Meeting of the Parliament 07 May 2014
To members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, this is a very familiar topic, although we are used to seeing Murdo Fraser curb his great enthusiasm so as to retain convener-like composure. For his and everybody else’s sake, I am glad that he had the chance to let loose today.
The UK Government’s headlong rush to pepper rural England with unconventional gas sites is quite remarkable, not just because of the contrast with the more cautious and evidence-based approach of the Scottish Government but because it comes from a party that, in past manifestos, held local opposition to be so sacrosanct that it proposed a moratorium on onshore wind farms. Take the plans, roll on a few years and we can easily foresee a point at which the well-to-do villagers march instead against gas wells, and wind farm protests are last decade. We are not talking about the big sky country of the United States, where there is a hundred miles between homes and no communities in between—here, every drilling site has someone for a neighbour.
There might be communities that would welcome unconventional gas—doubtless, there are communities that would, on balance, welcome a large-scale return to opencast coal mining, despite all the environmental difficulties that it would cause. However, if such communities exist today with arms outstretched for shale gas, I do not see them. The updating of planning policy will strengthen the hand of communities, whatever their view, and it is to be enthusiastically welcomed.
For me, the motion is narrowly and perhaps a little excessively focused on one aspect of fossil fuel extraction when, in truth, the instinct of the proposer is, I think, to object to it in all its aspects. We live in a nation that is committed to reductions in fossil fuel use and in a world that should be. For some, that is an inconvenient truth but, for us, it is a legislative reality.
Recently, I participated in a science festival event in which an audience member asked the panel what a Scottish energy mix in the 2020s would be. To the surprise of the questioner, all of us on the panel, including Dr David Toke, renewables expert and consultant for the European Greens, agreed on the need to use gas as a step-down fuel. As we have heard, per unit, gas releases less carbon than coal and even less with carbon capture and storage. Although Scotland will generate enough renewable electricity to meet our annual demand by 2020, gas is needed for the peaks and troughs, because it can be dialled up and down more flexibly than nuclear or any other competitor. In heating, gas will continue to be with us for some time to come.
Both of those issues have to be—and are being—taken into account in our world-leading emissions trajectory. Against that must be held the danger of drawing investment away from renewables, as nuclear has unquestionably done south of the border, as well as the carbon costs of extraction, which are higher the more unconventional the method, and the question of safety in an industry in which competing claims have left doubts that thus far have not reassured those who would see fracking next door.
There should be two lenses for considering unconventional gas. The first is that individuals should have the right to live in communities that are clean and safe and that are in control of their own future, which is a principle that I hold to whether the community is local, national or supranational. The second is the need for us as a society to reduce overall carbon emissions. Those should be the evidence tests not just for unconventional gas but for all energy sources, including renewables. Most people welcome our tremendous progress in that field, but we have to encourage projects in which communities are not just the neighbours but the principal initiators, owners and benefactors of the energy that is generated from their surroundings.
15:54