Comments on: Toxic gas: why we need to stop fracking

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Sat, 27 Jul 2013 19:22:34 +0000

Plenty of indendendent, scientific studies exist (in addition to the “anecdotal” misery of real people) to illustrate the problems with fracking. Shale gas is NOT a clean alternative. Another problem here is Lord Browne’s appalling conflict of interest. He has a highly influential cabinet post, appointing people who made decisions that affected his personal profit. The jobs and economic benefits certainly have not materialised in the States or Australia. In fact, many jobs in farming and organic produce have been sacrificed; house prices are inflated by O&G employees; local roads are ruined by heavy vehicles; health problems rise. Nanotechnology promises to multiply the output of renewables, making it a far more reasonable investment than finite shale gas. If schoolgirl Eesha Khare can develop a supercapacitor to charge her cell phone within seconds, surely we have a real hope of developing renewable energy that will serve our needs?

By: Dom

Dom — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:27:48 +0000

A good article, with well-made points. Most of the locations selected for licensing cannot support the sheer volume of tanker traffic, or the huge volumes of water required. Something like 50% of wells have casings that break, as a measure of the seismic events that are part of the process : the fracking companies normally take out ‘seismic permits’. The ASA warned one company, Cuadrilla, over misleading information when it dumped toxic waste in the Manchester Ship Canal. They continue to use this misleading information about safety, however, in contempt of the order, but it is perhaps no wonder since its Chairman, Lord Brown of Madingley has been shown to have lied on oath, according to the judge in a case revolving on his dishonesty.

By: John Pritchard

John Pritchard — Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:31:13 +0000

Concerning the issue of gas-land as the bible of truth your right it should not be, maybe inspire you to go on and do some proper research into the subject and get evidence from INDEPENDENT scientist concerning this subject.
As for the rebuttal of Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney with the documentary FrackNation, this is anything but impartial and uses emotive language and not pure science on the issue. I would also like to point out that Phelim McAleer has made a other films refuting climate change i.e. ‘Not Evil just Wrong’ a rebuttal of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, Phelim McAleer is not an independent filmmaker looking to bring another view and highlight misinformation but as many have accused him a corporate interest puppet and everything he has done points to this.
We do need to take ourselves away from utter dependence from fossil fuels, and I am in the camp that we need to take another serious look at nuclear (maybe not popular with some greens but the science needs to be looked at and the problems addressed), along with fossil fuels and renewables without the emotive language used by all camps.
Far more money needs to be invested into new technologies for energy production because I do not want to see a return to the dark ages that some environmentalist do, nor do I want to see the world destroyed by insane corporations looking no further than the next bonus.
One last note concerning the class issue, this is not about class this is about the survival of the species as we know it and there is a lot about the human race that I would like to keep: science, literature, art, community and our questioning nature, the list is a long one. Regretfully we live in insane times and ruled by scum that have no idea what they are doing and look no further than self-gratification and demean us all as a species, the class issue is a distraction, nonsense and makes me sick to my stomach and before anyone asks, never had money(paid minimum wage).

By: Alec

Alec — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 02:38:16 +0000

Can you give an example of how we could possibly run our country on renewables? I’m curious as to what you have in mind? I don;t think fracking is a very good solution, but (and that’s a very big BUT) our country is broke. Surely fracking our enormous supply would free us from expensive imports, allowing us to wean ourselves of them easier. I don’t understand what you are suggesting? Wind farms everywhere and solar panels for everyone?

The sad truth is lots more research needs to be done on these methods before we can use them, and even then they are only short term. Climate change is a worldwide problem, and there simply isn’t enough of the precious metals around make more solar panels.

You’re all for developing renewables, but not developing fracking to make it safer?

By: Nel

Nel — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:00:20 +0000

I’d rather not have the lights on if I had no clean water to drink, or any food to eat. I’ve worked in renewables and I’ve worked in conventional – renewables can and do work, and the only way they’ll become even more efficient is to keep developing them.

Nick talks about scientific reality – the process of extracting shale is still experimental, that is the reality. It has been proven – and not just shown on Gaslands – that fracking has a massive impact on water and air quality in the immediate and intermediate vicinity. On a small island such as Britain, is the risk worth taking? Are we really that desperate for more gas?? I don’t think so

By: Alec

Alec — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:27:06 +0000

Nick has some very good points about renewables not being solution, even though we would all like them to be.

One point I’d like to make is that the majority of the controversy surrounding the environmental effects of fracking stems from a well intentioned but unfounded Green campaign. It all started with a man making a documentary called ‘Gasland’. This is where most people stop at how much they know about this issue. Some of the issues raised in Gasland were startling, and I was horrified that in the postscript there were plans to go ahead with fracking in the UK.

But then an independent documentary filmaker kickstarted another documentary, investigating the claims of Gasland. The amount of stuff that was wrong with Gasland was unbelievable. People pretending to be scientists, people pretending to have flames come out their taps so they could sue the fracking companies. The guy that made Gasland refused to talk about any of it, and just got angry when confronted.

I’m not saying fracking is good. But people should question everything they read, and not just jump on the bandwagon everytime it rides past.

By: Nick Grealy

Nick Grealy — Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:26:17 +0000

Disappointed that left wing progressives would get tricked into allying themselves with the Green Tea Party one percent who ensure that the Cameron cuts to education, health and public services will continue.

Shale gas is our gas: it belongs to everyone in the UK. The use, or not of natural resources are one of the few communitarian choices we have left.
Renewables are a lifestyle choice of the affluent that shouldn’t be confused with an actual means of keeping the lights on. They sound noble and easy, but the reality is that they simply don’t work. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying, but we do need to inject scientific reality.

How do Tony and Helen propose to supply gas? We will need it for many years to back up renewables , and nuclear another option the Friends of the Earth reject. The FoE love the earth because they already own so much of it it seems to me. Look at the unlikely alliance they are trying to cobble together between Southern Tories and the anarchists at Frack Off for example.

Tony and Helen have no way to keep the lights on. They simply enable coal, and ensure that we export billions to import gas to support the Qatari Royal Family, We forego tax revenue that could be used for social needs, not to buy football clubs. In the meantime, they also condemn working people to fuel poverty and will ensure mass layoffs in the chemical and steel industries.

The CGT in France for example are full supporters of shale gas exploration and trying to divorce Greens and Socialists. That is the model we need to have: Using the people’s resources to serve the people’s needs. All of them, not just the nimbys who are happy to condemn the Arctic to environmental destruction so they don’t get disturbed by working people driving trucks.

We need a full debate on using our common resources. The Greens need to tell us exactly what they would do, but the Reds need to defend the people’s wealth.
Mix Red and Green and we end up Yellow!

By: ursula stubbings

ursula stubbings — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:45:48 +0000

Fracking is not the way forward -it is grossly inefficient and polluting of the environment.