It is an apparently huge, important and complicated question: why has the UK government jumped at the chance to extract over 1,300 trillion cubic feet of shale gas from the North of England, but has paid comparative lip service to the exploitation of the infinite energy supply from wind and the tides which surround the UK?
But does it even matter?
The case for using shale gas (and the fracking method) is compelling: cheap, home-grown energy with a lower carbon footprint than oil or coal and a boost to the UK economy and jobs.
The case against shale gas hangs on the environmental worries: contamination of groundwater, small earthquakes, contributes to climate change. Renewable energy is promoted against shale gas a viable alternative.
Both sides suspect that the UK must cut its carbon emissions in order to combat climate change. But what would happen if the UK reduced its use of CO2-intensive sources…
View original post 150 more words