On Technology and Politics

I am hugely indebted to Langdon Winner’s 1986 The Whale and The Reactor [1] for the ideas dicussed here. Of course, any misinterpretation is mine and I certainly recommend reading the whole book.

In the chapter entitled ‘Do artefacts have politics?’, Winner explains that technologies can be political in two ways. First when the invention, design, or implementation of a technology is biased to shape human relationships in a certain way, e.g. by favouring certain users over others. I plan to consider this issue in more detail in a follow-up post on inclusive design. For now, the key point here is that the political consequences (intended or not) are present ab initio rather than being a side-effect of the technology’s professed use. Second, when technologies are “ ‘inherently political’ ”, a proposition that admits a strong statement, later referred to as (a): certain technical systems require a particular socio-political environment to operate; and a weaker statement (b): certain technical systems are strongly compatible with a particular socio-political environment. [1 p.32, my emphasis].

A clear example of (a) is the atom bomb, which requires an authoritarian chain of command to avoid any unpredictability in its use, even if the regime holding it is a democracy. Unsurprisingly, this model of organisation spreads to affect anything nuclear and as Jerry Mander wrote: “if you accept nuclear power plants, you also accept a techno-scientific-industrial-military elite” [2, quoted in 1 p. 32]. This leaves Winner to worry that the possibility of recycling plutonium as nuclear fuel combined with the risk of terrorist attacks will lead to a drastic, unwarranted reduction in civil liberties. I would argue that large-scale energy projects, particularly those involving unconventional extraction methods, suffer similar issues. For example, fracking is a polluting technology, which requires large-scale infrastructures over vast areas of countryside. The scale of the project calls for a centralised, hierarchical organisation; the dangers involved means it can only be politically imposed from the top-down by industry leaders and governments, with civil liberties at risk [e.g. 3].

Discussing energy sources leads us to examples for the weaker statement (b). In the 70s, environmentalist David Hayes wrote that “dispersed solar sources are more compatible than centralized technologies with social equity, freedom and cultural pluralism” [4, quoted in 1 p.20]. Indeed, a very recent example, Enova Energy is the first Australian community-owned renewable energy retailer, which grew from the Northern Rivers communities’ successful fight against the fracking industry [5, 6]. Closer to home, York Community Energy is “an independent, volunteer-run charity aiming to set up a community-controlled renewable energy generating cooperative in the City of York area” [7].

However, Winner cautions that even if a technology is more compatible with community control, it won't be a necessary consequence of the rolling out of that particular technology, e.g. if the production and maintenance of the equipment is centralised in the hands of a few corporations. In addition, in the case of renewable energy production, there is a difference between having pannels or a small windturbine on one’s roof and the installation of large-scale wind or solar farms. The crucial point here is that community control is not going to happen without the conscious political decision to make it happen. So far, we have been ‘technological somnambulists’ to use another of Winner’s expressions, accepting dramatic changes to our ways of life one innovation after another, turning into fully fledged consumers while dissociating ourselves from corporations and governments, letting them create for us whatever type of society their interests call for. 

It is therefore high time to reawaken the political debate without getting quagmired as Winner warns by issues such as ‘efficiency’ and ‘risks’. 

Indeed, there is a danger that what seems to be the most efficient way to run a factory (typically, authoritarian) comes to be viewed as the most efficient way to run a country, leading to a technocratic approach where experts ‘know best’ and technical imperatives are used to justify any practices. “It is characteristic of societies based on large, complex, technological systems, however, that moral reasons other than those of practical necessity appear increasingly obsolete, ‘idealistic’ and irrelevant” [1 p.36] and thus the moral discourse becomes subordinated to efficiency requirements. For example, a genuinely political debate on nuclear versus renewable energy, considering for example whether we would chose a culture of fear and reduced civil liberties over the freedom allowed by small-scale, locally controlled energy production, could easily by hijacked by numbers with reports investigating which method is the most ‘efficient’ at producing a given amount of kWh. I am not saying that economics and technical details don’t matter; I am only emphasizing that they shouldn’t be left to tell the whole story for that would be abdicating our citizenry.

On the question of ‘risk’, I am returning to fracking since in spite of increased media coverage, it seems to me that there is no debate to speak of [see e.g. 8]. The industry and government officials repeat the same arguments ad nauseam, while opponents point out the accumulating evidence of the harms caused by this technology. It isn’t clear in fact when enough evidence will be enough. Never perhaps, for the industry will argue that the technology keeps improving; the government will argue that regulations are gold standard while refusing to answer specific questions; more time and resources will be devoted to further studies that are unlikely to be more conclusive. The establishment prefers to talk about the ‘risks’ of fracking rather than its ‘dangers’, for risks are taken but dangers avoided. And who knows, perhaps the risks are worth it? For without people taking risks we wouldn’t have cars or planes, I have been told. Yet I am not sure whether we are better off with either: certainly air quality isn’t and this is a high price to pay. Of course such discourse will be branded heretical, for surely we couldn’t do without cars, nor can we ‘halt the march of progress’. Yet again I have to make clear that I am not against technology nor innovation. My emphasis is that believing that progress will magic a technological fix to all our woes is a powerful and dangerous myth; and my contention, which runs throughout these posts, is that the direction we want technological development to take should be given thought. Technologies, Winner writes, are “ways of building order in our world” [1 p.28]. Once a technology develops, it loses flexibility as money is invested, hardware and infrastructures are built, and social habits develop. It is therefore crucial to make sound decisions at the initial stages.

To return to fracking, the people are wise to call for a debate even before its economic viability in the UK is ascertained. However the debale should not be an engineering debate about the ‘risks’ of fracking, which might never be settled. It should be a political debate about the kind of society we want to live in, and how we go about building it. Such a debate should be welcomed and encouraged by the government of any democratic nation.

As Winner writes, it is high time to tackle “a problem that has been brewing since the earliest days of the industrial revolution - whether our society can establish forms and limits for technological change, forms and limits that derive from a positively articulated idea of what society ought to be” [1 p.52].

(Link to a Yorkshire Post opinion letter I wrote in relation to this post.)

____________________________

[1] Langdon Winner, The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1986. The pages quotes refer to the paperback edition, 1989.

[2] Jerry Mander, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. New York: William Morrow, 1979.

[3] R. Hayhurst, "Human rights campaigner urges oil company to drop High Court bid for injunction", 17th March 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2018/03/17/human-rights-campaigner-urges-oil-company-to-drop-high-court-bid-for-injunction/ [last accessed: March 21st 2018]

[4] D. Hayes, Rays of Hope: The Transition to a Post-Petroleum World. New York: W.W. Norton, 1977.

[5]  B. Shoebridge, Producer, The Bentley Effect. [documentary]. Details at: https://www.thebentleyeffect.com [last accessed: March 21st 2018]

[6] https://enovaenergy.com.au [last accessed: March 19th 2018]

[7] http://yorkcommunityenergy.org.uk [last accessed: March 19th 2018]

[8] R. Hayhurst, "Live updates from Pickering debate on fracking regulations: MP vs the engineer", 8th March 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2018/03/17/human-rights-campaigner-urges-oil-company-to-drop-high-court-bid-for-injunction/ [last accessed: March 21st 2018]

Is fracking ethical? A look at governance issues

In this post we consider the state of the public involvement with fracking-related decisions. 

In the case of Third Energy’s KM8 site at Kirby Misperton, the community clearly feels their voice has not been heard. Indeed, 99.2% of the people who responded to a North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) consultation opposed fracking at the site, yet the Council’s planning committee did approve Third Energy’s application in spite of this overwhelming opposition [1]. A legal challenge to NYCC’s decision was rejected in court in December 2016, which led to the set up of the Kirby Misperton Protection Camp close to the affected site [2]. Since the site has become active in preparation for fracking in September 2017, there have been daily demonstrations at the gate as local people and protectors from further afield campaign against the fracking industry and its complete disregard for local democracy.

Scholarly literature on environmental justice highlights the complexity of governance issues regarding energy technologies and megaprojects and questions the fairness of the UK’s decisional process. In particular, a comparative study of the US and UK shale gas governance systems in the context of public participation and social justice led Whitton et al. to write

We conclude that in both countries, despite government and industry engagement rhetoric and associated processes, the public’s influence on shale gas decisions is perceived to be minimal or not at all. We argue that the implications of the observed institutional governance systems, with few opportunities for citizen influence, are developments which inherently lack social justice, procedural fairness, and ultimately, a social license to operate. [3]

The governance issues highlighted for the UK involve clear instances of top-down decision making. After a brief moratorium on fracking following earthquakes presumably triggered by drilling operation in Weeton, Lancashire, in 2011, the coalition government led by David Cameron went ‘all out for shale’ during the Spending Round 2013, with economic incentives targeting oil and gas companies, councils and affected site communities. This policy led to an increase in Petroleum Exploration and Development Licences (PDELs). Following on, legislative reforms leading to the Infrastructure Act 2015 placed decisional powers in the hands of the Secretary of State for large-scale developments deemed of national significance. As part of the Act, changes to trespass laws designed to permit access to underground oil and gas resources (below 300m or 1200m in national parks) without seeking landowners’ permissions were retained despite overwhelming opposition during the consultation process [4], a move creating ‘significant democracy deficits in planning policy’ [5]. Indeed, in October 2016, the national government overturned Lancashire County Council’s refusal to allow fracking at the Preston New Road site [6] and locals have been left with little option but to protest [7]. There have been efforts to engage affected communities via community payback schemes such as the Shale Wealth Fund with a consultation launched in August 2016 [8]. However this is often construed as bribery and as a divisive tactic by those who are opposing fracking in the first place. Besides, this relates to distributive justice (with a procedural element as to how the funds are managed), but not to procedural justice upstream of the decision to frack. As such, it remains insufficient to ensure environmental justice [5].

Whitton et al. [3] contrast the technocratic ‘Decide-Announce-Defend (D-A-D) strategy of expert assessment, closed decision-making, and and public relations mechanisms of information provisions to affected site communities’ with ‘a more democratic and collaborative E-D-D approach (Engage Deliberate Design)’, argueing that the latter is necessary for procedural fairness. The technocratic view insists that it is best for experts to decide, as in theory they know best, and leads to decision being taken behind closed doors between industrials and politicians, away from public scrutiny. However technological choices are not clear-cut and involve much more than technical details, and expert opinions can be divided and biased - unconsciously or consciously, especially when financial stakes are high. Often the public is misinformed and uninformed, and when individual citizens or campaign groups take it upon themselves to do the research, it is quasi-automatically labelled as inaccurate (they are not experts) and biased (they are campaigning) when in contrast industrial lobbies with obvious interests are held to be perfectly respectable and impartial.

Communities faced with fracking developments have used all possible legal avenues of opposition to no avail and are left with little alternative than protest and direct action. They are supported in this by MPs of varied political backgrounds and by the Green Party and its leaders ([9], [10]). In response, there a strong police presence at the sites concerned. The police and crime commissioner for North Yorkshire states that 

The police have a legal obligation to facilitate fundamental human rights by supporting and protecting those engaging in peaceful protest, whilst balancing the rights of other parties to go about their lawful business. [11]

However, after visiting the site last October, it is difficult to shake off the idea that the police’s job is to facilitate a corporation’s business against the will of the local community. An academic report on the policing of the peaceful anti-fracking protest and protection camp at Barton Moss, Greater Manchester, between November 2013 and April 2014 is a sobering read and raises concerns relevant to current protest sites [12]. In particular, the researchers conclude

• The nature and scale of the policing operation was found to be disproportionate to the activities of the camp. Policing tactics had the effect of undermining the rights of those protesting peacefully, meaning GMP [Greater Manchester Police] failed in their obligation to facilitate peaceful protest as stated by the European Convention on Human Rights.

• GMP officers – from planning stages to conclusion – prioritised the commercial interests of the fracking company over the right of local residents and supporters to exercise their right to protest [12]

At the end of the report, the first recommendation is to ask for a full, independent public inquiry:

Given the centrality of the right to protest in a liberal democracy, and that fracking and public opposition to fracking continue to be a live issue in the UK, it is in the public interest that these concerns are investigated thoroughly and transparently. [13 p.45]

The report also highlights the misleading and inaccurate portrayal of protesters as troublemakers from outside the impacted community. This is denying the fact that most of those opposing fracking are local citizens who have made the effort to inform themselves. Besides supporters from further afield should be expected since the government considers fracking an issue of national significance. 

These findings highlight the lack of dialogues between the industry, politicians, and other stakeholders. The former repeat their PR discourse - the process is safe, adequate regulations are in place, and the region will benefit - and remain deaf to the concerns of the local populations and environmentalists. Prospects are downright scary, with threats to democracy and the environment exemplified by giant company Ineos taking preventive action against potential protests [14] and beginning the year by announcing its plans to frack under the North York Moors National Parks [15].

I have argued in my previous post that rolling out fracking is not ethical, and I am now arguing that the process leading to the decision to frack was unethical in the first place because it shunned the views of key stakeholders. To remedy this, it is essential to involve impacted communities in the decision process. This is challenging, first because as Whitton et al. [3] emphasize, the term ‘community’ does not refer to a homogeneous group, but to a diversity of stakeholders with different interests. Besides, the notion of ‘affected community’ is difficult to frame in the case of fracking as, for example, any instance of water or soil pollution could have widespread consequences, and climate change impacts can be felt on the other side of the planet. A real dialogue need involve transparency, honesty and accountability from industrials and politicians, thus a high level of professional ethics not achieved to this day, as well as engagement and education of all stakeholders and ordinary citizens concerned, and respect for their understanding and point of view. Such a dialogue would require genuine open-mindedness and a real effort to understand others’ and crucially one’s own motivations.

Finally, if a social license from the ‘community’ is to be meaningful, then a refusal to deploy a technology must be a genuine possibility. I argued in my previous post that fracking should be an easy case in that respect: it is too dangerous and it is not needed. There are however other situations where challenges are to be met: for example what to do with nuclear waste and how are the risk managed, for the waste is there and still being produced. Scholarly work from social scientists is addressing those issues and offering possible and fair solutions (see e.g. references in [3], [16]). These studies should be pointed out to industrials and politicians, and as I will keep arguing in this blog, to engineers and engineering students.

____________________________

[1] Frack Free Ryedale, No social License: 99.2% against fracking at KM8, www.frackfreeryedale.org. [Online]. Available: http://frackfreeryedale.org/km8nosociallicence/ [last accessed: Jan. 5th 2018]

[2] R. Hayhurst, “Anti-fracking camp set up near Kirby Misperton shale gas site”, Drill or Drop, 21st December 2016. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2016/12/21/anti-fracking-camp-set-up-near-kirby-misperton-shale-gas-site/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]

[3] J. Whitton et al., “Shale gas governance in the United Kingdom and United States: Opportunities for public participation and the implications for social justice”. Energy Research & Solcial Justice 26 (2017) pp. 11-22

[4] United Kingdom. Department of Energy & Climate Change. Consultation outcome: Underground drilling access. 23rd May 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/underground-drilling-access [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]

[5] M. Cotton, “Fair fracking? Ethics and environmental justice in United Kingdom shale gas policy and planning”. Local Environment, 22:2 (2017) pp. 185-202

[6] R. Hayhurst, “Breaking: Government approves Cuadrilla’s Lancashire fracking plans at Preston New Road but Roseacre Wood on hold”, Drill or Drop, 6th October 2016. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2016/10/06/breaking-government-approves-cuadrillas-lancashire-fracking-plans-at-preston-new-road-but-roseacre-wood-on-hold/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]

[7] R. Hayhurst, “Three Lancs councillors join 13-person anti-fracking lock-on protest at Cuadrilla’s shale gas site”, Drill or Drop, 3rd July 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/07/03/three-lancs-councillors-join-13-person-anti-fracking-lock-on-protest-at-cuadrillas-shale-gas-site/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018 - I strongly recommend watching the video]

[8] United Kingdom. HM Treasury. Consultation outcome: Shale Wealth Fund. 8th August 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/shale-wealth-fund [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]

[9] R. Hayhurst, “Green Party backs peaceful direct action against fracking in Lancashire”, Drill or Drop, 18st September 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/09/18/green-party-backs-peaceful-direct-action-against-fracking-in-lancashire/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]

[10] R. Hayhurst, “Police drag Green Party co-leader from N Yorks fracking site”, Drill or Drop, 10th November 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/11/10/police-drag-green-party-co-leader-from-n-yorks-fracking-site/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]

[11] Julia Mulligan, Police and Crime Commissioner North Yorkshire, https://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk. [Online]. Available: https://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/how-can-we-help/common-problems/fracking-kirby-misperton/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]

[12] The University of York News & Events. “Call to action to improve protest policing”. 23rd February 2016. [News item] The University of York. Available: https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2016/research/protest-policing-report/ [last accessed: Jan. 4th 2018]

[13] Gilmore J. et al., “Keep moving! Report on the policing of the Barton Moss Protection Camp, November 2013 - April 2014”, Centre for the Study of Crime, Criminalisation and Social Exclusion, Liverpool John Moores University Centre for URBan Research (CURB), University of York. 12th February 2016. Available: https://curbyork.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/bm_final_170216_email.pdf

[14] R. Evans, Fracking firm wins extension to ‘draconian’ protest injunction, The Guardian, 23rd November 2017. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/23/fracking-firm-wins-extension-to-draconian-protest-injunction [last accessed: Jan. 5th 2018]

[15] J. Leake, Ineos Shale to frack in North York Moors, the Heartbeat national park, The Guardian, 31st December 2017. Partly available: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ineos-shale-to-frack-in-north-york-moors-the-heartbeat-national-park-056dqwmgg [last accessed: Jan. 5th 2018]

[16] M. Cotton, Ethics and Technology Assessment: A Participatory Approach. SAPERE volume 13. Springer, 2014.

Is fracking ethical? A look at environmental concerns

There is a crisis unfolding less than 30 miles from where I work: the unrolling of the fracking industry in Kirby Misperton, North Yorkshire amidst strong public opposition, with daily protest and a strong police presence. Other parts of England are targeted for similar developments and, with campaigning on the rise, the situation is evolving rapidly. Up-to-date, exhaustive and independent reporting can be found at DrillorDrop.com [1].

Third Energy’s KM8 well at Kirby Misperton, 14 October 2017.
Photo: Kirby Misperton Protection Camp

A discussion of fracking is not out of place in this blog since it is a technology that raises ethical questions on at least two counts. One is the dangers it poses to the environment and public health, which is considered in this post. The second is its rolling out against the wishes of the local communities and thus the challenges it poses to democracy, which is addressed in the next post.

So what is 'fracking'? The term is a short-hand for 'hydraulic fracturing' and refers to a non-conventional method used to extract natural gas trapped deep underground in layers of shale rock - hence the term 'shale gas'. It consists in drilling vertically until the layer of shale is reached (a couple of kilometres deep), then horizontally for over a kilometre, possibly at various depths and in several directions in order to access a larger surface area of rock. The process of 'fracking' per se then begins: water mixed with sand and chemicals is pumped into the borehole at high pressures to fracture the rock and release the gas. The sand keeps the fractures open to let the gas flow more freely. The figure below illustrates the process and highlights the extent of its water consumption as witnessed in the US [2].

Illustration of a fracking well (not to scale)
Information courtesy of Earthworksaction, design by Hannah Otto, March 2013

In order to be viable, the process requires numerous wells to be drilled, up to 8 per square mile in the US where the technology has been extensively used (see e.g. [3]). This would lead to extensive industrialisation of the countryside. The map below identifies the areas of Yorkshire and Lancashire that are licensed for oil and gas exploration at the time of writing [4].

Petroleum Exploration and Development Licenses in Central and Northern England

Arguably, the process is far from safe. There are increasingly documented damaging effects for human health and for the environment, including a contribution to man-made climate change (see for example the reports by Medact on health impacts [5], and by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) and the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health (CIEH) [6]). In addition, the extensive industrialisation required for the process to be economically viable will harm businesses that rely on unpolluted countryside, such as tourism, outdoor pursuits, and what will affect us all: farming.

My focus here is on the environment and to begin with, it is worth considering the ethical guidelines set out by UK engineering professional bodies. The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) has rules of conduct stating that: "members shall take all reasonable steps to avoid waste of natural resources, damage to the environment, and damage or destruction of man-made products" [7, rule 10]. The Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Council published a Joint Statement of Ethical Principles [8], with a section entitled 'Respect for life, law, the environment and public good' stating in particular that engineering professionals should:

• protect and, wherever possible, improve the quality of built and natural environments
• maximise the public good and minimise both actual and potential adverse effects for their own and succeeding generations
• take due account of the limited availability of natural resources

There is leeway as how to these guidelines are interpreted. For example, what is meant by 'reasonable' in the IET's rules? Or could 'minimising adverse effects' go as far as banning a dangerous technology? I would argue that it does, and that in the case of fracking the answer is clear-cut. As laid out in more detail below, this technology poses such high risks to the environment and results in such high levels of waste of natural resources, that going ahead with it is both unethical and irresponsible.

First, it is a fact that we need air to breathe and water to drink. I believe it is worth reminding ourselves that we can survive but a few minutes without air and a few days without water. I insist: clean air and clean water are not luxuries, they are necessities. We cannot live without them, nor can we take them for granted. Indeed, air pollution is an issue that the current government is at pain to address and is increasingly criticised over [9 - 10].

Now both air and water are threatened by the fracking process.

Air pollution can arise via methane leakage, but also due to the burning of petrol and diesel on site to work the pumps and through vastly increased HGV traffic. Reports from shale gas areas of the USA are worrying at best (see e.g. [11]).

Water pollution can happen through leaking of the fracking fluid and of the released materials into the water table. Proponents of fracking argue that these risks can be managed effectively so that no contaminated waters enter the aquifer through which they will travel up and down the well, or via newly created fractures. Indeed the 2012 Government commissioned report by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering concludes that 

The health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation [12, p.4]

The debate of whether this is the case is still rife in engineering circles as evidenced by an article in the Engineer [13]. Replying to a comment, the journalist writes

to say that it is impossible for the frack process to affect the water table is, quite frankly, ludicrous. In a perfect world, where pipes don't leak and all energy companies act in good faith, fracking could perhaps be carried out safely. However [...] we do not live in a perfect world.

Regulations cannot ensure 100% safety and indeed the companies with licenses to explore for shale gas do not always behave in the most ethical fashion - see for example this article on lobbying by chemical company Ineos [14]; or this article about environmental permit breaches by energy company Cuadrilla [15]; or this article about Third Energy's failure to properly monitor their Kirby Misperton site [16]. These reports do not inspire confidence.


In addition, even if we accept for argument's sake the unlikely event that water contamination is kept to a minimum, this does not alter the fact that the amount of water required to frack is staggering. The report by SGR [6] states that

In the USA, operations on a six-well pad require 54 to 174 million litres of water and 1000 to 3500 tonnes of chemical for a first frack. Wells are generally fracked several times over their lifetimes, each stage requiring additional water. [6, p.6]

According to the same report, the flow back fluid (up to 80%) is classed as radioactive waste needing special treatment unlikely to be available on site, therefore putting additional pressures on waste-water treatment infrastructures. One can legitimately conclude that this is not a wise use of such an increasingly precious, essential resource. 

Secondly, exploiting shale gas is still about extracting fossil fuels. A study by the Committee on Climate Change highlights that by going ahead with shale gas on a large-scale, the UK is at risk of missing its carbon emission targets if three strict tests aren't implemented, including keeping production and consumption of gas within carbon budgets [17]. The government believes these conditions can be met [18], however, there is doubt as to whether regulations can be enforced in practice (see e.g. [14-16]). Furthermore, a more recent report argues that carrying on extracting gas is not a viable option [19]. In addition, the report by SGR quoted earlier warns that in the absence of a world-wide cap, fracking-related greenhouse gas emissions globally are most likely to be in addition to, not instead of, alternatives such as coal [6, p.9]. Research carried out in collaboration with scientists from York University gives an example of the impact that fracking in the USA had on atmospheric hydrocarbon concentrations ([20], see also [21]). The most likely outcome of fracking in the UK is that it will contribute to boosting home and global greenhouse gas emissions to unaffordable levels. This will put communities on the frontline of climate change as well as future generations in serious danger of harm.

In spite of all the risks highlighted (and the list is not exhaustive), the UK Conservative Government still supports fracking and argues that natural gas is needed as a bridge fuel before fully turning towards more renewable sources of energy. However, the fact is that we could turn towards renewables now. In a 'Northern Energy Strategy', a report released last October, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) stated 

Our vision for the north of England is that by 2050, we will be the leading low carbon energy region in the UK, with an energy economy worth £15 billion per annum and 100 000 green jobs providing affordable, clean energy for people and businesses across the North. [22, p.6]

Fracking is only mentioned to say that

It has been suggested that shale gas would present a significant opportunity to ensure security of supply and drive economic regional growth. But shale gas has garnered significant opposition from local communities and may be too environmentally risky to proceed with. [22, p.41]

Thus, it can be done without.

So is fracking ethical? My answer is no, certainly not from my personal point of view, and also not, in my opinion, from a professional ethics point of view. The risks to the environment and public health are beyond acceptable; the waste of increasingly precious resources is too high; and what is more, there are viable alternative technologies. In the case of fracking, the Precautionary Principle should hold, as advocated in an open letter to the British Medical Journal in support of the Medact report [5]

The arguments against fracking on public health and ecological grounds are overwhelming. There are clear grounds for adopting the precautionary principle and prohibiting fracking.

Sometimes we have to accept that not all technologies are worth rolling out and it is not because fracking can be done that it should be. 

What I would like to emphasize here is that purely technical considerations do not resolve the issue: there is not one way forward, there is no perfect risk-free technology, there are alternatives. Ultimately, it is a question of choice: to dig for more gas, despite the risk, despite the added pollution, despite the sacrifice of communities for the sake of a few decades of supply, or do we decide now to protect the air, the water, and the countryside for our and future generations by investing in the safer, cleaner, and fairer alternatives that are already available? 

This begs a follow-up question: who makes that choice? 

I argued in my previous post that all should have a part in the technological discussion, however in the case of shale gas, there has been no debate to speak of. The Conservative Party and the Conservative British Government are responsible for pushing the fracking agenda amidst increasing public and political opposition (but see [23]). My next post will address the question of choice and democracy in more detail.

_______________________

References:

[1] R. Hayhurst, et al., Drill or Drop? Independent journalism on fracking, onshore oil and gas and the reactions to it. Available: https://drillordrop.com/

[2] Earthworks, Hydraulic fracturing 101, www.earthworksaction.org. [Online]. Available: https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101#.Wfc5-q2cZBw [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[3] Radix. “Wells, wells and more fracking wells”. 9 May 2013. [Blog Entry]. Frack Off, Extreme Energy Action Network. Available: http://frack-off.org.uk/wells-wells-and-more-fracking-wells/ [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[4] Frack Free United, Fracking maps and info, www.frackfreeunited.co.uk. [Online]. Available: https://www.frackfreeunited.co.uk/frack-maps/ [Map screenshot from Oct. 27th 2017]

[5] D. McKoy & P. Saunders, “Health & Fracking, The impacts and opportunity costs,” MEDACT, 2015. Available: https://www.medact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/medact_fracking-report_WEB4.pdf , updates are available at: https://www.medact.org/project/fracking/ , a response by health professional in the form of an open letter to the British Medical Journal is available here: http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr

[6] G. Harrisson, et al., “Shale gas and fracking: examining the evidence”, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH), July 2014. Available: http://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/sgr.org.uk/files/SGR-CIEH-Shale-gas-bfg.pdf , updates available at: http://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/shale-gas-and-fracking-main-outputs

[7] The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), Rules of Conduct, www.theiet.org. [Online]. Available: http://www.theiet.org/about/governance/rules-conduct/index.cfm

[8] The Engineering Council, Statement of Ethical Principles, www.engc.org.uk. [Online]. Available: https://www.engc.org.uk/standards-guidance/guidance/statement-of-ethical-principles/

[9] M. Taylor, “Government set to face fresh legal challenge over air pollution crisis”, The Guardian, 18th October 2017. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/government-set-to-face-fresh-legal-challenge-over-air-pollution-crisis? [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[10] D. Carrington & M. Taylor, "UK government sued for third time over deadly air pollution", The Guardian, 7th November 2017. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/07/uk-government-sued-for-third-time-over-deadly-air-pollution

[11] G.W. Shade, “How has the US fracking boom affected air pollution in shale areas?”, The Conversation, 31st October 2017. Available: https://theconversation.com/how-has-the-us-fracking-boom-affected-air-pollution-in-shale-areas-66190 [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[12] M. Bickle, et al., “Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing”, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, June 2012. Available: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/2012-06-28-shale-gas.pdf

[13] A. Wade, “Fracking all over the world”, The Engineer, 6th October 2017. Available: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/fracking-scotland-ban/ [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[14] B. Chapman, “Chemicals giant Ineos ‘exploiting Brexit to relax climate change laws’, documents suggest”, The Independent, 3rd April 2017. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-ineos-climate-change-laws-lobbying-exploiting-uk-eu-withdrawal-foi-documents-a7665136.html [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[15] M. Jones & R. Scott, “This environmental permit breach this year by Cuadrilla at Lancs fracking site”, Spinwatch, 21st October 2017. Available: http://www.spinwatch.org/index.php/issues/climate/item/5982-third-environmental-permit-breach-this-year-by-cuadrilla-at-lancs-fracking-site [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[16] R. Hayhurst, “ ‘Third Energy failed to carry out proper monitoring at Yorkshire fracking site’ – new report”, Drill or Drop, 31st October 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/10/31/third-energy-failed-to-carry-out-proper-monitoring-at-yorkshire-fracking-site-new-report/ [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[17] Lord Deben, et al., “The compatibility of UK onshore petroleum with meeting the UK’s carbon energy target”, The Committee on Climate Change, March 2016. Available: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CCC-Compatibility-of-onshore-petroleum-with-meeting-UK-carbon-budgets.pdf

[18] United Kingdom. Department of Energy and Climate Change, Government Response to the Committee on Climate Change Report. London: Department of Energy and Climate Change; July 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535208/CCC_Response_new_template_FINAL.pdf

[19] R. Hayhurst, “No role for gas in climate crisis”, Drill or Drop, 7th November 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/11/07/no-role-for-gas-in-climate-crisis-new-report/ [last accessed Nov. 7th 2017]

[20] The University of York News & Events. “Study suggests fracking is responsible for a reversal in atmospheric hydrocarbon trends”. 14 June 2016. [News item] The University of York. Available: https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2016/research/fracking-usa-ethane/ [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[21] B. Maggil, US ‘likely culprit’ of global spike in methane emissions over last decade, The Guardian, 17th February 2016. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/17/us-likely-culprit-of-global-spike-in-methane-emissions-over-last-decade [last accessed Nov. 6th 2017]

[22] D.Baxter & E.Cox, “A Northern Energy Strategy”, Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), October 2017. Available: https://www.ippr.org/files/2017-10/ippr-north-a-northern-energy-strategy-a4-digital-04.pdf

[23] R. Hayhurst, “Shale gas will bring wholesale industrialisation and change the countryside for decades, Tory MP tells debate”, Drill or Drop, 22nd November 2017. Available: https://drillordrop.com/2017/11/22/shale-gas-will-bring-wholesale-industrialisation-and-change-the-countryside-for-decades-tory-mp-tells-debate/ [last accessed Nov. 23rd 2017]. This reference was added after publication of the blog post.