Most want fracking decisions put on hold

Most want fracking decisions put on hold

Most want fracking decisions put on hold

First published in News

RESIDENTS are concerned about fracking and want planning decisions put on hold until more evidence has emerged, a survey shows.

Two-thirds (66%) would like a moratorium on fracking and nearly three-quarters (73%) think more time should be allowed for a public debate on the controversial industry before authorities make a decision, according to a Redshift survey for Greenpeace.

The results were published as Greenpeace activists set up a mock ‘wrong move’ estate agent roadshow in front of County Hall in Chichester to meet politicians arriving for meetings on Friday morning.

West Sussex County Council is to decide in two weeks whether to grant planning permission to fracking firms.

In Wednesday’s Queen’s Speech the Government announced legislation to allow shale gas firms to frack under people’s homes without their permission.

Simon Clydesdale, Greenpeace energy campaigner, said: “Sussex planning authorities are about to make a decision that will have huge repercussions not just for local people but for the rest of Britain too.

“Thousands of people in Sussex are already urging them to act responsibly to safeguard the wellbeing of our communities and our environment – they’ll ignore them at their peril.”

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:11pm Mon 9 Jun 14

deve says...

Nobody asked me, and nobody I know was asked - so how can the information be accurate.
Nobody asked me, and nobody I know was asked - so how can the information be accurate. deve
  • Score: 5

12:14pm Mon 9 Jun 14

billy goat-gruff says...

The toriy government recently threw out plans for solar farms because they are 'unsightly'. They already hate wind turbines. Are fracking sites that much more pretty? At least solar doesn't use up huge amounts of water and create lots more traffic!
The toriy government recently threw out plans for solar farms because they are 'unsightly'. They already hate wind turbines. Are fracking sites that much more pretty? At least solar doesn't use up huge amounts of water and create lots more traffic! billy goat-gruff
  • Score: -2

12:37pm Mon 9 Jun 14

wexler53 says...

Statistics based on questions asked by activists - not really a good basis for any conclusions at all....
Statistics based on questions asked by activists - not really a good basis for any conclusions at all.... wexler53
  • Score: 5

4:16pm Mon 9 Jun 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Well, at least evidence will be gathered and assessed before any decisions are taken.

Unlike the Greens, who oppose fracking without having bothered to wait.
Well, at least evidence will be gathered and assessed before any decisions are taken. Unlike the Greens, who oppose fracking without having bothered to wait. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 2

5:22pm Mon 9 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Well, at least evidence will be gathered and assessed before any decisions are taken.

Unlike the Greens, who oppose fracking without having bothered to wait.
Wait for what exactly? We already have more conventional reserves than we can use without debs sting levels of climate change (but then, you don't believe in that!).

What is the point of throwing more money at stranded assets?
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Well, at least evidence will be gathered and assessed before any decisions are taken. Unlike the Greens, who oppose fracking without having bothered to wait.[/p][/quote]Wait for what exactly? We already have more conventional reserves than we can use without debs sting levels of climate change (but then, you don't believe in that!). What is the point of throwing more money at stranded assets? HJarrs
  • Score: -3

5:23pm Mon 9 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Deb sting = devestating
Deb sting = devestating HJarrs
  • Score: -1

6:22pm Mon 9 Jun 14

balcomberesident says...

Together we can force West Sussex County Council to debate fracking. Sign this official WSCC petition:
http://epetition.wes
tsussex.public-i.tv/
epetition_core/commu
nity/petition/2749
Together we can force West Sussex County Council to debate fracking. Sign this official WSCC petition: http://epetition.wes tsussex.public-i.tv/ epetition_core/commu nity/petition/2749 balcomberesident
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Mon 9 Jun 14

clubrob6 says...

Osborne's father in law is heavily involved with the fracking industry that's why tax has been reduced by 50% on fracking so it does not matter what people think its going ahead anyway.
Osborne's father in law is heavily involved with the fracking industry that's why tax has been reduced by 50% on fracking so it does not matter what people think its going ahead anyway. clubrob6
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Mon 9 Jun 14

Morpheus says...

How can evidence be gathered if it is put on hold? The only way is by it happening in another country. So these people think it is ok for others to take the risk. The simple fact is that fracking has been going on in the UK without any problems. It is only people who want to find problems that find them but have no proof that they are anything to do with fracking.
How can evidence be gathered if it is put on hold? The only way is by it happening in another country. So these people think it is ok for others to take the risk. The simple fact is that fracking has been going on in the UK without any problems. It is only people who want to find problems that find them but have no proof that they are anything to do with fracking. Morpheus
  • Score: 1

7:20pm Mon 9 Jun 14

DeanLucas says...

I would love a bigger debate with professional geologists and enigineers as well as people with decades of experience in drilling up against the lies and misinformation of Greenpeace.

It is about time it happened so they can be shown for who they are.

Stephen Tindale, a previous director of Greenpeace till 2005 says that he considers it very unfortunate they have taken an anti-position. He states that environmentalists should support shale gas to help reduce the amount of coal used, which is the most important immediate goal to deal with excessive climate change. Something the Greens are actually going to cause with their green romanticism and lack of green pragmatism.

Every argument against fracking can be dealt with scientifically and all the anti side can do is misquote statistics and science. That is why all Greenpeace can muster are a few celebrities, whereas the pro side gets its support from geologists, engineers, climate scientists, ex directors of Greenpeace and the IPCC.

I mean come on. The IPCC is the primary group of the worlds most educated and influential climate scientists and it says that shale gas can be used as a transition fuel. The argument that it is not is based on a couple of papers about methane leakage that were funded by Green groups using a scientist who is an environmental activist that were torn apart in peer review. They are commonly misquoted as saying that methane leakage is proven too high, when in fact all they were were calls for more research. Other independent research has shown that shale gas has about 1/2 the CO2 output of coal. That has survived peer review.
I would love a bigger debate with professional geologists and enigineers as well as people with decades of experience in drilling up against the lies and misinformation of Greenpeace. It is about time it happened so they can be shown for who they are. Stephen Tindale, a previous director of Greenpeace till 2005 says that he considers it very unfortunate they have taken an anti-position. He states that environmentalists should support shale gas to help reduce the amount of coal used, which is the most important immediate goal to deal with excessive climate change. Something the Greens are actually going to cause with their green romanticism and lack of green pragmatism. Every argument against fracking can be dealt with scientifically and all the anti side can do is misquote statistics and science. That is why all Greenpeace can muster are a few celebrities, whereas the pro side gets its support from geologists, engineers, climate scientists, ex directors of Greenpeace and the IPCC. I mean come on. The IPCC is the primary group of the worlds most educated and influential climate scientists and it says that shale gas can be used as a transition fuel. The argument that it is not is based on a couple of papers about methane leakage that were funded by Green groups using a scientist who is an environmental activist that were torn apart in peer review. They are commonly misquoted as saying that methane leakage is proven too high, when in fact all they were were calls for more research. Other independent research has shown that shale gas has about 1/2 the CO2 output of coal. That has survived peer review. DeanLucas
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Mon 9 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

DeanLucas wrote:
I would love a bigger debate with professional geologists and enigineers as well as people with decades of experience in drilling up against the lies and misinformation of Greenpeace.

It is about time it happened so they can be shown for who they are.

Stephen Tindale, a previous director of Greenpeace till 2005 says that he considers it very unfortunate they have taken an anti-position. He states that environmentalists should support shale gas to help reduce the amount of coal used, which is the most important immediate goal to deal with excessive climate change. Something the Greens are actually going to cause with their green romanticism and lack of green pragmatism.

Every argument against fracking can be dealt with scientifically and all the anti side can do is misquote statistics and science. That is why all Greenpeace can muster are a few celebrities, whereas the pro side gets its support from geologists, engineers, climate scientists, ex directors of Greenpeace and the IPCC.

I mean come on. The IPCC is the primary group of the worlds most educated and influential climate scientists and it says that shale gas can be used as a transition fuel. The argument that it is not is based on a couple of papers about methane leakage that were funded by Green groups using a scientist who is an environmental activist that were torn apart in peer review. They are commonly misquoted as saying that methane leakage is proven too high, when in fact all they were were calls for more research. Other independent research has shown that shale gas has about 1/2 the CO2 output of coal. That has survived peer review.
I am afraid the IPCC report does not say what you would like it to. It says natural gas could be used as a bridge fuel, which is entirely correct. We have already largely done this in the UK, but there is no UK or world strategy to use shale gas to reduce emissions, rather it just adds to the problem.

Shale gas and shale oil are stranded assets, we are investing vast sums to develop fossil fuel reserves than cannot be extracted if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change. Wasting money to prop up the balance sheets of £ multi-trillion energy companies.
[quote][p][bold]DeanLucas[/bold] wrote: I would love a bigger debate with professional geologists and enigineers as well as people with decades of experience in drilling up against the lies and misinformation of Greenpeace. It is about time it happened so they can be shown for who they are. Stephen Tindale, a previous director of Greenpeace till 2005 says that he considers it very unfortunate they have taken an anti-position. He states that environmentalists should support shale gas to help reduce the amount of coal used, which is the most important immediate goal to deal with excessive climate change. Something the Greens are actually going to cause with their green romanticism and lack of green pragmatism. Every argument against fracking can be dealt with scientifically and all the anti side can do is misquote statistics and science. That is why all Greenpeace can muster are a few celebrities, whereas the pro side gets its support from geologists, engineers, climate scientists, ex directors of Greenpeace and the IPCC. I mean come on. The IPCC is the primary group of the worlds most educated and influential climate scientists and it says that shale gas can be used as a transition fuel. The argument that it is not is based on a couple of papers about methane leakage that were funded by Green groups using a scientist who is an environmental activist that were torn apart in peer review. They are commonly misquoted as saying that methane leakage is proven too high, when in fact all they were were calls for more research. Other independent research has shown that shale gas has about 1/2 the CO2 output of coal. That has survived peer review.[/p][/quote]I am afraid the IPCC report does not say what you would like it to. It says natural gas could be used as a bridge fuel, which is entirely correct. We have already largely done this in the UK, but there is no UK or world strategy to use shale gas to reduce emissions, rather it just adds to the problem. Shale gas and shale oil are stranded assets, we are investing vast sums to develop fossil fuel reserves than cannot be extracted if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change. Wasting money to prop up the balance sheets of £ multi-trillion energy companies. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

9:46pm Mon 9 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
DeanLucas wrote:
I would love a bigger debate with professional geologists and enigineers as well as people with decades of experience in drilling up against the lies and misinformation of Greenpeace.

It is about time it happened so they can be shown for who they are.

Stephen Tindale, a previous director of Greenpeace till 2005 says that he considers it very unfortunate they have taken an anti-position. He states that environmentalists should support shale gas to help reduce the amount of coal used, which is the most important immediate goal to deal with excessive climate change. Something the Greens are actually going to cause with their green romanticism and lack of green pragmatism.

Every argument against fracking can be dealt with scientifically and all the anti side can do is misquote statistics and science. That is why all Greenpeace can muster are a few celebrities, whereas the pro side gets its support from geologists, engineers, climate scientists, ex directors of Greenpeace and the IPCC.

I mean come on. The IPCC is the primary group of the worlds most educated and influential climate scientists and it says that shale gas can be used as a transition fuel. The argument that it is not is based on a couple of papers about methane leakage that were funded by Green groups using a scientist who is an environmental activist that were torn apart in peer review. They are commonly misquoted as saying that methane leakage is proven too high, when in fact all they were were calls for more research. Other independent research has shown that shale gas has about 1/2 the CO2 output of coal. That has survived peer review.
I am afraid the IPCC report does not say what you would like it to. It says natural gas could be used as a bridge fuel, which is entirely correct. We have already largely done this in the UK, but there is no UK or world strategy to use shale gas to reduce emissions, rather it just adds to the problem.

Shale gas and shale oil are stranded assets, we are investing vast sums to develop fossil fuel reserves than cannot be extracted if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change. Wasting money to prop up the balance sheets of £ multi-trillion energy companies.
I note the complete absence of what YOU consider to be 'conventional reserves'.
Have a look in the latest recently released IPCC report and you will find estimates, or BP energy report, IEA energy report. You will find definitions and details of known and estimated reserves.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DeanLucas[/bold] wrote: I would love a bigger debate with professional geologists and enigineers as well as people with decades of experience in drilling up against the lies and misinformation of Greenpeace. It is about time it happened so they can be shown for who they are. Stephen Tindale, a previous director of Greenpeace till 2005 says that he considers it very unfortunate they have taken an anti-position. He states that environmentalists should support shale gas to help reduce the amount of coal used, which is the most important immediate goal to deal with excessive climate change. Something the Greens are actually going to cause with their green romanticism and lack of green pragmatism. Every argument against fracking can be dealt with scientifically and all the anti side can do is misquote statistics and science. That is why all Greenpeace can muster are a few celebrities, whereas the pro side gets its support from geologists, engineers, climate scientists, ex directors of Greenpeace and the IPCC. I mean come on. The IPCC is the primary group of the worlds most educated and influential climate scientists and it says that shale gas can be used as a transition fuel. The argument that it is not is based on a couple of papers about methane leakage that were funded by Green groups using a scientist who is an environmental activist that were torn apart in peer review. They are commonly misquoted as saying that methane leakage is proven too high, when in fact all they were were calls for more research. Other independent research has shown that shale gas has about 1/2 the CO2 output of coal. That has survived peer review.[/p][/quote]I am afraid the IPCC report does not say what you would like it to. It says natural gas could be used as a bridge fuel, which is entirely correct. We have already largely done this in the UK, but there is no UK or world strategy to use shale gas to reduce emissions, rather it just adds to the problem. Shale gas and shale oil are stranded assets, we are investing vast sums to develop fossil fuel reserves than cannot be extracted if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change. Wasting money to prop up the balance sheets of £ multi-trillion energy companies.[/p][/quote]I note the complete absence of what YOU consider to be 'conventional reserves'.[/p][/quote]Have a look in the latest recently released IPCC report and you will find estimates, or BP energy report, IEA energy report. You will find definitions and details of known and estimated reserves. HJarrs
  • Score: -1

10:31pm Mon 9 Jun 14

DeanLucas says...

Hi HJarrs,

You are both right, and wrong. As per the IPCC summary for policy makers:

'GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coalfired
power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat
and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction
and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement). In mitigation scenarios reaching about
450 ppm CO2eq concentrations by 2100, natural gas power generation without CCS acts as a bridge technology, with
deployment increasing before peaking and falling to below current levels by 2050 and declining further in the second
half of the century (robust evidence, high agreement).

Which is what you stated. I note that both the reality of replacing coal and carbon capture and storage have robust "evidence, high agreement". We should take a moment to note this in the IPCC report because so many environmentalists state the complete opposite.

With regard to shale gas in particular it is left to individual nations to decide how to interpret the report with regard to their own economies, resources etc. The report leaves it as just 'natural gas'.

Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the working group responsible for the report has specifically discussed shale gas. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the co-chair to clear this up so our sort of 'is it in it or not' type discussion need never happen.

So what did Professor Edenhofer say?
- "quite clear that shale gas can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”. Mr Edenhofer stressed that the shale gas revolution could be “very helpful” but only if the world committed to tackling climate change and did not simply burn more gas as well as coal."

The quote is available from many news sources and environmental sites.

I agree with fracking in this context. More than that it seems utterly necessary. We are locked in to fuel use. The power plants are built. Renewables need redundancy. I fully support scaling up renewables to 80% by 2050 if we need to, but we need something behind them. We also need jobs and tax revenues. It is simple economics to keep industry and the full tax base here in the UK to the benefit of us all.

Shale gas is not a stranded asset. It is a raw material at the base of the economy.

Stephen Tindale, ex director of Greenpeace who laments Greenpeace's and FotE's (of which he is still a member) positions writes:

'UK climate campaigners should support fracking for shale gas. The use of shale gas would enable the UK to reduce the burning of coal – which is currently increasing. Shale gas from properly regulated sites has a lower carbon footprint than coal does. It also has a lower carbon footprint than Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). Campaigners should focus on the need for proper regulation: the Environment Agency must be well funded. And they should continue to oppose fracking for shale oil, which has no climate justification.'

We have leading institutions, academics, geologists, engineers, the IPCC, people like the ex-Director of Greenpeace etc etc etc saying that shale gas can be done and can help climate change.

On the anti side there is a host of peoples negative opinions (which I can amass for any activity) and nebulous claims which are often not scientifically backed or at best are backed by limited papers saying that if their case was to be proven they would need more research because that piece of research failed to do so - oh, and alot of multi millionaire artists apparently.
Hi HJarrs, You are both right, and wrong. As per the IPCC summary for policy makers: 'GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coalfired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement). In mitigation scenarios reaching about 450 ppm CO2eq concentrations by 2100, natural gas power generation without CCS acts as a bridge technology, with deployment increasing before peaking and falling to below current levels by 2050 and declining further in the second half of the century (robust evidence, high agreement). Which is what you stated. I note that both the reality of replacing coal and carbon capture and storage have robust "evidence, high agreement". We should take a moment to note this in the IPCC report because so many environmentalists state the complete opposite. With regard to shale gas in particular it is left to individual nations to decide how to interpret the report with regard to their own economies, resources etc. The report leaves it as just 'natural gas'. Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the working group responsible for the report has specifically discussed shale gas. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the co-chair to clear this up so our sort of 'is it in it or not' type discussion need never happen. So what did Professor Edenhofer say? - [that it is] "quite clear that shale gas can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”. Mr Edenhofer stressed that the shale gas revolution could be “very helpful” but only if the world committed to tackling climate change and did not simply burn more gas as well as coal." The quote is available from many news sources and environmental sites. I agree with fracking in this context. More than that it seems utterly necessary. We are locked in to fuel use. The power plants are built. Renewables need redundancy. I fully support scaling up renewables to 80% by 2050 if we need to, but we need something behind them. We also need jobs and tax revenues. It is simple economics to keep industry and the full tax base here in the UK to the benefit of us all. Shale gas is not a stranded asset. It is a raw material at the base of the economy. Stephen Tindale, ex director of Greenpeace who laments Greenpeace's and FotE's (of which he is still a member) positions writes: 'UK climate campaigners should support fracking for shale gas. The use of shale gas would enable the UK to reduce the burning of coal – which is currently increasing. Shale gas from properly regulated sites has a lower carbon footprint than coal does. It also has a lower carbon footprint than Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). Campaigners should focus on the need for proper regulation: the Environment Agency must be well funded. And they should continue to oppose fracking for shale oil, which has no climate justification.' We have leading institutions, academics, geologists, engineers, the IPCC, people like the ex-Director of Greenpeace etc etc etc saying that shale gas can be done and can help climate change. On the anti side there is a host of peoples negative opinions (which I can amass for any activity) and nebulous claims which are often not scientifically backed or at best are backed by limited papers saying that if their case was to be proven they would need more research because that piece of research failed to do so - oh, and alot of multi millionaire artists apparently. DeanLucas
  • Score: 2

11:36pm Mon 9 Jun 14

DeanLucas says...

If this is the claim that there is already enough available conventional hydrocarbons globally to reach the 2 degree limit then so what... I don't care if Saudi has reserves and that we can pipeline them in from there. We should be looking at any possible way to create jobs and a tax base here in our own country.

It is insane to say that we are going to use billions worth of resource that we can produce here in the UK, keeping the jobs, supply chain and taxes here in the UK, but we will pipeline it in from abroad just so we don't have to put up with an increase in traffic and small risk of pollution or very minor tremors.

And if your argument is to do that - to just pipeline it over thousands of kilometers and not manage the regulation and environmental standards of our CO2 production for the sake of traffic and water management at home then you are no environmentalist by my standards.

You are fine to say you want the coal and gas power stations turned off tomorrow at any cost to the economy and peoples lives as opposed to phasing them out while increasing renewables over the next few decades, but I am also just as fine to say no, I disagree. We must value the jobs and peoples lives at the same time as doing our best by the climate and environment and not outsourcing our energy production to countries where we do not have control of our environmental impact. Better to keep as much at home and take some responsibility - none of this ship it abroad and forget about it so I can not have to look at a drill rig 3 miles away from me and put up with 6 tankers a day going down the road.
If this is the claim that there is already enough available conventional hydrocarbons globally to reach the 2 degree limit then so what... I don't care if Saudi has reserves and that we can pipeline them in from there. We should be looking at any possible way to create jobs and a tax base here in our own country. It is insane to say that we are going to use billions worth of resource that we can produce here in the UK, keeping the jobs, supply chain and taxes here in the UK, but we will pipeline it in from abroad just so we don't have to put up with an increase in traffic and small risk of pollution or very minor tremors. And if your argument is to do that - to just pipeline it over thousands of kilometers and not manage the regulation and environmental standards of our CO2 production for the sake of traffic and water management at home then you are no environmentalist by my standards. You are fine to say you want the coal and gas power stations turned off tomorrow at any cost to the economy and peoples lives as opposed to phasing them out while increasing renewables over the next few decades, but I am also just as fine to say no, I disagree. We must value the jobs and peoples lives at the same time as doing our best by the climate and environment and not outsourcing our energy production to countries where we do not have control of our environmental impact. Better to keep as much at home and take some responsibility - none of this ship it abroad and forget about it so I can not have to look at a drill rig 3 miles away from me and put up with 6 tankers a day going down the road. DeanLucas
  • Score: 0

7:01am Tue 10 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
DeanLucas wrote:
I would love a bigger debate with professional geologists and enigineers as well as people with decades of experience in drilling up against the lies and misinformation of Greenpeace.

It is about time it happened so they can be shown for who they are.

Stephen Tindale, a previous director of Greenpeace till 2005 says that he considers it very unfortunate they have taken an anti-position. He states that environmentalists should support shale gas to help reduce the amount of coal used, which is the most important immediate goal to deal with excessive climate change. Something the Greens are actually going to cause with their green romanticism and lack of green pragmatism.

Every argument against fracking can be dealt with scientifically and all the anti side can do is misquote statistics and science. That is why all Greenpeace can muster are a few celebrities, whereas the pro side gets its support from geologists, engineers, climate scientists, ex directors of Greenpeace and the IPCC.

I mean come on. The IPCC is the primary group of the worlds most educated and influential climate scientists and it says that shale gas can be used as a transition fuel. The argument that it is not is based on a couple of papers about methane leakage that were funded by Green groups using a scientist who is an environmental activist that were torn apart in peer review. They are commonly misquoted as saying that methane leakage is proven too high, when in fact all they were were calls for more research. Other independent research has shown that shale gas has about 1/2 the CO2 output of coal. That has survived peer review.
I am afraid the IPCC report does not say what you would like it to. It says natural gas could be used as a bridge fuel, which is entirely correct. We have already largely done this in the UK, but there is no UK or world strategy to use shale gas to reduce emissions, rather it just adds to the problem.

Shale gas and shale oil are stranded assets, we are investing vast sums to develop fossil fuel reserves than cannot be extracted if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change. Wasting money to prop up the balance sheets of £ multi-trillion energy companies.
I note the complete absence of what YOU consider to be 'conventional reserves'.
Because I take the definitions of these sources. Have fun reading them.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DeanLucas[/bold] wrote: I would love a bigger debate with professional geologists and enigineers as well as people with decades of experience in drilling up against the lies and misinformation of Greenpeace. It is about time it happened so they can be shown for who they are. Stephen Tindale, a previous director of Greenpeace till 2005 says that he considers it very unfortunate they have taken an anti-position. He states that environmentalists should support shale gas to help reduce the amount of coal used, which is the most important immediate goal to deal with excessive climate change. Something the Greens are actually going to cause with their green romanticism and lack of green pragmatism. Every argument against fracking can be dealt with scientifically and all the anti side can do is misquote statistics and science. That is why all Greenpeace can muster are a few celebrities, whereas the pro side gets its support from geologists, engineers, climate scientists, ex directors of Greenpeace and the IPCC. I mean come on. The IPCC is the primary group of the worlds most educated and influential climate scientists and it says that shale gas can be used as a transition fuel. The argument that it is not is based on a couple of papers about methane leakage that were funded by Green groups using a scientist who is an environmental activist that were torn apart in peer review. They are commonly misquoted as saying that methane leakage is proven too high, when in fact all they were were calls for more research. Other independent research has shown that shale gas has about 1/2 the CO2 output of coal. That has survived peer review.[/p][/quote]I am afraid the IPCC report does not say what you would like it to. It says natural gas could be used as a bridge fuel, which is entirely correct. We have already largely done this in the UK, but there is no UK or world strategy to use shale gas to reduce emissions, rather it just adds to the problem. Shale gas and shale oil are stranded assets, we are investing vast sums to develop fossil fuel reserves than cannot be extracted if we are to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change. Wasting money to prop up the balance sheets of £ multi-trillion energy companies.[/p][/quote]I note the complete absence of what YOU consider to be 'conventional reserves'.[/p][/quote]Because I take the definitions of these sources. Have fun reading them. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

7:15am Tue 10 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

DeanLucas wrote:
Hi HJarrs,

You are both right, and wrong. As per the IPCC summary for policy makers:

'GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coalfired
power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat
and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction
and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement). In mitigation scenarios reaching about
450 ppm CO2eq concentrations by 2100, natural gas power generation without CCS acts as a bridge technology, with
deployment increasing before peaking and falling to below current levels by 2050 and declining further in the second
half of the century (robust evidence, high agreement).

Which is what you stated. I note that both the reality of replacing coal and carbon capture and storage have robust "evidence, high agreement". We should take a moment to note this in the IPCC report because so many environmentalists state the complete opposite.

With regard to shale gas in particular it is left to individual nations to decide how to interpret the report with regard to their own economies, resources etc. The report leaves it as just 'natural gas'.

Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the working group responsible for the report has specifically discussed shale gas. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the co-chair to clear this up so our sort of 'is it in it or not' type discussion need never happen.

So what did Professor Edenhofer say?
- "quite clear that shale gas can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”. Mr Edenhofer stressed that the shale gas revolution could be “very helpful” but only if the world committed to tackling climate change and did not simply burn more gas as well as coal."

The quote is available from many news sources and environmental sites.

I agree with fracking in this context. More than that it seems utterly necessary. We are locked in to fuel use. The power plants are built. Renewables need redundancy. I fully support scaling up renewables to 80% by 2050 if we need to, but we need something behind them. We also need jobs and tax revenues. It is simple economics to keep industry and the full tax base here in the UK to the benefit of us all.

Shale gas is not a stranded asset. It is a raw material at the base of the economy.

Stephen Tindale, ex director of Greenpeace who laments Greenpeace's and FotE's (of which he is still a member) positions writes:

'UK climate campaigners should support fracking for shale gas. The use of shale gas would enable the UK to reduce the burning of coal – which is currently increasing. Shale gas from properly regulated sites has a lower carbon footprint than coal does. It also has a lower carbon footprint than Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). Campaigners should focus on the need for proper regulation: the Environment Agency must be well funded. And they should continue to oppose fracking for shale oil, which has no climate justification.'

We have leading institutions, academics, geologists, engineers, the IPCC, people like the ex-Director of Greenpeace etc etc etc saying that shale gas can be done and can help climate change.

On the anti side there is a host of peoples negative opinions (which I can amass for any activity) and nebulous claims which are often not scientifically backed or at best are backed by limited papers saying that if their case was to be proven they would need more research because that piece of research failed to do so - oh, and alot of multi millionaire artists apparently.
My opposition to fraking has always primarily been the development of yet more reserves of hydrocarbons. It may well be perfectly possible to use the technique safely and it shows promise for geothermal heat recovery. I understand that we already have 3 times more reserves of fossil fuels than we can afford to extract if we are to limit climate change to "just" 2 deg C, which is a target full of risk. We already have stranded assets, so all we do by expanding the portfolios of energy companies means a bigger cliff to fall off when those portfolios become worthless.

If you are serious about creating revenues and jobs then we should be pushing hard to develop the "largest source of untapped energy" according to the IEA chief. We have this energy source in abundance in the UK, it is called energy efficiency. We could start by insulating the homes of the elderly to a high standard first and cut the disgraceful toll of thousands of hypothermia deaths, rather than hydrocarbon business as usual.
[quote][p][bold]DeanLucas[/bold] wrote: Hi HJarrs, You are both right, and wrong. As per the IPCC summary for policy makers: 'GHG emissions from energy supply can be reduced significantly by replacing current world average coalfired power plants with modern, highly efficient natural gas combined-cycle power plants or combined heat and power plants, provided that natural gas is available and the fugitive emissions associated with extraction and supply are low or mitigated (robust evidence, high agreement). In mitigation scenarios reaching about 450 ppm CO2eq concentrations by 2100, natural gas power generation without CCS acts as a bridge technology, with deployment increasing before peaking and falling to below current levels by 2050 and declining further in the second half of the century (robust evidence, high agreement). Which is what you stated. I note that both the reality of replacing coal and carbon capture and storage have robust "evidence, high agreement". We should take a moment to note this in the IPCC report because so many environmentalists state the complete opposite. With regard to shale gas in particular it is left to individual nations to decide how to interpret the report with regard to their own economies, resources etc. The report leaves it as just 'natural gas'. Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the working group responsible for the report has specifically discussed shale gas. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the co-chair to clear this up so our sort of 'is it in it or not' type discussion need never happen. So what did Professor Edenhofer say? - [that it is] "quite clear that shale gas can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation”. Mr Edenhofer stressed that the shale gas revolution could be “very helpful” but only if the world committed to tackling climate change and did not simply burn more gas as well as coal." The quote is available from many news sources and environmental sites. I agree with fracking in this context. More than that it seems utterly necessary. We are locked in to fuel use. The power plants are built. Renewables need redundancy. I fully support scaling up renewables to 80% by 2050 if we need to, but we need something behind them. We also need jobs and tax revenues. It is simple economics to keep industry and the full tax base here in the UK to the benefit of us all. Shale gas is not a stranded asset. It is a raw material at the base of the economy. Stephen Tindale, ex director of Greenpeace who laments Greenpeace's and FotE's (of which he is still a member) positions writes: 'UK climate campaigners should support fracking for shale gas. The use of shale gas would enable the UK to reduce the burning of coal – which is currently increasing. Shale gas from properly regulated sites has a lower carbon footprint than coal does. It also has a lower carbon footprint than Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). Campaigners should focus on the need for proper regulation: the Environment Agency must be well funded. And they should continue to oppose fracking for shale oil, which has no climate justification.' We have leading institutions, academics, geologists, engineers, the IPCC, people like the ex-Director of Greenpeace etc etc etc saying that shale gas can be done and can help climate change. On the anti side there is a host of peoples negative opinions (which I can amass for any activity) and nebulous claims which are often not scientifically backed or at best are backed by limited papers saying that if their case was to be proven they would need more research because that piece of research failed to do so - oh, and alot of multi millionaire artists apparently.[/p][/quote]My opposition to fraking has always primarily been the development of yet more reserves of hydrocarbons. It may well be perfectly possible to use the technique safely and it shows promise for geothermal heat recovery. I understand that we already have 3 times more reserves of fossil fuels than we can afford to extract if we are to limit climate change to "just" 2 deg C, which is a target full of risk. We already have stranded assets, so all we do by expanding the portfolios of energy companies means a bigger cliff to fall off when those portfolios become worthless. If you are serious about creating revenues and jobs then we should be pushing hard to develop the "largest source of untapped energy" according to the IEA chief. We have this energy source in abundance in the UK, it is called energy efficiency. We could start by insulating the homes of the elderly to a high standard first and cut the disgraceful toll of thousands of hypothermia deaths, rather than hydrocarbon business as usual. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

7:18am Tue 10 Jun 14

DeanLucas says...

Whats the point of arguing about the definition of what a resource is when the only point is that gas will be used by the UK for decades and we have a means of producing it ourselves. Big deal if Saudi can produce it, or China, or any other country. We export enough jobs as it is.

If the gas is not economic then that is a different matter, but many geologists and economists think it is and that is the reason it is going ahead.
Whats the point of arguing about the definition of what a resource is when the only point is that gas will be used by the UK for decades and we have a means of producing it ourselves. Big deal if Saudi can produce it, or China, or any other country. We export enough jobs as it is. If the gas is not economic then that is a different matter, but many geologists and economists think it is and that is the reason it is going ahead. DeanLucas
  • Score: 1

8:38am Tue 10 Jun 14

pachallis says...

Good to see the official green party spokesman (HJarrs) having to use a discredited biased Greenpeace survey scaring residents about the possible effect of fracking on house prices, together with there own biased spin on the UN report to support their mantra that 'fossil fuels should be left in the ground'

This then linked to a lack of any published alternative green solution detailing costs, stages, or of the life-style changes will be needed (including large scale switching land use away from meat production to biofuel methane) and a refusal to answer direct questions.

What a wretched little party that have to resort to anonymous spokespersons and misleading propaganda to support their left-wing eco-activist objectives.
Good to see the official green party spokesman (HJarrs) having to use a discredited biased Greenpeace survey scaring residents about the possible effect of fracking on house prices, together with there own biased spin on the UN report to support their mantra that 'fossil fuels should be left in the ground' This then linked to a lack of any published alternative green solution detailing costs, stages, or of the life-style changes will be needed (including large scale switching land use away from meat production to biofuel methane) and a refusal to answer direct questions. What a wretched little party that have to resort to anonymous spokespersons and misleading propaganda to support their left-wing eco-activist objectives. pachallis
  • Score: 5

9:40am Tue 10 Jun 14

DeanLucas says...

'My opposition to fraking has always primarily been the development of yet more reserves of hydrocarbons. It may well be perfectly possible to use the technique safely and it shows promise for geothermal heat recovery. I understand that we already have 3 times more reserves of fossil fuels than we can afford to extract if we are to limit climate change to "just" 2 deg C, which is a target full of risk. We already have stranded assets, so all we do by expanding the portfolios of energy companies means a bigger cliff to fall off when those portfolios become worthless.

If you are serious about creating revenues and jobs then we should be pushing hard to develop the "largest source of untapped energy" according to the IEA chief. We have this energy source in abundance in the UK, it is called energy efficiency. We could start by insulating the homes of the elderly to a high standard first and cut the disgraceful toll of thousands of hypothermia deaths, rather than hydrocarbon business as usual.'

----

Again, so what if other countries have got these resources. HJarrs keeps saying 'we already have 3 times more reserves of fossil fuels than we can afford to extract'. No 'we' haven't. The entire world does. 'We' have the North Sea, other onshore and offshore gas fields and now shale gas.

Hydrocarbon fuel consumption is mostly locked in. We know what we will be using over the next 30 years. Renewables absolutely must be increased, but renewables need a backup and even as we increase renewables we will be continuing to use hydrocarbons and nuclear.

Let those other countries reserves stay in the ground. We need the jobs and the tax revenue here in the UK.

Jeez. Just look at this argument if you take it to its logical end. The world has limited resources given by our current technology. We should export all jobs abroad because no sector can afford to continue using resources at the current rate. We have rare earth mineral X, but the world will run out of it in 80 years. Quick export all jobs in mineral X abroad quickly before we hit that limit.

Our entire economy makes 1.75% of global CO2. The energy sector is some smaller part of that. Lets make it bigger and say our energy sector makes 1% of global CO2. We are arguing about exporting all these jobs and tax revenues to other countries and then importing from them to save a fraction of a percent of global CO2. We can give up tens of thousands of jobs and billions in revenue for something the rest of the world will make up for in a day or two. Pointless.

We should keep the jobs and tax revenue and use the money to invest in other ways of cutting down CO2 in our economy - like investing in energy savings. We also need massive flood defence works because climate change is already happening. If we make about 1.75% of it then the rest of the world makes 98.25%. Total decarbonisation of our economy will do nothing to climate change. We must change to a position of building defences against the rest of the worlds actions right now. That will take alot of money. Growth of all industries is needed to support it. Again, the IPCC has said that shale gas can lower CO2. It can lower CO2 and increase wealth at the same time - expectly what we need as a response to climate change. If we just lower CO2 and decrease our ability to defend ourselves then even more people will suffer greatly and all we will be able to do is pat ourselves on the back while people pay the price. Wealth combined with reducing CO2 is the greatest defence. Just cutting CO2 at the expense of economic damage will harm a huge number of people far more than climate change will.
'My opposition to fraking has always primarily been the development of yet more reserves of hydrocarbons. It may well be perfectly possible to use the technique safely and it shows promise for geothermal heat recovery. I understand that we already have 3 times more reserves of fossil fuels than we can afford to extract if we are to limit climate change to "just" 2 deg C, which is a target full of risk. We already have stranded assets, so all we do by expanding the portfolios of energy companies means a bigger cliff to fall off when those portfolios become worthless. If you are serious about creating revenues and jobs then we should be pushing hard to develop the "largest source of untapped energy" according to the IEA chief. We have this energy source in abundance in the UK, it is called energy efficiency. We could start by insulating the homes of the elderly to a high standard first and cut the disgraceful toll of thousands of hypothermia deaths, rather than hydrocarbon business as usual.' ---- Again, so what if other countries have got these resources. HJarrs keeps saying 'we already have 3 times more reserves of fossil fuels than we can afford to extract'. No 'we' haven't. The entire world does. 'We' have the North Sea, other onshore and offshore gas fields and now shale gas. Hydrocarbon fuel consumption is mostly locked in. We know what we will be using over the next 30 years. Renewables absolutely must be increased, but renewables need a backup and even as we increase renewables we will be continuing to use hydrocarbons and nuclear. Let those other countries reserves stay in the ground. We need the jobs and the tax revenue here in the UK. Jeez. Just look at this argument if you take it to its logical end. The world has limited resources given by our current technology. We should export all jobs abroad because no sector can afford to continue using resources at the current rate. We have rare earth mineral X, but the world will run out of it in 80 years. Quick export all jobs in mineral X abroad quickly before we hit that limit. Our entire economy makes 1.75% of global CO2. The energy sector is some smaller part of that. Lets make it bigger and say our energy sector makes 1% of global CO2. We are arguing about exporting all these jobs and tax revenues to other countries and then importing from them to save a fraction of a percent of global CO2. We can give up tens of thousands of jobs and billions in revenue for something the rest of the world will make up for in a day or two. Pointless. We should keep the jobs and tax revenue and use the money to invest in other ways of cutting down CO2 in our economy - like investing in energy savings. We also need massive flood defence works because climate change is already happening. If we make about 1.75% of it then the rest of the world makes 98.25%. Total decarbonisation of our economy will do nothing to climate change. We must change to a position of building defences against the rest of the worlds actions right now. That will take alot of money. Growth of all industries is needed to support it. Again, the IPCC has said that shale gas can lower CO2. It can lower CO2 and increase wealth at the same time - expectly what we need as a response to climate change. If we just lower CO2 and decrease our ability to defend ourselves then even more people will suffer greatly and all we will be able to do is pat ourselves on the back while people pay the price. Wealth combined with reducing CO2 is the greatest defence. Just cutting CO2 at the expense of economic damage will harm a huge number of people far more than climate change will. DeanLucas
  • Score: 2

11:12am Tue 10 Jun 14

Roundbill says...

Oh lighten up everyone, this is the Argus, not the Badger. Can we go back to slagging off the council and moaning about travellers and students?
Oh lighten up everyone, this is the Argus, not the Badger. Can we go back to slagging off the council and moaning about travellers and students? Roundbill
  • Score: 2

1:32pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Gary1965 says...

Renewables are useless.
Renewables are useless. Gary1965
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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