Shale Gas, Frac on - The Economist, Nov 26-Dec 2 2011

"Energy firms often call (natural) gas a clean fuel: burning it releases roughly half as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as burning coal does. So, if gas fired power stations are built instead of coal fired ones, the cheap (shale) gas bonanza will help control global warming. Unfortunately though, they probably will not be. Few new coal fired power stations are planned in America or Europe anyway. And China, which also has lots of unexploited shale gas, has few scruples about burning cheap coal. Either way, gas fired power stations are more likely to substitute for solar panels, wind turbines and nuclear power stations.

The only way of ensuring that does not happen is to price fossil fuels to cover the environmental damage they do.

Power generated from coal would carry a high carbon price tag; power generated from gas a smaller one; power generated from renewables none at all."

This extract from the The Economist Leader entitled: Shale Gas Frac on, published in the November 26th - December 2nd 2011 issue is the first time I have seen a direct reference to the "real" cost of fossil fuels together with acknowledgement that the only way to start addressing the damage to the environment, is to factor in the cost of pollution.

Ideally, The Economist and everyone else should focus on this and build consensus, ultimately leading to the Environmentally Neutral approach I've been advocating on this Blog and on the Environmental Energy Facebook page.