Tuesday

26th May 2020

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

Support quality EU news

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.

How coronavirus might hit EU defence spending

Among the casualties of coronavirus - worldwide and in the EU - is the defence sector. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has not made the world a less dangerous place and there is no alternative to having a functioning defence system.

Column

That German court ruling hurts EU rule-of-law fightback

The short-term damage to financial markets may be smaller than feared. The damage to democracy is considerable because it weakened the ECJ - the most effective institution to stop attacks against democracy and rule of law in EU member states.

Column

Saving Europe from corona's nasty geopolitics

Four months into the corona crisis and one month into the social and economic shutdown, it seems the big geopolitical loser of the pandemic is likely going to be Europe.

Coronavirus: A test of the West

We are experiencing the first global pandemic unfolding in the 24/7 news cycle and taking its toll, in real time, on our daily lives, our financial security and the global economy.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. European Sustainable Energy WeekThis year’s EU Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW) will be held digitally!
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic states are fighting to protect gender equality during corona crisis
  3. UNESDACircularity works, let’s all give it a chance
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic ministers call for post-corona synergies between economic recovery and green transition
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic co-operation on COVID-19
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic research collaboration on pandemics

Latest News

  1. Recovery plans unveiled This WEEK
  2. EU and UK stumbling into Irish border crisis
  3. Malta patrol boat 'intimidates' capsized migrants
  4. How coronavirus might hit EU defence spending
  5. Herman Van Rompuy on power and influence in the EU
  6. EU links access to recovery fund to economic advice
  7. EU wants to halve use of pesticides by 2030
  8. Top editors alarmed by media cuts in EU and beyond

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. UNESDAMaking Europe’s Economy Circular – the time is now
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersScottish parliament seeks closer collaboration with the Nordic Council
  3. UNESDAFrom Linear to Circular – check out UNESDA's new blog
  4. Nordic Council of Ministers40 years of experience have proven its point: Sustainable financing actually works
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Baltic ministers paving the way for 5G in the region
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersEarmarked paternity leave – an effective way to change norms

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us