A report by the government's chief scientific advisor contains a warning intended to curb ministers' enthusiasm for fracking, a controversial and invasive means of extracting natural gas from underground.

image expired

In an annual report to the government, Professor Mark Walport and colleagues said a delayed understanding of the effects of the practice – which is already established in parts of the United States, where those living near wells claim to have suffered serious consequences – could lead to dire health and environmental impacts.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister David Cameron said fracking could be "good for our country" and blamed a "lack of understanding" about the process for the high level of opposition to the method of fossil fuel extraction.

However, Prof Sir Walport's report likened the energy extraction technique to lead in petrol, asbestos and several notorious pesticides to illustrate that some technological developments have initially been greeted enthusiastically, and adopted too readily, and have later turned out to have serious unintended consequences.

The Walport report – his first for the government – warns that "History presents plenty of examples of innovation trajectories that later proved to be problematic… In all these and many other cases, delayed recognition of adverse effects incurred not only serious environmental or health impacts, but massive expense and reductions in competitiveness for firms and economies persisting in the wrong path.

"Innovations reinforcing fossil fuel energy strategies – such as hydraulic fracturing – arguably offer a contemporary prospective example."

In the report, which looked at 'Innovation [and] Managing risk, not avoiding it,' government science advisors said societies that fail to responsively steer innovation in acceptable directions risk becoming locked into "inferior" and potentially damaging policies and technology packages.

Although they lamented that many key debates in risk management (including over GM crops) have become oversimplified and polarised, Prof Sir Walport warned of the dangers of decision makers' failure to take moral and ethical standpoints into account or consider those on the receiving end of adopted strategies.

Walport et al drew attention to an earlier report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which pointed out that "Some issues currently treated by decision-makers as scientific… in fact involve many other factors besides science. Framing the problem wrongly by excluding moral, social, ethical and other concerns invites hostility."

The scientific advisors noted that in all of today's most contentious 'scientific' debates, which involve risk, there are several outside and potentially  confounding aspects , which could skew the terms of debate. These include the connection of certain issues to a profitmaking commercial sector; the unbalanced distribution between those who gain and those who are exposed to the perceived risk of a given action; and complicated time frames, in which immediate gain for some is counterbalanced by potential prolonged uncertain disadvantages for others, especially for future generations.

In July this year, the government opened the fourteenth licensing round, in which it tendered the drilling rights to an area covering over half of the UK surface area (two thirds that of England), and in October, farmers in Lancashire descended on Preston to demonstrate against the controversial plans for shale gas extraction in rural areas of the county.  

The Chapter of Walport's report dealing with fracking was written by Prof Andrew Stirling of the University of Sussex. Prof Stirling argues that climate change could be effectively tackled with energy efficiency measures and a shift towards renewable energy alone, but that vested interests in the fossil fuel industry have stood in the way of a smooth transition.

Last week, a poll of 500 Lancashire residents revealed that two thirds (63%) are in favour of a ban on fracking, and an even stronger majority (69%) suggested more time should be allowed for public debates to take place before planning authorities decide on drilling licences.

Commenting on the survey findings on Wednesday (26 November), Greenpeace UK energy campaigner Simon Clydesdale said "Hardly a week goes by without a new scientific study warning of the damaging impact of fracking on our environment, from groundwater contamination, to air pollution and climate-harming emissions. The people of Lancashire are rightly concerned about their county being used as a testing lab for an inexperienced industry that demands a lot from local people and may deliver little or nothing in return."

Clydesdale pointed to a report by government-funded energy experts at the UK Energy Research Centre, which found that ministers have "oversold" the benefits of shale gas, and warned it won't have a significant impact on bills or Britain's energy security any time soon.

"Politicians should listen to local people’s concerns and resist the shale industry’s attempt to hustle them into taking a reckless gamble with the future of their communities."