Environmental activists (and others, come to that) often complain of their David and Goliath struggles against big business or other vested interests. However, they fail to mention the various built-in advantages they have. For a start, the giant-killer analogy is not strictly correct. Greenpeace and WWF, for example, are well-funded international organisations and Friends of the Earth, while more decentralised, still has significant financial backing.
Some of the funding for these organisations even comes (usually unwittingly) from taxpayers, via the European Commission and some national governments. Although their overall turnovers are not in the same league as big commercial companies, almost their entire efforts go into raising funds and spending them on campaigning and lobbying. In this regard, their operations are often much larger than those they see as the opposition.
The second advantage is that they can get away with telling a biased story with emotional overtones. Unlike spokespeople from industry, who have to keep strictly to an agreed brief with all the facts verifiable and often therefore avoid direct answers where one has not been approved, campaigners are able to embroider their messages without necessarily having their facts checked. Occupying the moral high ground gives them a constant opportunity to question the motives of companies who stand to make a profit. Despite private industry being the major creator of wealth in Western societies, there is still an intrinsic distrust of profits among many people.
But the other big plus for campaigners is their ability to attract celebrity support. Film stars, musicians and other well-heeled public names are often first to jump on fashionable trends. When hybrid cars were first introduced in the USA, it was the Hollywood celebs who were in the vanguard of ownership. Of course, this did Toyota’s image no harm either, but when it comes to other matters, fashionable sympathies tend towards the green and away from the corporate.
The latest example is exploration for shale gas and oil in the UK. Many wells have been drilled on land for a whole range of reasons over the years, but the latest attempts to do so by Cuadrilla have been fraught with difficulties. Their first test wells had been drilled in the Morcambe Bay area of North-West England and were temporarily halted when mild earth tremors were detected. Approval was given for them to continue after a joint report from the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering concluded that it was safe to proceed (‘Fracking’ safe with strong regulation, report says).
But attention is now focussed on Balcombe, a village in West Sussex, where Cuadrilla has permission to start test drilling, initially for oil. At this stage, conventional wells are to be drilled to discover how much oil might be extractable. If results are favourable, oil (and possibly gas) would be extracted using deep horizontal pipes to deliver water at high pressure and open the structure of the rock (aka fracking). In this case, the rock is limestone, not shale.
Activists have blockaded the site and, so far, prevented contractors from drilling. There is clearly some local opposition, which is to be expected with any development, although reports suggest this is from a minority of villagers and that much of the protest has been taken over by serial protestors and celebrities (Celebrity campaigners accused of hijacking Sussex fracking protest). No matter that no fracking is actually planned yet, this is a convenient focus of attention for protestors critical about fossil fuels.
Bianca Jagger, ex-wife of Mick, a naturalised British citizen, human rights activist and Council of Europe Goodwill Ambassador (but not towards everyone) is the highest profile participant, and has used this to make a considerable splash in the media (for a taste of this, see Bianca Jagger backs fracking protestors in Balcombe). She was joined by Natalie Hynde, (daughter of musician Chrissie) who was arrested after she and her boyfriend glued themselves around a gate (Don’t get me wrong: We’re protecting not protesting, says Chrissie Hynde’s activist daughter).
They have certainly attracted a large amount of attention, with the impression given that a new and dangerous precedent is being set by the drilling. Meanwhile, there was little coverage of a speech by Michael Fallon, Energy Minister in London last month. He pointed out that the first on-shore oil well in the UK was sunk as far back as 1919 and that 2,100 had been drilled since then. The fact that this is probably a surprise to people shows how unobtrusive the finished wells are, particularly in comparison to wind turbines.
As for the supposed new technology of fracking, Mr Fallon told his audience that about 200 UK wells had been fracked and that, worldwide, it was estimated that 60% of all new oil and gas wells had been hydraulically fractured in 2010. The protestors have attracted media attention to a technology which, properly regulated, offers no more risks than any other form of mineral extraction. They continue to point towards propaganda material such as the US film Gasland, an award-winning documentary which famously shows methane being set alight from a domestic water tap (a consequence of natural geology rather than fracking).
The general public are easily swayed by emotive campaigning, newspaper scare stories and celebrity endorsements. They do not have time to check the facts and assume they are hearing essentially the truth. There is a fair amount of balanced reporting, but I read nothing about Michael Fallon’s speech either at the time or during the current protests. The case has to be made more strongly that we need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. High profile campaigning should not be allowed to dominate the debate.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS