Britain’s Gas Chance

Jul 12, 2013 Bjørn Lomborg

The UK has been reluctant to join the fracking revolution. Yet tapping the Bowland Shale – which the British Geological Survey now says holds the world's largest natural-gas reserves – could reignite the UK economy and deliver huge cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions.

PRAGUE – In late June, the British Geological Survey announced the world’s largest shale-gas field. The Bowland Shale, which lies beneath Lancashire and Yorkshire, contains 50% more gas than the combined reserves of two of the largest fields in the United States, the Barnett Shale and the Marcellus Shale.

The United Kingdom has been reluctant to join the hydraulic-fracturing (or fracking) revolution. Yet tapping the Bowland Shale could reignite the UK economy and deliver huge cuts in CO2 emissions.

At the same time, the UK Parliament has approved stringent new measures to reduce carbon emissions by 2020, with the biggest CO2 cuts by far to come from an increase of more than 800% in offshore wind power over the next seven years. But offshore wind power is so expensive that it will receive at least three times the traded cost of regular electricity in subsidies – more than even solar power, which was never at an advantage in the UK. For minimal CO2 reduction, the UK economy will pay dearly.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading and receive unfettered access to all content, subscribe now.

Unlock additional commentaries for FREE by registering.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Bjørn Lomborg

Writing for PS since 2005
181 Commentaries

Bjørn Lomborg, a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. His books include The Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It, How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, The Nobel Laureates' Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World, and, most recently, Prioritizing Development. In 2004, he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people for his research on the smartest ways to help the world.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 3 Comments on this article

Stepan February Jul 18, 2013

why is this an either/or discussion. Why cant UK do both?

Both reduce coal use. Also, future prices for gas and wind are bound to move in opposite directions: gas up and wind down, so the subsidies will not be so high.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Linda Jamin Jul 14, 2013

Lomborg cites only one research paper from a single organization which is a publically traded company working mainly for industry business interests.

If that is the new normal for research which gives a fair and balanced view of any given situation, then we are not likely to find valid solutions to this issue or any other in the future. Amongst other things, Lomborg does not explain why the monstrous methane leaks, water pollution costs (not to mention the disappearance of potable water sources in huge regions of the planet) and public health costs (from chemical poisoning) should not be calculated on the negative side of the balance sheet for fracking. Nor does he give solid references for his claim that job losses from higher taxes imposed in order to subsidize green energy would out weigh jobs created by those subsidies. He relies on the same IHS study for that claim.

Projecct Syndicate should be much more rigorous in its choice of contributors if it is to be taken seriously.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank O'Callaghan Jul 13, 2013

More dangerous fuel hyping. The dangers of fracking are not yet adequately understood. Some issues are clear even from the industry's own science.

The earthquake danger is becoming more clear as the evidence mounts. This alone is enough to stop for a rethink of fracking. The methane escape is a serious greenhouse threat but I believe that the tundra methane over the next few decades will be large enough that it will dwarf the fracking effect.

The simple bottom line is that we are in a technological situation where we can move to renewable sources. The program needed to do this might also be necessary as a much needed economic stimulus.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.