fawlty-towers-t-shirt-don-t-mention-the-war-text-mens-teeOn the back of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report and the US/China Climate Initiative, it’s now clear shale gas causes amnesia. Not too long ago, any attempt at placing natural gas within a climate change context was derided as “greenwashing” by the majority of Green NGO’s, most European one. Greenpeace were especially dismissive when I predicted in 2012  the inevitable way forward for 2015 would be China and the US reaching a climate solution that contained natural gas.

Alan Riley is a long time friend of No Hot Air and he said this in 2012 at the NYT in “Shale Gas to the Climate Rescue”

David MacKay is a physics professor who is also chief scientific advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. 

From the Guardian today:

Every person in Britain will need to pay about £5,000 a year between now and 2050 on rebuilding and using the nation's entire energy system, according to government figures. But the cost of developing clean and sustainable electricity, heating and transport will be very similar to replacing today's ageing and polluting power stations, the analysis finds.

A misconception, to be polite, that Green policy makers (they make and force us to take) such as Greenpeace and the Tyndall Centre share, is that producing more natural gas won't make the world a cleaner place. They see a world where natural gas doesn't displace coal and simply gets used up by us profligate earthlings.

The scientific basis for shale opponents is pretty thin on the ground, but a constant citation from opponensts is  the Howarth Cornell study which gave a seemingly  counter-intuitive view that the overall life time emissions of shale gas were actually worse than coal. The Howarth study for example is the only part of the Tyndall Centre study on shale that appears vaguely scientific.  A new peer-reviewed study from other Cornell professors sounds as if the Howarth and Ingraffea days are numbered: