Burning argument
Since the scientific evidence received by the Scottish Government on fr ac king was reassuring, it appears to have been more influenced in its decision by the result of the public consultation (99 per cent anti).
But, as The Scotsman’s leader comment noted, “a co-ordinated anti-fracking campaign could organise this level of agitation”. It looks likely that this happened.
Griesbach & Associates’ analysis of the consultation warns against taking the result as representative of the wider population because “individuals (and organisations) who have a keen interest in a topic andthe capacity to respond are more likely to participate in a consultation than those who do not”. They point out that “the main purpose was not to identify how many people held particular views”. Yet the government seems to have ignored that and been impressed by the numbers.
The argument by the government that fracking should not be allowed because of greenhousegas emissions lacks conviction for several reasons :1) fracking itself is not an emitter of greenhouse gases (that only happens if that gas is burned and a lot of gas is used in the chemical stock industry); 2) fracked gas is imported to Grangemouth by Ineos (why is the government not banning that import?); 3) the government allows North Sea gas to be burned for electricity generation at Boddam power station and at Grangemouth; 4) most homes and businesses in Scotland burn gas for heating and cooking (fracking would allow much of this gas, presently sourced from abroad, to be replaced, resulting in no net increase in emissions); 5) Scotland’s contribution to global greenhouse emissions is trivial – banning fracking will have negligible effect.
Clearly the decision to ban fracking is political and not based on any real evidence. It is all about votes and is the result of the general scientific ignorance of not just the population in general but our elected representatives.
STEUART CAMPBELL
Dovecot Loan, Edinburgh
Nothing better illustrates the dangers which the decline in Scottish educational standards poses to our welfare as a nation than the recent decision of the SNP administration to ban tight gas exploration in
Scotland. The educational level of the administration is so low that the qualification of the minister responsible for Scotland’s science is in politics and economics. Given this, the government can have no
knowledge of the process or of the damage their decision will do to Scotland. But then again, “Ye canny blame us for we didnae ken”.
DAVID HOGG
Glanville Place, Edinburgh