Friday

23rd Jul 2021

Opinion

We need an honest debate on shale gas

  • (Photo: Dustin Gray)

Shale gas has undoubtedly been a game-changer in the United States. Over recent decades, the rapid uptake of new innovations such as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling has transformed the country from a gas importer to exporter. For years an accompanying debate has been raging in the US concerning the merits and demerits of shale gas.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union has been behind the curve. Only recently has talk of shale gas finally reached the ears of the European Parliament. The EP hosted a number of hearings on this issue in October and its industry (ITRE) and environment (ENVI) committees have now decided to draft separate own-initiative reports on shale gas. Regrettably, this development mirrors the current discussions on this new energy source only too closely.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

Public debate on shale gas has become polarised. Advocates consider it a silver bullet ensuring energy independence, jobs and a more climate-friendly energy source; for opponents it is a poisoned chalice with massive environmental and social implications. Establishing a constructive dialogue between the two and finding a balanced perspective has become a Herculean task. Rather than bridging divides, too many commentaries these days pour fuel on the fire.

MEP Derk-Jan Eppink’s article (“A strategy for exploiting European shale gas resources”, 05 October 2011), unfortunately, also falls into this trap. Mr Eppink’s articles are always an interesting read; he is an argumentative, opinionated and independent-minded author. But in his piece on shale gas he disappoints, failing to adequately acknowledge the fears surrounding shale gas and overhyping its benefits.

Ridiculing environmentalists, he passes off concerns such as earthquakes and water pollution as “Luddite superstitions”. Relevant research, however, claims otherwise. A recent report commissioned by the energy company Cuadrilla Resources admitted that it was ‘highly probable’ that its fracking activity was the cause of the earthquakes earlier this year in the British county of Lancashire. Examples of water contamination by fluids contained in hydraulic fracturing have also been reported on numerous occasions. According to the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, in 2009 drinking water in several homes in Dimock, Pennsylvania was found to contain metals and methane gas. As a result, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is undertaking a study examining the links between drinking water and hydraulic fracturing. Wastewater disposal standards for shale gas have also been lacking, with the Pennsylvania State Environment Agency stating that used water was increasing levels of bromides in at least two rivers in Pennsylvania. Another reason why the EPA has decided to regulate the wastewater discharged from shale gas production.

In this context, Mr Eppink was too quick to brush aside these concerns. His call for the European Commission and Parliament to develop an energy strategy that fully develops the EU’s shale gas resources “while still taking environmental concerns seriously” suggests he realises this to some extent. But this statement leaves the reader slightly puzzled. After all, which environmental concerns should be taken seriously when, by discrediting environmental concerns throughout his article, he essentially suggests there are none?

It is also important to note that the European Commission and Parliament have little leverage when it comes to pursuing an energy strategy that actually develops shale gas. Determining the energy mix is the prerogative of member states and tapping shale gas also falls under regional responsibilities. France, for instance, has put a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing as has Germany’s most populous state, North Rhine Westphalia. The European Commission and Parliament could, however, use the community method in the field of environmental policy to regulate shale gas. In this context, the former is finishing a study analysing whether the current regulatory framework is sufficient. What both EU institutions, however, should particularly be doing – besides their homework on the state of play regarding shale gas – is engaging in a dialogue with their constituencies.

The European Parliament has taken an important step by putting forward a pilot project on shale gas within the draft Budget 2012 that calls on the Commission to organise debates involving NGOs, industries and citizens throughout the EU on this subject. These must not become politicised. They should be organised by the European Commission representation offices and should include parliamentarians of different political colours.

The debate on shale gas is reaching hysterical proportions. It is high time to have a frank, open and honest debate that acknowledges both the merits and drawbacks of shale gas. This should bring perspectives together in order to lead to an adequate regulatory framework. The upcoming own-initiative reports in the environment and industry committees harbour the opportunity to bridge divides and cross aisles rather than polarise the debate even further.

Let’s hope the Parliament has, in Derk-Jan Eppink’s words, the “political maturity” to do so.

The writer is an Associate Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) and an Associate at the Berlin-based Stiftung Neue Verantwortung. He is the author of ‘Shale Fever: Replicating the US gas revolution in the EU?’ published by CEPS in June 2010.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

A strategy for exploiting European shale gas resources

The EU has an opportunity to take a significant step in solving its energy problem and reaffirm its status as a major player in geopolitics. All it has to do, is embrace shale gas as part of the solution to its energy problem, advocates Dutch conservative MEP Derk Jan Eppink.

Why aren't EU's CSDP missions working?

The EU deploys thousands of advisers to its missions abroad. Without addressing reform as a profoundly political struggle, however, the EU will remain successful only in operational advisory and trainings.

News in Brief

  1. Macron changes phone after Pegasus spyware revelations
  2. Italy to impose 'vaccinated-only' entry on indoor entertainment
  3. EU 'will not renegotiate' Irish protocol
  4. Brussels migrants end hunger strike
  5. Elderly EU nationals in UK-status limbo after missed deadline
  6. WHO: 11bn doses needed to reach global vaccination target
  7. EU to share 200m Covid vaccine doses by end of 2021
  8. Spain ends outdoor mask-wearing despite surge

Ukraine - Zelensky's authoritarian turn?

President Volodymyr Zelensky has begun his third year mired in mid-term unpopularity with a poll showing only 21.8 percent of Ukrainians would vote to re-elect him. More than half would prefer him not even to run for a second term.

Why the EU delay on supply chains? Corporate lobbying

EU legislation to clean up supply chains and corporate governance has been delayed after fierce industry lobbying. Voluntary commitments have repeatedly failed, now it is time for decisive regulatory action.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNineteen demands by Nordic young people to save biodiversity
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersSustainable public procurement is an effective way to achieve global goals
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council enters into formal relations with European Parliament
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersWomen more active in violent extremist circles than first assumed
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersDigitalisation can help us pick up the green pace
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersCOVID19 is a wake-up call in the fight against antibiotic resistance

Latest News

  1. Far left and right MEPs less critical of China and Russia
  2. Why is offshore wind the 'Cinderella' of EU climate policy?
  3. Open letter from 30 embassies ahead of Budapest Pride
  4. Orbán counters EU by calling referendum on anti-LGBTI law
  5. Why aren't EU's CSDP missions working?
  6. Romania most keen to join eurozone
  7. Slovenia risks court over EU anti-graft office
  8. Sweden's gang and gun violence sets politicians bickering

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us