Fracking now banned in UK

Due to fear it causes earthquakes.
Clearly politicians have got their hands on a very damaging report.
Great news.
http://news.sky.com/story/fracking-banned-in-uk-after-earthquake-fears-11851577

A chance to produce our own gas instead of paying Russia for it, spineless Politicians cancel it because they may lose votes in this area !

I suspect the review produced some alarming results, which would not only cause damage to infrastructure, but more importantly, to election chances

Excellent news for our nation's environment. If we want to be free from using oil we need to do more with green energy.

Fracking never was a good idea...

bad for the environment, far more so than even opencast mining (which in itself is terrible)

get some more nuke stations built...but they MUST be built by BRITISH companies, employing security cleared BRITISH employees, using BRITISH materials where possible, inspected by doubly security cleared BRITISH inspectors, to BRITISH standards and there should not be a frog kraut or other involved in it. AND they should be of the safest thorium salt technology too......

More offshore wind farms. We are a windy country, offshore it blows 365 days a year. Green, Requires minimal.maintenance and very efficient.
Call me a cynic, but this U turn by Johnson does smack of politicking.
Designed to garner votes.
Then if elected, he will simply reinstate the fracking.

Eilzel wrote:Excellent news for our nation's environment. If we want to be free from using oil we need to do more with green energy.

We all know that, Lez, and it's a difficult goal to counter. But surely the LibDem proposal that the current target dates should be foreshortened to as little as six years could result only in devastated national economies and, in the case of those of us living in isolated and rural communities totally lacking in public transport and many other services that are generally taken for granted, being even more isolated and disadvantaged.

I live miles from the nearest (very limited) bus service, even further from the railway station and at 80 don't really think I should be forced to trek two miles to the nearest post office/shop, six miles to the nearest GP surgery and 10 miles to the nearest hospital. And I certainly can't afford to scrap my old diesel car and spend God knows how much on a new and eye-wateringly expensive electric model.

And do you honestly think that the Chinese, Indian and other emerging economies are going to give a flying fuck about our self-imposed imminent ruination?

No worries, we got plenty if your Russian friends cut you off.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Excellent news for our nation's environment. If we want to be free from using oil we need to do more with green energy.

We all know that, Lez, and it's a difficult goal to counter. But surely the LibDem proposal that the current target dates should be foreshortened to as little as six years could result only in  devastated national economies and, in the case of those of us living in isolated and rural communities totally lacking in public transport and many other services that are generally taken for granted, being even more isolated and disadvantaged.

I live miles from the nearest (very limited) bus service, even further from the railway station and at 80 don't really think I should be forced to trek two miles to the nearest post office/shop, six miles to the nearest GP surgery and 10 miles to the nearest hospital. And I certainly can't afford to scrap my old diesel car and spend God knows how much on a new and eye-wateringly expensive electric model.

And do you honestly think that the Chinese, Indian and other emerging economies are going to give a flying fuck about our self-imposed imminent ruination?

A few responses.

Firstly, I've mentioned before to you that I no longer support the Liberal Democrats, and haven't since just after Clegg's departure.

Second, any solution to the climate crisis would require extending and improving public transport to all areas. This is part of the reason that (in an ideal world) public transport would be nationalised, because profits should not be a factor in cutting certain routes.

Finally, the standards of other countries should not come into it. We should clean our air, our water and our countryside. Other countries will get there in their own time - foreign tourists and students seeing how things are in the UK will surely affect their own outlooks for their home lands and have a net positive future impact.

nicko wrote:A chance to produce our own gas instead of paying Russia for it, spineless Politicians cancel it because they may lose votes in this area !
.

'Fracking' has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not gas can be harvested in any place or region...

And everything to do with how quickly that gas can be extracted..

In todays expanded and competitive mining/gas/oil industry, it's no longer simply a matter of one company getting a license and paying the royalties, but a multitude of specialised "contractor" companies, running the business, lobbying gov't, extracting and transporting, and then marketing the resource --  where there might once have been three or four entities employed at three levels of production, now there could be dozens competing to stick their fingers in that pie.

In the middle of that mess are those bastard environment-killing 'fracking' companies --  promising the license-holding gas companies that they can deliver more gas more quickly, and in doing so get more profits into their shareholders' hands that much sooner..


Never mind that the utility of producing more gas in a shorter timeframe has much more downside than upside.  Just some of the negative aspects of unbridled 'fracking' can include :

Destruction of local environs/habitat;  
Destruction of local water supplies, via contaminating aquifers;  
Lowering local water tables, via increased leakage through rock strata;  
Damage to local agriculture, often with zero compensation;  
Gas leaks affecting local communities --  people, wildlife, tourism;  
Along with that possibility of Increased Earth Tremors...

And the negative economic effects, on both local communities and the wider energy markets, of producing "too much, too soon, too fast.." --  effectively "killing the golden goose.." by reducing what could have been a long term steady local employer into a "fly by night" profiteering/'carpet bagger' operation, in and out in a decade or two, rather than hanging around for centuries..

'Wham ! Bam ! Thankyou, Ma'am."

Eilzel wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

We all know that, Lez, and it's a difficult goal to counter. But surely the LibDem proposal that the current target dates should be foreshortened to as little as six years could result only in  devastated national economies and, in the case of those of us living in isolated and rural communities totally lacking in public transport and many other services that are generally taken for granted, being even more isolated and disadvantaged.

I live miles from the nearest (very limited) bus service, even further from the railway station and at 80 don't really think I should be forced to trek two miles to the nearest post office/shop, six miles to the nearest GP surgery and 10 miles to the nearest hospital. And I certainly can't afford to scrap my old diesel car and spend God knows how much on a new and eye-wateringly expensive electric model.

And do you honestly think that the Chinese, Indian and other emerging economies are going to give a flying fuck about our self-imposed imminent ruination?

A few responses.

Firstly, I've mentioned before to you that I no longer support the Liberal Democrats, and haven't since just after Clegg's departure.

Second, any solution to the climate crisis would require extending and improving public transport to all areas. This is part of the reason that (in an ideal world) public transport would be nationalised, because profits should not be a factor in cutting certain routes.

Finally, the standards of other countries should not come into it. We should clean our air, our water and our countryside. Other countries will get there in their own time - foreign tourists and students seeing how things are in the UK will surely affect their own outlooks for their home lands and have a net positive future impact.

 

I'd forgotten that you had a change of political heart, but since you never were a party propagandist where you stand now is immaterial so far as I am concerned.

I'm afraid that this idea of "extending and improving transport to all areas", no matter how worthy and desirable, is, with respect, pure pie in the sky and the stock excuse trotted out with excruciating monotony by the political elite of Islington and Notting Hill
who are able to take several convenient forms of public transport for granted.

Even nationalisation (the thought of the average local authority running something as costly and as complicated as a comprehensive small town and rural bus service is risible!) cannot provide the answer for any community other than, perhaps London and the large cities where a nationalised service would be run largely by the same organisations as now.

Logistically it would be impossible if, for no other reason, that there simply wouldn't be a  sufficient number of buses of the size, range and frequency needed to serve not only outlying rural communities but also the specific needs of families including employees, shoppers, schoolchildren, the very young, the very old, the disabled, NHS patients needing hospital and GP appointments, youngsters needing a bit of a social life with their friends...the list is endless.

Ah, says the latest nonsense statement from some official body or another that I read only last week: We want to encourage more people to get out walking and cycling. Well, cycling apart, in my own fortunate case walking is an option as it's how I already keep my diabetes in check and ensure that my drastically repaired heart keeps working -  as well as being most enjoyable - but try selling that one to my partner who uses a mobility scooter or to half my British Legion branch comrades who will stand at the war memorial next week propped up by walking sticks and zimmer frames!

And yes, of course it's our duty to clean up our own air, water and countryside; I don't dispute that for one moment. But, really, just how long do you think it is going to take for all these newly convinced students and tourists to go back to their own developing countries as some sort of zeal-driven missionaries intent on changing the hearts, minds and practices of their own leaders and people?

I would love it to happen, and within a few decades, but - and you and I both know it - that just ain't going to happen.

Glad it is banned... the chemicals used in the pumping process are said to be toxic and are likely to get into our water.


Thorium reactors are the way forward.

Do the Yanks have any problem with Fracking ? they have been Fracking for a long time I believe ?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

We all know that, Lez, and it's a difficult goal to counter. But surely the LibDem proposal that the current target dates should be foreshortened to as little as six years could result only in  devastated national economies and, in the case of those of us living in isolated and rural communities totally lacking in public transport and many other services that are generally taken for granted, being even more isolated and disadvantaged.

I live miles from the nearest (very limited) bus service, even further from the railway station and at 80 don't really think I should be forced to trek two miles to the nearest post office/shop, six miles to the nearest GP surgery and 10 miles to the nearest hospital. And I certainly can't afford to scrap my old diesel car and spend God knows how much on a new and eye-wateringly expensive electric model.

And do you honestly think that the Chinese, Indian and other emerging economies are going to give a flying fuck about our self-imposed imminent ruination?

A few responses.

Firstly, I've mentioned before to you that I no longer support the Liberal Democrats, and haven't since just after Clegg's departure.

Second, any solution to the climate crisis would require extending and improving public transport to all areas. This is part of the reason that (in an ideal world) public transport would be nationalised, because profits should not be a factor in cutting certain routes.

Finally, the standards of other countries should not come into it. We should clean our air, our water and our countryside. Other countries will get there in their own time - foreign tourists and students seeing how things are in the UK will surely affect their own outlooks for their home lands and have a net positive future impact.

 

I'd forgotten that you had a change of political heart, but since you never were a party propagandist where you stand now is immaterial so far as I am concerned.

I'm afraid that this idea of "extending and improving transport to all areas", no matter how worthy and desirable, is, with respect, pure pie in the sky and the stock excuse trotted out with excruciating monotony by the political elite of Islington and Notting Hill
who are able to take several convenient forms of public transport for granted.

Even nationalisation (the thought of the average local authority running something as costly and as complicated as a comprehensive small town and rural bus service is risible!) cannot provide the answer for any community other than, perhaps London and the large cities where a nationalised service would be run largely by the same organisations as now.

Logistically it would be impossible if, for no other reason, that there simply wouldn't be a  sufficient number of buses of the size, range and frequency needed to serve not only outlying rural communities but also the specific needs of families including employees, shoppers, schoolchildren, the very young, the very old, the disabled, NHS patients needing hospital and GP appointments, youngsters needing a bit of a social life with their friends...the list is endless.

Ah, says the latest nonsense statement from some official body or another that I read only last week: We want to encourage more people to get out walking and cycling. Well, cycling apart, in my own fortunate case walking is an option as it's how I already keep my diabetes in check and ensure that my drastically repaired heart keeps working -  as well as being most enjoyable - but try selling that one to my partner who uses a mobility scooter or to half my British Legion branch comrades who will stand at the war memorial next week propped up by walking sticks and zimmer frames!

And yes, of course it's our duty to clean up our own air, water and countryside; I don't dispute that for one moment. But, really, just how long do you think it is going to take for all these newly convinced students and tourists to go back to their own developing countries as some sort of zeal-driven missionaries intent on changing the hearts, minds and practices of their own leaders and people?

I would love it to happen, and within a few decades, but - and you and I both know it - that just ain't going to happen.

Be more optimistic. A century ago many northern cities were still smoggy industrial dystopias, even fifty years ago they were not doing great. Now they are pretty much clean.

A century is nothing in relative terms, and every little helps. China and India may not clean up their acts over night, but they are taking steps even now, but with almost half the combined global population it will naturally take time. Meanwhile, the developed world can afford to do a larger share.

And the problem with remote areas and transport is understandable. I did say 'in an ideal world', and a few country dwellers who must use cars can't be complained about imo. Needs must. Driving in cities or large towns though is really unjustifiable (and seems grossly inconvenient anyway honestly).

Bombay and Delhi have shut down today because of smog. Man made smog. It is costing the economy a fortune, and the government are scratching their heads how to remedy it.
The answer is simple. Stop burning fossil fuel. Shut polluting factories, stop stubble burning.  Now.

nicko wrote:Do the Yanks have any problem with Fracking ? they have been Fracking for a long time I believe ?

I believe I read somewhere that the CEO of a major oil company joined a protest effort when someone proposed fracking in his neighborhood in Texas. NIMBY = Not in my back yard, a chant you hear often with these kinds of people, with these kinds of events. See, Marx, The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America (1964),

Maddog wrote:No worries, we got plenty if your Russian friends cut you off.  

It is true, we do have enough to take care of ourselves. Most of America's geopolitical outlook, however, is based on avoiding undertaking other, more dependent nations. It's an evil business, having to bend to skanks like Saudi Arabia to protect us from European dependency.

nicko wrote:Do the Yanks have any problem with Fracking ? they have been Fracking for a long time I believe ?
.

Fracking companies are famous for using gangs of armed thugs (a.k.a. "security guards"..) in many places they set up business...

Intimidating, threatening, shooting any uppity local yokels that dare to get in their way..

Polluting and damaging local communities and environments is 'par for the course' wherever corrupt politicians and desperate local councils have been 'bought' by fracking companies..

Fracking companies have been operating in Queensland, northern NSW, parts of northern Africa and the Middle East, for some years already --  as well as over in the good ol' US of A --  so that their sad history of environmental damage and broken communities is quite well known.

Andy wrote:Bombay and Delhi have shut down today because of smog. Man made smog. It is costing the economy a fortune, and the government are scratching their heads how to remedy it.
The answer is simple. Stop burning fossil fuel. Shut polluting factories, stop stubble burning.  Now.

They should stop fracking there.

Andy wrote:Bombay and Delhi have shut down today because of smog. Man made smog. It is costing the economy a fortune, and the government are scratching their heads how to remedy it.
The answer is simple. Stop burning fossil fuel. Shut polluting factories, stop stubble burning.  Now.

Stubble burning in the UK was banned in the UK in the 1990s and any so-called "stubble burning" incidents still being reported were and are actually field fires that were/are started either accidentally by field machinery faults or deliberately by vandals.

The practice did actually have an environmentally-beneficial effect in that it killed off a variety of damaging weed seeds and gastropods such as slugs that then had to be combatted by additional chemical applications.

It was also made less necessary by the invention - by a friend of mine, as a matter of fact - of a chopper attachment to combine harvesters that ground up the residue of otherwise virtually unusable wheat straw in to particles fine enough to be naturally absorbed into the soil. Barley straw was rarely burned as it was a useful cattle feed ingredient.

I had the dubious pleasure, as part of my then job, of giving one of the last interviews on straw burning on BBC TV news. My brief was to present the "pros" of the practice. The reaction was, to say the least, a very hostile example of the messenger being blamed!!!!

My most memorable tele appearance I reckon!