The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-09927, in the name of Alison Johnstone, on energy and climate change.
15:11
It is generally agreed that our energy policy should deliver three things: a secure supply; energy at an affordable cost; and energy that is low in climate-changing carbon emissions. In the face of relentless price hikes by the big six energy companies that dominate the United Kingdom market, affordability is very important, particularly here in Scotland, with our northern climate, higher energy prices and rural homes.
If we take into account the impact of price falls in the United States and the fact that gas produces fewer emissions than coal when burned, it is perhaps not surprising that there are advocates for the exploration and extraction of unconventional gas. The Prime Minister has asserted that unconventional gas has “real potential” to drive down energy prices. He assures us that the benefits are clear.
The belief that unconventional gas will push prices down is a false hope, however. Lord Browne, chairperson of the fracking company Cuadrilla and key UK Government adviser, understands that reality. George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been forced to understand the same. He told the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that he did not want to “overpromise” on gas prices. The same committee also heard from industry representatives and academics, including Bloomberg, EDF, E.ON and the UK Energy Research Centre, that the impact on household bills is very likely to be insignificant. We can put to bed the argument that unconventional gas is going to make bills cheaper.
Extracting gas onshore in the UK will be much more challenging than doing so in the US. In any case, prices will still be set by the integrated European gas market. For example, Dart Energy will sell to SSE at market rates. Lord Stern was right when he dismissed the Prime Minister’s claims of cheaper energy from shale as “baseless economics.”
It is my view and that of my party and many others that unconventional gas extraction is not a solution to our energy and climate challenges but a symptom of a much wider problem. Having exhausted the easier-to-extract energy sources, we are resorting to more extreme methods of energy extraction. We are digging and drilling deeper into some of the world’s most stunning, pristine and remote locations—and, who knows, possibly soon in a field near your home.
We know that energy companies already hold far more fossil fuel reserves than it is safe to burn. The “Unburnable Carbon 2013” report calculates that
“Between 60-80% of coal, oil and gas reserves of publicly listed companies are ‘unburnable’ if the world is to have a chance of not exceeding global warming of 2°C.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency have calculated the amount of carbon emissions that we can safely put into the atmosphere and they conclude that the only way to avoid dangerous climate change is to leave a large proportion of our known oil, coal and gas in the ground.
Dart Energy has submitted planning applications for the UK’s first unconventional gas development to involve production rather than solely exploration, 30 or so miles away from this chamber. Experts at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Manchester describe the Government’s approach to unconventional gas as a bellwether of its commitment to leadership on climate change. Senior analysts at French bank Société Générale say that they are looking at what happens in the UK as being at the forefront of the industry in Europe.
Dart Energy’s development is the most advanced unconventional gas project in the UK. In Scotland, we have the opportunity to act on the commitments and promises of leadership on climate change by simply saying no to a whole new set of fossil fuel problems. We can rule unconventional gas out of bounds in Scotland.
Communities around Airth, Falkirk and Stirling have had long-standing concerns about their health and that of the local environment should more coal-bed methane wells go ahead. They were astonished to find out that test drilling had happened without their knowledge. Even a council leader claimed that he was unaware of it.
Campaigners in Canonbie, near Dumfries, continue to fight the threat to their area from the second-most advanced project in Scotland. That project has revealed a loophole whereby permission to extract coal-bed methane could be converted into permission for fracking without proper scrutiny.
A vast area of the central belt can be licensed for unconventional gas. Oil barons from the US are highlighting a process called underground coal gasification, which would involve burning coal seams under the Firth of Forth and off Fife.
I do not want energy projects that threaten the health of communities and local environments. We do not need them. We are at the tipping point of producing the majority of our electricity from renewable sources. Analysis from energy consultants Garrad Hassan in “The Power of Scotland Secured” report from Friends of the Earth shows that, even with a growing demand for electricity, as heating switches from gas to electricity, we can power Scotland with a mix of renewables, pumped storage and a smart grid. That is even before we get better at investing in energy efficiency models.
There is public support for renewables—the level is a whopping 80 per cent, according to the most recent Department of Energy and Climate Change-commissioned poll. We can contrast that with the growing opposition to fracking. YouGov polling that was released yesterday reveals Scotland to be the UK nation that most opposes fracking. Eighty per cent of people opposed UK Government plans to allow underground drilling without landowner permission.
We do not know how much gas is available, but we know that the production time will be measured in years and decades and not in hundreds of years. We know for sure that unconventional gas will require a multimillion-pound investment and that production will not peak for another decade—and probably more—just as we plan to decarbonise.
We all know that we have, unfortunately, missed the first two of our climate targets. Even though the emissions trend is going in the right direction, it is vital to bolster the credibility of our world-leading legislation. The third target will be reported on soon.
“The Energy Report” by WWF concluded that by 2050 all the world’s energy could be provided cleanly, renewably and affordably. The report looked at barriers to the transition. One of the biggest barriers is that, globally, more money is being invested in dirty fossil fuels than in clean renewables.
In its briefing for the debate, WWF Scotland says:
“Having rightly attracted the attention of the world for its ambitious Climate Change Act and its commitment to climate justice, it’s critical that the Scottish Government and Parliament now fulfil the promises under the Act and reap the benefits presented by the low-carbon transition ... Scotland’s commitments to meet its obligations under the Climate Change Act, its international reputation for climate change, its policy to decarbonise the energy system ... and its 100% renewables target will seriously lack credibility if Scotland were to go down the route of facilitating or encouraging an alternative fossil fuel.”
With WWF and Friends of the Earth Scotland, I urge the Government to say no to unconventional gas extraction in Scotland. A ban on unconventional gas in Scotland would focus our efforts on truly renewable sources, rather than scraping the bottom of the fossil fuel barrel.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the significant public opposition to new methods of fossil fuel extraction such as fracking and coal-bed methane; notes that energy companies already hold far more fossil fuel reserves than it is safe to burn; agrees with the UK Energy and Climate Change Committee and many others, such as the chairman of Cuadrilla and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that developing unconventional gas in the UK will likely have no effect on the cost of energy for households; opposes the UK Government’s extensive tax breaks for the industry and what it sees as a bribe to local authorities to approve development; supports communities in Falkirk, Stirling, Dumfries and Galloway and across the central belt who are campaigning against unconventional gas, and calls on the Scottish Government to implement a ban on unconventional fossil fuel extraction in Scotland in order to protect communities, safeguard local environments and focus investment on renewable energy, given the importance of meeting all targets under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, the third of which is due to be reported to the Parliament imminently.
15:20
I welcome the debate that the Green Party has initiated today on energy and climate change. It provides an opportunity for us to consider the range of measures that the Scottish Government is taking to develop the very strong opportunity that we have in Scotland to produce energy.
We are a country that is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. Our conventional oil and gas sector continues to be a tremendous asset to the Scottish economy. The sector employs more than 200,000 people in Scotland and, since the 1970s, when resources were first recovered, it has provided more than £300 billion in taxation revenues to Westminster. The future of the sector continues to look promising, with Oil & Gas UK predicting that a further 24 billion barrels of oil are still recoverable. That figure translates into a potential wholesale value of £1.5 trillion if it is managed properly. That has a tremendous potential to transform local communities across Scotland.
The oil and gas sector also represents a significant export and internationalisation opportunity for Scotland. The Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, is currently in the United States at the offshore technology conference, which brings together many organisations involved in oil and gas. There is a significant presence at the conference of Scottish companies that are trading around the world as a major part of a global industry.
Mr Swinney knows that I agree with him on the importance of the oil and gas sector. Can he enlighten us as to when he intends to bring forward his revised estimates for revenue from the sector?
I told Parliament that I would bring those forward in the coming weeks and that is exactly what I intend to do to assist the debate.
While we recognise the importance of a vibrant industry in the North Sea, the Scottish Government is actively working towards the transition to a low-carbon economy. In that respect I agree entirely with the general thrust of Alison Johnstone’s speech about the importance of ensuring that we develop the opportunities that exist to secure the aims and opportunities of a low-carbon economy, and the Government has worked tirelessly within a stable policy framework to promote and develop a renewables industry in Scotland. That strategy is now bearing considerable fruit.
By any measure, Scotland’s renewable energy sector is going from strength to strength. We know that we have an estimated 25 per cent of Europe’s offshore wind potential, 25 per cent of Europe’s tidal energy potential and 10 per cent of Europe’s capacity for wave power. We are therefore determined as a Government to ensure that we capture that opportunity and we have set out a framework to achieve that by establishing stretching targets that will enable us to meet at least 30 per cent of Scotland’s overall energy demand from renewable sources by 2020, including the target to meet the equivalent of 100 per cent of gross annual electricity demand from renewables by 2020, with an interim target of 50 per cent by 2015. By any measure, the Government has put in place a clear, robust and consistent policy framework that enables us to achieve those objectives.
In view of recent announcements by electricity companies about the offshore renewables sector, does the cabinet secretary share any of my concerns about how that very important aspect of achieving a low-carbon economy can be driven forward?
I certainly do not think that the uncertainty that has been created by the electricity market reform process undertaken by the UK Government has helped investors to make decisions about the offshore sector. However, we now have some clarity in that respect and, obviously, the Scottish Government is heavily engaged to ensure that we secure these opportunities.
Members will ask why the transition to the low-carbon economy is important. It is vital, because it is central to our efforts to tackle climate change. Scotland’s climate change legislation commits us to meet world-leading targets of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 42 per cent by 2020 and by 80 per cent by 2050. We are more than halfway towards meeting our 2020 target of a 42 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and the Committee on Climate Change recently reported that good progress has been made in Scotland in reducing emissions across the economy, and more specifically in energy. That is good news, but we recognise that we have to do more. Tougher decisions and major transformational changes still lie ahead, and everybody will need to be on board for Scotland’s transition to a low-carbon society, to enable us to achieve those objectives.
To date, we have strongly endorsed the robust regulation of any techniques associated with unconventional oil and gas, and we are pleased that our environmental regulator, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, published guidance on shale gas and coal-bed methane in December 2012. The Scottish Government has consistently worked with the principal regulators to ensure that an appropriate and robust regulatory framework is in place. That is essential to protect our communities and environment, both now and for the future.
Although it may be possible to prove that extraction is safe, it simply will not be possible to prove that burning the fuel that is extracted is safe. Does the cabinet secretary accept that there are more fossil fuels than we can burn?
The key point that I would make to Alison Johnstone is that all these issues must be considered within our framework to reduce climate change. I have just commented on the importance of realising our climate change targets, so any action that is taken on the development of energy resources must, in the first place, be compatible with the robust regulatory framework that we have put in place for the regulation of all these areas and, secondly, must also enable us to secure the necessary progress that is required on our climate change targets.
The Government continues to keep the regulatory framework under review. For example, we have recognised that there is a significant amount of scientific evidence available on unconventionals and, to ensure that that information is assessed effectively, the Scottish Government has convened an independent expert scientific panel to review the evidence. Of course, that will be instrumental in informing any further decisions that the Government takes and it will have a bearing on Scottish planning policy, which is currently under review and will be the subject of conclusions by the Minister for Local Government and Planning in due course, along with the national planning framework, which has attracted interest from parliamentary committees.
The Government has in place robust arrangements to ensure that these issues are dealt with effectively and satisfactorily and that we fulfil our obligations on emissions reduction under the world-leading climate change legislation that the Parliament passed.
I move amendment S4M-09927.3, to leave out from “the significant” to end and insert:
“that Scotland has a rich diversity of energy sources including a very successful oil and gas sector and growing expertise in renewables including wind, wave and tidal; welcomes Scotland’s evidence-based approach to unconventional fossil fuels; supports the ongoing review of the scientific evidence by the expert scientific panel in relation to unconventional fossil fuels and looks forward to its report; welcomes the Scottish Government’s announcement of a strengthening of Scottish planning policy, coming into force in June 2014, in relation to unconventional fossil fuel extraction as an indication that the concerns of environmental campaigners and local communities are taken seriously; further welcomes the recent UK Committee on Climate Change report that praised Scottish progress in decarbonising its energy sector; notes that almost half of Scotland’s electricity is now delivered from renewables, and further notes that Scotland has the world’s leading climate change legislation and the largest carbon emission reductions in western Europe.”
I advise members that there is no extra time available this afternoon, so interventions should be contained within speeches.
15:28
I start by congratulating Alison Johnstone on bringing the debate to the chamber, because it is an important and current policy issue that, until now, we have largely debated only in committee. However, although we welcome the Greens’ debate, we cannot support their motion.
First, it conflates coal-bed methane extraction and hydraulic fracturing, which are not the same thing, and it calls them new methods of extraction, although they are not. They both have a long history, and fracking is common offshore day by day.
Is Iain Gray aware that, in areas where unconventional gas extraction occurs, coal-bed methane extraction leads to hydraulic fracturing in 40 per cent of cases?
They are two different processes, as Ms Johnstone herself pointed out when she complained that one can move easily to the other in the regulatory framework.
Secondly, although the UK Government rates incentive in England seems a rather blunt instrument, we should be careful not to dismiss the idea of community benefit were onshore extraction ever to proceed. After all, we accept the idea that there should be community benefit from onshore wind and opencast coal mining, so perhaps we should not dismiss it out of hand in this case.
Primarily, though, we cannot support the motion’s core proposal for an outright ban. Of course, as the Green motion says, we have to meet our targets under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and the Labour amendment makes that clear. However, we have to take the public with us, and that means being able to demonstrate how we will secure our energy supply as we transition to a balanced but decarbonised energy economy.
In a recent briefing in the Parliament, Professor Lunn of the University of Strathclyde demonstrated that, even if all the renewables targets to which Mr Swinney referred are met by 2020, there will still be a 13 gigawatt hour gap in energy production. Central to those figures is the loss of base-load generation and the fact that 40 per cent of energy consumption is currently gas-fired heating. Cockenzie is closed, Peterhead is two-thirds mothballed, and Longannet might be at the mercy of new European Union directives. The replacement of Torness and Hunterston is currently vetoed by ministers. Commercial carbon capture seems further away than we had hoped. It is not clear where our future base-load is coming from.
Meanwhile, investment in offshore wind projects is, at best, delayed, for whatever reason, and we have also seen significant withdrawals from marine power projects. We urgently need a hard-headed, realistic, and comprehensive plan for how we transition to a decarbonised energy market while protecting the security of energy supplies, including but not only electricity generation.
Having closed down the eminently sensible option of another generation of nuclear power, we are in no position to shut down another potential energy source, especially when we do not have the scientific evidence for what reserves are available. We should, however, proceed with great caution, hence our consistent support for stronger planning guidelines for shale gas extraction. Nor should we allow ourselves to be taken in by the idea that shale gas is a panacea that will cut energy costs. Alison Johnstone’s motion is right about that, and that is one reason why we cannot support the Tory amendment this afternoon. Cutting energy bills needs reform of the market and action on excessive profits by the big six companies.
We should also not forget that shale gas is an industrial feedstock as well as an energy source. It is not so long since the Parliament supported a deal that kept the Ineos plant at Grangemouth open. That deal is exactly about using shale gas as raw material in a manufacturing enterprise that is of economic significance to this country. That fact was made very clear to us when we saw the impact that the temporary closure of Grangemouth had on gross domestic product figures for that quarter.
The Government’s amendment founds on planning policy that we have not yet seen, and the Government refuses to face up to the fact that it continues to miss all its world-beating climate change targets. However, with regard to the crux of the debate, which is how to proceed, our position is similar to the Government’s, so if by some curious and unexpected twist of parliamentary arithmetic, the Government’s amendment survives and ours falls, we will support the amended motion in the final vote. However, we prefer our own amendment and will prefer it in the first instance tonight.
I move, as an amendment to motion S4M-09927, to leave out from “opposition” to end and insert
“concern in relation to fracking and calls on the Scottish Government to introduce robust national guidelines for all forms of unconventional gas extraction; agrees that unconventional gas extraction would not drive prices down for hard-pressed consumers, rendering a price freeze and reform of the energy market urgent; believes that renewable energy as a growing part of a diverse energy mix makes Scotland’s energy supply more secure and provides new jobs and businesses in the renewable energy sector as well as helping Scotland hit its carbon reduction targets; supports new community ownership models to help Scotland meet its renewable energy targets, benefit local economies through the creation of green jobs and address the threat of fuel poverty, and believes that Scotland must develop an energy policy that balances its energy needs with its climate change and carbon reduction targets as it is essential that the Scottish Government meets its targets under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.”
15:33
I thank the Scottish Greens for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to debate the extraction of unconventional gas throughout Scotland. I commend Alison Johnstone for at least being consistent on the issue, although she is consistently wrong. Like Iain Gray, I fear that she has misrepresented key aspects of the debate.
First, the motion refers to
“significant public opposition to new methods of fossil fuel extraction such as fracking and coal-bed methane”.
Certainly there are those in the environmental movement who have been doing their best to whip up such opposition, going round the country peddling their pseudoscience and their hysterical scare stories about earthquakes, exploding taps and all the rest.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
When we actually look at public opinion, we see that not everyone is buying that nonsense. According the latest DECC public opinion tracker, published last week, more people support shale gas extraction than oppose it, and the numbers are growing.
Will the member give way?
No, I need to make some progress.
We should remember that there is nothing new about fracking for shale gas and extracting coal seam gas in Scotland. Back in the 1960s in Lanarkshire, and as recently as the 1980s within the boundaries of the city of Glasgow, fracking has taken place. Also, fracking takes place at the moment in the North Sea with none of the apocalyptic side effects that some in the environmental movement have predicted.
There are four key advantages to exploiting our unconventional gas reserves. The first of those relates to security of supply. We have gone from being a nation that is a net exporter of gas to being an importer. As we develop more and more renewable sources of energy—particularly those, such as wind, that have an intermittent output—our reliance on gas will actually increase over the medium term.
The question then is not whether we will require gas—because it is beyond doubt that we will be increasingly reliant upon it in the coming decades—but where that gas will come from. Will it be produced domestically or will we import it? In future decades, I do not want us to rely on Mr Putin’s Russia for our gas supplies. For that reason alone, it makes sense to develop a domestic source of gas to provide for our energy needs.
Secondly, there is the issue of the impact on energy bills. It is well known that, in the United States, the development of a shale gas industry has dramatically cut energy costs and led to the reindustrialisation of the US economy. Although no one reasonably predicts a similar impact here in the UK, increasing the domestic supply of gas is bound to have a beneficial impact on energy prices.
Thirdly, there is the issue of carbon emissions. The US has saved millions of tonnes in carbon by shifting from burning coal to burning gas. Gas is a fossil fuel, but it is cleaner than coal. As we develop low-carbon alternatives, gas must be a better option, at least in the medium term.
Fourthly, there is the economic opportunity that is presented. There is the potential for tens of thousands of jobs to be created in a new industry—an industry that will be of real benefit to Scotland and which will complement the development of more renewables.
Iain Gray reminded us that, last year, there was consensus among all Scottish political parties that the Ineos plant in Grangemouth should be saved. I am delighted that it was saved. The Scottish and UK Governments worked together and hundreds of jobs in central Scotland were safeguarded. The Ineos plant depends on shale gas as its raw material. The gas is shipped in a fleet of Chinese-built tankers across the Atlantic from Pennsylvania. It is not surprising that Ineos is keen to see a domestic supply of shale gas as a feeder product. On every level, that must make sense.
I do not recall the Green Party, in the course of the past year, distancing itself from the political consensus around the Ineos plan or calling for it to be shut down. However, if the Green Party’s opinion is to be consistent, that is what it should be doing. By opposing unconventional gas, it is opposing those many jobs in the Falkirk area.
I believe that unconventional gas presents a tremendous opportunity for Scotland, always provided that the appropriate environmental safeguards are put in place. I look forward to hearing the Scottish Government’s proposals following its expert review panel. I struggle, though, to understand the lack of enthusiasm from the Scottish Government—a Government that falls over itself to promote the offshore oil and gas industry but seems strangely reluctant to support the same industry onshore.
Like Iain Gray, I have a lot of sympathy for the Government’s amendment and, should the Conservatives’ amendment fall, I would be prepared to support it.
Having recognised the opportunities presented, the UK Government is right to have introduced incentives for the exploitation of unconventional gas. I hope that the Scottish Government follows suit and sees this as a new industry that can be of great benefit to Scotland for future generations.
I move amendment S4M-09927.2, to leave out from “the significant” to end and insert:
“that the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s public opinion tracker now shows that more people across the UK support the extraction of shale gas than oppose it; recognises the benefits for Scotland in exploiting unconventional gas reserves in terms of providing security of energy supply, creating jobs, reducing carbon emissions and potentially helping to reduce energy bills; believes that, with appropriate environmental safeguards in place, this natural resource can be extracted safely and to the benefit of communities; welcomes the UK Government’s support for the industry, and calls on the Scottish Government to show as much enthusiasm for onshore oil and gas as it currently demonstrates for offshore.
We come to the open debate. We are very tight for time, with speeches of a maximum of four minutes.
15:38
As it says in the Scottish National Party amendment,
“Scotland has a rich diversity of energy sources including a very successful oil and gas sector and growing expertise in renewables including wind, wave and tidal”.
SNP thinking on energy goes back decades to the early days of oil and gas extraction in the 1970s and 1980s. We viewed North Sea oil wealth as a source of investment in the industries of the future, including energy conservation and alternative energy. The late Stephen Maxwell reminded us of that in his book “Arguing for Independence”, which was published in 2012. Stephen went on to point out that Scotland and Norway are similarly blessed or cursed, depending on one’s outlook. Both have huge hydrocarbon deposits and both have huge renewables potential.
From the early days of North Sea oil extraction, the SNP talked about slower extraction and legacy potential. The Norwegians practised that while we could only look with envy during the long Thatcher years and Blair’s continuation of that extractive mentality. All that time, Norway insisted on a big stake for Statoil to balance what was called the greed of the seven sisters of big oil. Norway also insisted on a slower rate of extraction, with tighter environmental and safety laws. The recent helicopter accident rate in the UK sector contrasts sharply with that in the Norwegian sector.
In those pre-devolution days—when the Green Party was only being founded—the SNP was already thinking about what independence could bring for energy policy. Fast forward to Scotland today, and the agreement between our two parties that independence is essential is a given. It is increasingly possible to decarbonise our energy needs and to manage our wealth for a fairer Scandinavian style of social democracy that is light years from the attitude of successive UK Governments.
Jason Anderson, the head of climate and energy policy in the World Wide Fund for Nature’s European policy office, has hailed Scotland as a
“forward thinking nation”
that is
“in the vanguard of the renewables revolution”
and has the most ambitious climate change laws.
The SNP proposes a list of green gains from independence, which Richard Lochhead set out last week. Therefore, this debate on a wish to decarbonise our energy sources should have that trajectory in full focus. The Green Party should not ignore the fact that hydrocarbon development and Aberdeen’s worldwide success story have given us a huge skills base. It is up to us to channel that expertise towards the full range of renewables development in the service not only of Scotland but, through interconnectors, of our neighbours across Europe, and of the planet as we tackle the scourge of climate change.
We can enshrine environmental protection in a written constitution. We can go past our leading renewables production record of nearly 50 per cent of electricity output and ensure that we reach 100 per cent by 2020, with an unswerving focus on delivery of onshore and offshore clean power, through the certain knowledge that a Scottish Government that is in charge of all of our policies will ensure that business investment has security.
UK Governments have had an extractive mentality from the 1970s to this day: let us recall the dash for gas, their nuclear obsession and their total lack of legacy planning that could turn the one-off oil wealth into the fund for future generations that our people need.
I am afraid that you must close now.
A recent poll for DECC showed that 50 per cent of Tories would rather live near a wind farm than have fracking in their back yard. Many more people across Scotland want the same.
15:43
As stated in Labour’s amendment, Scotland needs a robust and balanced energy policy that strives to match our energy needs with our climate change and carbon reduction targets.
I do not agree with the Green Party's motion that unconventional gas extraction should be banned outright; nor do I agree with the approach that has been taken by the Westminster Government, which seems to have embraced shale gas with open arms and has, at times, flouted proper regulation in the rush to do so. Currently, the scale of the impacts of fracking on health, the climate and the local environment is unknown, and it would be foolhardy to welcome the industry until we better understand the implications.
With that in mind, our approach to fracking should be cautious and based on scientific evidence. It is an industry that could be damaging to our climate change targets, so I am calling on the Scottish Government to bring forward robust national guidelines for all forms of unconventional gas extraction before the industry is allowed to continue in Scotland.
I see no reason to rush into fracking. An expansion of the shale gas industry is unlikely to assist in our attempts to meet carbon reduction targets, create jobs or bring down energy costs to assist the estimated 900,000 people who currently suffer from fuel poverty.
It could be argued that shale gas extraction has driven down the cost of energy in the US, but the same is unlikely to occur here. A report that was carried out by the US Energy Information Administration said:
“Compared with North America, the shale geology of the UK is considerably more complex, while drilling and completion costs for shale wells are substantially higher.”
Friends of the Earth also points to the fact that the industry is unlikely to create significant jobs growth within Scotland, with Dart Energy’s Airth project likely to create only 20 jobs.
Fracking might well increase our energy security, but a better way to do that would be to promote a diverse energy supply, including a strong renewables sector, with a drive towards community ownership. That would also help achieve our climate change and carbon reduction targets.
However, the renewables sector in Scotland could be under threat from separation. Scotland currently receives around a third of all renewables subsides in the UK despite representing only 10 per cent of the consumer base. If we were to separate, that cost would fall to Scottish consumers, inevitably putting up energy costs and forcing even more people into fuel poverty.
Scottish Labour has always advocated community ownership as a vehicle for empowering local communities, tackling social justice and delivering economic growth. Community ownership in renewables would not only help Scotland to achieve renewables targets but create green jobs while tackling fuel poverty.
There is no reason to rush into fracking in Scotland. It seems to provide limited gain at this stage against the possibility of a disaster for the environment, our health and our climate change targets. Fracking should be halted until robust national guidelines, including planning guidelines, are in place to ensure that it is in line with our Scottish energy policy. Instead, we should aim to secure an affordable, diverse energy supply that, above all, tackles the scourge of fuel poverty.
15:46
I welcome the Scottish Government’s precautionary approach to hydraulic fracturing and unconventional gas extraction and, therefore, I have some sympathy—but only some—with Alison Johnstone’s motion.
I am proud of Scotland’s world-leading climate change legislation because it strikes a sensible balance between the need to reduce our CO2 emissions and the need to maintain our economy. That requires a long-term approach, and I am pleased that we are on course to hit our long-term targets.
Unfortunately, the Scottish Green Party focuses too much on short-term figures, denying the reality of the economic difficulties that may face us in any given year, denying the effect that poor economic performance would have on the poorest people in our society, denying the effects on jobs and unemployment that its policies would have and denying the increase in poverty that they would bring about.
Will Mike MacKenzie take an intervention?
No—I am sorry but I am short of time.
For instance, I was disappointed to hear Patrick Harvie dismiss in a recent debate the opportunity presented by carbon capture and storage, which offers opportunities not only to decarbonise our energy supply but to help many of our neighbouring countries to do so.
Will Mike Mackenzie give way?
No, I am not taking interventions because I am short of time. [Interruption.] Sorry—another occasion, Mr Harvie.
In acquiring the expertise to develop world-leading renewables technologies, Scotland has the opportunity not just to reduce its own carbon emissions but to help the rest of the world to reduce emissions, too. If we are going to help to save the planet, we have to do so on the basis of good science, good sense and a reasonable and rational approach. That is why I am glad that the Scottish Government has set up an expert scientific panel to advise it on unconventional gas while it takes steps to strengthen planning and environmental protection.
It is also why I am dismayed at the effects of UK Government energy market reform and disappointed at the UK Government’s delay in implementing the recommendations of the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets’s project transmit, which offers at least a partial solution to the disproportionate transmission charging regime. It is why I am disappointed at its failure to invest in upgrading the grid, not least providing interconnectors to Scotland’s islands, which could generate 5 per cent of the UK’s electricity requirement by 2030.
There is another way of achieving the end that Alison Johnstone and I both wish to see: meeting our climate change targets by advancing our significant renewable energy opportunity. That has the advantage of improving our economic performance and not diminishing it, of creating jobs and not destroying them, and of reducing energy prices over time and not increasing them. Unfortunately, the UK Government has been hindering that objective and not helping to meet it, which is why Alison Johnstone and I agree that we will make much more progress on that issue and many others after independence.
15:50
To members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, this is a very familiar topic, although we are used to seeing Murdo Fraser curb his great enthusiasm so as to retain convener-like composure. For his and everybody else’s sake, I am glad that he had the chance to let loose today.
The UK Government’s headlong rush to pepper rural England with unconventional gas sites is quite remarkable, not just because of the contrast with the more cautious and evidence-based approach of the Scottish Government but because it comes from a party that, in past manifestos, held local opposition to be so sacrosanct that it proposed a moratorium on onshore wind farms. Take the plans, roll on a few years and we can easily foresee a point at which the well-to-do villagers march instead against gas wells, and wind farm protests are last decade. We are not talking about the big sky country of the United States, where there is a hundred miles between homes and no communities in between—here, every drilling site has someone for a neighbour.
There might be communities that would welcome unconventional gas—doubtless, there are communities that would, on balance, welcome a large-scale return to opencast coal mining, despite all the environmental difficulties that it would cause. However, if such communities exist today with arms outstretched for shale gas, I do not see them. The updating of planning policy will strengthen the hand of communities, whatever their view, and it is to be enthusiastically welcomed.
For me, the motion is narrowly and perhaps a little excessively focused on one aspect of fossil fuel extraction when, in truth, the instinct of the proposer is, I think, to object to it in all its aspects. We live in a nation that is committed to reductions in fossil fuel use and in a world that should be. For some, that is an inconvenient truth but, for us, it is a legislative reality.
Recently, I participated in a science festival event in which an audience member asked the panel what a Scottish energy mix in the 2020s would be. To the surprise of the questioner, all of us on the panel, including Dr David Toke, renewables expert and consultant for the European Greens, agreed on the need to use gas as a step-down fuel. As we have heard, per unit, gas releases less carbon than coal and even less with carbon capture and storage. Although Scotland will generate enough renewable electricity to meet our annual demand by 2020, gas is needed for the peaks and troughs, because it can be dialled up and down more flexibly than nuclear or any other competitor. In heating, gas will continue to be with us for some time to come.
Both of those issues have to be—and are being—taken into account in our world-leading emissions trajectory. Against that must be held the danger of drawing investment away from renewables, as nuclear has unquestionably done south of the border, as well as the carbon costs of extraction, which are higher the more unconventional the method, and the question of safety in an industry in which competing claims have left doubts that thus far have not reassured those who would see fracking next door.
There should be two lenses for considering unconventional gas. The first is that individuals should have the right to live in communities that are clean and safe and that are in control of their own future, which is a principle that I hold to whether the community is local, national or supranational. The second is the need for us as a society to reduce overall carbon emissions. Those should be the evidence tests not just for unconventional gas but for all energy sources, including renewables. Most people welcome our tremendous progress in that field, but we have to encourage projects in which communities are not just the neighbours but the principal initiators, owners and benefactors of the energy that is generated from their surroundings.
15:54
I am pleased to close the debate for the Scottish Conservatives.
A number of members have rightly referred, as does our amendment, to the importance of energy security, which I want to emphasise, not least in light of the political events that have involved Russia in the past few months.
We cannot ignore the fact that, 10 years ago, the UK was a net exporter of gas, whereas now we have to import billions of cubic tonnes of gas each year to meet demand. As Murdo Fraser pointed out, much of that comes from Pennsylvania to Grangemouth, which I am sure would like a more local supply.
The chief executive of Centrica, Sam Laidlaw, said recently:
“By 2020 we will be reliant on imports to meet 70 per cent of the country’s gas needs. So when it comes to security of supply, there is a pressing need for solutions.”
The Scottish Conservatives have consistently argued that our energy supply must come from as diverse a range of sources as possible, and that remains our position.
Last week, I was pleased to host a briefing in the Parliament on the excellent work that is being done on nuclear fusion research at the Culham centre for fusion energy. That is a potential energy source in the medium to long term that could be transformational.
Given our view that energy should come from a broad range of sources, we believe that it would simply not be responsible or sensible to ignore the potential of shale gas extraction and coal-bed methane. Rather, we should seek to exploit our unconventional gas reserves, as other nations have done with much success, in a sensible manner that ensures that the appropriate environmental safeguards are in place.
A number of the concerns about unconventional gas extraction are based on worries about risks that are similar to those that are associated with conventional coal mining and oil and gas exploration, which are covered by regulations in those sectors. I understand that, because of the more intense nature of shale gas extraction, the process is associated with more negative impacts than conventional drilling, but issues that are associated with hydraulic fracking, such as water contamination risks, can be covered by regulation from SEPA and minimised by proper designs for the integrity of wells.
The UK Government has rightly shown support for the industry. The Scottish Government should seek to emulate the efforts of DECC’s office of unconventional gas and oil in streamlining legislation in the area.
I am aware that the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee’s fifth report suggested that offshore shale gas might potentially dwarf onshore gas. Although it is currently not economically viable, I hope that the UK Government might at some stage in the future consider using tax breaks to incentivise that exploration. From the climate change angle, we should also recognise that burning shale gas in the USA has displaced significant amounts of coal burning and resulted in a fall in CO2 emissions of around 450 million tonnes in five years.
To conclude, we cannot support calls to ban unconventional gas extraction, as there is too much potential from those sources to help to boost our economy and increase the security of our future energy supply. We recognise that shale gas is still at an exploratory stage in the UK and that there are opportunities for coal-bed methane, which is known as coal seam gas in Australia, where advances have been made, especially in Queensland and New South Wales. We look to the Scottish Government to work as constructively with companies in that field as it does with those in the conventional oil and gas sector.
I support Murdo Fraser’s amendment.
15:58
I thank Alison Johnstone for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is a very important one in the context of our energy security and where we are going in the future.
Scottish Labour has grave concerns about fuel poverty and the stark choices that too many people in Scotland face about whether to heat their homes or eat properly. This afternoon’s debate on wealth and income inequality will give us a chance to further explore those areas, and Scottish Labour’s argument for a way forward to a moral economy. There is evidence, however, as we have heard from other members, that even if coal-bed methane extraction was to proceed in Scotland, it would not bring down energy prices, because there would never be the critical mass that there has been in the States.
Friends of the Earth has argued that, rather than being plentiful, cheap and clean, unconventional gas in Scotland can only ever be “scarce, expensive and dirty”. There has certainly been some controversy over whether its exploitation will have an impact on energy prices. Among others, Deutsche Bank remains sceptical about the economic impact of unconventional gas extraction here. As our amendment states, it
“would not drive”
energy
“prices down for hard-pressed consumers, rendering a price freeze and reform of the energy market urgent”.
It has been valuable to have briefings from WWF Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland and RSPB Scotland for today’s debate. There is much research evidence from other countries about environmental and health concerns. Some of it is conflicting, but there are certainly causes for concern. The scientific evidence from the on-going work of the expert panel will be watched carefully and will be scrutinised by many beyond the Scottish Government.
This is a time of difficult uncertainty for communities that might be affected, although there are currently no applications for fracking. Scottish Labour has consistently called for the Scottish Government to introduce robust guidelines, and it has been acknowledged today that that will happen. It is also essential that the strategic environmental impact assessment process being called for by Friends of the Earth Scotland is put in place.
During the 1990s, I was a community activist on guidelines for opencast mining; we managed to get better distances between communities and excavation. I am keenly aware of the importance of ensuring that guidelines are right from the start, before any application is considered. My colleague Claire Baker and I have questioned ministers about the Scottish Government’s policy on distances and I particularly want to explore the relationship between operations and residential and water-protected areas. The Minister for Local Government and Planning has assured me in a written answer that the issue will be part of the Scottish planning policy published in June. I hope that the minimum distances that need to be respected will be included in robust guidelines.
We should surely be adopting the precautionary principle for a range of reasons. As the Parliament has heard on many occasions, Scotland has world-leading climate change legislation, but it is vital that that is matched by action. Although unconventional gas could be used as a transition fuel, there are still many question marks over the process.
As stated in our amendment, we in the Scottish Labour Party support renewables and energy efficiency going hand in hand. The pathway to community renewables is often a rocky one. Coincidentally, tonight I will host a massive open online course—MOOC—workshop to support communities to take the issue forward. The cabinet secretary argued for transformational change. In that shift, let us be sure that Scotland gets it right and is fair to our communities and for our future.
16:02
This has been a good debate. There has not been agreement, because there are clearly legitimate policy differences among members, but members have expressed their views with courtesy and respect—perhaps with the exception of Mr Fraser’s bombast. Perhaps it allows him to relieve himself of the burdens of convenership; we all quite understand that these things have to happen every so often.
There has been an honest exchange on a range of points of view. The Green Party made it pretty clear that it does not support any of the forms of onshore oil and gas development that have been talked about. The Conservatives encouraged such development, although not quite everywhere. It was a more enthusiastic response, though, and I thought that Mr McGrigor was somewhat more measured in his summing up than Mr Fraser was in his opening speech. The Labour Party called for the Government to publish more guidance.
More guidance is on its way in the Scottish planning policy, but I reiterate what I said earlier: the country’s environmental regulator, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, published its guidance on shale gas and coal-bed methane in December 2012. For the benefit of Margaret McDougall, it is important to reiterate that that guidance has been put in place.
I welcome the more cautious approach of the Scottish Government to unconventionals and I also welcome the fact that the planning policy is being tightened up. However, the planning policy does not apply retrospectively to my constituents in Canonbie in Dumfries and Galloway and concerns have been raised about links between some members of the expert panel and the industry. What reassurances can the cabinet secretary give to my constituents on both those matters?
The expert panel has been selected on the basis of the scientific expertise that the individuals have to offer and the Government will consider carefully the material that is forthcoming.
In addition—this also relates to the point that Joan McAlpine has just raised with me about planning policy—I note that, in the draft Scottish planning policy in relation to unconventional oil and gas development, the Government introduced buffer zones between potential developments and communities, clearly indicating its determination to listen to communities’ views and ensure that environmental protection is put in place. That merited the following response from the head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth Scotland:
“it is a firm step in the right direction ... We welcome the Government’s recognition that buffer zones are necessary”.
The director of WWF Scotland said:
“We welcome this commitment”.
There is a pretty broad endorsement of the direction that the Government is taking in an evidence-based and clearly evidence-led process to determine the contents of our policy framework, which will of course come back to the Parliament for consideration in due course.
Marco Biagi raised the issue of community involvement in many aspects of renewable energy development and I agree entirely with the aspirations that he set out. Local benefits must be at the heart of our vision for renewable energy in Scotland. We put that issue centre stage in the development with the objective of achieving a target of at least 500MW of community and locally owned renewables by 2020 to provide a clear structure to the realisation of community benefit arising from renewable energy.
The Government has set out a clear and measured approach to the handling of a sensitive set of issues and I reassure the Parliament that we will act on the basis of clear guidance and a considered assessment of all the evidence, with our environmental regulators acting, as they always do, clearly and implicitly in the interests of the people of Scotland and the protection of the important natural environment that surrounds us all. Those considerations will be at the heart of all the steps that the Government takes to advance the issues as we bring forward the Scottish planning policy and consider other contributions that we will make to the debate and assess all the relevant issues and the issues that are important to the people of Scotland.
16:07
Fracking and other forms of extreme energy, such as coal-bed methane and underground coal gasification, have dominated the public debates on energy over the past year. Caroline Lucas, the green MP for Brighton Pavilion, was arrested for taking part in a day of action against fracking at Balcombe in West Sussex—she was subsequently acquitted.
I thank members for their contributions this afternoon. The cabinet secretary made it clear that the Government is taking an evidence-based approach and that planning policy will be strengthened by including a buffer zone to protect local communities. However, as I suggested earlier, although we can make it as safe as possible to extract these gases, it will simply not be possible to make it safe to burn them. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Government is giving the issue serious consideration.
I reassure Iain Gray, who either mistakenly or mischievously suggested that we were conflating different types of unconventional gas extraction, that we are not conflating hydraulic fracturing with coal-bed methane. He went on to conflate nuclear power with clean energy.
Will the member give way?
No. I would like to make some progress.
That was an accusation.
Order.
Murdo Fraser suggested that those who express concerns about some of the health impacts are merely engaging in “pseudoscience”. I politely suggest that the “greenest Government ever” is merely pseudo-politicking. This week, in a confirmed case from just two weeks ago, a fracking company in Texas was ordered to pay $3 million in compensation to a family who suffered chronic nosebleeds, irregular heartbeats, muscle spasms and even open sores as a result of the drilling chemicals. That is not pseudoscience. This is an area that we should consider with great concern.
Will the member give way?
No, I want to make progress.
I agree entirely with what Rob Gibson said about using Scotland’s skilled energy workers. There are many opportunities in the renewables industry. The sector currently provides about 11,000 jobs and I will work with anyone who wants the number to increase.
Margaret McDougall advocated community ownership. It is highly unlikely that unconventional gas will lend itself to such a model.
Mike MacKenzie accused the Greens of short-termism. I found that astonishing. It is short-termism that encourages people to think that extracting unconventional gas is any sort of answer to the climate and energy challenges that we face. It is long-termism to think about investing to insulate every home in Scotland. If we properly skilled up our builders and workmen so that they could treat all the hard-to-treat homes in tenements and buildings in this country, we would create another jobs revolution.
Just so that Iain Gray is aware that I understand the difference between fracking and coal-bed methane extraction, let me say that fracking involves pumping millions of tonnes of water down a well under high pressure, whereas coal-bed methane extraction involves pumping a massive quantity of water out of coal-beds, to lower the pressure and extract gas over a large area. There are inevitably escapes into the atmosphere, and it is important that we consider fugitive emissions. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, especially given the 20-year timescale in which we must tackle climate change.
Could we not—
Mr Johnstone, will you speak into your microphone, please? [Interruption.] Mr Johnstone, have you put your card in your console?
Sorry, Presiding Officer. I was just going to say that the synergy of the two operations is such that they could take place side by side. Can we take the water that we bring up from one well and pump it down the other?
I thank Mr Johnstone for that intervention.
The first couple of studies that measure, rather than estimate, methane emissions at unconventional gas sites in the United States are damning. They report data of an order of magnitude greater than the US Government’s estimates. If the findings are replicated, they mean that unconventional gas is significantly more damaging than it has been estimated to be and its usefulness as a lower-carbon bridging fuel is under severe threat.
The vast quantities of contaminated water that need to be treated and the large number of wells that will be needed if the development at Airth proceeds all risk contamination. Toxic BTEX chemicals—benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes—all naturally occur in coal-beds and are harmful to human health if they get into the soil or our water courses. In its briefing for this debate, Friends of the Earth Scotland describes numerous pollution incidents.
Jamie McGrigor mentioned energy security, which was a theme in the debate. We import gas, which costs money and, of course, the profits go elsewhere. By far the largest chunk comes from Norway, the Netherlands and Belgian pipelines. We also import liquefied natural gas from Qatar and elsewhere.
Real energy security comes from reducing and indeed ending our dependence on gas. Whereas significant unconventional gas will not come on stream for a decade, the renewables industry in Scotland is well past the fledgling stage. The planned offshore turbines will bolster our power sector before unconventional gas does. The 20 or so jobs that are on offer at Dart Energy’s site in Airth do not compare with the 11,000 jobs of the people who work in Scotland’s renewables sector, which many members mentioned.
As I said, when it comes to community benefits, renewables win hands down. The model is adaptable and lends itself to community involvement and ownership in a way that nuclear power and unconventional gas simply cannot or will not do.
As well as supporting the renewables sector, we must acknowledge that the cheapest power station is the one that we do not have to build. A transformation in energy efficiency for our homes and businesses is waiting to take place—if we would only invest in energy efficiency. About 40 per cent of our gas is used in domestic properties for heating and cooking, so there is much more that we could do if we would only give proper time and consideration to energy efficiency. I do not know whether people think that energy efficiency is a dull topic or whether they feel that they have debated it once too often but, as far as I am concerned, we cannot debate the topic enough.
Bringing Scotland’s leaky homes up to good quality and rolling out district heating schemes will lower fuel costs. That is how we lower our reliance on gas. There are many other opportunities, too, whether we look at waste from anaerobic digesters or other emerging technologies. We do not have to rely on unconventional gas to fuel or to power Scotland. As the Airth development proposal rolls forward, I hope that the Government will give it due consideration, realise that it is entirely incompatible with the Government’s climate change targets and turn it and any future proposal down.