Professor Barry McMullin:

It depends what is meant by "viable". Professor Howarth is the expert on the role of methane, particularly methane from natural gas extraction through fracking. Since the project was mooted, the science and understanding of the role of methane in general has advanced considerably, which is a significant change. The specific understanding of the emissions for fracking, as compared with conventional natural gas extraction, has advanced considerably over that period. We have a much better understanding now than we had when the project was first mooted that the damage would be much more significant.

We have also seen the International Panel on Climate Change special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C, which demonstrates that the risks of climate change and temperature rise are substantially greater than had previously been understood. In particular, there is a risk of triggering tipping points in this complex global system. I raise this because methane and carbon dioxide do not have exactly the same effects in the dynamics of climate change and global warming. Carbon dioxide primarily dictates the long-term warming and methane in the next couple of decades will strongly affect peak warming, or the peak temperature we get to before we finally manage to stabilise temperatures. That peak temperature is critical in terms of the risks of triggering these potentially irreversible feedback processes that will get out of human control entirely. The methane issue will be brought very starkly into focus over the next two or three decades, so action on methane that is separate from carbon dioxide is critical.

In a meaningful and rational engagement with the urgency of our climate predicament, any project premised primarily on natural gas, but especially fracked natural gas, is definitely not viable from that perspective. Could it be financially viable? As long as these products-----