It has been claimed that fracking will solve the energy crisis, end fuel poverty and secure the UK's energy supply for generations. This seems too good to be true. As financial advisers say, 'If it seems too good to be true, it probably is!' Let's look at some of the problems.

Fracking, hydraulic fracturing, is a way of breaking up shales deep underground to release 'shale gas', methane. Methane is the natural gas which we burn domestically and industrially and can be used for electricity generation.

Like any oil or gas extraction process, any large-scale shale gas extraction would have an unavoidable local impact. A recent EU assessment talks of densities of up to six well pads per square kilometre. It speaks of 'air emissions of pollutants, groundwater contamination due to uncontrolled gas or fluid flows due to blowouts or spills, leaking fracturing fluid and uncontrolled waste water discharge' and further warns of 'toxic, allergenic, mutagenic and carcinogenic substances' added to the fracturing fluid. It points to US experience where many accidents happen, harmful to both the environment and human health.

The impact of these problems would tend to be local – around Radstock and the Mendips, if that is where large-scale fracking is to take place – but a more serious problem from shale gas use is global: its effect on global warming, climate change.

There is widespread consensus that greenhouse gases emission is causing the climate to change and that, unless emissions are curbed, the global warming will have serious, even catastrophic effects. Shale gas methane when burnt will produce carbon dioxide. On top of that, during the fracking process, methane often escapes to the atmosphere and methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential seventy times greater than that of carbon dioxide! This international consensus is based on an overwhelming scientific consensus expressed through the reports of the International Panel on Climate Change, to which thousands of experts contribute. It is endorsed by the Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the leading science academies in most of the world.

Although there is no such thing as 'safe' climate change, many countries have adopted a goal of a maximum global temperature increase of 2°C since pre-industrial times to prevent dangerous climate change.

Climate Change Act 2008 set targets for greenhouse gas reduction considered necessary to limit climate change to 'safe' levels. This act was supported by the vast majority of M.P.s of all parties, Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem and others. The 2010 Conservative party election Manifesto accepted these targets as part of its 'commitment to move towards a low carbon future'.

So, what's the problem with shale gas – we already burn methane, don't we? The problem lies in the large-scale move to gas power generation which many shale gas supporters envisage. The committee of experts set up by law to advise the Government on such matters has warned that extensive use of gas to generate electricity would be incompatible with the safe emission targets for greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of moving to a low-carbon power system, we would be moving to a gas-based system. In the shale gas context, our local M.P., Jacob Rees-Mogg, recently told the Timsbury Environment Group that he was prepared to see the carbon reduction targets of the Climate Change Act of 2008 changed to allow increased carbon emissions.

It seems to me that without such emission targets, there is probability that climate change will approach the point of no return, leading to an environmental 'domino effect' where 'in a volatile and unpredictable dynamic, things such as melting ice and the release of carbon from the planet's surface are set to feed off each other, accelerating and reinforcing the warming effect'. Not a good prospect for our children and grandchildren and hard to reconcile with the Conservative Manifesto commitment 'to cut our carbon emissions to tackle the challenge of climate change'.

David Packham

The writer has taught environmental studies at the University of Bath and lectured on sustainability at international conferences. He is a member of the Timsbury Environment Group.