Energy is like blood; we can’t do without it but we don’t want to see it. When it comes to the energy debate, much of the focus is about what we don’t want. There are backbenchers who don’t want wind farms in one’s pleasant green, and parties who proclaim they don’t like nuclear. Where there was once a political reluctance to depend on domestic coal, these days our dependency on oil or gas from parts of Asia does not sit comfortably either. Collectively we sound almost like a protest party; blaming the government du jour or politicians in general, distrustful of those foreign ‘Big Six’, we want power returned to us, without too much of a plan as to how that’s done. .  Some of us have dreams, for sure;  fracking revolution, 100% renewables, nuclear renaissance, take your pick.  And then we are rudely woken up by another IPCC report about climbing emissions and pathetic little mitigation and adaptation to date.

Given the threats of climate change, our creaking energy infrastructure, the ongoing depletion of easily accessible resources and the growing issue of fuel poverty it is very clear that significant changes and investments are needed in our energy system. It’s not a shortage of good science that’s standing in the way. It’s a dearth of imagination, of ourselves as citizens and of the governments we elect.  We don’t even have to be original in order to be imaginative, there is plenty of inspiration out there, for us to bring home.  How much renewable energy would we have if we had been as imaginative as the Danes or the Germans?  How much safer and cleaner would your city be if it had reversed the urban pecking order between bikes and cars, like the Dutch have done, or had introduced congestion charges like London has?  How much wind power would we have if we lined up all our motorways (already noisy and lacking in aesthetic appeal) with wind turbines?  How much heat is being dumped into the atmosphere by our electricity-only power plants, and how many people in neighboring communities could be lifted out of fuel poverty is this heat was offered to them through district heating at a competitive price?

These are just some ideas that have been widely adopted by our neighbours.  It is not something futuristic or utopian, it is ‘normal’ next door. We should not waste much time with alternative history (if only we had done x in the past), but devote more effort to imagine a counterfactual geography; comparing ourselves with the best and keeping up with the Joneses in terms of more sustainable energy practices.  Maybe even beat them to it one day, and then watch in glee as they run to catch up with us.  ‘green’ with envy, if you like.

The above questions are not just rhetorical. Get a pen, calculator, back-of-an-envelope and google; every geeky citizen could do this.  I had a go at the first question. Turns out that we would have to quadruple our current on-shore windfarms before we can match the Germans on a MW/km² basis, and increase them by 6.5 times before we match the Danes on a MW/capita basis.  That is a lot of energy we allow to blow right past us, wasted. The Danes and Germans are not radical people. They are trying to be responsible citizens, taking their little steps towards the goals set out in the IPCC reports. We don’t have to follow them slavishly. Filling the land with wind turbines is not the only way forwards. But if you want to forego one particular solution, then you have to be extra imaginative with the remaining options.  Go get your pen and recycled paper. And share your imaginative solutions, also with your MP.

Dr Dave Reay

I like gas. Each morning it is the source of instant heat for making my coffee. Each winter’s evening it is the roar in the boiler that spreads warmth through the house. At work too, this energy-packed gas is a daily focus of our climate change research, but it’s there that its darker side often comes to the fore. Natural gas consists almost entirely of ‘methane’ and, as methane is a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, it presents both problems and opportunities in the fight to limit anthropogenic climate change.

With a fossil-fuel heavy global energy system, methane looked like a 20^th century success story in terms of tackling climate change. In the UK, the ‘Dash for Gas’ helped to nudge out carbon-intensive coal-burning power stations for more efficient, lower-emitting gas-fired versions. Per unit of electricity produced, gas power stations were emitting less than half the carbon dioxide of their coal-powered predecessors.

Since those heady days of North Sea exploitation that poured oil, gas and money into the UK, getting enough methane to keep the powerstations, cookers and boilers going has become increasingly difficult. National and global demand for gas has rocketed and easily-exploited supplies have dwindled. Imports of gas from Russia have risen, and with them the volatility of price and supply.

Now, the global expansion of a new extraction technology called ‘fracking’ heralds a new ‘Dash for Gas’ that could serve to provide energy security and carbon emission cuts which dwarf those of the last gas boom.  Unfortunately, this new process, and the vast reserves of gas it makes available, pose a major threat to avoiding dangerous climate change.

Fracking is a process whereby water, chemicals and sand are injected at high pressure into methane-bearing rock and shale deposits. The high pressure water opens up fissures in the rock and the sand particles (called proppants) then keep them open to allow the methane to flow. Once’ fracked’ the methane in the rocks can then be drawn out and used. The process is already used widely in the US, with huge extractions from the methane-rich Marcellus shale in the east of the country underway.

The huge volumes of ‘fracked’ methane have allowed the US to radically reduce its domestic use of coal and to close in on full energy security. So far, so good. However, coal production in the US has continued unabated, with the bargain-price coal now being shipped overseas (much of it to Europe) and burnt for energy generation there. In effect, methane fracking in the US has meant a reduction in US carbon dioxide emissions, but an increase globally. Add to that the great uncertainty over the amount of methane that is leaked from fracking sites and this new ‘Dash for Gas’ begins to look like a major problem for climate change mitigation.

To our atmosphere, exactly where greenhouse gases come from does not matter, it is the amount emitted globally that counts. ‘Dangerous’ climate change is commonly cited as being a post-industrial increase in the global average temperature of 2^oC. We have already seen warming of 0.75^oC and, on our current course, we are likely to well exceed the 2^oC level during this century. Global expansion of methane fracking helps to lock us into this high emissions trajectory. It means a new generation of gas-fired power plants that will go on emitting CO₂ for decades to come, while renewable generation struggles to compete with the low-cost, short-term gas bonanza.

For the jobs and growth agenda of most governments though, methane fracking is inevitably seen as a boon. In the UK it could help buffer energy prices and create new income streams as North Sea wells run dry. Globally it can help power economic development and temporarily bridge gaps between supply and demand.  Methane fracking exemplifies the kind of tradeoffs that have to be made between energy security and climate security, but there is little evidence that such tradeoffs have been properly assessed by the governments backing the fracking boom.

They like gas and so do I, but methane is a fossil fuel. As such our reliance on it has to wane rather than wax in the face of accelerating anthropogenic climate change. It is time that policies on fracking and similarly Janus-faced pillars of ‘sustainable growth’ began to encompass the time-span of human lives instead of parliaments.

Prof. Dave Reay is Chair in Carbon Management & Education at the University of Edinburgh’s School of Geosciences. Dave is Assistant Principal Environment & Society and the Director of the Global Environment and Society Academy, he is the designer and editor of the climate change science website Greenhouse Gas Online and of the Southern Ocean: Antarctic Seas and Wildlife website and has authored a number of books on climate change, including children’s book, ‘ Your Planet Needs You! A Kid’s Guide to Going Green’.  For more information about Dave and his work visit the GESA website