By Paul Homewood

 

Yesterday the BBC’s  Country File broadcast a shamelessly anti-fracking segment:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0bk6n4x/countryfile-essex

[About 7 minutes in]

 

The programme was loaded with subtle and not so subtle anti-fracking messages, including hints about how clean wind and solar power are, emotive film of protestors, some lady with horses who lives in the middle of a field, repeated mention of earthquakes and pollution, not to mention the rather misleading photo above which gives the impression fracking sites are much bigger than they really are.

On top of that was the failure to give any serious consideration to the benefits.

The running commentary from Tom Heap included gems like:

“Is the government pushing through fracking despite warnings from its own environmental experts?”

and

“Some say its putting short term economic gain ahead of long term sustainable energy needs”

One of his most misleading statements concerned the report from DEFRA’s Air Quality Expert Group (which he implied the government had tried to suppress), who, according to Heap, claimed that anyone living near a fracking site could see their air quality suffer. In fact the report makes clear that most of the pollution will arise from normal construction activities, eg lorries, diggers and drilling. In other words, nothing different from any bog standard building site, or for that matter wind farm construction site. Moreover, these periods of disruption are just for a few weeks.

The report also makes clear that emissions of methane from extraction activities can be controlled by flaring and proper control procedures.

The programme then wheels on Richard Black, from the renewable lobby group ECIU. Heap asks him if it would be better to have our own supply of gas rather than importing. Without any sort of a challenge from Heap, Black is allowed to claim that it would make no difference as the gas is privately owned by Cuadrilla, meaning there is no benefit for the UK.

Heap fails to point out the very real benefits, such as jobs, tax revenue and energy security. He also fails to challenge Black’s assertion that shale gas will have a short shelf life, as we will all be going renewable. If he is right, it is Cuadrilla who will lose out.

 

Which brings us to the heart of the matter. Neither the National Infrastructure Commission (who Heap misquotes), the National Grid nor the Committee on Climate Change say we won’t still be using huge amounts of natural gas, even by 2050.

They all recognise there is no serious alternative to gas for providing back up power for renewables. And although they would like us all to convert to hydrogen for heating, the only practical way to produce hydrogen in bulk is to use gas as feedstock.

Yet this was not mentioned at all by Heap, who instead prattled on about renewable energy.

About the only counter to the anti-fracking message was a short interview with Francis Egan, boss of Cuadrilla.

There was little attempt at real balance. Why, for instance, was there no mention of investigations by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering and the British Geological Survey, both of which found that fracking was a perfectly safe activity?

Or that construction of wind and solar farms is also unpopular with those affected?

Above all, that if we want to continue to enjoy our current standard of living, we have to accept a certain amount of disruption to our lives.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/2QdLiVz

September 10, 2018 at 12:34PM