http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ate-change

I think he's been too close to the fracking if he thinks that'll ever fly. We already know that the government were telling the firms how to promote themselves and are even going as far as bribing councils. Climate change is just about the last thing on it's mind.

When you include climate change which suggests that as many existing fossil fuel reserveswill have to be left permanently in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change it makes you wonder why this rush?

You could think that through a bit further. Why would this particular resource need a carbon tax that isn't applied to other fossil fuels, even coal?
Because that's what is required to make it too expensive to extract is the answer.

Shale gas has helped the USA reduce its carbon output by 450m tonnes, mostly by displacing coal which is far dirtier.
Europe's carbon footprint is going in the other direction, we don't frack, and our coal use is rising fast.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpet ... -emissions

I understand people concerns about the enviroment, but Greenpeace et al are playing up peoples fear and scare mongering, especially when it comes to things like the water table.

You make a good point, because they're opposed to it on principle, they don't look at the good it could do speeding up the decline of coal fired power stations.
They say wind power this and wind power that', but we all know wind power is very expensive and very unreliable.

if the best argument you've got to convince the Greenpeace types that fracking is acceptable is that they should be in favour of fracking because it means burning a fossil fuel that's not quite as awful as the previous fossil fuel we were burning, I don't rate your chances of success much.

Best arguement? It's nothing of the sort. It was just something I hadn't considered before Shockwaffle mentioned it.

But with the very low rates of return from fracking it is only a very short term solution. The production from US fields is totally dependent on continual drilling and the marginal returns are too low for many operators. The water table issue might be credible if it were not for the massive loopholes created by Cheney when he and GWB left the White House. They are not liable to clean air, clean water, drinking water laws and many others.

That would be true if long term demand for gas was predicted to fall, or if fracked gas were the most expensive form of energy on the market. Neither is true.

The USA still gets far more of its electricity from burning coal than gas, and they get that coal by tearing down entire mountains (and polluting a lot of water in the process). Long term, coal can't compete with gas, prices ave collapsed and the cost of tearing down a mountain has not. That is the fossil fuel resource that is destined to remain in the ground.

Furthermore, the USA has several multi billion dollar gas import terminals that are now sat idle. The government has yet to grant permits for them to be turned into gas export terminals. This artificially reduces demand and depresses prices, but ti is unlikely to remain in place, and in a few years the USA is likely to become a large exporter of gas, which will increase margins for those who drill the stuff.


That is irrelevant. Fracking operations in the UK are not subject to American laws, so their American exemptions are of no consequence.