our addiction causes harm.

Denial and minimisation are of course both hallmarks of addiction after all. Our addiction to fossil fuels, from their point of extraction to their burning for energy, while of course providing energy and with that the capacity to improve and sustain our lives, also comes at a high and usually hidden cost. And these costs range from the environmental and health damage caused by the extraction and transportation of the raw materials; to the corruption of governments and democracy by the amount of money to be made from peddling fossil fuels or the enormous political and economic power wielded by a handful of mega fossil fuel corporations; to geopolitical instability and wars caused by countries illegally invading and occupying other countries to secure sources of ancient sunlight; to how investments in fossil fuels ‘lock in’ a centralised carbon based energy system and ‘lock out’ and delay the transition to a renewable energy economy; or the simple fact, a real inconvenient truth, that burning this ancient sunlight is causing climate instability and effectively cooking the planet (and us).

And, my fellow citizens gathered here tonight, support for fracking therefore is simply our latest fossil fuel addiction, pushing us further into addiction and the bad habits and harms that go along with that. When what we need to do is recognise our addiction and seek to wean ourselves off the substance to which we are addicted. In short, we need to detox from fossil fuels rather than continuing our carbon addiction by fracking. To coin a phrase ‘Frack is crack’…

In my short presentation tonight I want to make 6 points

  1. How to think about this issue – facts AND values
  2. Fracking as diverting investment and innovation
  3. Risk assessment and the need for the precautionary principle
  4. Local democracy and ‘sacrifice zones’
  5. Leadership
  6. The need to delegitimise fossil fuels, including fracking.
  1. How to think about this issue – facts AND values

As a political scientist I am pleased to be speaking since the decision about fracking is ultimately a political decision, and ideally a democratic political decision. That is, while we should listen and take into account scientific, technological expertise and reports from economic, engineering, geological, climate change and low carbon disciplines, the risks and opportunities associated with fracking, the intimate connection between fracking and climate, the economy, local democracy, trust in science, governance etc. means that we cannot avoid this being ultimately a political decision. And it is absolutely correct that this is the case.

In other words, it is absolutely necessary but not enough to focus on one specific issue – geological in/stability, the structural safety of drilling or the conventional economics of fracking for example – and judge fracking safe, permissible or desirable from that one point of view. We need a full spectrum assessment of this complex issue and while scientific and technical evidence is absolutely important, they are by no means the only forms of evidence we need to make an informed decision. In other words, to view the issue of fracking politically is to say that while it may be safe on one set of criteria, this does not or should not automatically lead to its endorsement. There are no easy answers and we cannot avoid politics, since the issue is not simply one of verifiable ‘scientific facts’ but of contested and completely legitimate differences in ‘values’ and political judgements.

I also welcome the input from experts on geology, engineering and mining, but, to return to my earlier point, about the unavoidable political character of decision-making about fracking, we should be guided by the maxim that ‘experts’ (including I hasten to add political scientists such as myself) should be on tap not on top’.

That is, the ‘facts’ while necessary are insufficient to helping us make a decision. A facts or evidence-based discussion can help inform our decision but cannot and indeed should not dictate it. While decisions about fracking and other energy choices should be informed by science, scientific expertise and experts should be ‘on tap, not on top’. Ultimately the decision to frack or not is a political decision and it ought to be a political decision.

Thus, even if fracking can be done without damaging the environment, without polluting and poisoning water courses, without causing earthquakes, without killing biodiversity and compromising the life chances of animals, without damaging human health, even if all that can be demonstrated….one can still be 100% opposed to fracking and this can be a perfectly legitimate, reasonable, prudent and rationale position to take. This is because there are many non-environmental, non-health and biodiversity arguments one can mobilise to argue against fracking as ‘unconventional, unnecessary and unwanted’. The ‘sub-prime’ and ‘sub-optimal’ character of fracked gas as a legitimate form of energy is not exhausted by it environmental or health deficiencies sadly.

We need to place the discussion of fracking within the bigger energy and carbon picture: we need to leave coal, oil and gas –natural and convention or unconventional, before they leave us. We need to decarbonise our economy and ways of life as quickly as possible in order to make this transition as economically advantageous for us and to reduce the costs (and pain) of the transition to a decarbonised economy. At the same time, to keep average rises in global temperatures to 2 degrees – the safe leave to avoid dangerous or runaway climate change – we need to leave 2/3 of the extractable fossil fuels in the ground – that includes coal, oil and gas, including fracked gas. This is the calculation, not of environmental groups or anti-fracking organisations, but the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As Oxford Professor Dieter Helm has noted

There is enough oil and gas (and coal too) to fry the planet several times over. The problem is there may be too much fossil fuel, not too little, and that fossil fuel prices might be too low, not too high.Prof. Dieter Helm, 2011

The key issues in my judgement is how to we move as quickly as possible away from fossil fuels, reduce our GHG emissions to combat climate change, enhance energy security and reduce our dependence on imported energy, and create a new job-rich green low carbon economy in the process. We need to decarbonise our economy and society as soon as possible to combat climate change, but also make the transition to the next stage of industrial development, the green, low carbon, sustainable economy.

These are the questions that should form the basis of how we make any decision.

  1. Fracking as diverting investment and innovation

The ‘dash for fracked gas’ undermines or at the very least delays the uptake and development of a renewable energy economy. Government in signalling support for shale gas gives mixed messages to investors at the very least and at worst can help divert investment from renewable energy to fossil fuel energy sources.

Unconventional Gas opponents fear that large investments in Unconventional Gas will come at the expense of more environmentally - friendly alternative energies, such as solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and secondary biomass energy sources.

UNEP (2012) ‘Gas fracking: can we safely squeeze the rocks?’

, p.1

If we are serious about tackling climate change, growing the green, sustainable economy across this island, harnessing the engineering skills of our population, as well as the abundant sources of renewable energy around us, create green, non-outsourceable jobs, especially in the hard-pressed construction sector, begin the decade long process of investing in an all-island smart electric grid, the direction of travel indicated by giving the green light to fracking is the wrong signal to give.

  1. Risk assessment and the need for the precautionary principle

The ‘precautionary principle’ is one of the principles that should be used in coming to any decision on whether or not to proceed with fracking. The key issue here is to prove safety as opposed to proving harm. What the precautionary principle tells us is to act in advance of conclusive scientific evidence or conclusively establishing causal links between some proposed activity and harm.

When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity (those who want to frack), rather than the public or those objecting to the development (those opposed to fracking), should bear the burden of proof. The precautionary principle means it the burden is on those promoting fracking to prove safety or minimal harm rather than for opponents to prove harm or unacceptable risk. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed by the best available science, be democratic and must include all potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.

Evidence from the US suggests shale gas extraction brings a significant risk of ground and surface water contamination and until the evidence base is developed a precautionary approach to development in the UK and Europe is the only responsible action. (p.6.; emphasis added), Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (2011), Shale gas: a provisional assessment of climate change and environmental impacts

And on this basis there is insufficient proof of safety of the process for it to proceed. As the wise St Thomas Aquinas once said, ‘It is better for a blind horse that it is slow’. Where we lack full scientific or technological proof about the safety or acceptability of a process that may have potential threats or harm, it is both entirely legitimate to err on the side of caution and not to proceed with a proposed development. Indeed, in the context of fracking taking a precautionary approach is the only morally responsible approach rather than a reckless or desperate ‘gung ho’ approach of rushing headlong into something the full implications of which we do not know.

  1. Local democracy and ‘sacrifice zones’

There are important democratic and justice dimensions to decisions about fracking. There is an issue with local communities feeling their area/concerns are ‘sacrificed’ for some other bigger concern, and their voices and concerns being ignored and over-ridden by central government, political or economic elites and energy companies.

There is a lot of fear in communities on this issue – based on the not unreasonable sense that our desire for fossil fuels, our society and economy’s addiction to them – will mean riding roughshod over the objections of local communities, other affected industries and stakeholders – tourism, farming, fishing etc.

And let me be clear, and I speak as much to those against fracking as to local politicians and decision-makers on this point, it is not enough to say ‘No’. In my view, given the serious issues fracking raises about our future energy economy, for politicians to reject fracking is a necessary but not sufficient condition to warrant or justify that decision. Given ‘business as usual’ is not an option, and the pressing need to decarbonise the economy and make the transition to a renewable and low energy economy as quickly as possible, it is incumbent upon politicians who reject fracking to propose genuine low carbon, sustainable energy and economic models.

  1. Leadership

So, from a political, democratic point of view, what fracking presents is an opportunity for local politicians here in this Assembly to chart a new vision for Northern Ireland, one which listens to all the available evidence, the arguments from a scientific and technical analyses of the pros and cons, political, economic and ethical considerations, listen to the concerns of local people and other stakeholders whose lives and livelihoods will be affected by this risky fossil fuel energy source. Supporting fracking is the easy option politically, it fits within the business as usual paradigm, delivers some short-term benefits but at potentially great and long-term costs, not least locking us into a fossil fuel energy future and moving us further down the road to frying the planet rather than changing course to chart a new clean, green energy future for your and future generations to come.

  1. The need to delegitimise fossil fuels, including fracking

We need to leave the coal in the hole, the oil in the soil and keep the frack away from unconventional shale gas.

We need to actively delegitimise fossil fuels through campaigns such a as fossil fuel divestment like the FossilFreeQUB one. That is, divestment is just as much a social and political statement as a financial statement. It may not starve companies or Universities of capital, but it will send a message that business as usual is no longer acceptable.

Accelerating the end of the fossil fuel era through reframing carbon as having now passed the point where their continued use is destructive, biophysically and ecologically unsustainable, and perpetuates injustice, secrecy and geopolitical tensions.

This is an important positive feature of any political and normative delegitimisation struggle would be to positively revalue fossil fuels (especially oil). A central place in the delegitimisation of fossil fuels as also arguing that they are simply too valuable a chemical resource to be burnt.

For example, oil is an extraordinarily versatile substance. Its versatility is such that it can be transformed into clothing, medicines, building materials, carpet, skin care products, agricultural chemicals, perfumes, and many other products. At the same time we need to calculate (even in conventional economic terms) the opportunity cost of burning fossil fuels to produce energy rather than using them to produce other goods and services. A study by the World Future Council put an economic price on the consumption of oil, gas and hard coal to produce energy when they could be used instead for making other useful things. Their report claims the cost of these important natural resources runs into trillions of dollars a year, but does not appear in economic calculations of the costs of generating energy (Kroll, 2013).

We should rename ‘fossil fuels’ as ‘fossil resources’. ‘Fuels’ are by definition presented to be burnt to produce energy i.e. a singular use, whereas ‘resources’ have multiple uses.

Fossil fuel delegitimisation also involves campaigns that focus on moving the focus further up the fossil fuel supply chain to highlight the human rights abuses and environmental devastation caused by extraction, and stressing the geopolitical instability – wars and invasions for fossil fuels, such as Iraq in 2003, climate injustice and climate change as problem amplifiers and so on – that is the high price paid for a carbon energy system. Here the bottom line is how scientifically and ethically informed civil society political action can accelerate the end of the fossil fuel era, through reframing carbon as having now passed the point where their continued use is destructive, biophysically and ecologically unsustainable, and perpetuates injustice, secrecy and geopolitical tensions. This requires the explicit reframing of fossil fuels as threats, poisons, negatives to human progress and development.

Conclusion

So in conclusion, fracking is an unnecessary distraction from the real work of planning our over-due transition to a low carbon economy, one fit for purpose for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century. To paraphrase the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, ‘we need to leave gas before gas leaves us’.