to think Caroline Lucas is fantastic

(59 Posts)
kim147 Tue 20-Aug-13 19:22:09

What with her recent contribution to the Page 3 debate in the House of Commons and her recent arrest at a sit in about fracking - she's just great.

You might not agree with her politics but she certainly has passion.

bemybebe Fri 23-Aug-13 19:12:06

Unless we are starting a war with Russia or intend to piss off Norway we do not have a security issue.

I cannot see who wrote this but seriously, do you not follow the news at all? There were numerous gas supply issues from Russia with some major disruptions all across Europe as a result.

flatpackhamster Fri 23-Aug-13 14:51:21

MiniTheMinx

So - the Independent claim Greenpeace claim that the PR guy for the oil company claimed that gas prices won't fall.

Not a very authoritative source.

Unless we are starting a war with Russia or intend to piss off Norway we do not have a security issue.

Your idea of a good time might be to be in hock to the Russians and at their beck and call for oil and gas. Mine isn't. Energy security and independence are worthwhile goals in themselves, and weakening the power of an aggressive dictatorship who don't have the UK's interests at heart is another one.

"The only way it could be cheaper would be if the government sought to penalise gas imports through higher duties, which would be illegal under EU and World Trade Organisation rules. As for energy security, it is absurd to imply that gas extracted from the Norwegian sector of the North Sea is less secure than from the UK sector, unless you expect FT readers to believe that Norway could be overthrown by a hostile regime"

The fact that Mr Brown claims that the government should be 'aiming' to 'decarbonise' the economy shows you where he's coming from. The letter is clearly written from the perspective of an AGW evangelist.

And did it ever occur to you that his bank might be heavily invested in the renewables sector? The last thing they would want is the UK government cutting subsidies in that area and reducing the UK's dependence on renewables. No, of course it didn't -as it clearly hasn't occurred to any of the bonkers climate fundamentalists who are passing that link around the internet like it's on fire.

MiniTheMinx Fri 23-Aug-13 00:19:28

flatpackhamster, you are obsessed with communism, more so than me grin I rarely mention it but you never stop talking about it.

“We've done an analysis and it's a very small…at the most it's a very small percentage…basically insignificant,” said Mark Linder, a public relations executive at Bell Pottinger who is also responsible for Cuadrilla's corporate development. www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/cuadrilla-pr-man-admits-george-osbornes-shale-gas-revolution-wont-cut-energy-bills-8656246.html

Any savings will not be passed to consumers and the cost of clearing up the environmental damage will be met by tax payers, whilst the companies themselves are being given millions of pounds in tax payers money as subsidies.

"The only way it could be cheaper would be if the government sought to penalise gas imports through higher duties, which would be illegal under EU and World Trade Organisation rules. As for energy security, it is absurd to imply that gas extracted from the Norwegian sector of the North Sea is less secure than from the UK sector, unless you expect FT readers to believe that Norway could be overthrown by a hostile regime"
liberalconspiracy.org/2013/08/12/banker-destroys-argument-for-shale-gas-in-a-short-letter/

Unless we are starting a war with Russia or intend to piss off Norway we do not have a security issue.

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 21:34:21

BangOn

You're right, flatpack, you've convinced me we should all learn to stop worrying and embrace nuclear power. and nuclear waste. and all the world's future Chernobyls, because godawful accidents hardly ever happen, and hey, what's a few hundred thousand gallons of highly radioactive water between friends?

Chernobyl can't happen again. Nobody ever built those kinds of reactors except the Soviets. The design was flawed from the outset because the Soviets were always prepared to risk any number of people's lives in order to achieve an end that the State wanted.

BangOn Thu 22-Aug-13 21:00:51

You're right, flatpack, you've convinced me we should all learn to stop worrying and embrace nuclear power. and nuclear waste. and all the world's future Chernobyls, because godawful accidents hardly ever happen, and hey, what's a few hundred thousand gallons of highly radioactive water between friends?

cumfy Thu 22-Aug-13 20:31:14

I think we need more politicians like Caroline Lucas, who have a longview.

Politics is riddled with egotistical short-termism.

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 18:19:41

Amused that you think "OMG Power plant destroyed by tsunami is PROOF OF UNRELIABILITY OF NUKULEAR!!!111!".

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 18:19:03

BangOn

Flatpackhamster - and how many MWs is Fukushima generating nowadays exactly? Not so reliable now, is it?!

I don't imagine there are many power plants that would be able to generate after an earthquake and a tsunami.

Fukushima's problem (as you no doubt know) was that it ran out of coolant due to the destruction of the infrastructure after the tsunami. It could have withstood the earthquake - Japanese reactors are designed to. At its peak, apparently, it could generate nearly 4,700MW. Two of the six reactors are still operational, although they are currently shut down. The remaining four are decomissioned after the meltdown.

BangOn Thu 22-Aug-13 18:10:43

Flatpackhamster - and how many MWs is Fukushima generating nowadays exactly? Not so reliable now, is it?! hmm

BangOn Thu 22-Aug-13 18:07:41

I lurve her. Such intelligence & passion. A friend of mine used to work with her before she was elected, & in her early days as an MP, & was blown at the sheer amount of knowledge she just has 'up here' without teams of speechwriters or assistants flapping around her. So calm, cool, collected & lucid.

thebirdsandbees Thu 22-Aug-13 18:02:15

Love her! She's a politician with morals.

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 17:55:44

Meerkatwhiskers

As for wind power, I don't have sources but I am sure i've read somewhere that it also isn't a viable energy source. The farm that is off the kent coast, for example, is not enough to power many houses for a length of time so you would need to cover a vast ocean to get enough power. Might have been from a museum I've been to thinking about it around the south-east coast.

There are lots of problems with wind and solar, but the biggest one in terms of relying on it for power is what's called Base Load. Base load is the minimum amount that the plant generates. You work out how much the country needs, and your power plants need to generate that as a minimum.

The great thing about nuclear, for example, is that a 1000MW reactor will produce 1000MW of power. Wind doesn't have a base load, because sometimes the wind doesn't blow, or isn't blowing hard enough, or is blowing too hard.

So you can't use wind - or solar - for your base load. You need to have a backup for it.

Denmark, which has buckets of wind turbines, has to import power from Germany when the wind doesn't blow, because it doesn't have enough base load to provide power for its needs.

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 17:52:14

VerySmallSqueak

I have no i thingies,and no freezer and no dishwasher. I also have no car. Of course I use energy. But I would be far happier to reduce my useage further as I have said.

But what will you give up? You're going to have to cut your consumption in half. In fact, more than half, because I'm not going to cut mine.

On to the second point. Wind power.Solar power. Stuff that isn't going to fuck the planet. Is that ok?

Not really. Do you know how they make wind turbines? They use a rare earth, called Neodymium, for the magnets. To extract it they use a technique called acid leaching. They hose the piles of rock down with sulphuric and other acids, and that draws out the rare earths.

This requires masses of water and lots of acid. Once the rare earths are extracted, you're left with tailing lakes - tens of millions of gallons of toxic waste.

Because 90% of rare earths are produced in China, the production of rare earths is poorly regulated. The tailing lakes leach in to the ground. It poisons the water table, kills wildlife, crops and cattle.

It might be out of sight, but it's fucking the planet just the same.

3rd point. Shit happens. We do have earthquakes and tsunamis.It's the nature of the beast. If you recall,no earthquake or tsunamis were involved in the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island meltdowns.....

4th point. Sweetness and light as ever aren't you,flatpack,me dear.

Would you listen any more if I was? Of course not, because you already know it all. Just like you know all about acid leaching.

I know all I need to know.

Ahh, the Big Three. Look, shout the anti-nuclear campaigners. Chernobyl! Three Mile Island! Fukushima! And no matter how clearly the science is explained, it matters not, because the closed mind decrees that all nuclear must be bad, because - oooh, nuclear, scary.

Meerkatwhiskers Thu 22-Aug-13 15:55:49

Thanks for letting me know where the site is Mini. I live further up the Balcombe Road so a little oblivious to it really (in a bigger town, by the motorway junction).

My uncle explained to me the other day how solar panels that they install on your roof work and they aren't even worth the cost of building them. The amount of energy they create will not even heat up a kettle let alone your bath. For a country that doesn't have sun most of the year it just isn't a viable source of energy. He's a engineer and designs all things like that btw.

As for wind power, I don't have sources but I am sure i've read somewhere that it also isn't a viable energy source. The farm that is off the kent coast, for example, is not enough to power many houses for a length of time so you would need to cover a vast ocean to get enough power. Might have been from a museum I've been to thinking about it around the south-east coast.

At the end of the day, we are consuming energy, we need cheaper energy, they are offering cheaper energy, yes please!! I'm with Flatpack (are you from Ikea? lol)

VerySmallSqueak Thu 22-Aug-13 15:26:30

flatpack.

I have no i thingies,and no freezer and no dishwasher. I also have no car.

Of course I use energy. But I would be far happier to reduce my useage further as I have said.

On to the second point. Wind power.Solar power. Stuff that isn't going to fuck the planet. Is that ok?

3rd point. Shit happens. We do have earthquakes and tsunamis.It's the nature of the beast. If you recall,no earthquake or tsunamis were involved in the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island meltdowns.....

4th point. Sweetness and light as ever aren't you,flatpack,me dear.

I know all I need to know.

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 14:27:39

VerySmallSqueak

I would rather decrease my energy useage than take chances with the environment and my childrens future to decrease my bills.

By how much? What will you turn off? Will you go without a freezer or a fridge or a car to 'save the planet'? How about if we got rid of your iPad? Your phone? Your cooker?

I'm serious - what will you go without?

I am also anti nuclear energy.

What sort of energy do you approve of? What do you consider 'acceptable'?

We were promised negligible fuel bills,which didn't materialise,but as we speak the Fukishima reactor is still leaking radioactivity.

Yes, that's what happens when a nuclear power station is hit with a devastating earthquake and a gigantic tsunami. It's not an argument against nuclear power at all, really.

Where does it all end?

Hopefully with you learning a bit about nuclear power.

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 14:15:33

HystericalParoxysm

Flat pack I'm interested as to why you are so pro fracking?

Firstly, cheaper gas is good for everyone, particularly those on low incomes. Fuel poverty is a direct consequence of high fuel prices. Electricity prices have doubled since 2005. Under the EU's renewables directive, they're calculated to double again in 7 years (in real terms). People will go hungry and cold without fracking. With it, we'll see real improvements in people's quality of life if the fall in gas prices that has appeared in the US is replicated here. Far fewer old men and women dying of hypothermia in winter is a good thing.

Secondly, fracking brings jobs - particularly skilled, technical jobs - to areas that are desperate for skilled employment. Northern England is crying out for skilled technical employment.

Thirdly, it frees us from dependence on Russian gas and oil, which means that we can make political decisions which might upset them without having to worry about whether they're going to raise the price of oil.

Fourthly, cheaper gas means the cost of doing business falls. European businesses are paying four times the price for gas that American businesses are paying. That's affecting their ability to compete and that also means that they employ fewer people.

VerySmallSqueak Thu 22-Aug-13 14:04:57

I,for one, am a normal person,certainly not smug and rich.

I would rather decrease my energy useage than take chances with the environment and my childrens future to decrease my bills.

I am also anti nuclear energy.

We were promised negligible fuel bills,which didn't materialise,but as we speak the Fukishima reactor is still leaking radioactivity.

Where does it all end?

HystericalParoxysm Thu 22-Aug-13 13:20:49

Flat pack I'm interested as to why you are so pro fracking?

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 11:48:48

Apparently, the Democratic governor of the US state of Colorado drank the fluid used for fracking at a meeting with Halliburton to discuss safety issues.

Since he's still the governor of Colorado, I think it's probably not quite as dangerous as the ecomentalists would like you to believe.

TramadolDaze Thu 22-Aug-13 08:00:58

luckylavender Wed 21-Aug-13 18:08:34

Those of you who love the self-publicist that is Caroline Lucas probably don't live in Brighton where her green agenda has pushed businesses to the brink and driven tourists out of the town

Exactly that. Traffic at a standstill at peak times. Bus lanes that have overtaken main through routes and rendered them all but unusable. Parking charges on the seafront up from £9 for the day to £20 - that's really going to encourage visitors to come and spend their money here isn't it. I could go on but it's too depressing. Hope her raggy stewed lentil arse is voted the fuck out at the next available opportunity.

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 07:28:43

Damnit. Broken link. I'll try again.

flatpackhamster Thu 22-Aug-13 07:28:15

Those sneering about the 'Reds under the bed' thing - Apparently a declassified Polish intelligence report last year showed that Russian spies are engaged in widespread espionage activities targeting Poland's shale projects - that they are actively lobbying the EU to have fracking banned http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10257988/Polands-shale-drive-will-transform-Europe-if-it-does-not-drop-the-ball.html. Russia uses the EU's dependence on it for oil and gas as a political lever.

MiniTheMinx

Sorry I copied and should have checked. Over 300 chemicals are used in total. Some of the chemicals used are known carcinogens.

Which isn't a problem since you're not eating or drinking them. Just as you wouldn't, say, eat and drink the chemicals used to clean the tankers that transport milk around the country, or you wouldn't eat and drink the chemicals used to sterilise the floors of the supermarket.

^The site at Balcombe is on the London Rd, south of the Railway Station.
Any seismic activity will probably bring the viaduct down!^

This is so mental I don't even know what to do with it.

Reduced consumer costs are not a good argument.

If you're a smug rich greenie. If you're a normal person, paying £600 a year less on heating and electricity would be great.

The companies involved in this ecocide have admitted that this won't bring down domestic fuel costs.

Link, please. Gas costs in the US have halved.

iyuo Wed 21-Aug-13 20:53:56

Whilst its good to see people standing up for what they believe Lucas is a left-wing lunatic so I can credit her no further.

MiniTheMinx Wed 21-Aug-13 20:13:20

Sorry I copied and should have checked. Over 300 chemicals are used in total. Some of the chemicals used are known carcinogens.

frack-off.org.uk/campaign-materials/science-and-data/ plenty of information here about the dangers of fracking.

The site at Balcombe is on the London Rd, south of the Railway Station.
Any seismic activity will probably bring the viaduct down!

Reduced consumer costs are not a good argument. The companies involved in this ecocide have admitted that this won't bring down domestic fuel costs.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now