I am leaving the phone at home

What might it be like to wander around without anxiously looking at a screen every ten seconds? I wo

I am leaving the phone at home.

Those words are easy to write, but not so easy to carry out in practice. But I think it's worth a try. Since I'm on holiday this week, I thought "Why not?" -- and so, I'm going to give it a go.

I was made redundant in the middle of June, since when I seem to have slipped into a familiar pattern of gazing at a screen for hours on end. Not that I didn't do that at work, you understand; but at least I was getting paid for it then. I've taken work home, and now I'm doing it for nothing. Work shouldn't be a hobby. Hobbies shouldn't be dull, like work. But there it is: my hobbies seem to consist of gazing at a set of characters on a screen, almost all day, every day.

It's got bad. I've started to venerate Martin and Lucy out of Homes Under the Hammer as gods in a strange duotheistic religion I've created. It largely centres around buying property at auction and ensuring that you don't forget to read the legal pack, but other than that it's a fairly straightforward new religion. I'm the only devotee, as far as I'm aware, but I keep the flame burning every morning at 10am without fail. The pair of them have become such significant figures in my poor puggled unemployed brain that I've begun to look forward to their daily presence as one might the arrival of workmates, or friends -- and the ritual of communion with these two property doer-uppers has led to me seeing them as worshipful, all-knowing beings.

Television, though, is not the only screen to which I bring my gaze every day. I have a phone, which I look at all the time, as well. And this: the screen I'm looking at now, the PC screen. If I'm not looking at one, I'm looking at another. Sometimes I'm looking at Twitter on my PC, while simultaneously reading tweets on my phone. Sometimes it feels like there's no point in watching TV without tip-tapping away on the tiny BlackBerry keys in order to tell the world that I'm watching the thing I'm watching, and that my opinion on it is X, Y and Z.

How did it come to this? Whatever happened to looking at things with your eyes, and just enjoying them for what they are? Is there no way we can simply sit through a TV show now, without telling random people on the internet what we think about someone's hair or who they vaguely look like? Apparently not. I can see the idea of the virtual community being more pleasant, less odorous and easier to shove out of the house when you want to get some sleep, but I worry there's a stage at which this all might lead to some disconnect with reality.

I remember looking at things. You know, just looking at them, without having to see them transformed into zeroes and ones on a small LCD in front of you to verify their existence. I remember when you could just go and see stuff, and enjoy it for what it was, without the necessity of a tediously framed and set up digital record; or going to gigs without having to film ten blurry, jerky seconds so you could prove you were there.

I don't want to come across as a grumbling old Luddite railing against the modern technology that allows me to write a blog or stay in touch with my friends in the "meatspace", or real world, more than I could ever have done 10 or 15 years ago, but there it is. I just wonder what it might be like to wander around without having to anxiously look at a screen every ten seconds. I have a feeling it might be some kind of liberation, and worth doing. So I'm going to give it a whirl.

I'll send you a text to let you know I'm all right.

Patrolling the murkier waters of the mainstream media
Show Hide image

North Yorkshire has approved the UK’s first fracking tests in five years. What does this mean?

Is fracking the answer to the UK's energy future? Or a serious risk to the environment?

Shale gas operation has been approved in North Yorkshire, the first since a ban introduced after two minor earthquakes in 2011 were shown to be caused by fracking in the area. On Tuesday night, after two days of heated debate, North Yorkshire councillors finally granted an application to frack in the North York Moors National Park.

The vote by the Tory-dominated council was passed by seven votes to four, and sets an important precedent for the scores of other applications still awaiting decision across the country. It also gives a much-needed boost to David Cameron’s 2014 promise to “go all out for shale”. But with regional authorities pitted against local communities, and national government in dispute with global NGOs, what is the wider verdict on the industry?

What is fracking?

Fracking, or “hydraulic fracturing”, is the extraction of shale gas from deep underground. A mixture of water, sand and chemicals is pumped into the earth at such high pressure that it literally fractures the rocks and releases the gas trapped inside.

Opponents claim that the side effects include earthquakes, polluted ground water, and noise and traffic pollution. The image the industry would least like you to associate with the process is this clip of a man setting fire to a running tap, from the 2010 US documentary Gasland

Advocates dispute the above criticisms, and instead argue that shale gas extraction will create jobs, help the UK transition to a carbon-neutral world, reduce reliance on imports and boost tax revenues.

So do these claims stands up? Let’s take each in turn...

Will it create jobs? Yes, but mostly in the short-term.

Industry experts imply that job creation in the UK could reflect that seen in the US, while the medium-sized production company Cuadrilla claims that shale gas production would create 1,700 jobs in Lancashire alone.

But claims about employment may be exaggerated. A US study overseen by Penn State University showed that only one in seven of the jobs projected in an industry forecast actually materialised. In the UK, a Friends of the Earth report contends that the majority of jobs to be created by fracking in Lancashire would only be short-term – with under 200 surviving the initial construction burst.

Environmentalists, in contrast, point to evidence that green energy creates more jobs than similar-sized fossil fuel investments.  And it’s not just climate campaigners who don’t buy the employment promise. Trade union members also have their doubts. Ian Gallagher, Secretary of Blackburn and District Trade Unions Council, told Friends of the Earth that: “Investment in the areas identified by the Million Climate Jobs Campaign [...] is a far more certain way of addressing both climate change and economic growth than drilling for shale gas.”

Will it deliver cleaner energy? Not as completely as renewables would.

America’s “shale revolution” has been credited with reversing the country’s reliance on dirty coal and helping them lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction. Thanks to the relatively low carbon dioxide content of natural gas (emitting half the amount of coal to generate the same amount of electricity), fracking helped the US reduce its annual emissions of carbon dioxide by 556 million metric tons between 2007 and 2014. Banning it, advocates argue, would “immediately increase the use of coal”.

Yet a new report from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (previously known for its opposition to wind farm applications), has laid out a number of ways that the UK government can meet its target of 80 per cent emissions reduction by 2050 without necessarily introducing fracking and without harming the natural world. Renewable, home-produced, energy, they argue, could in theory cover the UK’s energy needs three times over. They’ve even included some handy maps:

Map of UK land available for renewable technologies. Source: RSPB’s 2050 Energy Vision.

Will it deliver secure energy? Yes, up to a point.

For energy to be “sustainable” it also has to be secure; it has to be available on demand and not threatened by international upheaval. Gas-fired “peaking” plants can be used to even-out input into the electricity grid when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind is not so blowy. The government thus claims that natural gas is an essential part of the UK’s future “energy mix”, which, if produced domestically through fracking, will also free us from reliance on imports tarnished by volatile Russian politics.

But, time is running out. Recent analysis by Carbon Brief suggests that we only have five years left of current CO2 emission levels before we blow the carbon budget and risk breaching the climate’s crucial 1.5°C tipping point. Whichever energy choices we make now need to starting brining down the carbon over-spend immediately.

Will it help stablise the wider economy? Yes, but not forever.

With so many “Yes, buts...” in the above list, you might wonder why the government is still pressing so hard for fracking’s expansion? Part of the answer may lie in their vested interest in supporting the wider industry.

Tax revenues from UK oil and gas generate a large portion of the government’s income. In 2013-14, the revenue from license fees, petroleum revenue tax, corporation tax and the supplementary charge accounted for nearly £5bn of UK exchequer receipts. The Treasury cannot afford to lose these, as evidenced in the last budget when George Osborne further subsidied North Sea oil operations through increased tax breaks.

The more that the Conservatives support the industry, the more they can tax it. In 2012 DECC said it wanted to “guarantee... every last economic drop of oil and gas is produced for the benefit of the UK”. This sentiment was repeated yesterday by energy minister Andrea Leadsom, when she welcomed the North Yorkshire decision and described fracking as a “fantastic opportunity”.

Dependence on finite domestic fuel reserves, however, is not a long-term economic solution. Not least because they will either run out or force us to exceed international emissions treaties: “Pensions already have enough stranded assets as they are,” says Danielle Pafford from 350.org.

Is it worth it? Most European countries have decided it’s not.

There is currently no commercial shale-gas drilling in Europe. Sustained protests against the industry in Romania, combined with poor exploration results, have already caused energy giant Chevron to pull out of the country. Total has also abandonned explorations in Denmark, Poland is being referred to the European Court of Justice for failing to adequately assess fracking’s impact, and, in Germany, brewers have launched special bottle-caps with the slogan “Nein! Zu Fracking” to warn against the threat to their water supply.

Back in the UK, the government's latest survey of public attitudes to fracking found that 44 per cent neither supported nor opposed the practice, but also that opinion is gradually shifting out of favour. If the government doesn't come up with arguments that hold water soon, it seems likely that the UK's fracking future could still be blasted apart.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.