This is a letter I sent
to our bird club group after the chair sent a request to sign a
petition against fracking that set off a chain of opinions on the
subject that got me a bit worried about how people view fracking –
especially of the group I feel should know better! Anyway, as opposed
to it being locked away in an inaccessible Yahoo group, I thought I'd
share my feelings on the subject with the world at large since its
World Anti-fracking Day. The response was aimed more at a posting by
a member of the group who suggested that we should await the solution
as determined by scientists.
Fracking. Should
someone at our dinner table even suspect the word was said, verbal
fireworks will ensue for anything up to an hour if one party in the
debate doesn't leave before then. And this is a debate between
'scientists' – one an old school geologist ('Earth scientist'), and
one – myself – an ornithologist ('Nature scientist'). If the
world is to wait for scientists to resolve Fracking tradeoffs, the
world will be waiting a very long time.
An example of the train
of arguments that flowed last night were, from the earth scientist,
that society needs gas and that there is a long history of technology
that exists for removing gas from the earth, to the stage where in
the Karoo wells of up to 5km depth (i.e. very deep even by mining
standards) will be drilled. Furthermore, fracking in the United
Kingdom shows that extraction can be conducted safely and securely.
If the Earth scientist
was trying to reassure me that wells of this depth were a ''good'
thing because they went well beyond the level of any water table that
may be impacted upon, he failed – as 'extreme' mining merely
conjured up the recent ecological MEGA-disaster of Deepwater Horizon,
BP's fractured well-head in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, in
parallel with 'advances' in mining technology there is a litany of
ecological mishaps that vary in scale from minor leaks to major leaks
that for instance have compromised the health and life-styles of
indigenous people of the Peruvian Amazon. To say we have reached the
level of technology now that will prevent such mishaps in the future
is erroneous to say the least – such arguments have no doubt been
used by natural resource extractors over the decades past. Lastly,
the example of 'good' fracking seen in the UK, where drilling occurs
to depths of only hundreds of meters and is closely scrutinised by
one of the world's biggest armies of 'greenies' – cannot be
transferred to the Karoo. Its like saying because it snows in the
Karoo it will be a good place to have an ice-sculpture competition
because they do that in Alaska where it also snows.
Ok – I'm not
anti-fracking totally. Well, on a scale of 1 – 10, where 1 is
totally against, and 10 is totally for, with 5 being neutral, I'll
say I score 4. I would be 5 because I like nothing better than a
stir-fry whipped up on a gas hot-plate, but knock a point off due to
guilt for using a non-sustainable resource that is in addition
contributing in some way to the clouds of green house gases building
around us (I'm trying to ease my guilt for that by not using my
gas-heater and using a wood-stove instead).
But Fracking in the
Karoo? The Greenie in me is shouting – 1! - but the rational
scientist in me can't ignore current societies need for gas, coupled
with dubious economic benefits that would arise, even if it is just
for maintaining the starving Mossgas facilities. Given those I'll
score a 2.5 – so I'm subtracting a point because Fracking
technology given its reliance on vast quantities of water is NOT
suitable for the Karoo. I'm furthermore subtracting a half point due
to Shell's appalling environmental track record, and the fact that
they tried to bulldoze there way fast and furiously through the EIA
process to get at that gas as fast as possible – a fact ably shown
by the independent EIA consultant who checked the initial EIA. If it
wasn't for Greenies, there would already be Fracking in Karoo.
Ignore 'greenies' at your peril. They are the voice of your
consciousness perhaps bought by the marketing machines of mega-rich
companies with 20 pieces of silver for each of us.
Now onto controversial
topic number 2 – wind farms. Any birder is going to be very
surprised where this ornithologist stands on this one. Using the same
scoring system as above, I score wind energy as 7. Yes, bird-strikes
have been used as a major anti wind farm motivator – badly located
wind-farms can be lethal for migratory birds, and certain species
(vultures to be precise) are very vulnerable to wind turbines, but
research has shown that wind-turbines fall several orders of
magnitude below the leading cause of bird deaths – those being
glass buildings, high tension wires, cats and cars. And that is even
before the testing and implementation of bird scaring devices.
So anti wind-farm
sentiments (as far as I can tell) appear to be aesthetically
motivated more than anything else - “Not in my backyard!”. For me
wind-turbines would be a powerful reminder not to take energy for
granted. While I can only speak for myself, when I first saw
wind-farms 20 years ago while on a cycle trip through western Europe,
my impression was one of awe and amazement – giant statues a
testament to modern technology and a sign of hope for a cleaner
energy future. Isn't it perhaps time that that emblematic structure
of the Karoo – the windmill - got a modern day make-over –
perhaps we could call wind-turbines i-windmills?
Perhaps as birders we
should be asking, which is more important – the loss of individuals
of a few species, or total ecological collapse due to pollution of
our most sacred building block of life in arid environments? But
perhaps this is over simplying things. Importantly, just because one
is pro-wind does not mean one should be anti-fracking or vice-versa.
They are really 2 sides to the same coin. In my case, I don't like
the coin, but need to best figure out how to use it wisely.
Me, I'm going to sign
the petition, even though part of me feels it will be like lighting a
match to stop a hurricane. Perhaps its my version of Aung San Suu Kyi
putting flowers in a gun. There is a reason half of the population of
USA does not believe in climate change – its because of the
millions of dollars spent in sowing doubt by companies with vested
interests in maintaining the status-quo in a supply chain that
stretches from oil production to car sales. The same goes for
fracking in the Karoo – I have no doubt that it will happen
eventually, simply because of the economical value and buying power
of the parties involved. Until we change our ways and subvert that
market, by recognising the need for change and buying into green
energy options, there is only one possible outcome. Since that is not
going to happen anytime soon, the best we can do is ensure the job
is done properly by letting concerns be aired. Most importantly
attempt to bridge the gap between those that hold the economic power
and those that will be influenced by that power – the landowners,
those with emotional connection to the land, and anyone relying on
water in the Karoo.
With that I end –
with only a postscript note to say I won't enter a debate with anyone
who has not watched Gasland, and has not read Collapse by Jared
Diamond.
so recently the town dam of Beaufort West was dry. The people were begging passing motorists for bottled water. Where are they going to find megalitres of water for fracking? And the Karoo telescope?
ReplyDelete