to utterly disagree with the Government's stance on fracking?

[deeedeee]

to think if New York, Quebec, New Brunwick, Holland have all banned fracking in the last month then you'd expect our government to be doing the same, not giddily offering tax breaks.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30525540
www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/17/new-york-state-fracking-ban-two-years-public-health
montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/couillard-rules-out-fracking
globalnews.ca/news/1734016/nb-government-to-introduce-fracking-moratorium/

All these places have listened to increasing scientific studies and say that the risks to public health are too great. Compare this to our prime minister's approach. www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/16/cameron-windfarm-subsidies-onshore-energy

This government is not protecting our health and environment. We all need to look into why and ask them to stop.

The prime minister thinks that opposition will magically disappear when they have steam rollered through the infrastructure bill and wells are up and running www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25735548

How does this compare to the fact that the UK's only current well has already caused two earthquakes and already leaked?

www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-ruffalo/the-science-on-fracking_b_6336392.html

The much mooted regulations that David Cameron talks about are a red herring for two reasons. The first is that if the industry was properly regulated to stop risk to public health, the industry would not be economically viable. Look at the attached map of the central belt of scotland, a densely populated and heavily farmed area. The map shows in green the areas that would be unavailable to the Unconventional Gas Industry if a 2km Buffer zone was introduced. Meaning that a gas company wouldn't be able to drill any closer than 2km from YOUR HOUSE. Which is a reasonable safety precaution to protect your health and the health of your children. You can quite clearly see that the only white areas left are hills, areas in which the geology makes them unlikely to be profitable.

The second is that, as stated in this newly released scientific compendium that directly influenced New York's decision to ban it states 'First, growing evidence shows that regulations are simply not capable of preventing harm. That is both because the number of wells and their attendant infrastructure keeps increasing and, more importantly, because some of fracking’s many component parts, which include the subterranean geological landscape itself, are simply not controllable." concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CHPNY-Fracking-Compendium.pdf

OH blah blah. Are you back again?

OP, I couldn't give a festive frack about this issue.

Yawn.

weird cat lady, did you read any of that?

Nope. Not one word. I skimmed and saw saw that it was you bleating on about this again, despite your last thread being full of people far smarter than me disproving everything you said.

Saw saw? I honestly only saw once

You are right, but I don't see what we can do. I wrote to my MP in June to ask him to oppose fracking, and he refused because he thinks it's fine [skeptical].

There will have to be a large number of deaths or a major environmental disaster to stop fracking. Sadly it will only be a matter of time.

Fracking has been used in the North Sea for nearly 50 years. It has also been used in around 200 onshore gas and oil wells in the UK - around 10% of onshore wells including Wytch Farm in Dorset. There was no significant opposition until onshore shale gas wells using the technique were proposed.

The government's current position follows recommendations from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, both of which are independent. It is not unreasonable to say you disagree but the government's position is based on the available evidence.

It is, of course, the case that new evidence sometimes emerges showing that scientists have got it wrong. But fracking is not the new, untested technology that objectors would have you believe.

prh47bridge you are talking about the conventional gas industry. The scale and intensity of fracking and the unconventional gas industry and the closeness to human habitation, ground water and agriculture make the unconventional gas industry make it a completely different prospect. The two industries may share a technique, but they are very different in terms of risk. Please read this concernedhealthny.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CHPNY-Fracking-Compendium.pdf

There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Coffeethrowtrampbitch then please write back and argue with your MP. Many MP's are ill informed and are just following their party line. Please right back to them, citing the evidence from the New York fracking ban and ask them to support the amendments for Part 5 of Infrastructure Bill tabled by N Baker and C Lucas . Photo attached.

Link to OP's previous thread where she/he was proved to be U

So first you insult me, and now you accuse me of trolling you?

I've reported you AGAIN OP.

Ahem - peace and love everyone...

I don't get why we're putting so much money into finite resources when we should be concentrating on renewables... Oh wait who's set to profit from fracking? Only family and close friends of the MP promoting it...

Jazz if you are insinuating corruption then put some names up, otherwise I suggest you clarify.
we are not putting money in, private companies are so, unless you invest in them you are not paying anything for fracking.
You are, like everyone else in the country, paying £30 a year for renewables link

Crikey, I don't understand what your vested interest here is Carol and cat lady. Just like in the last thread, you don't have any counter evidence, you just want to shut down debate and kill the thread? I did not get proved to be unreasonable in the last thread! and I said you were "trolling" me as in trying to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else. Anyway I'm not going to engage with you unless you are debating. If this topic doesn't interest you then please feel free to not comment.

Carol, we are paying for fracking. A tax break is the same as a subsidy apart from in language and Geroge Osborne also announced 5million to promote the shale gas industry.

Well I like energy security. I don't think the current major sources of gas and oil are particularly stable or perhaps countries we what to be in bed with. (With the exception of Scotland of course).

So, on the basis that there are also loads of scientists who say that fracking IS safe, and that we are unfortunately still hugely reliant on fossil fuels, that no one wants a nuclear power station in their back garden and we don't particularly want to have to use significantly less electricity or gas then I think this might be a great thing for the UK.

Calloh, shale gas and unconventional gas will not help "energy security". Even if the industry was able to press ahead as fast as it wanted, there would not be any significant UK production until the next decade (and of course, there is a big IF it is proven to be viable). Cuadrilla have said they will have to drill 40 test wells over the next 5 years just to work out whether it is worth their while extracting shale gas. It's a bubble that will only benefit some private companies, who can choose what company they officially make a profit in and will not be made to clear up the mess they leave behind.

Is fracking about to bring down the whole financial system in just the same way sub-prime mortgages did? If so, this time we've already 'given' all our money (money that was meant for schools and hospitals and caring for those who need) to bail out the financiers who caused the crash, financiers who have got richer and richer the more Governments inflict austerity on the rest of society . .www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2679765/with_sub60_oil_fracking_and_tar_sands_losses_threaten_the_whole_financial_system.html

What's your vested interest in this then, deeedeee?

Come on, there's got to be some reason for the repeated hysterical scaremongering, the careful ignoring of anyone who points out the problems with your arguments, the basic strawman arguments on emotional topics...hospitals and schools, seriously?

"I'm not going to engage with you unless you are debating."

LOL. You've not yet made the slightest attempt to engage with anyone who is debating. You ignore everyone who makes a point while yelling "look, look, this other person didn't make one!" in the hopes that nobody will notice that you don't actually have any response to legitimate points.

You're on the wrong site, I'm afraid. People use their brains round here instead of swallowing everything people like you tell them.

I am totally in favour of fracking as long as it's not in my naice county

Sorry couldn't resist as seen the other thread and it's getting a bit boring tbh

YABU

I have no vested interest apart from being appalled at this issue and want to raise awareness.

It's not scaremongering! Whole countries, whole states are banning this because of the mounting evidence of danger to public health. I genuinely don't understand how you can completely dismiss that.