Anti-fracking activists occupy South Downs National Park Authority building

Greenpeace activists  target the South Downs National Park Authority meeting with a Not For Shale roadshow

Greenpeace activists target the South Downs National Park Authority meeting with a Not For Shale roadshow

First published in News
Last updated

ACTIVISTS occupied the entrance to a South Downs National Park Authority building in West Sussex yesterday.

The Greenpeace Not for Shale protest in Midhurst comes weeks before the authority considers a planning application for shale exploration inside South Downs National Park.

Simon Clydesdale, Greenpeace UK energy campaigner, said: “We need to fight back against companies and authorities who are trying to quite literally undermine the property and rights of people across the South Downs and Sussex, putting both the local environment and the climate at risk, without asking permission.”

Recent Greenpeace polling shows that two thirds of people surveyed in Sussex are against fracking.

Over 14,500 South Downs residents have signed a Greenpeace petition calling on David Cameron to stop his fracking plans.

Greenpeace are urging anyone with information on fracking in Sussex to email fracker tracker.uk@greenpeace.org.

Mr Clydesdale said: “This is against the interests of Sussex and against the stated purpose of the South Downs National Park.

“You’re the game-keeper here, it’s not your job to help the poachers.”

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:23am Fri 27 Jun 14

G Wiley says...

More green mis-information - the poll was about the believed impact on house prices of having fracking occurring near to your home based upon all the FUD being spread about potential dangers (I.e. tremors, noise and water pollution).

So it was nothing to do with environmental issues
More green mis-information - the poll was about the believed impact on house prices of having fracking occurring near to your home based upon all the FUD being spread about potential dangers (I.e. tremors, noise and water pollution). So it was nothing to do with environmental issues G Wiley
  • Score: 17

7:09am Fri 27 Jun 14

Fight_Back says...

Usual Argus quality headline I see !!!! How can an activity 'occupy' anything other than a living being ?
Usual Argus quality headline I see !!!! How can an activity 'occupy' anything other than a living being ? Fight_Back
  • Score: 2

7:11am Fri 27 Jun 14

Plantpot says...

http://www.spiegel.d
e/international/busi
ness/greenpeace-fina
ncial-scandal-how-th
e-organization-lost-
millions-a-976868.ht
ml - Greenpeace play the money markets with donors cash

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/earth/earthne
ws/10920198/Greenpea
ce-executive-flies-2
50-miles-to-work.htm
l - Finance Director flies to work at Greenpeace's expense - you couldn't make it up

And of course, not only are the police infiltrating environmental groups, but so are the Russians, who have a long history of infiltrating leftie groups like CND.
http://www.spiegel.d e/international/busi ness/greenpeace-fina ncial-scandal-how-th e-organization-lost- millions-a-976868.ht ml - Greenpeace play the money markets with donors cash http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/earthne ws/10920198/Greenpea ce-executive-flies-2 50-miles-to-work.htm l - Finance Director flies to work at Greenpeace's expense - you couldn't make it up And of course, not only are the police infiltrating environmental groups, but so are the Russians, who have a long history of infiltrating leftie groups like CND. Plantpot
  • Score: 12

7:57am Fri 27 Jun 14

Fercri Sakes says...

Plantpot wrote:
http://www.spiegel.d

e/international/busi

ness/greenpeace-fina

ncial-scandal-how-th

e-organization-lost-

millions-a-976868.ht

ml - Greenpeace play the money markets with donors cash

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/earth/earthne

ws/10920198/Greenpea

ce-executive-flies-2

50-miles-to-work.htm

l - Finance Director flies to work at Greenpeace's expense - you couldn't make it up

And of course, not only are the police infiltrating environmental groups, but so are the Russians, who have a long history of infiltrating leftie groups like CND.
Yes, every activist in the country is a sleeper agent planted by Moscow. How very un-British of them to try and save the Sussex countryside.

The elderly Mrs Tibbins next door signed a petition against a housing estate being built behind us. I'm sure there's posters of Stalin behind her front door.

Good job there's no connection between David Cameron - Fracking Companies - Rupert Murdoch or else we'd all be crying about a real right-wing capitalist plot and propaganda machine to line their own pockets regardless of effect to the public.

Let's frack for a better, cleaner, less-Commie, windmill-free British Britain! Let the rest of the world suffer from the cancer-giving and child frightening renewable energy industry, not us.
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: http://www.spiegel.d e/international/busi ness/greenpeace-fina ncial-scandal-how-th e-organization-lost- millions-a-976868.ht ml - Greenpeace play the money markets with donors cash http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/earthne ws/10920198/Greenpea ce-executive-flies-2 50-miles-to-work.htm l - Finance Director flies to work at Greenpeace's expense - you couldn't make it up And of course, not only are the police infiltrating environmental groups, but so are the Russians, who have a long history of infiltrating leftie groups like CND.[/p][/quote]Yes, every activist in the country is a sleeper agent planted by Moscow. How very un-British of them to try and save the Sussex countryside. The elderly Mrs Tibbins next door signed a petition against a housing estate being built behind us. I'm sure there's posters of Stalin behind her front door. Good job there's no connection between David Cameron - Fracking Companies - Rupert Murdoch or else we'd all be crying about a real right-wing capitalist plot and propaganda machine to line their own pockets regardless of effect to the public. Let's frack for a better, cleaner, less-Commie, windmill-free British Britain! Let the rest of the world suffer from the cancer-giving and child frightening renewable energy industry, not us. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -16

8:38am Fri 27 Jun 14

Plantpot says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
Plantpot wrote:
http://www.spiegel.d


e/international/busi


ness/greenpeace-fina


ncial-scandal-how-th


e-organization-lost-


millions-a-976868.ht


ml - Greenpeace play the money markets with donors cash

http://www.telegraph


.co.uk/earth/earthne


ws/10920198/Greenpea


ce-executive-flies-2


50-miles-to-work.htm


l - Finance Director flies to work at Greenpeace's expense - you couldn't make it up

And of course, not only are the police infiltrating environmental groups, but so are the Russians, who have a long history of infiltrating leftie groups like CND.
Yes, every activist in the country is a sleeper agent planted by Moscow. How very un-British of them to try and save the Sussex countryside.

The elderly Mrs Tibbins next door signed a petition against a housing estate being built behind us. I'm sure there's posters of Stalin behind her front door.

Good job there's no connection between David Cameron - Fracking Companies - Rupert Murdoch or else we'd all be crying about a real right-wing capitalist plot and propaganda machine to line their own pockets regardless of effect to the public.

Let's frack for a better, cleaner, less-Commie, windmill-free British Britain! Let the rest of the world suffer from the cancer-giving and child frightening renewable energy industry, not us.
The debate about fracking in Sussex, or anywhere else for that matter doesn't really appear to be about fracking. It's about protecting house prices for some and about anti-corporates/glob
alisation etc. for others.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote: http://www.spiegel.d e/international/busi ness/greenpeace-fina ncial-scandal-how-th e-organization-lost- millions-a-976868.ht ml - Greenpeace play the money markets with donors cash http://www.telegraph .co.uk/earth/earthne ws/10920198/Greenpea ce-executive-flies-2 50-miles-to-work.htm l - Finance Director flies to work at Greenpeace's expense - you couldn't make it up And of course, not only are the police infiltrating environmental groups, but so are the Russians, who have a long history of infiltrating leftie groups like CND.[/p][/quote]Yes, every activist in the country is a sleeper agent planted by Moscow. How very un-British of them to try and save the Sussex countryside. The elderly Mrs Tibbins next door signed a petition against a housing estate being built behind us. I'm sure there's posters of Stalin behind her front door. Good job there's no connection between David Cameron - Fracking Companies - Rupert Murdoch or else we'd all be crying about a real right-wing capitalist plot and propaganda machine to line their own pockets regardless of effect to the public. Let's frack for a better, cleaner, less-Commie, windmill-free British Britain! Let the rest of the world suffer from the cancer-giving and child frightening renewable energy industry, not us.[/p][/quote]The debate about fracking in Sussex, or anywhere else for that matter doesn't really appear to be about fracking. It's about protecting house prices for some and about anti-corporates/glob alisation etc. for others. Plantpot
  • Score: 9

8:59am Fri 27 Jun 14

DeanLucas says...

Greenpeace are going all out to frame the change of law regarding drilling rights deep beneath peoples properties as some fundamental and terrible change to our rights. I prefer to use a bit of science and common sense.

They never show us the questions they use in these polls and you can change the outcome by rigging the question.

Fracking can already occur below any property - the change in law is about access for the well bore itself - not the fracked formations. This is a 6-8" hole hundreds of meters or miles beneath your house.

Environmentalists, if they thought this was a problem, would complain about the London underground since that is a very large hole just tens of meters beneath peoples homes. People buying property in Derbyshire do not find Greenpeace screaming at them saying their houses are worthless because there are caverns a matter of tens of meters below them.

Imagine drilling a 6" hole in the base of a 50m cliff. Would it affect the house above it? Of course not. The well will be more than 300m down where there is no weathering to eat away at the rocks. Most likely for most people it will be kilomteres beneath them.

Typical Greenpeace scaremongering on this one. They most likely rigged the questions so get the answer they wanted, or just ran the survey as many times as it took to get the answer they wanted.
Greenpeace are going all out to frame the change of law regarding drilling rights deep beneath peoples properties as some fundamental and terrible change to our rights. I prefer to use a bit of science and common sense. They never show us the questions they use in these polls and you can change the outcome by rigging the question. Fracking can already occur below any property - the change in law is about access for the well bore itself - not the fracked formations. This is a 6-8" hole hundreds of meters or miles beneath your house. Environmentalists, if they thought this was a problem, would complain about the London underground since that is a very large hole just tens of meters beneath peoples homes. People buying property in Derbyshire do not find Greenpeace screaming at them saying their houses are worthless because there are caverns a matter of tens of meters below them. Imagine drilling a 6" hole in the base of a 50m cliff. Would it affect the house above it? Of course not. The well will be more than 300m down where there is no weathering to eat away at the rocks. Most likely for most people it will be kilomteres beneath them. Typical Greenpeace scaremongering on this one. They most likely rigged the questions so get the answer they wanted, or just ran the survey as many times as it took to get the answer they wanted. DeanLucas
  • Score: 6

9:00am Fri 27 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Greenpeace and many others are right to protest.

One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.
Greenpeace and many others are right to protest. One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change. HJarrs
  • Score: -7

9:03am Fri 27 Jun 14

hammerfan says...

It seems if you are a traveller an anti fracker or any other 'loony' the law is yours to break! We need the energy supplies and subsequent taxes generated. How else are we going to raise funds to clear up after travellers and pay benefits to protesters who think their actions are more important then working!
It seems if you are a traveller an anti fracker or any other 'loony' the law is yours to break! We need the energy supplies and subsequent taxes generated. How else are we going to raise funds to clear up after travellers and pay benefits to protesters who think their actions are more important then working! hammerfan
  • Score: 1

9:27am Fri 27 Jun 14

G Wiley says...

HJarrs wrote:
Greenpeace and many others are right to protest.

One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.
@HJarrs - your usual spinning sound-bites!

Greenhouse gases are produced by burning oil, coal, natural gas, wood or peat. So should we stop all these fuels being used? Should all these be 'left in the ground' as the anti-fracking campaigners demand?

Why not use methane if it reduces emissions compared to other fossil fuels such as coal and oil - as recommended by the UN study as a mitigation route to full sustainability?

Basically the greens are just naïvely focussed on being anti-fracking and don't have any other practical, costed, published alternative solution at the moment - yes greens - please tell us what do YOU actually propose?

And please don't bring up ZCB (Zero Carbon Britain) without identifying what would actually be required to changes in lifestyle, why it is needed versus a globally agreed carbon reduction policy, what the costs would be, what the implications would be, and why you think Britain should set an example to the rest of the world?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Greenpeace and many others are right to protest. One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - your usual spinning sound-bites! Greenhouse gases are produced by burning oil, coal, natural gas, wood or peat. So should we stop all these fuels being used? Should all these be 'left in the ground' as the anti-fracking campaigners demand? Why not use methane if it reduces emissions compared to other fossil fuels such as coal and oil - as recommended by the UN study as a mitigation route to full sustainability? Basically the greens are just naïvely focussed on being anti-fracking and don't have any other practical, costed, published alternative solution at the moment - yes greens - please tell us what do YOU actually propose? And please don't bring up ZCB (Zero Carbon Britain) without identifying what would actually be required to changes in lifestyle, why it is needed versus a globally agreed carbon reduction policy, what the costs would be, what the implications would be, and why you think Britain should set an example to the rest of the world? G Wiley
  • Score: 4

12:41pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Tallywhacker says...

HJarrs wrote:
Greenpeace and many others are right to protest.

One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.
Good. Keep the world warm. A lot better than our present inter glacial reversing and ice a mile deep returning. Though that would make the Scottish question moot.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Greenpeace and many others are right to protest. One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.[/p][/quote]Good. Keep the world warm. A lot better than our present inter glacial reversing and ice a mile deep returning. Though that would make the Scottish question moot. Tallywhacker
  • Score: -3

1:50pm Fri 27 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

G Wiley wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Greenpeace and many others are right to protest.

One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.
@HJarrs - your usual spinning sound-bites!

Greenhouse gases are produced by burning oil, coal, natural gas, wood or peat. So should we stop all these fuels being used? Should all these be 'left in the ground' as the anti-fracking campaigners demand?

Why not use methane if it reduces emissions compared to other fossil fuels such as coal and oil - as recommended by the UN study as a mitigation route to full sustainability?

Basically the greens are just naïvely focussed on being anti-fracking and don't have any other practical, costed, published alternative solution at the moment - yes greens - please tell us what do YOU actually propose?

And please don't bring up ZCB (Zero Carbon Britain) without identifying what would actually be required to changes in lifestyle, why it is needed versus a globally agreed carbon reduction policy, what the costs would be, what the implications would be, and why you think Britain should set an example to the rest of the world?
Here we go again!

Natural gas according to the UN, that you are always happy to quote, could be used in the short term to reduce emissions, but there is no strategy to do so, costed or otherwise.

The way things are going, simply expanding supply is just adding to emissions. It is business as usual.

Thanks for bringing up zero carbon Britain, I can recommend people to read the free downloadable report. It is far too complex to summarise in an Argus post. It is certainly not the last word on the subject, but it does talk about tapping into the largest source of unused energy...energy efficiency.
[quote][p][bold]G Wiley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Greenpeace and many others are right to protest. One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.[/p][/quote]@HJarrs - your usual spinning sound-bites! Greenhouse gases are produced by burning oil, coal, natural gas, wood or peat. So should we stop all these fuels being used? Should all these be 'left in the ground' as the anti-fracking campaigners demand? Why not use methane if it reduces emissions compared to other fossil fuels such as coal and oil - as recommended by the UN study as a mitigation route to full sustainability? Basically the greens are just naïvely focussed on being anti-fracking and don't have any other practical, costed, published alternative solution at the moment - yes greens - please tell us what do YOU actually propose? And please don't bring up ZCB (Zero Carbon Britain) without identifying what would actually be required to changes in lifestyle, why it is needed versus a globally agreed carbon reduction policy, what the costs would be, what the implications would be, and why you think Britain should set an example to the rest of the world?[/p][/quote]Here we go again! Natural gas according to the UN, that you are always happy to quote, could be used in the short term to reduce emissions, but there is no strategy to do so, costed or otherwise. The way things are going, simply expanding supply is just adding to emissions. It is business as usual. Thanks for bringing up zero carbon Britain, I can recommend people to read the free downloadable report. It is far too complex to summarise in an Argus post. It is certainly not the last word on the subject, but it does talk about tapping into the largest source of unused energy...energy efficiency. HJarrs
  • Score: 1

2:10pm Fri 27 Jun 14

NickBrt says...

Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays?
Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays? NickBrt
  • Score: -1

2:27pm Fri 27 Jun 14

DeanLucas says...

I have a degree in a climate related field so have little problem seeing that humans are affecting climate. But what is also obvious is that politicians are using climate change for their own gains. Of course they are - what else would we expect politicians to do.

And who are the biggest users of this strategy? Who stands to again the most by manipulating climate change?... Yep, the greens. The people who, like Scientologists sticking 'science' in their name, slap 'green' in the title as if that adds authority to every environmental issue they talk about. But we must always remember that they are a political party with many other policies. They use the environment to get votes, but don't talk so much about their other policies.

'We could see 4.5 degrees by 2100' shout the greens to scare us. If you want evidence even their mouthpieces are shouting it. Vivienne Westwood said exactly the same. Papers say the same - we could get between 0.8 to 4.5 degrees blah blah blah. But the truth is that that range is the range given by the different scenarios commissioned by the IPCC. It isn't that we could get 0.8 to 4.5 degrees - it is that if you assume certain situations we could get 0.8, or if you assume certain situations we could get 4.5.

So what are these inputs/situations? The 4.3 degree increase above industrial levels comes from a report commissioned by the IPCC called RCP8.5. It assumes a global population of 12 billion and 50% of energy coming from coal, compared to 30% today. Nuclear and renewables are left to stagnate in the model, and there is little change in energy efficiency.

That is the case that the greens quote again and again to scare people. It is extremely unlikely for many reasons. Yet it gives them political leverage, so they spread it and manipulate scared people using it in the hope of getting votes. They join a long list of politicians and political parties willing to device and spread fear to get what they want.
I have a degree in a climate related field so have little problem seeing that humans are affecting climate. But what is also obvious is that politicians are using climate change for their own gains. Of course they are - what else would we expect politicians to do. And who are the biggest users of this strategy? Who stands to again the most by manipulating climate change?... Yep, the greens. The people who, like Scientologists sticking 'science' in their name, slap 'green' in the title as if that adds authority to every environmental issue they talk about. But we must always remember that they are a political party with many other policies. They use the environment to get votes, but don't talk so much about their other policies. 'We could see 4.5 degrees by 2100' shout the greens to scare us. If you want evidence even their mouthpieces are shouting it. Vivienne Westwood said exactly the same. Papers say the same - we could get between 0.8 to 4.5 degrees blah blah blah. But the truth is that that range is the range given by the different scenarios commissioned by the IPCC. It isn't that we could get 0.8 to 4.5 degrees - it is that if you assume certain situations we could get 0.8, or if you assume certain situations we could get 4.5. So what are these inputs/situations? The 4.3 degree increase above industrial levels comes from a report commissioned by the IPCC called RCP8.5. It assumes a global population of 12 billion and 50% of energy coming from coal, compared to 30% today. Nuclear and renewables are left to stagnate in the model, and there is little change in energy efficiency. That is the case that the greens quote again and again to scare people. It is extremely unlikely for many reasons. Yet it gives them political leverage, so they spread it and manipulate scared people using it in the hope of getting votes. They join a long list of politicians and political parties willing to device and spread fear to get what they want. DeanLucas
  • Score: 2

2:37pm Fri 27 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

NickBrt wrote:
Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays?
No CL has just been to the Eco Technology show and has demolished the arguments of a representative of the fracking industry, who, by the way said that he did not think fracking would lower the price of gas in the UK!
[quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays?[/p][/quote]No CL has just been to the Eco Technology show and has demolished the arguments of a representative of the fracking industry, who, by the way said that he did not think fracking would lower the price of gas in the UK! HJarrs
  • Score: -3

2:43pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Roundbill says...

HJarrs wrote:
Greenpeace and many others are right to protest.

One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.
Interesting to see you trying to ingratiate yourself with Caroline now that Eugenius Kitcat is out of the running, Leo. Have you always been such a shameless opportunist?
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Greenpeace and many others are right to protest. One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.[/p][/quote]Interesting to see you trying to ingratiate yourself with Caroline now that Eugenius Kitcat is out of the running, Leo. Have you always been such a shameless opportunist? Roundbill
  • Score: 3

2:57pm Fri 27 Jun 14

DeanLucas says...

HJarrs wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays?
No CL has just been to the Eco Technology show and has demolished the arguments of a representative of the fracking industry, who, by the way said that he did not think fracking would lower the price of gas in the UK!
Hmmm. I've seen creationists do this with scientists too. The religious crowd listens to the creationist preacher and ignores the evolutionary biologist and then comes out after the debate to declare how well the creationist has 'demolished' the biologist.

It is deeply ridiculous.

And I see the price meme being spread again. Pure silliness. Price is just one small reason among a group of much bigger reasons for doing it. Prices will fluctuate for bigger reasons than whether we frack or not. It is nowhere near as simple or easy to predict gas prices as predict renewable subsidies in 20 years time.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays?[/p][/quote]No CL has just been to the Eco Technology show and has demolished the arguments of a representative of the fracking industry, who, by the way said that he did not think fracking would lower the price of gas in the UK![/p][/quote]Hmmm. I've seen creationists do this with scientists too. The religious crowd listens to the creationist preacher and ignores the evolutionary biologist and then comes out after the debate to declare how well the creationist has 'demolished' the biologist. It is deeply ridiculous. And I see the price meme being spread again. Pure silliness. Price is just one small reason among a group of much bigger reasons for doing it. Prices will fluctuate for bigger reasons than whether we frack or not. It is nowhere near as simple or easy to predict gas prices as predict renewable subsidies in 20 years time. DeanLucas
  • Score: -1

3:27pm Fri 27 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

DeanLucas wrote:
I have a degree in a climate related field so have little problem seeing that humans are affecting climate. But what is also obvious is that politicians are using climate change for their own gains. Of course they are - what else would we expect politicians to do.

And who are the biggest users of this strategy? Who stands to again the most by manipulating climate change?... Yep, the greens. The people who, like Scientologists sticking 'science' in their name, slap 'green' in the title as if that adds authority to every environmental issue they talk about. But we must always remember that they are a political party with many other policies. They use the environment to get votes, but don't talk so much about their other policies.

'We could see 4.5 degrees by 2100' shout the greens to scare us. If you want evidence even their mouthpieces are shouting it. Vivienne Westwood said exactly the same. Papers say the same - we could get between 0.8 to 4.5 degrees blah blah blah. But the truth is that that range is the range given by the different scenarios commissioned by the IPCC. It isn't that we could get 0.8 to 4.5 degrees - it is that if you assume certain situations we could get 0.8, or if you assume certain situations we could get 4.5.

So what are these inputs/situations? The 4.3 degree increase above industrial levels comes from a report commissioned by the IPCC called RCP8.5. It assumes a global population of 12 billion and 50% of energy coming from coal, compared to 30% today. Nuclear and renewables are left to stagnate in the model, and there is little change in energy efficiency.

That is the case that the greens quote again and again to scare people. It is extremely unlikely for many reasons. Yet it gives them political leverage, so they spread it and manipulate scared people using it in the hope of getting votes. They join a long list of politicians and political parties willing to device and spread fear to get what they want.
I don't think much to your education.

At best we might "just" restrict climate change to 2 degrees above preindustrial levels if we really go for it and change world energy mix and energy usage. We don't even know if 2 degrees is even a safe limit to avoid negative feedback effects, such as release of currently trapped methane.

How is fracking gas going to help us avoid climate change? We have 3 times the conventional known reserves of fossil fuels than can be burnt without adding yet more unconventional reserves.
[quote][p][bold]DeanLucas[/bold] wrote: I have a degree in a climate related field so have little problem seeing that humans are affecting climate. But what is also obvious is that politicians are using climate change for their own gains. Of course they are - what else would we expect politicians to do. And who are the biggest users of this strategy? Who stands to again the most by manipulating climate change?... Yep, the greens. The people who, like Scientologists sticking 'science' in their name, slap 'green' in the title as if that adds authority to every environmental issue they talk about. But we must always remember that they are a political party with many other policies. They use the environment to get votes, but don't talk so much about their other policies. 'We could see 4.5 degrees by 2100' shout the greens to scare us. If you want evidence even their mouthpieces are shouting it. Vivienne Westwood said exactly the same. Papers say the same - we could get between 0.8 to 4.5 degrees blah blah blah. But the truth is that that range is the range given by the different scenarios commissioned by the IPCC. It isn't that we could get 0.8 to 4.5 degrees - it is that if you assume certain situations we could get 0.8, or if you assume certain situations we could get 4.5. So what are these inputs/situations? The 4.3 degree increase above industrial levels comes from a report commissioned by the IPCC called RCP8.5. It assumes a global population of 12 billion and 50% of energy coming from coal, compared to 30% today. Nuclear and renewables are left to stagnate in the model, and there is little change in energy efficiency. That is the case that the greens quote again and again to scare people. It is extremely unlikely for many reasons. Yet it gives them political leverage, so they spread it and manipulate scared people using it in the hope of getting votes. They join a long list of politicians and political parties willing to device and spread fear to get what they want.[/p][/quote]I don't think much to your education. At best we might "just" restrict climate change to 2 degrees above preindustrial levels if we really go for it and change world energy mix and energy usage. We don't even know if 2 degrees is even a safe limit to avoid negative feedback effects, such as release of currently trapped methane. How is fracking gas going to help us avoid climate change? We have 3 times the conventional known reserves of fossil fuels than can be burnt without adding yet more unconventional reserves. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

3:29pm Fri 27 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

Roundbill wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
Greenpeace and many others are right to protest.

One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.
Interesting to see you trying to ingratiate yourself with Caroline now that Eugenius Kitcat is out of the running, Leo. Have you always been such a shameless opportunist?
Just reporting facts. I don't ingratiate myself with anyone. However, I was very pleased she raised the zero carbon Britain study in the debate, something I have been banging on about for some time.
[quote][p][bold]Roundbill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: Greenpeace and many others are right to protest. One thing we definitely know about fracked oil and gas (and it looks like we have frackable oil reserves locally) is that the extraction and burning of these unconventional fossil fuel reserves adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that lead to climate change.[/p][/quote]Interesting to see you trying to ingratiate yourself with Caroline now that Eugenius Kitcat is out of the running, Leo. Have you always been such a shameless opportunist?[/p][/quote]Just reporting facts. I don't ingratiate myself with anyone. However, I was very pleased she raised the zero carbon Britain study in the debate, something I have been banging on about for some time. HJarrs
  • Score: -5

3:37pm Fri 27 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

DeanLucas wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays?
No CL has just been to the Eco Technology show and has demolished the arguments of a representative of the fracking industry, who, by the way said that he did not think fracking would lower the price of gas in the UK!
Hmmm. I've seen creationists do this with scientists too. The religious crowd listens to the creationist preacher and ignores the evolutionary biologist and then comes out after the debate to declare how well the creationist has 'demolished' the biologist.

It is deeply ridiculous.

And I see the price meme being spread again. Pure silliness. Price is just one small reason among a group of much bigger reasons for doing it. Prices will fluctuate for bigger reasons than whether we frack or not. It is nowhere near as simple or easy to predict gas prices as predict renewable subsidies in 20 years time.
I would suggest it is you clinging to a faith based system. It is pure faith when it is trotted out that fracking is some form of answer to climate change or that climate change is not happening.

However, one of the big advantages we are sold is price reduction and is turning out not to be true. It does help balance of trade payments, but the same and more could be true if we actually just got on and properly insulated the county's housing stock, for example.

I'll just keep getting on with science, thanks.
[quote][p][bold]DeanLucas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays?[/p][/quote]No CL has just been to the Eco Technology show and has demolished the arguments of a representative of the fracking industry, who, by the way said that he did not think fracking would lower the price of gas in the UK![/p][/quote]Hmmm. I've seen creationists do this with scientists too. The religious crowd listens to the creationist preacher and ignores the evolutionary biologist and then comes out after the debate to declare how well the creationist has 'demolished' the biologist. It is deeply ridiculous. And I see the price meme being spread again. Pure silliness. Price is just one small reason among a group of much bigger reasons for doing it. Prices will fluctuate for bigger reasons than whether we frack or not. It is nowhere near as simple or easy to predict gas prices as predict renewable subsidies in 20 years time.[/p][/quote]I would suggest it is you clinging to a faith based system. It is pure faith when it is trotted out that fracking is some form of answer to climate change or that climate change is not happening. However, one of the big advantages we are sold is price reduction and is turning out not to be true. It does help balance of trade payments, but the same and more could be true if we actually just got on and properly insulated the county's housing stock, for example. I'll just keep getting on with science, thanks. HJarrs
  • Score: -2

5:27pm Fri 27 Jun 14

DeanLucas says...

@ HJarrs

"It is pure faith when it is trotted out that fracking is some form of answer to climate change or that climate change is not happening."

I said neither. Fracking is not the single short term answer to climate change, but in the short term it is one of the most powerful options we have. In the long term it is not the answer to climate change either, that will require many things working in combination.

I do not care about what you think about my science, but I can judge you from what you take on board and how you behave with regard to the IPCC. For some reason you are cherry picking them. Do not claim that I am not being scientific when all I am doing is agreeing with the IPCC with regard to short term benefits of switching from coal to gas. Please, if you are going to try and berate me use some valid analysis of data, not just words. Put some effort in and use some context. Describe what your plan would be. How it would work. What would be required.

Europe generates just 1.5% of its energy from renewables with a subsidy of 280billion euros. If you want to switch to 100% renewables when please show how that can work economically and how quickly it can be done and at what cost.
@ HJarrs "It is pure faith when it is trotted out that fracking is some form of answer to climate change or that climate change is not happening." I said neither. Fracking is not the single short term answer to climate change, but in the short term it is one of the most powerful options we have. In the long term it is not the answer to climate change either, that will require many things working in combination. I do not care about what you think about my science, but I can judge you from what you take on board and how you behave with regard to the IPCC. For some reason you are cherry picking them. Do not claim that I am not being scientific when all I am doing is agreeing with the IPCC with regard to short term benefits of switching from coal to gas. Please, if you are going to try and berate me use some valid analysis of data, not just words. Put some effort in and use some context. Describe what your plan would be. How it would work. What would be required. Europe generates just 1.5% of its energy from renewables with a subsidy of 280billion euros. If you want to switch to 100% renewables when please show how that can work economically and how quickly it can be done and at what cost. DeanLucas
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Fri 27 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

stevo!! wrote:
HJarrs wrote:
NickBrt wrote:
Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays?
No CL has just been to the Eco Technology show and has demolished the arguments of a representative of the fracking industry, who, by the way said that he did not think fracking would lower the price of gas in the UK!
So Lucas argued that fracking would mean cheaper gas?

Why does the silly cow oppose fracking, then?
Er...no and neither is that what I wrote.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Why isn't Saint Caroline there? Is she trapped in Brussels by these plane delays?[/p][/quote]No CL has just been to the Eco Technology show and has demolished the arguments of a representative of the fracking industry, who, by the way said that he did not think fracking would lower the price of gas in the UK![/p][/quote]So Lucas argued that fracking would mean cheaper gas? Why does the silly cow oppose fracking, then?[/p][/quote]Er...no and neither is that what I wrote. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

6:02pm Fri 27 Jun 14

HJarrs says...

You all rather miss the point, fracked gas, pretty much any type of fossil fuel gas, could be used to reduce the emissions relating to generating elecricity by displacing coal in the short term, but this is NOT happening and neither will it.

Nor are companies going to invest billions in fracking in the UK just to turn the taps off in a few years time. This is a long term business for them that will impead moving to a low carbon economy.

As for funding ideas I would suggest looking at the Green Deal and timescales zero carbon Britain. Could this be done by 2030? Physically possible, but no chance with the economic and political establishment, 2050? I would be happy with that and I think that is realistic.

There will no doubt be some holes in the exact detail of a roll out of renewables and energy reduction but compare that to where we are. There is no fossil fuel equivalent and emissions are climbing. What is the cost of climate change for generations to come? A **** site more expensive than doing something about it.
You all rather miss the point, fracked gas, pretty much any type of fossil fuel gas, could be used to reduce the emissions relating to generating elecricity by displacing coal in the short term, but this is NOT happening and neither will it. Nor are companies going to invest billions in fracking in the UK just to turn the taps off in a few years time. This is a long term business for them that will impead moving to a low carbon economy. As for funding ideas I would suggest looking at the Green Deal and timescales zero carbon Britain. Could this be done by 2030? Physically possible, but no chance with the economic and political establishment, 2050? I would be happy with that and I think that is realistic. There will no doubt be some holes in the exact detail of a roll out of renewables and energy reduction but compare that to where we are. There is no fossil fuel equivalent and emissions are climbing. What is the cost of climate change for generations to come? A **** site more expensive than doing something about it. HJarrs
  • Score: -3

6:37pm Fri 27 Jun 14

Fercri Sakes says...

DeanLucas wrote:
@ HJarrs

"It is pure faith when it is trotted out that fracking is some form of answer to climate change or that climate change is not happening."

I said neither. Fracking is not the single short term answer to climate change, but in the short term it is one of the most powerful options we have. In the long term it is not the answer to climate change either, that will require many things working in combination.

I do not care about what you think about my science, but I can judge you from what you take on board and how you behave with regard to the IPCC. For some reason you are cherry picking them. Do not claim that I am not being scientific when all I am doing is agreeing with the IPCC with regard to short term benefits of switching from coal to gas. Please, if you are going to try and berate me use some valid analysis of data, not just words. Put some effort in and use some context. Describe what your plan would be. How it would work. What would be required.

Europe generates just 1.5% of its energy from renewables with a subsidy of 280billion euros. If you want to switch to 100% renewables when please show how that can work economically and how quickly it can be done and at what cost.
What rubbish! You're no expert.

Europe generates 15% of it's energy from renewables, a bit more than the 1.5% you stated. Can you supply a link to prove your other value of 280bn euros a year subsidies, or is that poppycock too?

Germany has been generating 50% of it's electricity from renewables recently. It has also created a huge well-skilled export industry for it's renewable technologies. Unlike a couple of hundred years ago this country will not be at the forefront of this new clean industrial revolution.

As for subsidies George Osbourne has decided to give fracking companies the biggest tax break in the world whilst reducing investment in green technology. So we'll be lumbered with a bunch of rich JR Ewings and our Isambard Kingdom Brunels will go to where they're actually wanted, abroad.
[quote][p][bold]DeanLucas[/bold] wrote: @ HJarrs "It is pure faith when it is trotted out that fracking is some form of answer to climate change or that climate change is not happening." I said neither. Fracking is not the single short term answer to climate change, but in the short term it is one of the most powerful options we have. In the long term it is not the answer to climate change either, that will require many things working in combination. I do not care about what you think about my science, but I can judge you from what you take on board and how you behave with regard to the IPCC. For some reason you are cherry picking them. Do not claim that I am not being scientific when all I am doing is agreeing with the IPCC with regard to short term benefits of switching from coal to gas. Please, if you are going to try and berate me use some valid analysis of data, not just words. Put some effort in and use some context. Describe what your plan would be. How it would work. What would be required. Europe generates just 1.5% of its energy from renewables with a subsidy of 280billion euros. If you want to switch to 100% renewables when please show how that can work economically and how quickly it can be done and at what cost.[/p][/quote]What rubbish! You're no expert. Europe generates 15% of it's energy from renewables, a bit more than the 1.5% you stated. Can you supply a link to prove your other value of 280bn euros a year subsidies, or is that poppycock too? Germany has been generating 50% of it's electricity from renewables recently. It has also created a huge well-skilled export industry for it's renewable technologies. Unlike a couple of hundred years ago this country will not be at the forefront of this new clean industrial revolution. As for subsidies George Osbourne has decided to give fracking companies the biggest tax break in the world whilst reducing investment in green technology. So we'll be lumbered with a bunch of rich JR Ewings and our Isambard Kingdom Brunels will go to where they're actually wanted, abroad. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: -3

8:11am Sat 28 Jun 14

balcomberesident says...

We can force West Sussex County Council to debate fracking and see where our councillors stand on it. Sign and share the official WSCC epetition:

http://epetition.wes
tsussex.public-i.tv/
epetition_core/commu
nity/petition/2749
We can force West Sussex County Council to debate fracking and see where our councillors stand on it. Sign and share the official WSCC epetition: http://epetition.wes tsussex.public-i.tv/ epetition_core/commu nity/petition/2749 balcomberesident
  • Score: -3

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