Tag Archives: evidence

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




On Friday 9th January I received a list of the witnesses who will appear as part of the Environmental Audit Committee‘s inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘.

Select committees exist in order to hold the executive to account, representing the public interest. And in this case, the Environmental Audit Committee are likely to be the last public body to hold such an inquiry before up to 40% of Britain may be licensed for petroleum exploration and development under the 14th On-shore Oil and Gas Round.

Viewing the list of witnesses who have been called, I believe the Committee may not be intent upon an open examination of the full range of environmental evidence.

Though I would hope to be proven wrong, it appears that once again the public will be denied a full and unbiased exploration of the issues surrounding unconventional oil and gas development.

There also appears to be a bias towards the industry viewpoint in the selection of witnesses, and a complete failure to engage with the community groups opposing these developments – many of whom submitted evidence to the inquiry.

We need an independent and impartial review of the evidence

Again, I believe that this jeopardises the ability of the Committee to carry out an impartial review.

To date there has never been an demonstrably impartial investigation by a public body into the potential environmental impacts of unconventional oil and gas production:

  • The Energy and Climate Change Committee’s Fifth and Seventh reports (Session 2010-12) were issued before a significant amount of scientific research existed;
  • The Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering review, produced for the Government’s Chief Scientific Officer, was also issued before much of the research available today, from USA, Canada and Australia, had been published – and their report was not subject to any public consultation/involvement;
  • The Public Health England review of health impacts appeared to ignore new evidence from the USA and elsewhere, and drew conclusions which – as highlighted by other public health professionals – were highly questionable (and it too was not subject to public consultation);
  • A review on the climate change impacts for DECC, by Mackay and Stone, also produced results which – on the weight of available evidence – are not credible given the data used to calculate the impacts of the process; and
  • The most recent review, by the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, failed to consider the available evidence on the environmental impacts of these processes, and produced arguably biased opinions.

In my view, the witnesses the Committee have selected to appear will give a ‘politically acceptable’ account of this issue – but not a complete review of the available evidence.

So much to be said – but will the witnesses say it?

Such a limited investigation would not answer the need for an impartial and objective ‘public interest’ review of the evidence now available. In particular, I believe that the witnesses selected will fail to explain:

  • The large body of peer-reviewed evidence, and studies by other public health agencies which now exist on the impacts of these processes – which the Royal Society and other subsequent reviews, due to prematurity or through taking an overly narrow view of the evidence, have failed to encompass;
  • The failure of DECC’s strategic environmental appraisal process to consider, among other issues, the waste management implications of this policy – which (based on DECC’s appraisal criteria) could potentially create more than a billion gallons of effluent, with as yet no identified treatment facility, and which in turn could create potentially millions of tonnes of hazardous wastes requiring disposal, for which there is no identified repository;
  • The serious flaws in the Mackay-Stone review for DECC – which has possibly understated the climate impacts of unconventional gas development by 300% or more due to the inaccurate data used as the basis for their calculations;
  • The often neglected impacts upon the environment of these processes, away from the drilling sites, and from other essential aspects of development – such as pipeline construction;
  • The distinct differences which exist between the three unconventional fossil fuel technologies currently under development in Britain today – shale gas/oil, coalbed methane and underground coal gasification.


Two independent Commissions abolished (why?)

The public were denied the chance an impartial review when the Government abolished both the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and the Sustainable Development Commission, in 2011. I believe it is likely that, by now, one of those bodies would have carried out such a study.

In my view, what reviews of Government policy have taken place have been subject to unacceptable bias, and a failure to consult and hear the public’s concerns – and thus do not meet the public’s legitimate expectation to have an ‘impartial tribunal’ address their environmental concerns.

Unless the Environmental Audit Committee conduct a thorough review, taking a wide range of evidence, then this issue will not receive an impartial examination before the issuing of the new exploration and development licences.

If the Committee fail in their duty to hold the executive to account on this matter, by undertaking a review of the full range of evidence now available on the potential environmental effects of these processes, I believe that the public in communities affected by these developments will hold the Committee in contempt.

If the EAC fails, only one remedy will remain – direct action

Accordingly, the democratic process having failed to objectively hold the Government to account, and legal remedies having been effectively barred through recent reforms to judicial review, the public will have no other option than to oppose these developments directly ‘on the ground’.

I do not believe that this would be a welcome or acceptable outcome. We could have done better. However, there having been no objective review which the public can have faith in, I do not see that there will be any other likely outcome – both Parliament and the Government having failed to take account of the well founded, evidentially-based concerns the public have expressed over the last few years.

The Environmental Audit Committee must carry out a full review of all the evidence pertaining to this issue – irrespective of the political sensitivities that offends.

I ask that the Committee review the range of opinion which they hear before proceeding to produce their final report.

Or, should no further time be available, that the range of witnesses heard by the Committee on January 14th is changed – removing the bias towards the industry, and including representatives from communities opposing the Government’s unconventional oil and gas policies.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See also: ‘The Environmental Risks of Fracking‘ – submission to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry by Paul Mobbs, Mobbs’ Environmental Investigations.

 




388962

Environmentalists’ oil price panic reflects their own existential crisis Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




“Collapsing oil prices should give everyone in the ‘green movement’ cause for reflection.”

Say what! Really? Why is that?

I see the introduction to Steve Melia’s recent article for The Ecologist as indicative of a more general problem of how the environmental debate handles complex issues. Simplistic statements, such as that above, don’t necessarily reflect the complexity of the available evidence.

The article continued in the same vein: “With lower prices forecast to last for the next couple of years … “

Really? Yet again there’s little evidence to support those rosy projections, and many would state the contrary. Even environmentalism’s detractors question such assumptions these days.

For me, recent articles such as this expose the environmental movement’s quiet existential crisis. It’s a movement whose outlook has become narrowed by external forces as it has become skewed towards a media-led agenda – and which has shifted towards popularity rather than objectivity in addressing our ecological position as a species.

If we were to rely solely on what we see in the mass media, environmentalism is no longer a search to reconcile human needs to the limitations of their ecological circumstances.

It has become a debate over competing consumer choices which reflect, unquestioningly, the dominant consumer debate over affluence and growth, albeit of a green’ hue; and dominated by the single metric of carbon … and pandas!

The fact that we only significantly cut emissions and consumption during recessions, or that we’re running out of the resources needed to manufacture green technologies – oh, that’s so 1970s!

It’s not environmentalists’ fault, but it requires their participation.

As outlined recently by Adam Curtis, the purpose of the modern, engineered media debate is not to inform, it is to confuse. “Doubt is their product.“

The purpose of this approach is not advance a specific debate over change, instead it deflects criticism from existing practices. This happens because statements and events are not based upon evidence, but rather popularly acceptable and often contradictory assumptions – all of which engenders a widespread cognitive dissonance over precisely what ‘reality’ is.

That’s also a problem for major players in the environmental movement today, whose raison d’etre is to chase the media agenda to advance their cause.

Especially with on-line and 24-hour rolling news, the herd mentality governing the media melee overrides the ‘deep green’ fundamental questions about lifestyle which ‘traditional’ environmentalism raises. This is especially true in relation to evidence which contradicts the media’s dominant political message of growth and affluence.

For example, one of the ground-breaking – but little discussed – recent climate documentaries is Cowspiracy. It examines at the range of available evidence on one of the single biggest practices harming the global environment today: meat-eating.

One startling part of the film is when they interview campaign groups, who largely ignore or side-step the issue, or failed to acknowledge it altogether. Greenpeace refused to appear.

Why do media-led campaign groups feel the need to follow ‘the script’ the modern managed media assigns to them? Rather than, for example, standing apart and seeking to define their own agenda outside of the ‘usual channels’.

This is what the movement did during the 1970s and 1980s – and, thirty or forty years later, contrary to its anti-consumerist ‘hair shirt’ depiction, the weight evidence today shows that stance to have been correct.

So what is happening with oil prices?

The recent environmental debate on oil prices is an exemplar for how a failure of analysis is leading to a wholly mistaken assumptions about present trends.

And again, it’s because people are following a simplistic mass media agenda, rather than seeking to understand the range of evidence available – and use that understanding to their advantage.

Oil prices are falling because many the world’s strategic investors think the global economy is knackered. To understand why we need to look across all commodities, not just oil.

It if was just fracking, or a glut of conventional oil driving prices down, oil prices would be falling relative to other commodities. That would be a boon the the global economy and global growth – and yes, people would consume more oil.

But that’s not what we see.

Instead, nearly all commodity futures – from copper to cotton to tin – have been trending down over the last year. That’s due to the global economy stalling, cutting consumption generally, reducing demand, and thus driving all commodity prices down.

In fact, economists are now worried about deflation. As prices fall, people put off buying stuff in the hope they can get it cheaper in the near future – which depresses the economy even more.

Objectively though this is brilliant for the environment. Far more so than the paltry measures governments are using to address ecological issues – as the Australian finance minister recently admitted.

Whether you ‘believe’ in economics or not, the markets are reflecting the belief that, irrespective of the contradictory hogwash that lobbyists push into the media, there’s potentially another global crash coming. Remember, the problems of 2007/8 were never solved – they were just bailed out.

This is about economic power, not prices

The recent fall in oil prices has little to do with fracking. It arguably does have a link to the ‘ecological limits’ outlined by the peak oil debate, due to the changing the balance of power between OPEC and non-OPEC producers it creates. But the greatest factor here is geopolitics.

For the last fifty years OPEC has been what’s called the ‘swing producer‘. Whether OPEC opens or closes the taps largely determines the global supply oil – allowing them to manipulate the price. That power can be used for the benefit of the industry, raising prices to encourage investment, or for more nefarious political purposes.

Of course the Middle East, by cutting production, potentially takes a hit on their income. To make matters worse, all their economic loss does is to prop-up the more expensive production in the non-OPEC regions of the world – especially off-shore, in the Arctic, and unconventional production.

With a possible climate deal looming in December, and with the issue of ‘stranded assets‘ beginning to sink-in to the thinking of market investors, does being the ‘swing producer’ role benefit OPEC any more? That is perhaps what this current ‘crisis’ is really about.

The Middle East produces almost half the world’s crude oil, and it does so relatively cheaply. However, the idea that OPEC’s ‘cheap oil’ will guarantee low prices ignores the near $50 trillion cost which the IEA consider essential to maintain global energy production – which requires a near $100 to $115/barrel price to be economically viable.

Over the last decade, the fossil fuel industry had never invested so much money for such a small return; and that lower productivity is worsening the ecological footprint of their product. Somewhere between 60% and 75% of current production might be considered ‘conventional’ or ‘easy’ oil.

The remainder – the more extreme ‘conventional’ and unconventional sources, from the Niger Delta, to the Arctic, to the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, to fracking – is causing some of the highest ecological damage per unit of fuel produced.

If a climate deal, or acceptance of stranded assets, preserves the global balance of production in 2015/16, then it’s in OPEC’s interest to make sure they are the only oil producing group in the room.

By driving down prices – making all that marginal production in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Australia uneconomic – they may well be the last guys standing, if/when we have to ration future production to meet the needs of a realistic climate deal.

That turns Melia’s argument on its head

Far from weakening the environmental argument, as production limits begin to bite, the tussles within the industry are actually benefiting (at least in the short term) the objectives of the environment movement. Obviously OPEC are not doing this to help the environment, but we have to recognise this as a potential short-term outcome of their actions.

And on the far side of the present economic downturn? If OPEC get their way there will be less oil and gas capacity available in a year or two. If demand rises energy prices will spike once more, holding-down demand – again, a benefit for the environment (and OPEC).

Of course this is all geopolitics; and all these geopolitical power plays are incredibly short-term. It does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental ecological trends defining peak oil, nor the greater ‘limits to growth‘ which may collapse the global economy well before dangerous climate change does. But that’s another – and far more complex – debate!

Environmentalists should be cheering on OPEC! They’re bankrupting the companies environmentalists love to hate!

From the North Slope of Alaska, to tar sands and the Keystone pipeline in Canada, to the fracking patch of the Dakotas, they’re curtailing the development of some of the most damaging sources of petroleum operating today.

We don’t have to like OPEC, but we have to recognise the ‘unintended consequences’ their actions may have for the global environment.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See a fully referenced version of this article on the Free Range Activism Website.

 

 




388736

Environmentalists’ oil price panic reflects their own existential crisis Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




“Collapsing oil prices should give everyone in the ‘green movement’ cause for reflection.”

Say what! Really? Why is that?

I see the introduction to Steve Melia’s recent article for The Ecologist as indicative of a more general problem of how the environmental debate handles complex issues. Simplistic statements, such as that above, don’t necessarily reflect the complexity of the available evidence.

The article continued in the same vein: “With lower prices forecast to last for the next couple of years … “

Really? Yet again there’s little evidence to support those rosy projections, and many would state the contrary. Even environmentalism’s detractors question such assumptions these days.

For me, recent articles such as this expose the environmental movement’s quiet existential crisis. It’s a movement whose outlook has become narrowed by external forces as it has become skewed towards a media-led agenda – and which has shifted towards popularity rather than objectivity in addressing our ecological position as a species.

If we were to rely solely on what we see in the mass media, environmentalism is no longer a search to reconcile human needs to the limitations of their ecological circumstances.

It has become a debate over competing consumer choices which reflect, unquestioningly, the dominant consumer debate over affluence and growth, albeit of a green’ hue; and dominated by the single metric of carbon … and pandas!

The fact that we only significantly cut emissions and consumption during recessions, or that we’re running out of the resources needed to manufacture green technologies – oh, that’s so 1970s!

It’s not environmentalists’ fault, but it requires their participation.

As outlined recently by Adam Curtis, the purpose of the modern, engineered media debate is not to inform, it is to confuse. “Doubt is their product.“

The purpose of this approach is not advance a specific debate over change, instead it deflects criticism from existing practices. This happens because statements and events are not based upon evidence, but rather popularly acceptable and often contradictory assumptions – all of which engenders a widespread cognitive dissonance over precisely what ‘reality’ is.

That’s also a problem for major players in the environmental movement today, whose raison d’etre is to chase the media agenda to advance their cause.

Especially with on-line and 24-hour rolling news, the herd mentality governing the media melee overrides the ‘deep green’ fundamental questions about lifestyle which ‘traditional’ environmentalism raises. This is especially true in relation to evidence which contradicts the media’s dominant political message of growth and affluence.

For example, one of the ground-breaking – but little discussed – recent climate documentaries is Cowspiracy. It examines at the range of available evidence on one of the single biggest practices harming the global environment today: meat-eating.

One startling part of the film is when they interview campaign groups, who largely ignore or side-step the issue, or failed to acknowledge it altogether. Greenpeace refused to appear.

Why do media-led campaign groups feel the need to follow ‘the script’ the modern managed media assigns to them? Rather than, for example, standing apart and seeking to define their own agenda outside of the ‘usual channels’.

This is what the movement did during the 1970s and 1980s – and, thirty or forty years later, contrary to its anti-consumerist ‘hair shirt’ depiction, the weight evidence today shows that stance to have been correct.

So what is happening with oil prices?

The recent environmental debate on oil prices is an exemplar for how a failure of analysis is leading to a wholly mistaken assumptions about present trends.

And again, it’s because people are following a simplistic mass media agenda, rather than seeking to understand the range of evidence available – and use that understanding to their advantage.

Oil prices are falling because many the world’s strategic investors think the global economy is knackered. To understand why we need to look across all commodities, not just oil.

It if was just fracking, or a glut of conventional oil driving prices down, oil prices would be falling relative to other commodities. That would be a boon the the global economy and global growth – and yes, people would consume more oil.

But that’s not what we see.

Instead, nearly all commodity futures – from copper to cotton to tin – have been trending down over the last year. That’s due to the global economy stalling, cutting consumption generally, reducing demand, and thus driving all commodity prices down.

In fact, economists are now worried about deflation. As prices fall, people put off buying stuff in the hope they can get it cheaper in the near future – which depresses the economy even more.

Objectively though this is brilliant for the environment. Far more so than the paltry measures governments are using to address ecological issues – as the Australian finance minister recently admitted.

Whether you ‘believe’ in economics or not, the markets are reflecting the belief that, irrespective of the contradictory hogwash that lobbyists push into the media, there’s potentially another global crash coming. Remember, the problems of 2007/8 were never solved – they were just bailed out.

This is about economic power, not prices

The recent fall in oil prices has little to do with fracking. It arguably does have a link to the ‘ecological limits’ outlined by the peak oil debate, due to the changing the balance of power between OPEC and non-OPEC producers it creates. But the greatest factor here is geopolitics.

For the last fifty years OPEC has been what’s called the ‘swing producer‘. Whether OPEC opens or closes the taps largely determines the global supply oil – allowing them to manipulate the price. That power can be used for the benefit of the industry, raising prices to encourage investment, or for more nefarious political purposes.

Of course the Middle East, by cutting production, potentially takes a hit on their income. To make matters worse, all their economic loss does is to prop-up the more expensive production in the non-OPEC regions of the world – especially off-shore, in the Arctic, and unconventional production.

With a possible climate deal looming in December, and with the issue of ‘stranded assets‘ beginning to sink-in to the thinking of market investors, does being the ‘swing producer’ role benefit OPEC any more? That is perhaps what this current ‘crisis’ is really about.

The Middle East produces almost half the world’s crude oil, and it does so relatively cheaply. However, the idea that OPEC’s ‘cheap oil’ will guarantee low prices ignores the near $50 trillion cost which the IEA consider essential to maintain global energy production – which requires a near $100 to $115/barrel price to be economically viable.

Over the last decade, the fossil fuel industry had never invested so much money for such a small return; and that lower productivity is worsening the ecological footprint of their product. Somewhere between 60% and 75% of current production might be considered ‘conventional’ or ‘easy’ oil.

The remainder – the more extreme ‘conventional’ and unconventional sources, from the Niger Delta, to the Arctic, to the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, to fracking – is causing some of the highest ecological damage per unit of fuel produced.

If a climate deal, or acceptance of stranded assets, preserves the global balance of production in 2015/16, then it’s in OPEC’s interest to make sure they are the only oil producing group in the room.

By driving down prices – making all that marginal production in Europe, the Americas, Africa and Australia uneconomic – they may well be the last guys standing, if/when we have to ration future production to meet the needs of a realistic climate deal.

That turns Melia’s argument on its head

Far from weakening the environmental argument, as production limits begin to bite, the tussles within the industry are actually benefiting (at least in the short term) the objectives of the environment movement. Obviously OPEC are not doing this to help the environment, but we have to recognise this as a potential short-term outcome of their actions.

And on the far side of the present economic downturn? If OPEC get their way there will be less oil and gas capacity available in a year or two. If demand rises energy prices will spike once more, holding-down demand – again, a benefit for the environment (and OPEC).

Of course this is all geopolitics; and all these geopolitical power plays are incredibly short-term. It does absolutely nothing to address the fundamental ecological trends defining peak oil, nor the greater ‘limits to growth‘ which may collapse the global economy well before dangerous climate change does. But that’s another – and far more complex – debate!

Environmentalists should be cheering on OPEC! They’re bankrupting the companies environmentalists love to hate!

From the North Slope of Alaska, to tar sands and the Keystone pipeline in Canada, to the fracking patch of the Dakotas, they’re curtailing the development of some of the most damaging sources of petroleum operating today.

We don’t have to like OPEC, but we have to recognise the ‘unintended consequences’ their actions may have for the global environment.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer.

See a fully referenced version of this article on the Free Range Activism Website.

 

 




388736

New formal synthesis section for Oikos papers Updated for 2026

Leave a reply

Synthesis and integration are critical elements of knowledge synthesis. Using/reusing the work we have already done is a sign of maturation as a discipline, and a very positive step forward to accelerate inquiry by identifying research gaps, opportunities, and effectively summarizing the strength of evidence to date. We are not only poised for potentially profound novel tests of ideas in ecology, evolution, and environmental science, but we are collaborating in news ways, sharing datasets more freely, and more transparently sharing workflows and insights. Oikos supports this movement in all the ways that we can for now and hopefully even more dramatically as we evolve too.  Hence, we are launching a new formal synthesis section for publications.

Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are but two forms of synthesis. Nonetheless, these reviews are currently the most easily aligned with the traditional peer-reviewed ‘publication’ as paper model. This is admittedly a small step, but we need these contributions to inform evidence-based decisions not just for additional research but for management and application. We now have a section devoted to reviews that include quantitative summaries of evidence from within studies or aggregated datasets, i.e. include effect size estimates and appropriate statistics, and also includes systematic reviews that summarize the state of the art of research for a sub-discipline or topic at the scale of studies (i.e. attributes associated with the research, similar to the meta-data of the datasets but without the data from each study listed). We recognize there are many other forms of synthesis that we need to share, and consequently, we will work hard to ensure that we consider these contributions as well (i.e. how to effectively synthesize evidence in all forms, aggregate, and use datasets for novel synthesis).  In handling these papers, similar to all reviews really, we will strive for rapid turnaround, and if sent out for review, we will also work hard to ensure that referees expert in synthesis can provide you with input.

The editorial associated with this section is now OA and online.
Let’s work together to find that big picture.

mosaic

 

 

 

 

 

About these ads