The ArgusCuadrilla to return to Balcombe (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Cuadrilla to return to Balcombe

The Argus: Cuadrilla to return to Balcombe Cuadrilla to return to Balcombe

Controversial energy company Cuadrilla Resources will return to Balcombe.

West Sussex County Council's planning committee agreed an application by the company to carry out further test drilling at the site this afternoon.

The application was agreed by councillors at County Hall North, in Horhsam, despite 900 objections from members of the public.

Last summer Balcombe become the battleground for anti-fracking activists protesting Cuadrilla's presence at Balcombe.

Cuadrilla has said it will not carry out hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, at the Lower Stumble site.

But campaigners are now expected to return to the rural site to protest the company's presence.

The temporary oil and gas exploration was approved subject to several conditions made in response to objections raised to the application.

The conditions were that 24-hour light monitoring around the edge of the site be undertaken to protect wildlife, proposed access routes are to be reconsidered by Cuadrilla following concerns, all sound from the site be continuously monitored, and a liaison group is established between residents and Cuadrilla.

Heidi Brunsdon, chairman of the committee, said: “As Chairman I thought the debate was robust.

"Members gave all the issues a good airing and the further conditions we agreed might not go as far as some would have wanted, but we feel they were proportionate and fair in addressing the issues that members of the committee had surrounding this application.”

More than 100 members of the public attended the meeting.

Brenda Pollack, Friends of the Earth South East Campaigner said: “We are extremely disappointed that councillors have not listened to local people.

"This is an attempt by Cuadrilla to set the wheels in motion for dirty fossil fuel extraction. We need the council and our Government to push forward with clean energy solutions.

"The UK is the windiest country in Europe yet the Conservatives have just announced they would put a stop to new onshore wind power if re-elected in 2015.

"Allowing companies to drill underground for ever more difficult to extract oil and gas reserves is crazy when it won’t help keep bills or polluting emissions down. We have abundant clean sources of energy from the sun, wind and waves.”

Groups from across Sussex attended the meeting and demonstrated outside with banners saying “Sussex Says “not here, not anywhere” .

They oppose oil and gas extraction for a range of reasons including local and global environmental impacts.

A spokeswoman for Cuadrilla said: "Cuadrilla welcomes the decision to approve the application.

"The next step will be to liaise with the county council about the conditions of the application."

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:39pm Tue 29 Apr 14

s&k says...

No doubt all the proceeds will go to charity and the people of Balcombe.
No doubt all the proceeds will go to charity and the people of Balcombe. s&k
  • Score: -10

2:09pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Terry K says...

Fantastic news, no more relying on foreign gas, bring it on.
Fantastic news, no more relying on foreign gas, bring it on. Terry K
  • Score: 21

2:19pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Seaside Horn says...

Oh the old England is a windy country lets have some more wind farms!!!. Then they protest they do not want them in their back yard either. Spolis the landscape you know
Oh the old England is a windy country lets have some more wind farms!!!. Then they protest they do not want them in their back yard either. Spolis the landscape you know Seaside Horn
  • Score: 16

3:08pm Tue 29 Apr 14

brightonaire says...

I hope they start getting firmer with the soap dodging protesters like they did with scargill and the miners...... lock them up and long live free enterprise. ........ rule brittania
I hope they start getting firmer with the soap dodging protesters like they did with scargill and the miners...... lock them up and long live free enterprise. ........ rule brittania brightonaire
  • Score: 9

3:25pm Tue 29 Apr 14

scoomber says...

"...We have abundant clean sources of energy from the sun, wind and waves.” Are these methods really more cost effective and than Fracking? If these methods are to replace the alternatives, who will pay the prohibitive set up costs? Please don't trot out the usual "our children" mantra either, as they are the ones who will be saddled with the burden either way!

BTW. how did Brenda Pollack get to the meeting? - Walk? Cycle?
"...We have abundant clean sources of energy from the sun, wind and waves.” Are these methods really more cost effective and than Fracking? If these methods are to replace the alternatives, who will pay the prohibitive set up costs? Please don't trot out the usual "our children" mantra either, as they are the ones who will be saddled with the burden either way! BTW. how did Brenda Pollack get to the meeting? - Walk? Cycle? scoomber
  • Score: -5

3:26pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Martha Gunn says...

No word from Luddite Lucas yet?
No word from Luddite Lucas yet? Martha Gunn
  • Score: 22

3:53pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Fercri Sakes says...

Here we go again. Big business is about to plunder resources with little regard to the environment, just to line their pockets.

And when Ardingly Reservoir gets contaminated they wont be around to pick up the bill, it'll come out of our council tax.
Here we go again. Big business is about to plunder resources with little regard to the environment, just to line their pockets. And when Ardingly Reservoir gets contaminated they wont be around to pick up the bill, it'll come out of our council tax. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -10

3:59pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Plantpot says...

Great news.

I'd much rather have this than on-shore wind farms which are environmental vandalism of the highest order.
Great news. I'd much rather have this than on-shore wind farms which are environmental vandalism of the highest order. Plantpot
  • Score: 8

4:01pm Tue 29 Apr 14

pwlr1966 says...

Great news
Great news pwlr1966
  • Score: 10

4:02pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Fercri Sakes says...

Martha Gunn wrote:
No word from Luddite Lucas yet?
If Lucas was a luddite she'd be against wind farms and other renewable energies.

Put simply there is a big risk to the environment with fracking. Some people think this risk is acceptable and some think not. To deny there is a risk is plain wrong.

The real question is whether it is worth taking the risk. What are the pros and cons. How much do local residents get if it all goes according to plan? How much will it cost to repair if the groundwater gets contaminated and much of East Sussex loses its drinking water?

This argument doesn't have to be fought on party political lines. Although I expect the usual yawn-inducing (industry funded?) Green-bashing on here from the more prejudiced commentators.
[quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: No word from Luddite Lucas yet?[/p][/quote]If Lucas was a luddite she'd be against wind farms and other renewable energies. Put simply there is a big risk to the environment with fracking. Some people think this risk is acceptable and some think not. To deny there is a risk is plain wrong. The real question is whether it is worth taking the risk. What are the pros and cons. How much do local residents get if it all goes according to plan? How much will it cost to repair if the groundwater gets contaminated and much of East Sussex loses its drinking water? This argument doesn't have to be fought on party political lines. Although I expect the usual yawn-inducing (industry funded?) Green-bashing on here from the more prejudiced commentators. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -12

4:18pm Tue 29 Apr 14

rolivan says...

Just hope the Police have learnt from the last protest how to implement the correct way to go about cautioning and then arresting protesters that do not want to abide by the law . I am more for collecting power through solar, wind and water and yet there will always be those nimbys that want none of those.
Just hope the Police have learnt from the last protest how to implement the correct way to go about cautioning and then arresting protesters that do not want to abide by the law . I am more for collecting power through solar, wind and water and yet there will always be those nimbys that want none of those. rolivan
  • Score: 3

5:10pm Tue 29 Apr 14

pachallis says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
Martha Gunn wrote:
No word from Luddite Lucas yet?
If Lucas was a luddite she'd be against wind farms and other renewable energies.

Put simply there is a big risk to the environment with fracking. Some people think this risk is acceptable and some think not. To deny there is a risk is plain wrong.

The real question is whether it is worth taking the risk. What are the pros and cons. How much do local residents get if it all goes according to plan? How much will it cost to repair if the groundwater gets contaminated and much of East Sussex loses its drinking water?

This argument doesn't have to be fought on party political lines. Although I expect the usual yawn-inducing (industry funded?) Green-bashing on here from the more prejudiced commentators.
@Fercri Sakes - WDR - the only reason why this ends up along party political lines is that the greens are the only party (AFAIK) that seems to be against fracking - in addition they do not seem to be able to come up with a sensible, pragmatic alternative solution to meet global energy needs.

Even the UN has come round to the concept that moving to Natural Gas instead of coal and oil will help us over the next 50 years to move to fully sustainable energy sources. The gas can be provided using the current pipes and can be compressed into CNG to power vehicles and reduce emissions.

And where do we get natural gas from - The North Sea (and it's running out); from our 'friends' in Russia or liquefied and shipped to the UK from the middle east - or we get it from the ground by fracking.

HJarrs (alleged green party pseudo-scientific spin doctor) seems to think that we can solve all the energy problems of this country (esp. that we import 40% of the energy we use) by walking and cycling everywhere and improving insulation on houses.

This is linked to the greens extreme left-wing view-point that (like you) assumes anyone that is in favour of fracking must be industry funded.

No - perhaps other groups are more sensible rather than living in their ideological incompetent ivory towers and coming up with environmental improvement schemes that have actually managed to increase pollution levels and reduce recycling rates.

If anyone wants to see a reason why they should not vote green in the forthcoming elections then come to see what they have actually 'achieved' in Brighton and Hove.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: No word from Luddite Lucas yet?[/p][/quote]If Lucas was a luddite she'd be against wind farms and other renewable energies. Put simply there is a big risk to the environment with fracking. Some people think this risk is acceptable and some think not. To deny there is a risk is plain wrong. The real question is whether it is worth taking the risk. What are the pros and cons. How much do local residents get if it all goes according to plan? How much will it cost to repair if the groundwater gets contaminated and much of East Sussex loses its drinking water? This argument doesn't have to be fought on party political lines. Although I expect the usual yawn-inducing (industry funded?) Green-bashing on here from the more prejudiced commentators.[/p][/quote]@Fercri Sakes - WDR - the only reason why this ends up along party political lines is that the greens are the only party (AFAIK) that seems to be against fracking - in addition they do not seem to be able to come up with a sensible, pragmatic alternative solution to meet global energy needs. Even the UN has come round to the concept that moving to Natural Gas instead of coal and oil will help us over the next 50 years to move to fully sustainable energy sources. The gas can be provided using the current pipes and can be compressed into CNG to power vehicles and reduce emissions. And where do we get natural gas from - The North Sea (and it's running out); from our 'friends' in Russia or liquefied and shipped to the UK from the middle east - or we get it from the ground by fracking. HJarrs (alleged green party pseudo-scientific spin doctor) seems to think that we can solve all the energy problems of this country (esp. that we import 40% of the energy we use) by walking and cycling everywhere and improving insulation on houses. This is linked to the greens extreme left-wing view-point that (like you) assumes anyone that is in favour of fracking must be industry funded. No - perhaps other groups are more sensible rather than living in their ideological incompetent ivory towers and coming up with environmental improvement schemes that have actually managed to increase pollution levels and reduce recycling rates. If anyone wants to see a reason why they should not vote green in the forthcoming elections then come to see what they have actually 'achieved' in Brighton and Hove. pachallis
  • Score: 21

6:03pm Tue 29 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Martha Gunn wrote:
No word from Luddite Lucas yet?
If Lucas was a luddite she'd be against wind farms and other renewable energies.

Put simply there is a big risk to the environment with fracking. Some people think this risk is acceptable and some think not. To deny there is a risk is plain wrong.

The real question is whether it is worth taking the risk. What are the pros and cons. How much do local residents get if it all goes according to plan? How much will it cost to repair if the groundwater gets contaminated and much of East Sussex loses its drinking water?

This argument doesn't have to be fought on party political lines. Although I expect the usual yawn-inducing (industry funded?) Green-bashing on here from the more prejudiced commentators.
@Fercri Sakes - WDR - the only reason why this ends up along party political lines is that the greens are the only party (AFAIK) that seems to be against fracking - in addition they do not seem to be able to come up with a sensible, pragmatic alternative solution to meet global energy needs.

Even the UN has come round to the concept that moving to Natural Gas instead of coal and oil will help us over the next 50 years to move to fully sustainable energy sources. The gas can be provided using the current pipes and can be compressed into CNG to power vehicles and reduce emissions.

And where do we get natural gas from - The North Sea (and it's running out); from our 'friends' in Russia or liquefied and shipped to the UK from the middle east - or we get it from the ground by fracking.

HJarrs (alleged green party pseudo-scientific spin doctor) seems to think that we can solve all the energy problems of this country (esp. that we import 40% of the energy we use) by walking and cycling everywhere and improving insulation on houses.

This is linked to the greens extreme left-wing view-point that (like you) assumes anyone that is in favour of fracking must be industry funded.

No - perhaps other groups are more sensible rather than living in their ideological incompetent ivory towers and coming up with environmental improvement schemes that have actually managed to increase pollution levels and reduce recycling rates.

If anyone wants to see a reason why they should not vote green in the forthcoming elections then come to see what they have actually 'achieved' in Brighton and Hove.
Thank goodness you are not ideologically driven eh! I like how you call me something and then allege it! This is what comes of reading too much Daily Mail. I believe it is a favorite technique.

Fracking is just a technique, albeit controversial, for extracting gas. Even if fracking could be carried out perfectly safely, it is tapping reserves of fossil fuels that must stay in the ground if we are to avoid devestating levels of climate change. We already have more reserves world wide than we can use. The IPCC do say the natural gas "may" be a bridge fuel to renewables and also say that it is not a long term solution. Fracking is not being done for environmental reaseans.

If the energy policy was to close all coal powerstations over the next few years, to be replaced by energy efficiency, renewables and short term (20years) gas power then I might give it some consideration. This is not the UK energy policy. The Tories are in the pockets of the fossil fuel and energy companies and have done little for the environment and less than was planned by the previous government. Fracking is purely about making money.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: No word from Luddite Lucas yet?[/p][/quote]If Lucas was a luddite she'd be against wind farms and other renewable energies. Put simply there is a big risk to the environment with fracking. Some people think this risk is acceptable and some think not. To deny there is a risk is plain wrong. The real question is whether it is worth taking the risk. What are the pros and cons. How much do local residents get if it all goes according to plan? How much will it cost to repair if the groundwater gets contaminated and much of East Sussex loses its drinking water? This argument doesn't have to be fought on party political lines. Although I expect the usual yawn-inducing (industry funded?) Green-bashing on here from the more prejudiced commentators.[/p][/quote]@Fercri Sakes - WDR - the only reason why this ends up along party political lines is that the greens are the only party (AFAIK) that seems to be against fracking - in addition they do not seem to be able to come up with a sensible, pragmatic alternative solution to meet global energy needs. Even the UN has come round to the concept that moving to Natural Gas instead of coal and oil will help us over the next 50 years to move to fully sustainable energy sources. The gas can be provided using the current pipes and can be compressed into CNG to power vehicles and reduce emissions. And where do we get natural gas from - The North Sea (and it's running out); from our 'friends' in Russia or liquefied and shipped to the UK from the middle east - or we get it from the ground by fracking. HJarrs (alleged green party pseudo-scientific spin doctor) seems to think that we can solve all the energy problems of this country (esp. that we import 40% of the energy we use) by walking and cycling everywhere and improving insulation on houses. This is linked to the greens extreme left-wing view-point that (like you) assumes anyone that is in favour of fracking must be industry funded. No - perhaps other groups are more sensible rather than living in their ideological incompetent ivory towers and coming up with environmental improvement schemes that have actually managed to increase pollution levels and reduce recycling rates. If anyone wants to see a reason why they should not vote green in the forthcoming elections then come to see what they have actually 'achieved' in Brighton and Hove.[/p][/quote]Thank goodness you are not ideologically driven eh! I like how you call me something and then allege it! This is what comes of reading too much Daily Mail. I believe it is a favorite technique. Fracking is just a technique, albeit controversial, for extracting gas. Even if fracking could be carried out perfectly safely, it is tapping reserves of fossil fuels that must stay in the ground if we are to avoid devestating levels of climate change. We already have more reserves world wide than we can use. The IPCC do say the natural gas "may" be a bridge fuel to renewables and also say that it is not a long term solution. Fracking is not being done for environmental reaseans. If the energy policy was to close all coal powerstations over the next few years, to be replaced by energy efficiency, renewables and short term (20years) gas power then I might give it some consideration. This is not the UK energy policy. The Tories are in the pockets of the fossil fuel and energy companies and have done little for the environment and less than was planned by the previous government. Fracking is purely about making money. HJarrs
  • Score: -17

6:09pm Tue 29 Apr 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote:
Martha Gunn wrote:
No word from Luddite Lucas yet?
If Lucas was a luddite she'd be against wind farms and other renewable energies.

Put simply there is a big risk to the environment with fracking. Some people think this risk is acceptable and some think not. To deny there is a risk is plain wrong.

The real question is whether it is worth taking the risk. What are the pros and cons. How much do local residents get if it all goes according to plan? How much will it cost to repair if the groundwater gets contaminated and much of East Sussex loses its drinking water?

This argument doesn't have to be fought on party political lines. Although I expect the usual yawn-inducing (industry funded?) Green-bashing on here from the more prejudiced commentators.
@Fercri Sakes - WDR - the only reason why this ends up along party political lines is that the greens are the only party (AFAIK) that seems to be against fracking - in addition they do not seem to be able to come up with a sensible, pragmatic alternative solution to meet global energy needs.

Even the UN has come round to the concept that moving to Natural Gas instead of coal and oil will help us over the next 50 years to move to fully sustainable energy sources. The gas can be provided using the current pipes and can be compressed into CNG to power vehicles and reduce emissions.

And where do we get natural gas from - The North Sea (and it's running out); from our 'friends' in Russia or liquefied and shipped to the UK from the middle east - or we get it from the ground by fracking.

HJarrs (alleged green party pseudo-scientific spin doctor) seems to think that we can solve all the energy problems of this country (esp. that we import 40% of the energy we use) by walking and cycling everywhere and improving insulation on houses.

This is linked to the greens extreme left-wing view-point that (like you) assumes anyone that is in favour of fracking must be industry funded.

No - perhaps other groups are more sensible rather than living in their ideological incompetent ivory towers and coming up with environmental improvement schemes that have actually managed to increase pollution levels and reduce recycling rates.

If anyone wants to see a reason why they should not vote green in the forthcoming elections then come to see what they have actually 'achieved' in Brighton and Hove.
Thank goodness you are not ideologically driven eh! I like how you call me something and then allege it! This is what comes of reading too much Daily Mail. I believe it is a favorite technique.

Fracking is just a technique, albeit controversial, for extracting gas. Even if fracking could be carried out perfectly safely, it is tapping reserves of fossil fuels that must stay in the ground if we are to avoid devestating levels of climate change. We already have more reserves world wide than we can use. The IPCC do say the natural gas "may" be a bridge fuel to renewables and also say that it is not a long term solution. Fracking is not being done for environmental reaseans.

If the energy policy was to close all coal powerstations over the next few years, to be replaced by energy efficiency, renewables and short term (20years) gas power then I might give it some consideration. This is not the UK energy policy. The Tories are in the pockets of the fossil fuel and energy companies and have done little for the environment and less than was planned by the previous government. Fracking is purely about making money.
So what do you think we should do?let the Russians hold a gun to our heads of which they seem to be doing a good job of when they want something that some one else has.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Martha Gunn[/bold] wrote: No word from Luddite Lucas yet?[/p][/quote]If Lucas was a luddite she'd be against wind farms and other renewable energies. Put simply there is a big risk to the environment with fracking. Some people think this risk is acceptable and some think not. To deny there is a risk is plain wrong. The real question is whether it is worth taking the risk. What are the pros and cons. How much do local residents get if it all goes according to plan? How much will it cost to repair if the groundwater gets contaminated and much of East Sussex loses its drinking water? This argument doesn't have to be fought on party political lines. Although I expect the usual yawn-inducing (industry funded?) Green-bashing on here from the more prejudiced commentators.[/p][/quote]@Fercri Sakes - WDR - the only reason why this ends up along party political lines is that the greens are the only party (AFAIK) that seems to be against fracking - in addition they do not seem to be able to come up with a sensible, pragmatic alternative solution to meet global energy needs. Even the UN has come round to the concept that moving to Natural Gas instead of coal and oil will help us over the next 50 years to move to fully sustainable energy sources. The gas can be provided using the current pipes and can be compressed into CNG to power vehicles and reduce emissions. And where do we get natural gas from - The North Sea (and it's running out); from our 'friends' in Russia or liquefied and shipped to the UK from the middle east - or we get it from the ground by fracking. HJarrs (alleged green party pseudo-scientific spin doctor) seems to think that we can solve all the energy problems of this country (esp. that we import 40% of the energy we use) by walking and cycling everywhere and improving insulation on houses. This is linked to the greens extreme left-wing view-point that (like you) assumes anyone that is in favour of fracking must be industry funded. No - perhaps other groups are more sensible rather than living in their ideological incompetent ivory towers and coming up with environmental improvement schemes that have actually managed to increase pollution levels and reduce recycling rates. If anyone wants to see a reason why they should not vote green in the forthcoming elections then come to see what they have actually 'achieved' in Brighton and Hove.[/p][/quote]Thank goodness you are not ideologically driven eh! I like how you call me something and then allege it! This is what comes of reading too much Daily Mail. I believe it is a favorite technique. Fracking is just a technique, albeit controversial, for extracting gas. Even if fracking could be carried out perfectly safely, it is tapping reserves of fossil fuels that must stay in the ground if we are to avoid devestating levels of climate change. We already have more reserves world wide than we can use. The IPCC do say the natural gas "may" be a bridge fuel to renewables and also say that it is not a long term solution. Fracking is not being done for environmental reaseans. If the energy policy was to close all coal powerstations over the next few years, to be replaced by energy efficiency, renewables and short term (20years) gas power then I might give it some consideration. This is not the UK energy policy. The Tories are in the pockets of the fossil fuel and energy companies and have done little for the environment and less than was planned by the previous government. Fracking is purely about making money.[/p][/quote]So what do you think we should do?let the Russians hold a gun to our heads of which they seem to be doing a good job of when they want something that some one else has. rolivan
  • Score: 11

6:11pm Tue 29 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us. HJarrs
  • Score: -16

6:13pm Tue 29 Apr 14

FatherTed11 says...

Hooray
Hooray FatherTed11
  • Score: 7

6:27pm Tue 29 Apr 14

pachallis says...

HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land?

What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment!

Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)?

And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right?

Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing?

Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader?

You really are a very poor spin doctor!
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land? What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment! Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)? And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right? Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing? Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader? You really are a very poor spin doctor! pachallis
  • Score: 12

6:30pm Tue 29 Apr 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
You didn't answer my question.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]You didn't answer my question. rolivan
  • Score: 6

7:23pm Tue 29 Apr 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless. rolivan
  • Score: 6

7:23pm Tue 29 Apr 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless. rolivan
  • Score: 1

7:32pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Fercri Sakes says...

@HJarrs - I've been away from this site for quite a while, enjoying foreign climes. But I occasionally took a look to see what was happening in my home town. I saw that you were one of the only voices backing up your progressive arguments with facts against a torrent of anti-green corporatist conservative vitriol.

My advice is to give up commenting here as these boards do not give a true representation of what people actually think. Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd. And none of them are soap dodgers to coin an oft-used phrase here. They are just local people, who live and work in the city and who use local amenities. Not random keyboard warriors.

So for your sanity, instead of fighting a losing battle against the strange mechanophiliacs and climate change deniers (or don't-carers) who frequent this site I'd just leave them to continue their merry blind dance. It just seems like a waste of time even having a discussion here. You're not going to change any of their already made up minds.

Take solace in the fact that if our great grandchildren's generation ever read these comments they will marvel at the pure idiocy and wrong-headedness on display here by the pro-fossil-fuel-sod-
the-next-generation bunch in the same way we look at the anti-evolution pamphlets of the 19th century. It will astound them.

Anyway, just my two cents. Enjoy the summer!
@HJarrs - I've been away from this site for quite a while, enjoying foreign climes. But I occasionally took a look to see what was happening in my home town. I saw that you were one of the only voices backing up your progressive arguments with facts against a torrent of anti-green corporatist conservative vitriol. My advice is to give up commenting here as these boards do not give a true representation of what people actually think. Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd. And none of them are soap dodgers to coin an oft-used phrase here. They are just local people, who live and work in the city and who use local amenities. Not random keyboard warriors. So for your sanity, instead of fighting a losing battle against the strange mechanophiliacs and climate change deniers (or don't-carers) who frequent this site I'd just leave them to continue their merry blind dance. It just seems like a waste of time even having a discussion here. You're not going to change any of their already made up minds. Take solace in the fact that if our great grandchildren's generation ever read these comments they will marvel at the pure idiocy and wrong-headedness on display here by the pro-fossil-fuel-sod- the-next-generation bunch in the same way we look at the anti-evolution pamphlets of the 19th century. It will astound them. Anyway, just my two cents. Enjoy the summer! Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -2

8:17pm Tue 29 Apr 14

pachallis says...

@Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.'

You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters.

Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city,

It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...
@Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.' You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters. Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city, It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away... pachallis
  • Score: 6

8:27pm Tue 29 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Time to prepare the Caroline Lucas Suite again down the local nick?
Time to prepare the Caroline Lucas Suite again down the local nick? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 5

8:35pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Fercri Sakes says...

pachallis wrote:
@Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.'

You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters.

Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city,

It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...
No, just normal people. Mothers, fathers, business owners, drivers, cyclists, hair dressers, painters etc.. None of them are eco-warriors. They might not be as lasy as most people though as they will walk down into town rather than take their car.

These people have all noticed improvements to the city compared to before. They and their kids really love the new Level. They really like the improved Seven Dials, now a much better destination for a few drinks than it was in its previous East German style.

They are not generally car commuters, though most own cars, as they all work locally in the city. So maybe that might be a difference in their opinion.

And I wouldn't say HJarrs' comments were spin. They're a lot more believable than the Clarkson rent-a-mob who think this city is going to pot. They should all go and spend a day in Hastings or Bognor to see what this city could have turned into during the current economical climate.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.' You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters. Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city, It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...[/p][/quote]No, just normal people. Mothers, fathers, business owners, drivers, cyclists, hair dressers, painters etc.. None of them are eco-warriors. They might not be as lasy as most people though as they will walk down into town rather than take their car. These people have all noticed improvements to the city compared to before. They and their kids really love the new Level. They really like the improved Seven Dials, now a much better destination for a few drinks than it was in its previous East German style. They are not generally car commuters, though most own cars, as they all work locally in the city. So maybe that might be a difference in their opinion. And I wouldn't say HJarrs' comments were spin. They're a lot more believable than the Clarkson rent-a-mob who think this city is going to pot. They should all go and spend a day in Hastings or Bognor to see what this city could have turned into during the current economical climate. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -2

8:44pm Tue 29 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
@Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.'

You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters.

Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city,

It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...
Well this is a great city! You will just have to live with it!
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.' You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters. Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city, It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...[/p][/quote]Well this is a great city! You will just have to live with it! HJarrs
  • Score: -4

8:46pm Tue 29 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
You didn't answer my question.
When you read Zero Carbon Britain (free download) then tell me what I haven't answered about your question.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]You didn't answer my question.[/p][/quote]When you read Zero Carbon Britain (free download) then tell me what I haven't answered about your question. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

9:12pm Tue 29 Apr 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
You didn't answer my question.
When you read Zero Carbon Britain (free download) then tell me what I haven't answered about your question.
In How many generations do you think that might be achieved . How about the here and now . The City's recycling figures are a real mess,why is that and where is all of the rubbish Going?Plenty of methane being emitted somewhere.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]You didn't answer my question.[/p][/quote]When you read Zero Carbon Britain (free download) then tell me what I haven't answered about your question.[/p][/quote]In How many generations do you think that might be achieved . How about the here and now . The City's recycling figures are a real mess,why is that and where is all of the rubbish Going?Plenty of methane being emitted somewhere. rolivan
  • Score: 5

9:17pm Tue 29 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land?

What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment!

Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)?

And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right?

Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing?

Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader?

You really are a very poor spin doctor!
Where do you get all this nonsense from Patchy? You are obsessed by gas. There are a number of sensible emission reduction strategies of which Zero Carbon Britain is a good example. Change, yes. Bans? These bans are in the heads of those that want to do nothing. Just, straw man arguments. I suggest you read Zero Carbon Britain and come back to me, plenty of ideas in there to reduce our emissions whilst maintaining and often improving living standards. Also, read the IPCC reports, I don't think they quite fit your simplistic view.

Leave the fossil fuels in the ground, stop being a "Luddite", it is time to move on.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land? What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment! Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)? And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right? Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing? Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader? You really are a very poor spin doctor![/p][/quote]Where do you get all this nonsense from Patchy? You are obsessed by gas. There are a number of sensible emission reduction strategies of which Zero Carbon Britain is a good example. Change, yes. Bans? These bans are in the heads of those that want to do nothing. Just, straw man arguments. I suggest you read Zero Carbon Britain and come back to me, plenty of ideas in there to reduce our emissions whilst maintaining and often improving living standards. Also, read the IPCC reports, I don't think they quite fit your simplistic view. Leave the fossil fuels in the ground, stop being a "Luddite", it is time to move on. HJarrs
  • Score: -6

9:20pm Tue 29 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless.
Why don't you suggest it? Yep, stupid projects like cycle and bus lanes that are giving people choice and have resulted in higher bus and cycle ridership across the city.
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless.[/p][/quote]Why don't you suggest it? Yep, stupid projects like cycle and bus lanes that are giving people choice and have resulted in higher bus and cycle ridership across the city. HJarrs
  • Score: -6

9:22pm Tue 29 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
You didn't answer my question.
When you read Zero Carbon Britain (free download) then tell me what I haven't answered about your question.
In How many generations do you think that might be achieved . How about the here and now . The City's recycling figures are a real mess,why is that and where is all of the rubbish Going?Plenty of methane being emitted somewhere.
When you read it, give me your view. How do you think future generations are going to view you?
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]You didn't answer my question.[/p][/quote]When you read Zero Carbon Britain (free download) then tell me what I haven't answered about your question.[/p][/quote]In How many generations do you think that might be achieved . How about the here and now . The City's recycling figures are a real mess,why is that and where is all of the rubbish Going?Plenty of methane being emitted somewhere.[/p][/quote]When you read it, give me your view. How do you think future generations are going to view you? HJarrs
  • Score: -6

9:53pm Tue 29 Apr 14

rolivan says...

HJarrs wrote:
rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless.
Why don't you suggest it? Yep, stupid projects like cycle and bus lanes that are giving people choice and have resulted in higher bus and cycle ridership across the city.
I will read it however 175 pages might take me a few evenings . As for how people view me well my neighbours think I am a little crazy because I chose to move 120 cubic metres of soil by wheelbarrow rather than bring in a machine my acre of Garden has begun to flourish with lots of berries,nuts and fruit trees nothing goes to waste it all goes back in the ground or gets recycled . The over 80 wind turbines that I see everyday on the horizon provide power for my house until I get onto my next project which is the installation of solar panels . I hope this gives you a little insight into my lifestyle and how people might view me.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless.[/p][/quote]Why don't you suggest it? Yep, stupid projects like cycle and bus lanes that are giving people choice and have resulted in higher bus and cycle ridership across the city.[/p][/quote]I will read it however 175 pages might take me a few evenings . As for how people view me well my neighbours think I am a little crazy because I chose to move 120 cubic metres of soil by wheelbarrow rather than bring in a machine my acre of Garden has begun to flourish with lots of berries,nuts and fruit trees nothing goes to waste it all goes back in the ground or gets recycled . The over 80 wind turbines that I see everyday on the horizon provide power for my house until I get onto my next project which is the installation of solar panels . I hope this gives you a little insight into my lifestyle and how people might view me. rolivan
  • Score: 3

10:35pm Tue 29 Apr 14

whatevernext2013 says...

Terry K wrote:
Fantastic news, no more relying on foreign gas, bring it on.
we could need it with the current carry on with russia
[quote][p][bold]Terry K[/bold] wrote: Fantastic news, no more relying on foreign gas, bring it on.[/p][/quote]we could need it with the current carry on with russia whatevernext2013
  • Score: 4

10:39pm Tue 29 Apr 14

whatevernext2013 says...

HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land?

What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment!

Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)?

And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right?

Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing?

Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader?

You really are a very poor spin doctor!
Where do you get all this nonsense from Patchy? You are obsessed by gas. There are a number of sensible emission reduction strategies of which Zero Carbon Britain is a good example. Change, yes. Bans? These bans are in the heads of those that want to do nothing. Just, straw man arguments. I suggest you read Zero Carbon Britain and come back to me, plenty of ideas in there to reduce our emissions whilst maintaining and often improving living standards. Also, read the IPCC reports, I don't think they quite fit your simplistic view.

Leave the fossil fuels in the ground, stop being a "Luddite", it is time to move on.
i can t wait to see the back of you and your green mates next year ,it can t come quick enough
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land? What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment! Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)? And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right? Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing? Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader? You really are a very poor spin doctor![/p][/quote]Where do you get all this nonsense from Patchy? You are obsessed by gas. There are a number of sensible emission reduction strategies of which Zero Carbon Britain is a good example. Change, yes. Bans? These bans are in the heads of those that want to do nothing. Just, straw man arguments. I suggest you read Zero Carbon Britain and come back to me, plenty of ideas in there to reduce our emissions whilst maintaining and often improving living standards. Also, read the IPCC reports, I don't think they quite fit your simplistic view. Leave the fossil fuels in the ground, stop being a "Luddite", it is time to move on.[/p][/quote]i can t wait to see the back of you and your green mates next year ,it can t come quick enough whatevernext2013
  • Score: 2

10:44pm Tue 29 Apr 14

whatevernext2013 says...

HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
@Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.'

You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters.

Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city,

It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...
Well this is a great city! You will just have to live with it!
do you even live within 50 miles of the city that is brighton and hove ,take a walk along the streets of this city and see the homeless begging for change in its door ways and sleeping there too ,this was once a great town to live in but that s all gone ,and even got worse with the greens running things
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.' You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters. Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city, It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...[/p][/quote]Well this is a great city! You will just have to live with it![/p][/quote]do you even live within 50 miles of the city that is brighton and hove ,take a walk along the streets of this city and see the homeless begging for change in its door ways and sleeping there too ,this was once a great town to live in but that s all gone ,and even got worse with the greens running things whatevernext2013
  • Score: 5

6:25am Wed 30 Apr 14

twonk says...

Just before the tree huggers get on their high horses. This is not fracking and never was. It's drilling for oil. There are other sites in Sussex that have been successfully doing this for years but the ignorant among us only care about disrupting the locals and getting themselves in the papers.
I just hope that they start the drilling in winter time or the happy campers will return and cost the Sussex taxpayers more millions.
Just before the tree huggers get on their high horses. This is not fracking and never was. It's drilling for oil. There are other sites in Sussex that have been successfully doing this for years but the ignorant among us only care about disrupting the locals and getting themselves in the papers. I just hope that they start the drilling in winter time or the happy campers will return and cost the Sussex taxpayers more millions. twonk
  • Score: -2

7:56am Wed 30 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

whatevernext2013 wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote: @Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.' You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters. Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city, It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...
Well this is a great city! You will just have to live with it!
do you even live within 50 miles of the city that is brighton and hove ,take a walk along the streets of this city and see the homeless begging for change in its door ways and sleeping there too ,this was once a great town to live in but that s all gone ,and even got worse with the greens running things
Pray tell, what relevance has this post to fracking? As I walked through town this morning I did indeed pass many homeless people and the problem is growing.

You can lay the blame for rising homelessness squarely at the feet of the Coalition government and Tory Party in particular their chronic handling of the economy and vindictive benefit cuts to those most vulnerable. It is their cuts that have lead to the words "food bank" becoming common, and that thousands of desperate people rely on good banks is a disgrace.

I visited York last week and just like other towns and cities I have visited over the last couple of years, I was shocked by the number of homeless and people reduced to begging on the streets. Councils across the country have had budgets slashed and have little slack to make lasting inroads into homelessness. At least we live in a great city with a growing economy and jobs market, which will help some people to avoiud the streets.
[quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.' You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters. Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city, It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...[/p][/quote]Well this is a great city! You will just have to live with it![/p][/quote]do you even live within 50 miles of the city that is brighton and hove ,take a walk along the streets of this city and see the homeless begging for change in its door ways and sleeping there too ,this was once a great town to live in but that s all gone ,and even got worse with the greens running things[/p][/quote]Pray tell, what relevance has this post to fracking? As I walked through town this morning I did indeed pass many homeless people and the problem is growing. You can lay the blame for rising homelessness squarely at the feet of the Coalition government and Tory Party in particular their chronic handling of the economy and vindictive benefit cuts to those most vulnerable. It is their cuts that have lead to the words "food bank" becoming common, and that thousands of desperate people rely on good banks is a disgrace. I visited York last week and just like other towns and cities I have visited over the last couple of years, I was shocked by the number of homeless and people reduced to begging on the streets. Councils across the country have had budgets slashed and have little slack to make lasting inroads into homelessness. At least we live in a great city with a growing economy and jobs market, which will help some people to avoiud the streets. HJarrs
  • Score: -1

8:21am Wed 30 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
rolivan wrote:
HJarrs wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless.
Why don't you suggest it? Yep, stupid projects like cycle and bus lanes that are giving people choice and have resulted in higher bus and cycle ridership across the city.
I will read it however 175 pages might take me a few evenings . As for how people view me well my neighbours think I am a little crazy because I chose to move 120 cubic metres of soil by wheelbarrow rather than bring in a machine my acre of Garden has begun to flourish with lots of berries,nuts and fruit trees nothing goes to waste it all goes back in the ground or gets recycled . The over 80 wind turbines that I see everyday on the horizon provide power for my house until I get onto my next project which is the installation of solar panels . I hope this gives you a little insight into my lifestyle and how people might view me.
Er...I thought you said you lived in Hove? Which wind farm can you see from there?

Well, all that digging does make you sound like a hair-shirter, but hats off to you. You demonstrate nicely that it is straightforward to do some pretty big things quickly rather than in generations, changing your electricity supplier to one largely from renewables from Ecotricity or Good Energy takes an email or phone call. Solar panels may be a long term investment, spending time in your garden rather than consuming goods elsewhere is good for you and the environment. No fracking required!

If those turbines you can see are in the UK, they also power my house. Our hot water has been provided from solar alone since the beginning of April and annual heating demand is less than half that of my neighbours due to high levels of insulation and high quality windows and doors. We have gone down the "fabric first" route of reducing consumption (insulation, efficient appliances, behaviour) and then where practical, replacing the sources of energy with renewables. It took a fair bit of thought and meant that we had to invest up front rather than pay bigger bills. Is it the thinking required that is the biggest barrier?
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]Seeing that Hanover is on a very steep hill why didn't The Greens make it a vehicle free zone except for delivery vehicles and battery powered vehicles . like everything else they had their chance and blew it on stupid projects of which the list is endless.[/p][/quote]Why don't you suggest it? Yep, stupid projects like cycle and bus lanes that are giving people choice and have resulted in higher bus and cycle ridership across the city.[/p][/quote]I will read it however 175 pages might take me a few evenings . As for how people view me well my neighbours think I am a little crazy because I chose to move 120 cubic metres of soil by wheelbarrow rather than bring in a machine my acre of Garden has begun to flourish with lots of berries,nuts and fruit trees nothing goes to waste it all goes back in the ground or gets recycled . The over 80 wind turbines that I see everyday on the horizon provide power for my house until I get onto my next project which is the installation of solar panels . I hope this gives you a little insight into my lifestyle and how people might view me.[/p][/quote]Er...I thought you said you lived in Hove? Which wind farm can you see from there? Well, all that digging does make you sound like a hair-shirter, but hats off to you. You demonstrate nicely that it is straightforward to do some pretty big things quickly rather than in generations, changing your electricity supplier to one largely from renewables from Ecotricity or Good Energy takes an email or phone call. Solar panels may be a long term investment, spending time in your garden rather than consuming goods elsewhere is good for you and the environment. No fracking required! If those turbines you can see are in the UK, they also power my house. Our hot water has been provided from solar alone since the beginning of April and annual heating demand is less than half that of my neighbours due to high levels of insulation and high quality windows and doors. We have gone down the "fabric first" route of reducing consumption (insulation, efficient appliances, behaviour) and then where practical, replacing the sources of energy with renewables. It took a fair bit of thought and meant that we had to invest up front rather than pay bigger bills. Is it the thinking required that is the biggest barrier? HJarrs
  • Score: -1

10:50am Wed 30 Apr 14

pachallis says...

HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land?

What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment!

Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)?

And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right?

Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing?

Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader?

You really are a very poor spin doctor!
Where do you get all this nonsense from Patchy? You are obsessed by gas. There are a number of sensible emission reduction strategies of which Zero Carbon Britain is a good example. Change, yes. Bans? These bans are in the heads of those that want to do nothing. Just, straw man arguments. I suggest you read Zero Carbon Britain and come back to me, plenty of ideas in there to reduce our emissions whilst maintaining and often improving living standards. Also, read the IPCC reports, I don't think they quite fit your simplistic view.

Leave the fossil fuels in the ground, stop being a "Luddite", it is time to move on.
@HJarrs - sorry I haven't responded sooner...had a brief look at Zero Carbon Britain overview - it sounds interesting. Haven't got time/inclination for the 175 page version, so a few questions/?

1. Do we actually need to be zero carbon? What would be a more realistic target? What would be the global effect if every country went zero carbon? Would we have a global ice-age?

2. Don't we need global action rather than just Britain? Making piecemeal changes to Brighton & Hove whilst the rest of the country and world carries on is, IMHO, pointless and dangerous (economically).

3. The fact that the UN has decided a different route - if you think I have got it wrong, then please explain?

4. What do the green party actually propose should be done and when? We need an actual proposal rather than a list of potentials.

5. We need a clear, précis, of what is proposed and what changes to lifestyles would result. You can't really expect everyone to read a 175 page document?

6. Please explain how do we provide power on dark, windless, nights? What energy sources will be used for general background power (I.e. nuclear?) and what will be used for peaks?

7. What will the costs be and what techniques exist now and what is still to be developed? We need to address the 'low hanging fruit' first.

8. And please stop using these 'leave fossil fuels in the ground' terms - we are still drilling/mining for oil and coal and will do for a long time yet.

BTW - I can be as self righteous as you. I walk regularly when I can, I bus into the city, I drive when I need to (shopping, tip, holidays, taking offspring to/from uni). My house has been fully insulated and I have both Solar Hot water and Solar PV. We have recently gone down from 2 cars to 1 low emission. The reason I did this - purely economic rather than ideological.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land? What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment! Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)? And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right? Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing? Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader? You really are a very poor spin doctor![/p][/quote]Where do you get all this nonsense from Patchy? You are obsessed by gas. There are a number of sensible emission reduction strategies of which Zero Carbon Britain is a good example. Change, yes. Bans? These bans are in the heads of those that want to do nothing. Just, straw man arguments. I suggest you read Zero Carbon Britain and come back to me, plenty of ideas in there to reduce our emissions whilst maintaining and often improving living standards. Also, read the IPCC reports, I don't think they quite fit your simplistic view. Leave the fossil fuels in the ground, stop being a "Luddite", it is time to move on.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - sorry I haven't responded sooner...had a brief look at Zero Carbon Britain overview - it sounds interesting. Haven't got time/inclination for the 175 page version, so a few questions/? 1. Do we actually need to be zero carbon? What would be a more realistic target? What would be the global effect if every country went zero carbon? Would we have a global ice-age? 2. Don't we need global action rather than just Britain? Making piecemeal changes to Brighton & Hove whilst the rest of the country and world carries on is, IMHO, pointless and dangerous (economically). 3. The fact that the UN has decided a different route - if you think I have got it wrong, then please explain? 4. What do the green party actually propose should be done and when? We need an actual proposal rather than a list of potentials. 5. We need a clear, précis, of what is proposed and what changes to lifestyles would result. You can't really expect everyone to read a 175 page document? 6. Please explain how do we provide power on dark, windless, nights? What energy sources will be used for general background power (I.e. nuclear?) and what will be used for peaks? 7. What will the costs be and what techniques exist now and what is still to be developed? We need to address the 'low hanging fruit' first. 8. And please stop using these 'leave fossil fuels in the ground' terms - we are still drilling/mining for oil and coal and will do for a long time yet. BTW - I can be as self righteous as you. I walk regularly when I can, I bus into the city, I drive when I need to (shopping, tip, holidays, taking offspring to/from uni). My house has been fully insulated and I have both Solar Hot water and Solar PV. We have recently gone down from 2 cars to 1 low emission. The reason I did this - purely economic rather than ideological. pachallis
  • Score: 1

11:56am Wed 30 Apr 14

JHunty says...

Excuse me, but you are clearly having an adult grown up conversation. Which has no place on the Argus forum. Please resume mindless gain saying of your opponents view ASAP.
Excuse me, but you are clearly having an adult grown up conversation. Which has no place on the Argus forum. Please resume mindless gain saying of your opponents view ASAP. JHunty
  • Score: 4

4:47pm Wed 30 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
pachallis wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point.

It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.
@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land?

What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment!

Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)?

And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right?

Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing?

Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader?

You really are a very poor spin doctor!
Where do you get all this nonsense from Patchy? You are obsessed by gas. There are a number of sensible emission reduction strategies of which Zero Carbon Britain is a good example. Change, yes. Bans? These bans are in the heads of those that want to do nothing. Just, straw man arguments. I suggest you read Zero Carbon Britain and come back to me, plenty of ideas in there to reduce our emissions whilst maintaining and often improving living standards. Also, read the IPCC reports, I don't think they quite fit your simplistic view.

Leave the fossil fuels in the ground, stop being a "Luddite", it is time to move on.
@HJarrs - sorry I haven't responded sooner...had a brief look at Zero Carbon Britain overview - it sounds interesting. Haven't got time/inclination for the 175 page version, so a few questions/?

1. Do we actually need to be zero carbon? What would be a more realistic target? What would be the global effect if every country went zero carbon? Would we have a global ice-age?

2. Don't we need global action rather than just Britain? Making piecemeal changes to Brighton & Hove whilst the rest of the country and world carries on is, IMHO, pointless and dangerous (economically).

3. The fact that the UN has decided a different route - if you think I have got it wrong, then please explain?

4. What do the green party actually propose should be done and when? We need an actual proposal rather than a list of potentials.

5. We need a clear, précis, of what is proposed and what changes to lifestyles would result. You can't really expect everyone to read a 175 page document?

6. Please explain how do we provide power on dark, windless, nights? What energy sources will be used for general background power (I.e. nuclear?) and what will be used for peaks?

7. What will the costs be and what techniques exist now and what is still to be developed? We need to address the 'low hanging fruit' first.

8. And please stop using these 'leave fossil fuels in the ground' terms - we are still drilling/mining for oil and coal and will do for a long time yet.

BTW - I can be as self righteous as you. I walk regularly when I can, I bus into the city, I drive when I need to (shopping, tip, holidays, taking offspring to/from uni). My house has been fully insulated and I have both Solar Hot water and Solar PV. We have recently gone down from 2 cars to 1 low emission. The reason I did this - purely economic rather than ideological.
You can't be bothered reading the report and I can't be bothered responding to your all your points, but I can tell you that a central premise of the report is that the lights stay on when renewables do not provide the oomph. This is achieved by demand management (smart appliances for example), storage of heat and storage of renewables when in surplus by techniques such as production of biogas (in addition to biofuels). Should we aim for zero net emmissions? We were the inventors of the industrial revolution and the uk is responsible for a fair chunk (20%?) of historic CO2 emissions, so apt that that we take a lead. Cost? A lot would be spent anyway on renewing existing generation plant and cost of fuel. The proposals for a £50bn Green Deal look solid and we should divert trident replacement money (£100bn), so there is definitely a realistic chance of funding this with the current economic system.

Like Rolivan, you demonstrate that it is quite possible to make major inroads into the emissions we make. We should join together to encourage others to do the same, or preferably make an even better job of it than we have done.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Oh and there are a number of sensible strategies for weening ourselves off fossil fuels, while maintaining are standard of living. Zero Carbon Britain is a good starting point. It will not be easy to go fossil fuel free but who said saving the world would easy!!! And there are plenty of apologists for the conventional wisdom of just pumping more emissions, yet more that just hope it all goes away. I thank the hardest thing to change is not the infrastructure, it is us.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - I'm glad you want to 'save the world' - now please enlighten us what the 'not so easy' solutions that you propose, so that we can decide whether the greens do have a realistic approach or are still just living in incompetent ideological cloud-cuckoo land? What do we have to start doing now? Please tell us before we stupidly vote for the greens again believing you are really looking after the environment! Do we have to get rid of private transport? Do we have to ban holidays abroad? Do we ban all air transport? Please tell us what you propose we need for zero carbon (whatever that is)? And also, please tell the UN, and all the scientists that were involved, who you were hoping were going to support your crack-pot schemes, that they were wrong and you were right? Their proposed approach is to reduce emissions by replacing coal and oil by CNG in a phased migration to sustainable - I guess yours is to make significant painful changes to our way of life - like farcically putting in cycle lanes that no-one uses or speed limits that are generally ignored and then saying what a wonderful job the greens are doing? Glad to see you are reverting back to name calling - so anyone who is pro-fracking is a capitalist Daily Mail reader? So in response, anyone who is anti-fracking is a communist Guardian reader? You really are a very poor spin doctor![/p][/quote]Where do you get all this nonsense from Patchy? You are obsessed by gas. There are a number of sensible emission reduction strategies of which Zero Carbon Britain is a good example. Change, yes. Bans? These bans are in the heads of those that want to do nothing. Just, straw man arguments. I suggest you read Zero Carbon Britain and come back to me, plenty of ideas in there to reduce our emissions whilst maintaining and often improving living standards. Also, read the IPCC reports, I don't think they quite fit your simplistic view. Leave the fossil fuels in the ground, stop being a "Luddite", it is time to move on.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - sorry I haven't responded sooner...had a brief look at Zero Carbon Britain overview - it sounds interesting. Haven't got time/inclination for the 175 page version, so a few questions/? 1. Do we actually need to be zero carbon? What would be a more realistic target? What would be the global effect if every country went zero carbon? Would we have a global ice-age? 2. Don't we need global action rather than just Britain? Making piecemeal changes to Brighton & Hove whilst the rest of the country and world carries on is, IMHO, pointless and dangerous (economically). 3. The fact that the UN has decided a different route - if you think I have got it wrong, then please explain? 4. What do the green party actually propose should be done and when? We need an actual proposal rather than a list of potentials. 5. We need a clear, précis, of what is proposed and what changes to lifestyles would result. You can't really expect everyone to read a 175 page document? 6. Please explain how do we provide power on dark, windless, nights? What energy sources will be used for general background power (I.e. nuclear?) and what will be used for peaks? 7. What will the costs be and what techniques exist now and what is still to be developed? We need to address the 'low hanging fruit' first. 8. And please stop using these 'leave fossil fuels in the ground' terms - we are still drilling/mining for oil and coal and will do for a long time yet. BTW - I can be as self righteous as you. I walk regularly when I can, I bus into the city, I drive when I need to (shopping, tip, holidays, taking offspring to/from uni). My house has been fully insulated and I have both Solar Hot water and Solar PV. We have recently gone down from 2 cars to 1 low emission. The reason I did this - purely economic rather than ideological.[/p][/quote]You can't be bothered reading the report and I can't be bothered responding to your all your points, but I can tell you that a central premise of the report is that the lights stay on when renewables do not provide the oomph. This is achieved by demand management (smart appliances for example), storage of heat and storage of renewables when in surplus by techniques such as production of biogas (in addition to biofuels). Should we aim for zero net emmissions? We were the inventors of the industrial revolution and the uk is responsible for a fair chunk (20%?) of historic CO2 emissions, so apt that that we take a lead. Cost? A lot would be spent anyway on renewing existing generation plant and cost of fuel. The proposals for a £50bn Green Deal look solid and we should divert trident replacement money (£100bn), so there is definitely a realistic chance of funding this with the current economic system. Like Rolivan, you demonstrate that it is quite possible to make major inroads into the emissions we make. We should join together to encourage others to do the same, or preferably make an even better job of it than we have done. HJarrs
  • Score: -1

4:58pm Wed 30 Apr 14

HJarrs says...

We do have a clear précis if we don't leave most fossil fuel reserves in the ground and carry on with business as usual and that is runaway global warming and environmental and economic disaster, not just for future generations but for a fair chunk of those living today.

We have exponential growth of emissions. This is a disasterous trend. I couldn't give a monkey's if people think this is self righteous or not, it is the facts.
We do have a clear précis if we don't leave most fossil fuel reserves in the ground and carry on with business as usual and that is runaway global warming and environmental and economic disaster, not just for future generations but for a fair chunk of those living today. We have exponential growth of emissions. This is a disasterous trend. I couldn't give a monkey's if people think this is self righteous or not, it is the facts. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Wed 30 Apr 14

rolivan says...

Do you not think it would have been wiser to have something built at the top of Whitehawk Hill rd possibly where the television mast is . It could incorporate the Fort that has been in the news recently and provide far better views and not only that where is the power coming from for the I360?
Do you not think it would have been wiser to have something built at the top of Whitehawk Hill rd possibly where the television mast is . It could incorporate the Fort that has been in the news recently and provide far better views and not only that where is the power coming from for the I360? rolivan
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Wed 30 Apr 14

pachallis says...

@HJarrs - 'We should join together to encourage others to do the same, or preferably make an even better job of it than we have done.'.

Unfortunately, I could never join the greens in their current state - there is the controlling green-left faction and their focus on minorities and anti-fascist hatred of big business and capitalism; the passionate focus on ideologies with lack of responsibility and any real measurement of results; the lack of any pragmatism in finding economic solutions that encourage people to manage the environment, instead focusing on emotional reasoning; and the apparent lack of any real scientific knowledge in the higher layers of the party (i.e. loopy Lucas's belief in homeopathy!).

I do think you really need to get your environmental message across better about what you intend to do so that 'Joe Public' can understand it. and the party needs to get back to focus on the environment and forget all the left-wing, pro-minority, pro-feminist, pro-drug twaddle that has IMHO ruined the party in Brighton and Hove. A little more humility with regard to residents rather than the superior dictatorial approach taken by local council leaders (i.e. running consultations and then apparently ignoring feedback) might also work well to realise we need to be sold to on the policies.

Worst of all any party that has close connections with charmless Russell Brand immediately loses my support - mind you I don't find any party I really identify with, or want to get involved with. If anything, supporting Friends of the Earth might be a better match for me?
@HJarrs - 'We should join together to encourage others to do the same, or preferably make an even better job of it than we have done.'. Unfortunately, I could never join the greens in their current state - there is the controlling green-left faction and their focus on minorities and anti-fascist hatred of big business and capitalism; the passionate focus on ideologies with lack of responsibility and any real measurement of results; the lack of any pragmatism in finding economic solutions that encourage people to manage the environment, instead focusing on emotional reasoning; and the apparent lack of any real scientific knowledge in the higher layers of the party (i.e. loopy Lucas's belief in homeopathy!). I do think you really need to get your environmental message across better about what you intend to do so that 'Joe Public' can understand it. and the party needs to get back to focus on the environment and forget all the left-wing, pro-minority, pro-feminist, pro-drug twaddle that has IMHO ruined the party in Brighton and Hove. A little more humility with regard to residents rather than the superior dictatorial approach taken by local council leaders (i.e. running consultations and then apparently ignoring feedback) might also work well to realise we need to be sold to on the policies. Worst of all any party that has close connections with charmless Russell Brand immediately loses my support - mind you I don't find any party I really identify with, or want to get involved with. If anything, supporting Friends of the Earth might be a better match for me? pachallis
  • Score: 3

6:43am Thu 1 May 14

HJarrs says...

rolivan wrote:
Do you not think it would have been wiser to have something built at the top of Whitehawk Hill rd possibly where the television mast is . It could incorporate the Fort that has been in the news recently and provide far better views and not only that where is the power coming from for the I360?
Why don't you propose it?
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: Do you not think it would have been wiser to have something built at the top of Whitehawk Hill rd possibly where the television mast is . It could incorporate the Fort that has been in the news recently and provide far better views and not only that where is the power coming from for the I360?[/p][/quote]Why don't you propose it? HJarrs
  • Score: 0

6:49am Thu 1 May 14

HJarrs says...

pachallis wrote:
@HJarrs - 'We should join together to encourage others to do the same, or preferably make an even better job of it than we have done.'. Unfortunately, I could never join the greens in their current state - there is the controlling green-left faction and their focus on minorities and anti-fascist hatred of big business and capitalism; the passionate focus on ideologies with lack of responsibility and any real measurement of results; the lack of any pragmatism in finding economic solutions that encourage people to manage the environment, instead focusing on emotional reasoning; and the apparent lack of any real scientific knowledge in the higher layers of the party (i.e. loopy Lucas's belief in homeopathy!). I do think you really need to get your environmental message across better about what you intend to do so that 'Joe Public' can understand it. and the party needs to get back to focus on the environment and forget all the left-wing, pro-minority, pro-feminist, pro-drug twaddle that has IMHO ruined the party in Brighton and Hove. A little more humility with regard to residents rather than the superior dictatorial approach taken by local council leaders (i.e. running consultations and then apparently ignoring feedback) might also work well to realise we need to be sold to on the policies. Worst of all any party that has close connections with charmless Russell Brand immediately loses my support - mind you I don't find any party I really identify with, or want to get involved with. If anything, supporting Friends of the Earth might be a better match for me?
Well, Friends of the Earth is a start. I wasn't actually suggesting you join the Greens, rather those that have already gone some way to significantly reducing emissions should encourage others to do so.

I don't recognise your diatribe, but I do realise that the existing system is currently delivering long-term disaster and needs route and branch change.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @HJarrs - 'We should join together to encourage others to do the same, or preferably make an even better job of it than we have done.'. Unfortunately, I could never join the greens in their current state - there is the controlling green-left faction and their focus on minorities and anti-fascist hatred of big business and capitalism; the passionate focus on ideologies with lack of responsibility and any real measurement of results; the lack of any pragmatism in finding economic solutions that encourage people to manage the environment, instead focusing on emotional reasoning; and the apparent lack of any real scientific knowledge in the higher layers of the party (i.e. loopy Lucas's belief in homeopathy!). I do think you really need to get your environmental message across better about what you intend to do so that 'Joe Public' can understand it. and the party needs to get back to focus on the environment and forget all the left-wing, pro-minority, pro-feminist, pro-drug twaddle that has IMHO ruined the party in Brighton and Hove. A little more humility with regard to residents rather than the superior dictatorial approach taken by local council leaders (i.e. running consultations and then apparently ignoring feedback) might also work well to realise we need to be sold to on the policies. Worst of all any party that has close connections with charmless Russell Brand immediately loses my support - mind you I don't find any party I really identify with, or want to get involved with. If anything, supporting Friends of the Earth might be a better match for me?[/p][/quote]Well, Friends of the Earth is a start. I wasn't actually suggesting you join the Greens, rather those that have already gone some way to significantly reducing emissions should encourage others to do so. I don't recognise your diatribe, but I do realise that the existing system is currently delivering long-term disaster and needs route and branch change. HJarrs
  • Score: 1

5:12pm Thu 1 May 14

theargusissoinformative says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
pachallis wrote: @Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.' You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters. Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city, It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...
No, just normal people. Mothers, fathers, business owners, drivers, cyclists, hair dressers, painters etc.. None of them are eco-warriors. They might not be as lasy as most people though as they will walk down into town rather than take their car. These people have all noticed improvements to the city compared to before. They and their kids really love the new Level. They really like the improved Seven Dials, now a much better destination for a few drinks than it was in its previous East German style. They are not generally car commuters, though most own cars, as they all work locally in the city. So maybe that might be a difference in their opinion. And I wouldn't say HJarrs' comments were spin. They're a lot more believable than the Clarkson rent-a-mob who think this city is going to pot. They should all go and spend a day in Hastings or Bognor to see what this city could have turned into during the current economical climate.
What's wrong with Hastings or Bognor?
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @Fercri Sakes - 'Most people I know are happy with the Green Council and very happy with their MP. Most people I speak like the improvments such as the Seven Dials, OSR cycle lanes, Open Market, Seafront Arches and Lewes Rd.' You must only know very few people and/or move in a very small circle of eco-activists and green supporters. Speak to the wider population and IMHO you'll find very few think the greens are doing a good job - but we'll have to wait for May 2015 to see the real views of the city, It will be great if you can get HJarrs to stop his continual spinning about how good the city is and how good the greens are and everything that goes wrong is due to other political parties or previous administrations, but I doubt it - he does seem to be very thick skinned and impervious to listening to anyone else's views and he will not be able to stop spinning away...[/p][/quote]No, just normal people. Mothers, fathers, business owners, drivers, cyclists, hair dressers, painters etc.. None of them are eco-warriors. They might not be as lasy as most people though as they will walk down into town rather than take their car. These people have all noticed improvements to the city compared to before. They and their kids really love the new Level. They really like the improved Seven Dials, now a much better destination for a few drinks than it was in its previous East German style. They are not generally car commuters, though most own cars, as they all work locally in the city. So maybe that might be a difference in their opinion. And I wouldn't say HJarrs' comments were spin. They're a lot more believable than the Clarkson rent-a-mob who think this city is going to pot. They should all go and spend a day in Hastings or Bognor to see what this city could have turned into during the current economical climate.[/p][/quote]What's wrong with Hastings or Bognor? theargusissoinformative
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Fri 2 May 14

Fercri Sakes says...

-- What's wrong with Hastings or Bognor? --

Economically they are not holding up so well as Brighton is. Jobless figures and visitor numbers are much better here.

One of the criticisms of the Green council is that they are anti-business and anti-tourist but the facts do not draw this out. Quite the opposite in fact, they are peforming better than their seaside rivals. And all this in the face of huge cuts from the Tory led government.
-- What's wrong with Hastings or Bognor? -- Economically they are not holding up so well as Brighton is. Jobless figures and visitor numbers are much better here. One of the criticisms of the Green council is that they are anti-business and anti-tourist but the facts do not draw this out. Quite the opposite in fact, they are peforming better than their seaside rivals. And all this in the face of huge cuts from the Tory led government. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -1

1:56pm Fri 2 May 14

pachallis says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
-- What's wrong with Hastings or Bognor? --

Economically they are not holding up so well as Brighton is. Jobless figures and visitor numbers are much better here.

One of the criticisms of the Green council is that they are anti-business and anti-tourist but the facts do not draw this out. Quite the opposite in fact, they are peforming better than their seaside rivals. And all this in the face of huge cuts from the Tory led government.
@Fercri Sakes - as the saying goes, there are Lies, damned lies, and statistics. And when they come from a political party, especially green supporters...

Please can you provide the base data that supports your claim that the green council is doing better than Hastings or Bognor. What metrics are you using?

I'd also like to understand how seaside resorts nearby such as Worthing, Eastbourne, Littlehampton and Portsmouth perform?

How about Dover, Bournemouth and Weymouth?

Also how about several other towns and cities in the area that I'd consider much more visitor/business friendly - I'm thinking here of places I tend to go to do shopping, such as Lewes, Chichester, Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill and Crawley?

If you are focusing your comparison on Hastings or Bognor Regis methinks you are setting your expectations quite low in in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: -- What's wrong with Hastings or Bognor? -- Economically they are not holding up so well as Brighton is. Jobless figures and visitor numbers are much better here. One of the criticisms of the Green council is that they are anti-business and anti-tourist but the facts do not draw this out. Quite the opposite in fact, they are peforming better than their seaside rivals. And all this in the face of huge cuts from the Tory led government.[/p][/quote]@Fercri Sakes - as the saying goes, there are Lies, damned lies, and statistics. And when they come from a political party, especially green supporters... Please can you provide the base data that supports your claim that the green council is doing better than Hastings or Bognor. What metrics are you using? I'd also like to understand how seaside resorts nearby such as Worthing, Eastbourne, Littlehampton and Portsmouth perform? How about Dover, Bournemouth and Weymouth? Also how about several other towns and cities in the area that I'd consider much more visitor/business friendly - I'm thinking here of places I tend to go to do shopping, such as Lewes, Chichester, Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill and Crawley? If you are focusing your comparison on Hastings or Bognor Regis methinks you are setting your expectations quite low in in the first place. pachallis
  • Score: 0

6:45am Mon 5 May 14

kiwicat says...

For all you pro frackers out there, You won't be so enthusiastic when your drinking water is polluted, you are breathing methane from emissions and they have drilled under you house damaging it. (To name but a few perils) Try getting your insurance company to pay up. Just go educate yourselves about this dangerous and destructive process. Think you are going to get cheaper energy ?? No you won't. Throw in the fact that Cuadrilla have said that they won't be fracking. No, THEY won't. They are an exploration company and will sell the licence on to a company that will frack if it is deemed suitable. This is not just Balcombe this is going to be country wide. A rig and flare is coming to a place near you very soon.
For all you pro frackers out there, You won't be so enthusiastic when your drinking water is polluted, you are breathing methane from emissions and they have drilled under you house damaging it. (To name but a few perils) Try getting your insurance company to pay up. Just go educate yourselves about this dangerous and destructive process. Think you are going to get cheaper energy ?? No you won't. Throw in the fact that Cuadrilla have said that they won't be fracking. No, THEY won't. They are an exploration company and will sell the licence on to a company that will frack if it is deemed suitable. This is not just Balcombe this is going to be country wide. A rig and flare is coming to a place near you very soon. kiwicat
  • Score: -2

12:34pm Mon 5 May 14

pachallis says...

kiwicat wrote:
For all you pro frackers out there, You won't be so enthusiastic when your drinking water is polluted, you are breathing methane from emissions and they have drilled under you house damaging it. (To name but a few perils) Try getting your insurance company to pay up. Just go educate yourselves about this dangerous and destructive process. Think you are going to get cheaper energy ?? No you won't. Throw in the fact that Cuadrilla have said that they won't be fracking. No, THEY won't. They are an exploration company and will sell the licence on to a company that will frack if it is deemed suitable. This is not just Balcombe this is going to be country wide. A rig and flare is coming to a place near you very soon.
@kiwicat - who says drinking water will be polluted, and what are the pollutants that will reach our water supply?

Methane is not poisonous and is the main constituent of natural gas. Please try to learn some real science.

Please identify any building that has been damaged by drilling for fracking purposes several thousand feet under someone's house. I, personally, have no concerns if they drill under my house.

Please can you come up with some more 'perils' that have any basis in reality?

Yours are just the anti-frackers usual scare mongering with little or no basis or truth and having the conspiracy theory mentality that you can't trust anything an energy company might says.
[quote][p][bold]kiwicat[/bold] wrote: For all you pro frackers out there, You won't be so enthusiastic when your drinking water is polluted, you are breathing methane from emissions and they have drilled under you house damaging it. (To name but a few perils) Try getting your insurance company to pay up. Just go educate yourselves about this dangerous and destructive process. Think you are going to get cheaper energy ?? No you won't. Throw in the fact that Cuadrilla have said that they won't be fracking. No, THEY won't. They are an exploration company and will sell the licence on to a company that will frack if it is deemed suitable. This is not just Balcombe this is going to be country wide. A rig and flare is coming to a place near you very soon.[/p][/quote]@kiwicat - who says drinking water will be polluted, and what are the pollutants that will reach our water supply? Methane is not poisonous and is the main constituent of natural gas. Please try to learn some real science. Please identify any building that has been damaged by drilling for fracking purposes several thousand feet under someone's house. I, personally, have no concerns if they drill under my house. Please can you come up with some more 'perils' that have any basis in reality? Yours are just the anti-frackers usual scare mongering with little or no basis or truth and having the conspiracy theory mentality that you can't trust anything an energy company might says. pachallis
  • Score: 2

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