The Real
News
September 23, 2017
A report commissioned by 'Talk
Fracking' analyzes the latest peer-reviewed fracking science and questions a
4-year-old report that UK conservatives rely on to push through their fracking
agenda
SPEAKER: The
Mackay-Stone Report, which is the government's cornerstone report into selling
fracking to the nation has now been exposed as fake science, dodgy data, and a
dodgy dossier.
TINA-LOUISE ROTHERY: The
Mackay-Stone Report was a report that came out after a study that was done that
was called the Howarth Study. Now the Howarth Study came out in 2011, and that
was Ingraffea and two other gentlemen who did the study. It was a really
thorough but very damning study of the shale gas industry.
PAUL MOBBS: That
was just as the government were launching the shale oil and gas strategy in
Britain, and it looked rather bad that this report came out saying that shale
gas is worse than coal. So they commissioned the DECC, the Department of Energy
and Climate Change, scientific advisor and an economist to look at the issue
and produce a report for the government saying what the state actually was.
TINA-LOUISE ROTHERY: The
processes looked reasonable, but where were they getting those figures?
PAUL MOBBS: So
we have the industry figures, which use a system called inventory analysis. The
inventory method is called bottom-up, because you break the system down into
its component parts at the bottom. So they recreated bits of equipment in
laboratories, work out what each piece is creating, that is the inventory, and
by adding all the bottom bits together, you work upwards to produce a top-level
figure.
The inventory analysis approach, it's been known since
the 1990s that it always underestimates. So now they can take the equipment out
into the field. What the instrumental method finds is that the real emissions
can be anything from a factor of two to nine times higher. That's why these two
figures are different; one is an estimate, which is what the governments and
the international organizations base their figures on, which is mostly
estimates, and one is a measure of the actual level of pollution.
Since then, we've had 40 or 50 new studies, most of
which either criticize inventory analysis by showing that the figures aren't
very representative of what's really happening, or they're showing much higher
levels because they're monitoring the actual pollution that was in the
environment.
SPEAKER: We
know from the International Panel on Climate Change that the next 20 to 30
years are the most important in terms of reducing our emissions so that we
don't pass the two-degree tipping point where we cannot stop the runaway
climate change.
PAUL MOBBS: When
you emit carbon dioxide, it's quite long-lived, and so by measuring it at 100
years, you're measuring how much persists in the environment.
Methane has a higher warming effect but most of that
effect happens in the first 20 years, because it traps heat almost immediately
and then slowly over time turns into carbon dioxide, and so you wouldn't look
at the effect of methane over 100 years because most of it wouldn't exist. You
have to look over 20 years.
JOE CORRE: The
Mackay-Stone Report, of course, used a 20 times figure after the 100-year
period, which to say the least is disingenuous, particularly if their report
was supposed to be looking specifically at the effect fracking would have on
climate change.
PAUL MOBBS: If
you're looking at the 20-year global warming potential, if it leaks more than
two percent, it's worse than coal. We're talking leakage rates which are
acknowledged by the government of a half to one percent. If that's an
underestimate of three or four times then you're up into that range which makes
shale gas as bad as coal.
TINA-LOUISE ROTHERY: There
is a duty of care in government, a duty of care to our children, and they are
not fulfilling that. Worse than not fulfilling it, they are positively putting
them at risk by sending out false signals, false reports, and lies.
JOE CORRE: It's
critical that people understand the ramifications of the Conservative Party
Manifesto as we head into this election. It affects our future, our children's
future, and the environment and habitat that we have to live in and survive on.
The Infrastructure Act in 2015 created a new definition for fracking, and they
defined it as using less than 10,000 cubic meters of toxic fracking fluid, the
equivalent to four Olympic-sized swimming pools. Anything that uses a bucketful
less than four Olympic-sized swimming pools will be allowed to be pushed
through under permitted development. What you will find is that any drilling
for petroleum and such is exempt from any objections from the council and
therefore local people. Permitted development also means that the council do
not have to give notice of any planning applications from the fracking
companies to local people. The first time you're going to know about it is when
they turn up on your doorstep, and it will be too late and there's nothing you
can do about it.
VIVIENNE WESTWOOD: If
you put that into perspective, in the last 10 years 90% of the fracked oil
wells in America and 45% of the fracked gas wells would be non-fracking….
To access the COMPLETE
news,
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario