On 4 Jun 2014 at 9:28pm Historian wrote:
Bill in the Queens speech, the right of trespass under our houses.
Flames outta your taps coming to a bathroom near you.
I find it amazing they can drill on the South Downs, but try and get a room in your roof or a new dormer window or even a garden shed put up, there is a whole rigmarole of red tape and often the answer is no !
On 4 Jun 2014 at 9:43pm Dog breath wrote:
Fracking is entirely contradictory to the remit of a National Park but still it will go ahead. The Tories are removing out rights to object to fracking beneath our homes.
This is no democracy. It's a world run for the rich and we are here only to be exploited.
On 4 Jun 2014 at 10:27pm sunshine lucas wrote:
Do we know what Norman B is going to say about this?
On 4 Jun 2014 at 11:02pm Historian wrote:
Does it really matter what Norm says ? #ineffective
On 5 Jun 2014 at 8:13am curious wrote:
communities in USA. dog breath is right but not only are we ruled by the rich and exploited by them, we are I believe, also lied to, divided into spurious factions and have crucial information distorted or omitted in the main mass communication channels.
I haven't forgotten Lawson's comments in the Lords about fracking the 'remote north.' Make no mistake this government is seemingly entwined with the fracking industry. There is no way we shall be told the real story.
On 5 Jun 2014 at 8:18am Humbert wrote:
I struggle to imagine Norman saying anything about fracking other than what the Government tell him to. How will our local Liberal Democrats (who have already selected him to represent them again next year) react to that?
On 5 Jun 2014 at 8:22am curious wrote:
The beginning of my post got partially gobbled - 'whilst we still have reasonable access to the internet it is worth checking out the extraordinary harm done by fracking to mainly remote and poor ....
On 5 Jun 2014 at 8:55am Lewes Lady wrote:
I'm sure that the folk complaining about and objecting to tracking would have been doing the same about mining and other oil drilling. I suggest that every protestor should sign up to living without oil or oil-derived products before getting started.
On 5 Jun 2014 at 9:49am Vogon wrote:
@LewesLady : It's not that fracking is necessarily inherently evil it's that we should be looking beyond yet another finite fossil-based resource, however profitable it is in the short term
On 5 Jun 2014 at 10:05am Humbert wrote:
Lewes Lady, it's quite possible to power a nation through renewables. The profit motive is reduced though, that's the only reason investment in fracking is so high when the same investment in renewables would give us cheaper, more long term, and cleaner / less disruptive energy. I wonder how many people who think fracking is ok object to wind turbines?
On 5 Jun 2014 at 10:38am Lewes Gentleman wrote:
Fracking will be like nuclear power - if done well it will have minimal impact on most people, however if done badly, or when something goes wrong, then it has the potential to be a disaster.
So, the Green element among us are happy to cover massive areas of the UK in unsightly windmills and solar farms (which they mistakenly believe to be "cleaner" and "more sustainable"), but they are not happy to allow drilling and fracking - yet they no doubt expect to have access to goods made using oil derivatives, and use mobile phones and computers using very rare metals - but of course, as the devastating mining of those rare metals is out of sight (in South America and Africa) it is also conveniently out of mind, so they get no pang of conscience every time they go on-line or use their mobiles to arrange their anti-fracking protests or to tell anyone who dares take an alternate view on fracking that they are wrong.
If we want to continue with our current lifestyle, or even something close to it in terms of comfort and convenience, then large quantities of energy have to be produced somehow.
Despite what the Greens may say, Wind, wave and solar cannot rovide this unless they too have hideous visual impact upon massive areas of the countryside. Likewise, all those "high tech" windmills and solar panels require use of huge amounts of energy and tonnes of finite natural resources to build, transport and then maintain them throughout their working life.
Making our lifestyles and "things" more energy efficient will help us use energy (however it is generated) more sparingly, but fracking (and the equally un-green nuclear) sources will have to play a part in supplying the energy we use - renewables simply cannot provide it all on demand 24/7, and are never likely to while population increases and number of UK dwellings continues to increase too.
Fracking is (unfortunately) one of many necessary evils, so get over it, or get used to living with far less energy, especially on a cloudy, wind-free day!!!!
Rather than fight the idea per se why not devote all that "protest energy" into ensuring it is as well regulated and tighly-controlled as possible when it inevitably happens, such that it is introduced in a step-wise manner, and such that any problems are addressed if and when they occur here.
Surely that is a better way to address the issue and risks rather than try and stop it completely on basis of (oft-unfounded) scare stories originating from the USA.
Otehrwise, get used to the idea of living in cold, dark dwellings, without the ability to buy your oh-so-green organic goods remotely for convenient home-delivery to your trendy american-style walk in fridge, and without the ability to communicate instantly with all your other eco-hippy green friends across the country.
Fracking will happen t some degree or other, lets start to accept that, and start to work to manage it's introduction rather than keep trying to stop it.
Or, better still, lets go 100% nuclear-power.... ;-)
On 5 Jun 2014 at 11:10am Southover Queen wrote:
Or - here's an idea - reduce the amount of energy we need in the first place. Revolutionary, isn't it?
Swedish new build homes use virtually no energy, even in the middle of their winter. Added to that their electricity generation is virtually all "clean" - hydro (more than half) and the rest nuclear, with just 3% imported.
We have failed abjectly to plan our energy infrastructure, which is why we're even considering fracking. My objection to it is at least as much to do with the short-term nature of the "gain" - fracking will cover our energy needs for about 40 years, but what happens then??? It's a sticking plaster and a particularly destructive one. And at least wind turbines aren't destabilising the earth's crust...
On 5 Jun 2014 at 12:02pm Guppy wrote:
Look at Denmark for more examples. They have a strategy and plan to be totally independent of fossil fuels by 2050. Renewables will account for 50% of power by 2020.
On 5 Jun 2014 at 1:40pm PLUMPTON LAD wrote:
I am not a fan of fracking either, but it should be noted that the Coalition have also announced some steps to reduce fossil fuel use in the Queens Speech: 1. Proposal for more money from renewable energy to go to local communities (thereby helping win more local support); 2. a plan for zero carbon homes by 2016; 3. A 5p levy on plastic bags (oil being used to produce these and the experience from elsewhere is that a small charge on plastic bags leads to a big reduction in demand for plastic bags therefore a reduction in the amount of oil needed.
On 5 Jun 2014 at 4:45pm bastian wrote:
The important issue here is the steam rollering over your ancient rights, these were set in stone centuries ago. When you buy property in this country you don't just own the walls, you own the land under it to the centre of the earth, but the crown owns the mineral rights-the crown cannot extract those minerals without your consent-but under these new proposals,( I don't remember this being in the tory manifesto), you won't have say in it. Ha sanyone thought baout how much longer it could take to buy a house with a land search now having to include fracking, possible fracking and fracking damage (not thta anyone can buy a house round here). Chances are, the government ahs already sold the licences already and spent the money.
I'm bl**dy sick of this lot and all they stand for, it's all sell, sell and buy buy. They have sold our private infomation, they want to sell our tax records, medical records, all so some w*nker can sell us life insurance or a product they think will suit us. Where is it going to stop!
On 5 Jun 2014 at 5:39pm Tired... wrote:
Lewes Gentleman has got it so wrong it's difficult to know where to start. Perhaps here. Our reserves of oil and gas are depleting and we are turning to increasingly desperate measures to extract them. Fracking is the most desperate yet and the right time to call a halt, or at least impose a moratorium until we understand more about it, especially the long term affect the process will have on geological stability and the security of our water supplies (try googling 'fracking earthquakes in Ohio', fracking air pollution texas eagle ford' or 'fracking water pollution Pennsylvania').
That's a start. Secondly man made global warning is an incontrovertible fact. We are playing with the very future of life on this planet as we know it. This is the most likely reason some of us will end up living in caves, not because we don't frack!
Fracked gas is billed as a transition fuel, a pathway to renewables. But this is rubbish. As shown so clearly by the US, coal continues to get extracted, it's just sold elsewhere. So fracked gas is not a replacement for coal it is an *addition* to coal. Also, fracked gas is only less harmful than coal if it does not escape into the atmosphere whilst being extracted. Recent tests in the US have shown that at least 6% is escaping... that makes the industry considerably worse in terms of climate change than coal. Methane is immediately a *much* more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and unfortunately the period it is most active in the atmosphere is virtually the same period in which we have to radically reduce emissions if we are not soon to see a 2-4 degree increase in global temperature (which, if you are not already aware, will f*** things right up for all of us).
This is not a green issue or a left/right issue (as some are trying to portray it), it's a survival issue. If humans put a fraction of the money we put into our military budget into reneables research we'd crack efficient renewable energy in five years. (Where there's a will and a budget there's a way). We have already developed considerably more efficient (and much smaller) wind turbines and solar panels. These need to be manufactured and available. We need to look to seriously look at Thorium Salt Reactors (as the Chinese are doing). We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels through the creation of plastics (why do we need all this packaging?) and create properly insulated houses (why on earth are we still making such bad houses?).
What is incredible is why this is not all happening now. We know the risks are huge if we don't.
BTW. Before anyone says global warming is a sham... well, an overwhelming number of eminently qualified people don't think it is... and bearing in mind the mind-bogglingly bad consequences if we get it wrong, are you sure we can afford to take the risk of not doing anything?
And, btw no-one wants to cover the UK with wind turbines, but we do want to survive.
On 5 Jun 2014 at 8:43pm Sad to see you go.. wrote:
And talking about methane leakage... maybe its already too late..
Check it out here »
On 10 Jun 2014 at 1:19pm Lewes Gentleman wrote:
@Tired - Oh, if only it were it as simple as you suggest.
@Sadto see....
Taking a direct quote from the report you linked to:
"An average wellbore may leak about 100 kilograms of methane a year, or the same as cow".
So lets ban cows too shall we, seeing as they seem to be generating as much methane each as a typical fracking borehole?
Southover Queen and Plumton lad seem to understand, 'too little, too late' has brought us all here.
I'm all for making our lives as energy efficient as possible, but current lifestyles and population headcount simply cannot be supplied with all their energy needs by renewables in the forseeable future.
Lack of investment has indeed not helped renewable technology progress quickly, and even now "green energy" is only "working" financially because it is heavily subsidised.
Fracking has a part to play, and must be tightly controlled - I have never said it is the solution to all our problems - far from it! All I have said is that it might be better to deploy the time and effort being spent in trying to stop it at all costs in trying to ensure that when (or if) it happens, it does so in a carefully controlled manner.
Global warming is not denied, though evidence as to causes is perhaps not as clear cut as some seem to think. Yes man-made CO2 is playing a part, but that does not explain the evidence that the globe has been warmer in the past, long before humans started burning fossil fuels at any significant rate.
So, despite what many choose to believe (or are told they should believe by zealots at both ends of the "frack or no frack" spectrum), the situation is far from black and white.
'Twas all I was saying....
On 10 Jun 2014 at 7:24pm Amanda Dean wrote:
Most of what is on my blog will be already known. I am against it on the basis of the precautionary principle and because the consequences will be permanent.
Check it out here »
On 10 Jun 2014 at 7:31pm Wake up you plonker! wrote:
Lewes gentleman states,"Yes man-made CO2 is playing a part, but that does not explain the evidence that the globe has been warmer in the past, long before humans started burning fossil fuels at any significant rate."Lewes Gentleman is a fracking idiot.The vast majority of the world`s climate scientists are sure that man made Co2 emissions are the MAJOR cause of global warming and this self styled sage of Lewes with no scientific expertise whatsoever is not so sure.YOU UNSPEAKABLE PLONKER,LEWES GENTLEMAN?LEWES MENTALMAN MORE LIKE!
On 11 Jun 2014 at 1:43am Sixth former wrote:
The main reason world was hot in the past was that volcanoes were spewing out zillions of tonnnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.Most sixth formers know that.Not "Lewes Gentleman"though it seems who only studied the Beano at school.