Anti-frackers slam Government backing of shale gas production

The Argus: Anti-frackers slam Government backing of shale gas production Anti-frackers slam Government backing of shale gas production

Anti-fracking campaigners have slammed Government ministers after they backed the introduction of large-scale shale gas production by 2020.

A report published this week revealed thousands of jobs could be created and almost £1 billion given to local communities if the underground energy resource is extracted properly.

Ministers also published a “regulatory roadmap” which sets out what permits developers need before drilling in the Sussex countryside.

But campaigners rubbished the findings, claiming it would lead to the pollution of the environment and water supplies.

Brenda Pollack, Friends of the Earth South East campaigner, spent yesterday meeting residents in two areas where Celtique Energy has applied to carry out test drilling.

Following the announcement, she said: “Dangling financial sweeteners in front of communities to get them to accept dirty fracking schemes, which will keep the nation hooked on climate-changing fossil fuels, is a disgrace.”

Shale gas extraction, or fracking, has proved to be hugely controversial, sparking protests in areas including Balcombe in Sussex.

The report produced for the Government by engineering giant Amec set out the potential effects of shale oil and gas production.

As well as the economic benefits, it admitted high levels of shale gas production could adversely affect the environment through increased traffic and pressure on water resources.

A consultation will now run until March to consider the findings of the report and how this affects shale gas production in the UK.

Energy minister Michael Fallon said: “It is an exciting prospect but we must develop shale responsibly, both for local communities and for the environment, with robust regulation in place.”

The news comes as energy firm Cuadrilla has applied to West Sussex County Council for another licence to test flow the existing well at Balcombe.

This involves monitoring the well to gauge the rate of oil flowing through it.

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:39am Thu 19 Dec 13

PorkBoat says...

Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.
Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago. PorkBoat

10:42am Thu 19 Dec 13

pachallis says...

PorkBoat wrote:
Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.
But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports.

This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear.

So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development....
[quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.[/p][/quote]But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports. This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear. So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development.... pachallis

10:54am Thu 19 Dec 13

DoomClown says...

pachallis wrote:
PorkBoat wrote:
Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.
But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports.

This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear.

So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development....
Wie eine Wärmewellenbrechen, wie Sie warme regen riechen
Wir können verblassen oder neu beginnen
In einem Hoch fünf Saison in einer Billig- Land
Das Kreuz des Südens nicht auf dieser unsichtbaren Hand glänzen

Wo werden Sie leben , wenn die Felder fallen ?
Wo werden Sie , wenn die Futterrationen Aufruf zu leben?
Jeder steht in den Baumkronen zu sagen
Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben?
Jeder muss nicht betteln oder zu leihen
Waren im Begriff, in eine neue tomarrow bewegen
Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben?

Invisable Hand umklammert an der Kehle
Statistische Schein Lumpen eines Kaisers , es ist traurig , es ist so traurig
Denn Gleichberechtigung ist der einzige Klagegrund grüne Felder brennen
Die Riffe zum Brand-und Bauch angeschwollen sind sie zu verletzen
Ein Opfer bereit I don '' t think so
Wir werden nicht agains't die Wand gepinnt werden
Es gibt kein Motto , die Sie füttern können

Wo werden Sie leben , wenn die Felder fallen ?
Wo werden Sie , wenn die Futterrationen Aufruf zu leben?
Jeder steht in den Baumkronen zu sagen
Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben?
Reißen Sie Ihr Ticket für die neue titanic
Hitzeflimmern Flüchtlings niemand Panik

Wo werden Sie leben, wenn das Wasser über geht?
Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben?
Atmen Sie tief ein nicht haben, um in Trauer zu ertränken
Atmen Sie tief ein für eine neue tomarrow

Der Bogen wird die Wiege Herbst brechen
Wir werden nicht gegen die Wand eingeklemmt werden
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.[/p][/quote]But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports. This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear. So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development....[/p][/quote]Wie eine Wärmewellenbrechen, wie Sie warme regen riechen Wir können verblassen oder neu beginnen In einem Hoch fünf Saison in einer Billig- Land Das Kreuz des Südens nicht auf dieser unsichtbaren Hand glänzen Wo werden Sie leben , wenn die Felder fallen ? Wo werden Sie , wenn die Futterrationen Aufruf zu leben? Jeder steht in den Baumkronen zu sagen Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Jeder muss nicht betteln oder zu leihen Waren im Begriff, in eine neue tomarrow bewegen Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Invisable Hand umklammert an der Kehle Statistische Schein Lumpen eines Kaisers , es ist traurig , es ist so traurig Denn Gleichberechtigung ist der einzige Klagegrund grüne Felder brennen Die Riffe zum Brand-und Bauch angeschwollen sind sie zu verletzen Ein Opfer bereit I don '' t think so Wir werden nicht agains't die Wand gepinnt werden Es gibt kein Motto , die Sie füttern können Wo werden Sie leben , wenn die Felder fallen ? Wo werden Sie , wenn die Futterrationen Aufruf zu leben? Jeder steht in den Baumkronen zu sagen Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Reißen Sie Ihr Ticket für die neue titanic Hitzeflimmern Flüchtlings niemand Panik Wo werden Sie leben, wenn das Wasser über geht? Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Atmen Sie tief ein nicht haben, um in Trauer zu ertränken Atmen Sie tief ein für eine neue tomarrow Der Bogen wird die Wiege Herbst brechen Wir werden nicht gegen die Wand eingeklemmt werden DoomClown

11:12am Thu 19 Dec 13

pachallis says...

@DoomClown - Wir sprechen Englisch in diesem Land!
@DoomClown - Wir sprechen Englisch in diesem Land! pachallis

12:49pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Cyril Bolleaux says...

DoomClown wrote:
pachallis wrote:
PorkBoat wrote: Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.
But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports. This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear. So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development....
Wie eine Wärmewellenbrechen, wie Sie warme regen riechen Wir können verblassen oder neu beginnen In einem Hoch fünf Saison in einer Billig- Land Das Kreuz des Südens nicht auf dieser unsichtbaren Hand glänzen Wo werden Sie leben , wenn die Felder fallen ? Wo werden Sie , wenn die Futterrationen Aufruf zu leben? Jeder steht in den Baumkronen zu sagen Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Jeder muss nicht betteln oder zu leihen Waren im Begriff, in eine neue tomarrow bewegen Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Invisable Hand umklammert an der Kehle Statistische Schein Lumpen eines Kaisers , es ist traurig , es ist so traurig Denn Gleichberechtigung ist der einzige Klagegrund grüne Felder brennen Die Riffe zum Brand-und Bauch angeschwollen sind sie zu verletzen Ein Opfer bereit I don '' t think so Wir werden nicht agains't die Wand gepinnt werden Es gibt kein Motto , die Sie füttern können Wo werden Sie leben , wenn die Felder fallen ? Wo werden Sie , wenn die Futterrationen Aufruf zu leben? Jeder steht in den Baumkronen zu sagen Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Reißen Sie Ihr Ticket für die neue titanic Hitzeflimmern Flüchtlings niemand Panik Wo werden Sie leben, wenn das Wasser über geht? Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Atmen Sie tief ein nicht haben, um in Trauer zu ertränken Atmen Sie tief ein für eine neue tomarrow Der Bogen wird die Wiege Herbst brechen Wir werden nicht gegen die Wand eingeklemmt werden
Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht,
Alles schläft; einsam wacht
Nur das traute hochheilige Paar.
Holder Knabe im lockigen Haar,
Schlaf in himmlischer Ruh!
Schlaf in himmlischer Ruh
[quote][p][bold]DoomClown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.[/p][/quote]But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports. This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear. So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development....[/p][/quote]Wie eine Wärmewellenbrechen, wie Sie warme regen riechen Wir können verblassen oder neu beginnen In einem Hoch fünf Saison in einer Billig- Land Das Kreuz des Südens nicht auf dieser unsichtbaren Hand glänzen Wo werden Sie leben , wenn die Felder fallen ? Wo werden Sie , wenn die Futterrationen Aufruf zu leben? Jeder steht in den Baumkronen zu sagen Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Jeder muss nicht betteln oder zu leihen Waren im Begriff, in eine neue tomarrow bewegen Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Invisable Hand umklammert an der Kehle Statistische Schein Lumpen eines Kaisers , es ist traurig , es ist so traurig Denn Gleichberechtigung ist der einzige Klagegrund grüne Felder brennen Die Riffe zum Brand-und Bauch angeschwollen sind sie zu verletzen Ein Opfer bereit I don '' t think so Wir werden nicht agains't die Wand gepinnt werden Es gibt kein Motto , die Sie füttern können Wo werden Sie leben , wenn die Felder fallen ? Wo werden Sie , wenn die Futterrationen Aufruf zu leben? Jeder steht in den Baumkronen zu sagen Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Reißen Sie Ihr Ticket für die neue titanic Hitzeflimmern Flüchtlings niemand Panik Wo werden Sie leben, wenn das Wasser über geht? Wo werden Sie leben? Wo werden Sie leben? Atmen Sie tief ein nicht haben, um in Trauer zu ertränken Atmen Sie tief ein für eine neue tomarrow Der Bogen wird die Wiege Herbst brechen Wir werden nicht gegen die Wand eingeklemmt werden[/p][/quote]Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht, Alles schläft; einsam wacht Nur das traute hochheilige Paar. Holder Knabe im lockigen Haar, Schlaf in himmlischer Ruh! Schlaf in himmlischer Ruh Cyril Bolleaux

1:09pm Thu 19 Dec 13

theleftygiraffe says...

pachallis wrote:
PorkBoat wrote:
Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.
But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports.

This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear.

So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development....
Apart from it won't reduce energy bills (as said by Lord Browne), some companies have said they will need to bring in American workers as UK workers simply aren't trained to work on fracking sites, and some of the gas will be sold so we won't really have much more energy independence than we have now.

As for regulations to stop pollution? Well that has always worked well in the past, so I'm sure it will be handled effectively and efficiently with minimal environmental impact... *hem*
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.[/p][/quote]But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports. This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear. So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development....[/p][/quote]Apart from it won't reduce energy bills (as said by Lord Browne), some companies have said they will need to bring in American workers as UK workers simply aren't trained to work on fracking sites, and some of the gas will be sold so we won't really have much more energy independence than we have now. As for regulations to stop pollution? Well that has always worked well in the past, so I'm sure it will be handled effectively and efficiently with minimal environmental impact... *hem* theleftygiraffe

1:47pm Thu 19 Dec 13

billy goat-gruff says...

Profits will go abroad; we'll be left with polluted water and even more CO2 in the atmosphere!
Profits will go abroad; we'll be left with polluted water and even more CO2 in the atmosphere! billy goat-gruff

2:19pm Thu 19 Dec 13

pachallis says...

theleftygiraffe wrote:
pachallis wrote:
PorkBoat wrote:
Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.
But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports.

This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear.

So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development....
Apart from it won't reduce energy bills (as said by Lord Browne), some companies have said they will need to bring in American workers as UK workers simply aren't trained to work on fracking sites, and some of the gas will be sold so we won't really have much more energy independence than we have now.

As for regulations to stop pollution? Well that has always worked well in the past, so I'm sure it will be handled effectively and efficiently with minimal environmental impact... *hem*
@theleftygiraffe - ah - selective quotations again to back your case!

Lord Browne actually said that "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price,"

He also said that "without gas the transition to a zero-carbon energy system would never happen".

So we will need some assistance from outside the UK - are you saying there will be no new jobs as a results of fracking and the availability of shale oil and gas?Perhaps we do need to take advantage of experience from outside the UK.

And of course you have to play the usual fear, uncertainty and doubt card about environmental impact - same as with nuclear I suppose?

Just typical green left wing anti-fracking arguments, with no realistic alternative options proffered...
[quote][p][bold]theleftygiraffe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkBoat[/bold] wrote: Remember, the fracking company gets to keep all the profit, the taxpayer gets to pay when it comes to cleaning up the pollution it causes. As confirmed by the government a couple of weeks ago.[/p][/quote]But of course it could also reduce energy costs, provide additional jobs and reduce our dependence on energy imports. This being done alongside reducing our energy usage and making use of renewable, sustainable energy sources such as wind, tidal, solar and nuclear. So we have to make sure that if and when fracking starts it is implemented to meet all regulatory controls and in a safe way so that your alleged pollution doesn't take place, Much the same any technological development....[/p][/quote]Apart from it won't reduce energy bills (as said by Lord Browne), some companies have said they will need to bring in American workers as UK workers simply aren't trained to work on fracking sites, and some of the gas will be sold so we won't really have much more energy independence than we have now. As for regulations to stop pollution? Well that has always worked well in the past, so I'm sure it will be handled effectively and efficiently with minimal environmental impact... *hem*[/p][/quote]@theleftygiraffe - ah - selective quotations again to back your case! Lord Browne actually said that "We are part of a well-connected European gas market and, unless it is a gigantic amount of gas, it is not going to have material impact on price," He also said that "without gas the transition to a zero-carbon energy system would never happen". So we will need some assistance from outside the UK - are you saying there will be no new jobs as a results of fracking and the availability of shale oil and gas?Perhaps we do need to take advantage of experience from outside the UK. And of course you have to play the usual fear, uncertainty and doubt card about environmental impact - same as with nuclear I suppose? Just typical green left wing anti-fracking arguments, with no realistic alternative options proffered... pachallis

2:31pm Thu 19 Dec 13

pachallis says...

billy goat-gruff wrote:
Profits will go abroad; we'll be left with polluted water and even more CO2 in the atmosphere!
@billy goat-gruff - round objects!

Profits will go to oil companies - many of which are in the UK - such as Shell and BP. Cuadrilla is a UK company. Helping UK companies helps employ British people and pays their wages - companies and staff pay taxes and the value of the companies supports pension funds.

So what polluted water is produced that is not recycled and reprocessed? Please explain your statement about polluted water?

Yes - CO2 goes into the atmosphere when you burn carbon based fuels.

Do you think that not taking shale oil and gas from the UK will actually reduce CO2 emissions? No - we'll still need oil and gas, so we'll import it instead and this impacts our balance of payments.

So what is your economic, realistic, solution to the UK energy needs?
[quote][p][bold]billy goat-gruff[/bold] wrote: Profits will go abroad; we'll be left with polluted water and even more CO2 in the atmosphere![/p][/quote]@billy goat-gruff - round objects! Profits will go to oil companies - many of which are in the UK - such as Shell and BP. Cuadrilla is a UK company. Helping UK companies helps employ British people and pays their wages - companies and staff pay taxes and the value of the companies supports pension funds. So what polluted water is produced that is not recycled and reprocessed? Please explain your statement about polluted water? Yes - CO2 goes into the atmosphere when you burn carbon based fuels. Do you think that not taking shale oil and gas from the UK will actually reduce CO2 emissions? No - we'll still need oil and gas, so we'll import it instead and this impacts our balance of payments. So what is your economic, realistic, solution to the UK energy needs? pachallis

2:38pm Thu 19 Dec 13

DoomClown says...

J'ai eu une chèvre son nom était Jim
Je l'ai acheté pour sa précieuse peau

C'est chèvre s'est perdre environ dix heures et demie
Et mangé une chemise rouge à droite de ma ligne

J'ai attrapé cette chèvre par de la laine de son dos
et l'ont attaché à la voie ferrée.

Il Buck et hurla de toutes ses forces.
Comme autour de la courbe est venu un train de voyageurs.

Il a une toux de la douleur mortelle,
Jusqu'à venu cette chemise et marqué le train!
J'ai eu une chèvre son nom était Jim Je l'ai acheté pour sa précieuse peau C'est chèvre s'est perdre environ dix heures et demie Et mangé une chemise rouge à droite de ma ligne J'ai attrapé cette chèvre par de la laine de son dos et l'ont attaché à la voie ferrée. Il Buck et hurla de toutes ses forces. Comme autour de la courbe est venu un train de voyageurs. Il a une toux de la douleur mortelle, Jusqu'à venu cette chemise et marqué le train! DoomClown

3:32pm Thu 19 Dec 13

michaelr says...

Of course you could use clean wind power instead.

No Turbines way out to sea off Brighton, it would spoil the Greens view of the sewage being pumped out to sea, so have fracking and a gas power station instead, that is what Shoreham voted for 15 years ago.

You will not allow the windmills (turbines) to be built so suck it up and accept the alternative option.

.
Of course you could use clean wind power instead. No Turbines way out to sea off Brighton, it would spoil the Greens view of the sewage being pumped out to sea, so have fracking and a gas power station instead, that is what Shoreham voted for 15 years ago. You will not allow the windmills (turbines) to be built so suck it up and accept the alternative option. . michaelr

4:14pm Thu 19 Dec 13

getThisCoalitionOut says...

michaelr wrote:
Of course you could use clean wind power instead.

No Turbines way out to sea off Brighton, it would spoil the Greens view of the sewage being pumped out to sea, so have fracking and a gas power station instead, that is what Shoreham voted for 15 years ago.

You will not allow the windmills (turbines) to be built so suck it up and accept the alternative option.

.
That decision was nothing to do with the Greens, it's to do with the West Sussex County Council.

I expect the next thing will be a nuclear power station as caMORON has agreed with China that they can build them here and then charge us exhorbitant sums of money to get the power from them - good eh? NO it isn't, I expect he got a good back hander from the deal.

Just like Osborne who's father in law owns a fracking company and they've been given a wonderful deduction in tax payments of 50%.

This government is one of the most corrupt we've ever had.
[quote][p][bold]michaelr[/bold] wrote: Of course you could use clean wind power instead. No Turbines way out to sea off Brighton, it would spoil the Greens view of the sewage being pumped out to sea, so have fracking and a gas power station instead, that is what Shoreham voted for 15 years ago. You will not allow the windmills (turbines) to be built so suck it up and accept the alternative option. .[/p][/quote]That decision was nothing to do with the Greens, it's to do with the West Sussex County Council. I expect the next thing will be a nuclear power station as caMORON has agreed with China that they can build them here and then charge us exhorbitant sums of money to get the power from them - good eh? NO it isn't, I expect he got a good back hander from the deal. Just like Osborne who's father in law owns a fracking company and they've been given a wonderful deduction in tax payments of 50%. This government is one of the most corrupt we've ever had. getThisCoalitionOut

4:25pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Cyril Bolleaux says...

getThisCoalitionOut wrote:
michaelr wrote: Of course you could use clean wind power instead. No Turbines way out to sea off Brighton, it would spoil the Greens view of the sewage being pumped out to sea, so have fracking and a gas power station instead, that is what Shoreham voted for 15 years ago. You will not allow the windmills (turbines) to be built so suck it up and accept the alternative option. .
That decision was nothing to do with the Greens, it's to do with the West Sussex County Council. I expect the next thing will be a nuclear power station as caMORON has agreed with China that they can build them here and then charge us exhorbitant sums of money to get the power from them - good eh? NO it isn't, I expect he got a good back hander from the deal. Just like Osborne who's father in law owns a fracking company and they've been given a wonderful deduction in tax payments of 50%. This government is one of the most corrupt we've ever had.
Can you explain what you mean by a 50% deduction in tax payments? It is normal for businesses to get a 100% tax deduction for costs. That is how you work out profits. However a 50% deduction in tax payments is utterly meaningless.
[quote][p][bold]getThisCoalitionOut[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]michaelr[/bold] wrote: Of course you could use clean wind power instead. No Turbines way out to sea off Brighton, it would spoil the Greens view of the sewage being pumped out to sea, so have fracking and a gas power station instead, that is what Shoreham voted for 15 years ago. You will not allow the windmills (turbines) to be built so suck it up and accept the alternative option. .[/p][/quote]That decision was nothing to do with the Greens, it's to do with the West Sussex County Council. I expect the next thing will be a nuclear power station as caMORON has agreed with China that they can build them here and then charge us exhorbitant sums of money to get the power from them - good eh? NO it isn't, I expect he got a good back hander from the deal. Just like Osborne who's father in law owns a fracking company and they've been given a wonderful deduction in tax payments of 50%. This government is one of the most corrupt we've ever had.[/p][/quote]Can you explain what you mean by a 50% deduction in tax payments? It is normal for businesses to get a 100% tax deduction for costs. That is how you work out profits. However a 50% deduction in tax payments is utterly meaningless. Cyril Bolleaux

9:16pm Thu 19 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking!

Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.
According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking! Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment. HJarrs

9:47pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Cyril Bolleaux says...

HJarrs wrote:
According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking!

Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.
Simple. Go and do what companies like Cuadrilla do and raise money so you can develop Green energy, there are enough public subsidies to do so. If it is so obvious I'm amazed you are not knocked down in the rush.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking! Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.[/p][/quote]Simple. Go and do what companies like Cuadrilla do and raise money so you can develop Green energy, there are enough public subsidies to do so. If it is so obvious I'm amazed you are not knocked down in the rush. Cyril Bolleaux

8:14am Fri 20 Dec 13

pachallis says...

HJarrs wrote:
According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking!

Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.
@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments.

Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions.

As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power.

Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking! Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments. Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions. As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power. Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem? pachallis

8:48am Fri 20 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking!

Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.
@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments.

Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions.

As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power.

Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem?
If you read my post you would notice the word "world". The Chinese and Indian patchallis's are looking at the developed countries and asking why they should do anything to reduce emissions when developed countries, having largely caused the climate change problem, do so little about it. They will rightly point to fracking as yet another example of our disregard for the environment.

As the country first to embrace the industrial revolution, I would like us break the fossil fuel addiction to lead the world once more by becoming the first low carbon economy.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking! Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments. Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions. As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power. Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem?[/p][/quote]If you read my post you would notice the word "world". The Chinese and Indian patchallis's are looking at the developed countries and asking why they should do anything to reduce emissions when developed countries, having largely caused the climate change problem, do so little about it. They will rightly point to fracking as yet another example of our disregard for the environment. As the country first to embrace the industrial revolution, I would like us break the fossil fuel addiction to lead the world once more by becoming the first low carbon economy. HJarrs

9:37am Fri 20 Dec 13

pachallis says...

HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking!

Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.
@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments.

Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions.

As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power.

Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem?
If you read my post you would notice the word "world". The Chinese and Indian patchallis's are looking at the developed countries and asking why they should do anything to reduce emissions when developed countries, having largely caused the climate change problem, do so little about it. They will rightly point to fracking as yet another example of our disregard for the environment.

As the country first to embrace the industrial revolution, I would like us break the fossil fuel addiction to lead the world once more by becoming the first low carbon economy.
@HJarrs - oh yes - lead by example - the path of righteousness - be the lead lemming jumping off the cliff?

Anyway, I thought you said previously that the German's were doing the leading?

And if the developing nations ignore a small, old, power like the UK and instead look to America and Russia where they are fracking already?

They'd love us to buy their carbon products instead of having our own. Perhaps you should spend more time in America? Have you thought about joining Greenpeace as an activist and raiding a Russian oil platform?

And if the developing nations continue to have cheaper carbon-based energy that allows them to continue to produce products and provide services at a lower cost than us as we subsidize uneconomical green energy sources? Do you want to run Britain into financial ruin?

Sorry - you are as idealistic as ever, but continue to be as impractical as always. Yes - lead by example - but do it in a practical, economical way - showing a reasonable course of action.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking! Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments. Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions. As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power. Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem?[/p][/quote]If you read my post you would notice the word "world". The Chinese and Indian patchallis's are looking at the developed countries and asking why they should do anything to reduce emissions when developed countries, having largely caused the climate change problem, do so little about it. They will rightly point to fracking as yet another example of our disregard for the environment. As the country first to embrace the industrial revolution, I would like us break the fossil fuel addiction to lead the world once more by becoming the first low carbon economy.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - oh yes - lead by example - the path of righteousness - be the lead lemming jumping off the cliff? Anyway, I thought you said previously that the German's were doing the leading? And if the developing nations ignore a small, old, power like the UK and instead look to America and Russia where they are fracking already? They'd love us to buy their carbon products instead of having our own. Perhaps you should spend more time in America? Have you thought about joining Greenpeace as an activist and raiding a Russian oil platform? And if the developing nations continue to have cheaper carbon-based energy that allows them to continue to produce products and provide services at a lower cost than us as we subsidize uneconomical green energy sources? Do you want to run Britain into financial ruin? Sorry - you are as idealistic as ever, but continue to be as impractical as always. Yes - lead by example - but do it in a practical, economical way - showing a reasonable course of action. pachallis

1:25am Sat 21 Dec 13

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking!

Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.
@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments.

Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions.

As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power.

Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem?
If you read my post you would notice the word "world". The Chinese and Indian patchallis's are looking at the developed countries and asking why they should do anything to reduce emissions when developed countries, having largely caused the climate change problem, do so little about it. They will rightly point to fracking as yet another example of our disregard for the environment.

As the country first to embrace the industrial revolution, I would like us break the fossil fuel addiction to lead the world once more by becoming the first low carbon economy.
@HJarrs - oh yes - lead by example - the path of righteousness - be the lead lemming jumping off the cliff?

Anyway, I thought you said previously that the German's were doing the leading?

And if the developing nations ignore a small, old, power like the UK and instead look to America and Russia where they are fracking already?

They'd love us to buy their carbon products instead of having our own. Perhaps you should spend more time in America? Have you thought about joining Greenpeace as an activist and raiding a Russian oil platform?

And if the developing nations continue to have cheaper carbon-based energy that allows them to continue to produce products and provide services at a lower cost than us as we subsidize uneconomical green energy sources? Do you want to run Britain into financial ruin?

Sorry - you are as idealistic as ever, but continue to be as impractical as always. Yes - lead by example - but do it in a practical, economical way - showing a reasonable course of action.
Germany is leading by example and creating employment through this. We once led in this area but theTories killed this in the 80s.

We are already pretty much in financial ruin, most of the banks nationalised and on corporate welfare (£350 bn+ of quantative easing). The economy is far too close to a pyramid scheme for my liking.

If idealism is dealing with the climate issues that we face then so be it, but business as usual that you support is a disaster. I am afraid you are yet another person that resists change and perpetuates the myth that we cannot afford to save ourselves.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking! Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments. Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions. As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power. Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem?[/p][/quote]If you read my post you would notice the word "world". The Chinese and Indian patchallis's are looking at the developed countries and asking why they should do anything to reduce emissions when developed countries, having largely caused the climate change problem, do so little about it. They will rightly point to fracking as yet another example of our disregard for the environment. As the country first to embrace the industrial revolution, I would like us break the fossil fuel addiction to lead the world once more by becoming the first low carbon economy.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - oh yes - lead by example - the path of righteousness - be the lead lemming jumping off the cliff? Anyway, I thought you said previously that the German's were doing the leading? And if the developing nations ignore a small, old, power like the UK and instead look to America and Russia where they are fracking already? They'd love us to buy their carbon products instead of having our own. Perhaps you should spend more time in America? Have you thought about joining Greenpeace as an activist and raiding a Russian oil platform? And if the developing nations continue to have cheaper carbon-based energy that allows them to continue to produce products and provide services at a lower cost than us as we subsidize uneconomical green energy sources? Do you want to run Britain into financial ruin? Sorry - you are as idealistic as ever, but continue to be as impractical as always. Yes - lead by example - but do it in a practical, economical way - showing a reasonable course of action.[/p][/quote]Germany is leading by example and creating employment through this. We once led in this area but theTories killed this in the 80s. We are already pretty much in financial ruin, most of the banks nationalised and on corporate welfare (£350 bn+ of quantative easing). The economy is far too close to a pyramid scheme for my liking. If idealism is dealing with the climate issues that we face then so be it, but business as usual that you support is a disaster. I am afraid you are yet another person that resists change and perpetuates the myth that we cannot afford to save ourselves. HJarrs

6:11pm Sat 21 Dec 13

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking!

Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.
@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments.

Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions.

As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power.

Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem?
If you read my post you would notice the word "world". The Chinese and Indian patchallis's are looking at the developed countries and asking why they should do anything to reduce emissions when developed countries, having largely caused the climate change problem, do so little about it. They will rightly point to fracking as yet another example of our disregard for the environment.

As the country first to embrace the industrial revolution, I would like us break the fossil fuel addiction to lead the world once more by becoming the first low carbon economy.
@HJarrs - oh yes - lead by example - the path of righteousness - be the lead lemming jumping off the cliff?

Anyway, I thought you said previously that the German's were doing the leading?

And if the developing nations ignore a small, old, power like the UK and instead look to America and Russia where they are fracking already?

They'd love us to buy their carbon products instead of having our own. Perhaps you should spend more time in America? Have you thought about joining Greenpeace as an activist and raiding a Russian oil platform?

And if the developing nations continue to have cheaper carbon-based energy that allows them to continue to produce products and provide services at a lower cost than us as we subsidize uneconomical green energy sources? Do you want to run Britain into financial ruin?

Sorry - you are as idealistic as ever, but continue to be as impractical as always. Yes - lead by example - but do it in a practical, economical way - showing a reasonable course of action.
Germany is leading by example and creating employment through this. We once led in this area but theTories killed this in the 80s.

We are already pretty much in financial ruin, most of the banks nationalised and on corporate welfare (£350 bn+ of quantative easing). The economy is far too close to a pyramid scheme for my liking.

If idealism is dealing with the climate issues that we face then so be it, but business as usual that you support is a disaster. I am afraid you are yet another person that resists change and perpetuates the myth that we cannot afford to save ourselves.
Apologies, yet another episode of verbal 5H1T from HJ, making out that its all fact through his style of writing.

Well, of course we all know that its not
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: According to an interview with Lord Stern recently, we already cannot exploit the known, easily recoverable reserves if we are to avoid devastating levels of climate change. He has been warning of a financial "carbon bubble" as so much wealth is tied up in the book value energy companies whilst ignoring reserves that must stay in the ground. All before we even consider fracking! Apparently we are annually spending 1% of world GDP on finding new unexploitable fossil fuel reserves, roughly the amount it would cost to make the transition to a low carbon economy, minimise climate change and which would create far more employment.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs- nice to see you using selective quoting again to support your arguments. Just read another article in the left-wing/greens favourite mouthpiece - the Guardian - where Lord Stern last year was reported as saying that his new research showed that even if developed countries cut their emissions to zero, that would not be enough to halt runaway climate change – because emissions from rapidly industrialising economies are now so high. Greenhouse gases from emerging economies – such as China, South Korea and India, that have industrialised rapidly in the past two decades – now make up the bulk of the world's carbon emissions. As such anything we do on the UK is really just "posturing", and IMHO we have done quite a lot already with solar, wind and switching from coal to nuclear power. Perhaps you/we should instead concentrate on these emerging countries where most of the payback seems to be in solving the global problem?[/p][/quote]If you read my post you would notice the word "world". The Chinese and Indian patchallis's are looking at the developed countries and asking why they should do anything to reduce emissions when developed countries, having largely caused the climate change problem, do so little about it. They will rightly point to fracking as yet another example of our disregard for the environment. As the country first to embrace the industrial revolution, I would like us break the fossil fuel addiction to lead the world once more by becoming the first low carbon economy.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - oh yes - lead by example - the path of righteousness - be the lead lemming jumping off the cliff? Anyway, I thought you said previously that the German's were doing the leading? And if the developing nations ignore a small, old, power like the UK and instead look to America and Russia where they are fracking already? They'd love us to buy their carbon products instead of having our own. Perhaps you should spend more time in America? Have you thought about joining Greenpeace as an activist and raiding a Russian oil platform? And if the developing nations continue to have cheaper carbon-based energy that allows them to continue to produce products and provide services at a lower cost than us as we subsidize uneconomical green energy sources? Do you want to run Britain into financial ruin? Sorry - you are as idealistic as ever, but continue to be as impractical as always. Yes - lead by example - but do it in a practical, economical way - showing a reasonable course of action.[/p][/quote]Germany is leading by example and creating employment through this. We once led in this area but theTories killed this in the 80s. We are already pretty much in financial ruin, most of the banks nationalised and on corporate welfare (£350 bn+ of quantative easing). The economy is far too close to a pyramid scheme for my liking. If idealism is dealing with the climate issues that we face then so be it, but business as usual that you support is a disaster. I am afraid you are yet another person that resists change and perpetuates the myth that we cannot afford to save ourselves.[/p][/quote]Apologies, yet another episode of verbal 5H1T from HJ, making out that its all fact through his style of writing. Well, of course we all know that its not I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree