Caroline Lucas found not guilty at fracking protests - CPS and government failed

Fracking will reduce energy bills. Just take a look at the US. There gas bills practicably halved since they start fracking. Oh and if its Europe that sets our prices another good reason to leave the EU.

Fracking is much better than silly wind power which just ups energy prices. No wonder some people are experiencing fuel poverty.
Of course fracking is not a long term solution. We need to invest in nuclear energy (something the technophobic Green Party opposes) as it is much more efficient than wind. Investment in nuclear fission will always increase investment in nuclear fusion which is the Holy Grail of energy production (although it still is about 30 years away).

But at this moment in time, I say ignore the doomongers and frack away!

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 21

chrisawhitmore

14

Original post by Falcatas

Fracking will reduce energy bills. Just take a look at the US. There gas bills practicably halved since they start fracking. Oh and if its Europe that sets our prices another good reason to leave the EU.

Fracking is much better than silly wind power which just ups energy prices. No wonder some people are experiencing fuel poverty.
Of course fracking is not a long term solution. We need to invest in nuclear energy (something the technophobic Green Party opposes) as it is much more efficient than wind. Investment in nuclear fission will always increase investment in nuclear fusion which is the Holy Grail of energy production (although it still is about 30 years away).

But at this moment in time, I say ignore the doomongers and frack away!

We should follow the Greens advice and do what Germany did. Get rid of nuclear, invest heavily in renewables.

It's given them higher energy prices and increased pollution.

Reply 22

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Fullofsurprises

But the current government are determined not to regulate it. They have already signalled that the UK will have the weakest regulatory attitude to fracking in Europe. Also, it hardly inspires confidence that the lead company is headed by the former head of BP, a company notorious for its indifference to the local environment surrounding extraction operations.

Evidence for that wild arsed assumption please? And not an environmental website. I'd like the required reference in Hansard please

Reply 23

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Fullofsurprises

And your point is? There is no question that fracking causes earthquakes, even the UK authorities admit that the small one at Blackpool was caused by it. They are low intensity but they are quakes.

I think you should try reading the whole article and stop making silly non-points.

https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/dei/ResearchBrief_InducedSeismicity_final.pdf

Reply 24

Fullofsurprises

OP

20

Original post by MatureStudent36

Evidence for that wild arsed assumption please? And not an environmental website. I'd like the required reference in Hansard please

Actually the regulations would be set at the EU level, so it's not Hansard that's relevant, but the UK government have deliberately thwarted EU-level attempts to set legally binding regulations, the only possible reason they would do this is so that they won't have to legislate about it in the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/uk-defeats-european-bid-fracking-regulations

Reply 25

Fullofsurprises

OP

20

Several people in the thread have suggested that fracking in the UK will be well regulated and therefore the water table, etc, will not be affected.

Who better to suggest guidelines for safe practise than the Royal Society? They produced a detailed report laying down such guidelines.
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/shale-gas-extraction/report/

Unfortunately it was promptly rejected by the Coalition.

Reply 26

MatureStudent36

5

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Actually the regulations would be set at the EU level, so it's not Hansard that's relevant, but the UK government have deliberately thwarted EU-level attempts to set legally binding regulations, the only possible reason they would do this is so that they won't have to legislate about it in the UK.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/14/uk-defeats-european-bid-fracking-regulations

So we've gone from the Government intends to have poor regulation to the EU wants poor regulation.

You've quoted the Guardian. No official reference. Interesting you've done that but not surprising. Tell me, where was that double dip and triple dip recession the Guardian said we had?

Reply 27

Fullofsurprises

OP

20

Original post by MatureStudent36

So we've gone from the Government intends to have poor regulation to the EU wants poor regulation.

You've quoted the Guardian. No official reference. Interesting you've done that but not surprising. Tell me, where was that double dip and triple dip recession the Guardian said we had?

If it's false, why would the head of the fracking representative body applaud the decision? Stop making ludicrous points. The Guardian is the only paper brave enough to take the industry on, the rest are all completely in hock to big energy for their advertising revenues.

Reply 28

Huskaris

16

I'd rather a few mini trembles in the ground and have to read about a few muesli munching vegans protesting for a few weeks than know we have to rely on Vlad the insaner for our sweet delicious gas.

Reply 29

L i b

19

Original post by Fullofsurprises

CPS and government failed

Well, the CPS did. The Government didn't have any input on it. This isn't North Korea.

headed by Lord Browne, previously of BP and the subject of numerous allegations about perjuring himself in court and misusing company funds.

In other words "he's never actually been found guilty of a crime in a court of law, but I'm going to throw some muck around - despite the slight irony of doing so while claiming a not guilty verdict is a vindication of someone else".

Fracking will not address the UK's energy needs, will not lower gas prices in the UK

Of course it will. To suggest otherwise is frankly borderline barmy. More domestic gas lowers gas prices, and improves our energy security.

Reply 30

Solemn Rain

18

What's the alternative?

Reply 31

Falcatas

9

Original post by Solemn Rain

What's the alternative?

Cut back our sinful habits of consumerism and live more modest and meagre existance. That is really what the gospel of Green demands.

Reply 32

cambio wechsel

20

Original post by Fullofsurprises

You're in Brighton? That's great. :cool:

I expect she gets a lot of weird stuff chucked at her, so don't worry, I'm sure she appreciates whatever support is sent her way. She does a great job.

I have always felt that what was done to Keith Taylor was rather a disgrace.

Reply 33

felamaslen

15

Original post by Falcatas

Cut back our sinful habits of consumerism and live more modest and meagre existance. That is really what the gospel of Green demands.

I suspect most people who say that don't really know what it is like to live in poverty.

Reply 34

Observatory

20

The debate about fracking itself aside - why was she found not guilty? It seems like her intention to block a highway (iirc the charge) was broadcast by her pretty much openly?

Reply 35

St. Brynjar

18

Original post by Falcatas

Cut back our sinful habits of consumerism and live more modest and meagre existance. That is really what the gospel of Green demands.

That's what will happen regardless of who's in power if we keep using fossil fuels.

Reply 36

SHallowvale

14

Original post by chrisawhitmore

We should follow the Greens advice and do what Germany did. Get rid of nuclear, invest heavily in renewables.

It's given them higher energy prices and increased pollution.

Source?

Reply 37

Falcatas

9

Original post by St. Brynjar

That's what will happen regardless of who's in power if we keep using fossil fuels.

Another 50 years of fossil fuel use won't cause the sky to fall or anything. Nuclear is still the best option in the long term.

Reply 38

St. Brynjar

18

Original post by Falcatas

Another 50 years of fossil fuel use won't cause the sky to fall or anything. Nuclear is still the best option in the long term.

But if we continue to rely on them so heavily then when they run out we'll be completely unable to adjust to a new way of life which doesn't involve unsustainable fuels. Forget foreign holidays or car ownership for the average person. My main gripe with fracking that it promotes this.

I agree nuclear is probably the way to go with a large chunk of our energy but to neglect other forms completely is painfully blind-sighted.

Oh and another 50 years will be catastrophic for the environment, since the last hundred or so have potentially ended the 2.6 million year-old sequence of ice ages that have characterised the Quaternary.