The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

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

Great news. Caroline Lucas and other protesters against fracking at the Caudrilla site in Sussex, who were arrested on public order and obstruction charges, have all been found not guilty on all counts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27069345



This is excellent. Caudrilla, which is being used by Big Gas and Oil to test the water for fracking in the UK (no pun intended) is headed by Lord Browne, previously of BP and the subject of numerous allegations about perjuring himself in court and misusing company funds.

Fracking will not address the UK's energy needs, will not lower gas prices in the UK and will, if permitted, cause substantial local environmental damage and threaten water quality. It also leads to increased CO2 emissions.

Scroll to see replies

I love my MP. I actually told her that when I met her. She looked kinda scared.
Reply 2
Avatar for Genocidal
Genocidal
19
Fracking seems to be working fine in America.
Original post by SmallTownGirl
I love my MP. I actually told her that when I met her. She looked kinda scared.


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.
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.


**** yeah. Brighton is where it's at.
Original post by Genocidal
Fracking seems to be working fine in America.


They have a very different picture there, energy is a local market - our gas prices are set at the European level and any fracked gas would be bought and sold there. So the price advantage is highly unlikely to be anywhere near what it has been in the US.

It also depends on what you mean by 'working fine'. Yes, it's increasing gas supply in the short term. However, it is also keeping the country hooked on fossil fuels, delaying the inevitable switching and increasing CO2 emissions in the meantime. There is a large amount of CO2 leakage in the fracking process and it is more damaging in greenhouse terms than traditional gas extraction.
Reply 6
Avatar for Genocidal
Genocidal
19
Original post by Fullofsurprises
They have a very different picture there, energy is a local market - our gas prices are set at the European level and any fracked gas would be bought and sold there. So the price advantage is highly unlikely to be anywhere near what it has been in the US.

It also depends on what you mean by 'working fine'. Yes, it's increasing gas supply in the short term. However, it is also keeping the country hooked on fossil fuels, delaying the inevitable switching and increasing CO2 emissions in the meantime. There is a large amount of CO2 leakage in the fracking process and it is more damaging in greenhouse terms than traditional gas extraction.


America won't be switching. In fact, by 2050 they're expected to increase oil production and become the world's largest producer of oil. With that plus fracking they have no motivation to change. And let's be honest, few ordinary people truly care about CO2 emissions enough to make changes.

If there's enough fracked gas produced then why couldn't that change? The British government might find it's superior to make ourselves a local energy market. We don't know this yet though because we don't know whether there's a little gas or a huge amount.

Obviously, we wouldn't have the same price advantage as the US, but it might be significant.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Great news. Caroline Lucas and other protesters against fracking at the Caudrilla site in Sussex, who were arrested on public order and obstruction charges, have all been found not guilty on all counts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27069345



This is excellent. Caudrilla, which is being used by Big Gas and Oil to test the water for fracking in the UK (no pun intended) is headed by Lord Browne, previously of BP and the subject of numerous allegations about perjuring himself in court and misusing company funds.

Fracking will not address the UK's energy needs, will not lower gas prices in the UK and will, if permitted, cause substantial local environmental damage and threaten water quality. It also leads to increased CO2 emissions.


How can has which reduces CO2 emissions lead to an increase in CO2 emissions? It churns out less than half the CO2 emissions per KWH than a coal fired power station does.

Are you aware the water table stuff is rubbish?
Reply 8
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Can't argue with the jobs and growth that fracking will generate, I'm all for getting anything out of the ground that we have in abundance and profit from.

The water issue is solvable given greater regulation.
Original post by Rakas21
Can't argue with the jobs and growth that fracking will generate, I'm all for getting anything out of the ground that we have in abundance and profit from.

The water issue is solvable given greater regulation.


Unless its coal.


Whilst I am neutral on the topic of Fracking I am glad they didn't get prosecuted.
Original post by Rakas21
Can't argue with the jobs and growth that fracking will generate, I'm all for getting anything out of the ground that we have in abundance and profit from.

The water issue is solvable given greater regulation.


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.
Original post by MatureStudent36
How can has which reduces CO2 emissions lead to an increase in CO2 emissions? It churns out less than half the CO2 emissions per KWH than a coal fired power station does.

Are you aware the water table stuff is rubbish?


Except it isn't. Based on the evidence we have at the moment, fracking can cause water pollution and there is a risk of it happening here.
Reply 12
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Unless its coal.

Whilst I am neutral on the topic of Fracking I am glad they didn't get prosecuted.


UK coal is uncompetitive, it's cheaper just to import it from the likes of China.

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.


Which if it causes water issues will be bad but the weakest regulatory regime in Europe is still probably more regulated than the USA.
Original post by Rakas21


Which if it causes water issues will be bad but the weakest regulatory regime in Europe is still probably more regulated than the USA.


That isn't saying a lot. In the US, it has effectively been unregulated.
Original post by Rakas21
UK coal is uncompetitive, it's cheaper just to import it from the likes of China.


I know.
Original post by MatureStudent36
How can has which reduces CO2 emissions lead to an increase in CO2 emissions? It churns out less than half the CO2 emissions per KWH than a coal fired power station does.

Are you aware the water table stuff is rubbish?


Fracking releases large quantities of methane, a much more intense greenhouse gas than CO2. It isn't me saying that, it's detailed research in the US.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-would-emit-methane/
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Fracking releases large quantities of methane, a much more intense greenhouse gas than CO2. It isn't me saying that, it's detailed research in the US.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-would-emit-methane/


The article lost me when it claims that fracking creates earthquakes.
Original post by MatureStudent36
The article lost me when it claims that fracking creates earthquakes.


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.
Reply 18
Avatar for Rakas21
Rakas21
21
Original post by MatureStudent36
The article lost me when it claims that fracking creates earthquakes.


They do, tiny ones though. It takes a 5.0 to threaten to bring down a chimney though and they are much smaller than that.

When it produces a 6.0 then that is the time to worry.
Original post by Rakas21
They do, tiny ones though. It takes a 5.0 to threaten to bring down a chimney though and they are much smaller than that.

When it produces a 6.0 then that is the time to worry.


A bus passing my house on a road creates a stronger earthquake than fracking.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you