To be angry fracking ban has been lifted despite Tory manifesto promise?

[carefullycourageous]

I am so annoyed the ban on fracking has been lifted with no real discussion, even though the Tories promised in their manifesto they wouldn't allow it unless it was proven safe. No proof has been published.

Experts say it will not help us with our energy bills, just result in pollution and more profits for energy companies.

for Liz Truss!

YABU: I'm fine with fracking, who needs clean water anyway?
YANBU: I'm annoyed the ban has been reversed

I don't think anyone is suggesting we would rather freeze this winter

Most people have gas boilers, that is how it is at present. But progress is possible.

We are paying so much for gas now that other technologies will become cheaper in comparison so there is scope for progress.

If the money has been spent on developing a fission reaction that has been spent on some of this this green nonsense and people getting together for so-called ‘green conferences’ where they all turn up in private jets and gas guzzlers and celebrities come and yell at us how we need to reduce our carbon footprint - if that money had gone into fission research instead of virtue signalling we might have got somewhere. I am sick to death of people telling me to reduce my carbon footprint when they are flying around the world in private jets. The answer for the world is nuclear fission which will provide a very cheap form of energy when once it has been harnessed

Nuclear fission has had MASSES of money - it is being researched across the globe by leading scientists and you can bet that China would already be doing it if the technology was there.

Not everything is a conspiracy!

I agree that flying is a massive issue and I also hate that hypocrisy, but that is not a reason to burn a whole load of other stuff too.

I think the flooding, heat, cold, famine and war deaths that we know are going to happen, and are already happening

Except the statistics don’t agree with you since actual deaths from natural disasters has dropped tremendously since the Industrial Age. So not sure how you know these deaths are ‘already happening’ when really they aren’t and when they do, are much less than ever before.

And anywhere with robust industrialisation has seen deaths from natural disasters drop simply from better infrastructure and then there are knock-on effects with increased life expectancies—fossil fuels are literally lifesaving and life expanding. We cannot do without them.

and yes, if ten years ago we made a serious push with nuclear we’d be in a far better position so
why are people making this same mistake again with natural gas?

Since the Industrial Age ?

We are talking about the increases in serious events on the last 10 years when climate change has started to impact the weather

Nueclear is short term solution with a long term legacy

It's expensive to build and run
It's not responsive to demand
If the world was powered on nuclear we would have 50 years or less to develop those pesky renewables and find a safe solution for the waste - source fuel is limited

Yes I think it's part of our future because since thatcher the government has dragged its heels and prevaricated but only as a base load to buy time

We are talking about the increases in serious events on the last 10 years when climate change has started to impact the weather

oh, and has this led to more deaths than in decades past? Probably not.

It's expensive to build and run
It's not responsive to demand

Yes it’s base load. Natural gas would be deployed to handle peaks. So what?

If the world was powered on nuclear we would have 50 years or less to develop those pesky renewables and find a safe solution for the waste - source fuel is limited

Peak uranium arguments are just as tiresome as peak oil. It’s really not a limiting factor. Neither is the nuclear waste, which is a hazardous industrial waste and treated as such. Again not sure why nuclear waste is singled out when materials used in solar panels like cadmium and lead are also extremely harmful to human health.

You are a denier

There are people dying today in Pakistan who would not have died today without climate change.

Your denial will continue but I hope lurkers will think for themselves and trust the science

I guess you don’t have the relevant stats and figures so it’s easier to just call me names instead of addressing the substance of my posts.

I guess you also forgot about the devastating floods there over ten years ago, which impacted tens of millions. And killed at least 2000 people.

From my point of view, developing countries need cheap fossil fuels to build better infrastructure to save even more lives.

Part of the problem with nuclear is the political aspect, also. Chinese govts owning our energy infrastructure does not seem wise to me, at all.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57967908

Well, if not necessarily 'owning' then 'being heavily involved'

We’ve got massively different environmental laws and constraints here in the UK compared to the US, there’s no way the exact same situation would replicate here. The US oil and gas industry is properly Wild West compared to here. I’m not saying there’s no risks, but it would in no way be comparable. Also, there’s far far less potential in the UK and it would be a lot less profitable - I suspect it’ll still be a long time before anything gets off the ground and it may not come to anything much at all. Which is another good reason for not bothering - can’t see that this is the way out of our energy crisis.

How does hydro electricity kill people?

Okay, a dam bursting is not good, but I would think that is pretty rare. I live in a country where hydroelectricity provides more than half of the country's needs and it works well for us.

@BerriesOnTop the graph you posted seems to link to an article by the WSJ penned by Bjorn Lomborg.

There are plenty of articles relating to him, pointing out he is highly selective of how he uses his data, many articles saying that it is often misrepresentation and misleading cherry picking.

There are also lots of articles pointing out that some of his backers are far from neutral, Republican vulture capitalists and the Australian govt are a couple , and also that the trail to uncover his other funding is somewhat murky.

So what is wrong with the graph? It is absolutely a fact that deaths from natural disasters have dropped dramatically in just the last 100 years.

Despite the massive growth in population, too.

Why do you think that is?

I’m pointing out that the source for that graph, or at last the author of the piece where it was published, is not very respected and there is an awful lot of people saying he’s not credible.

Im not sure if you’re talking about natural disasters, or climate disasters. You’ve mentioned both now.

The graph you posted shows deaths in 1970 at about 50k. Yet the Bhola cyclone on its own caused 300-500k deaths. That’s certainly a natural disaster, and climate related death toll. Why does your graph not reflect this? Genuine question.

The graph you posted shows deaths in 1970 at about 50k. Yet the Bhola cyclone on its own caused 300-500k deaths. That’s certainly a natural disaster, and climate related death toll. Why does your graph not reflect this? Genuine question

Its an average over 10 years, so one particularly horrible year will not stand out; same for the Japanese earthquake/tsunami for the 2010s.

There will always be some climate change denial.

These views are becoming hardened but in a smaller and smaller group of people, because most people can see what is happening in front of their own eyes.

There will always be some climate change denial

and there will also be people spinning out apocalyptic scenarios that will never happen.

Hopefully people will come to understand and appreciate how fossil fuels have led to increased human lifespans and reduced child mortality rates to their lowest points in history.

It used to be a fact of life to see at least one of your children dead before the age of five. Those days are behind us in the West thanks to fossil fuels.

people like you fail to appreciate it and seem to almost welcome a ‘climate apocalypse’.

Oh but ‘denialists’ will someday see our folly, won’t we? Just like sinners 😆

It used to be a fact of life to see at least one of your children dead before the age of five. Those days are behind us in the West thanks to fossil fuels

Blimey there was me thinking it was advances in science and medicine that have increased life spans. Turns out it was the act of burning oil, gas and coal that actually got us there. Silly me.

Clean running water I would have said plus innoculation against common killers

I honestly don't know what you're banging on about, your comments are mostly irrelevant. Everyone knows that infant mortality has improved due to improved nutrition, medical advances, better housing, heating, lower birth rates, education etc. etc. It is not due to fossil fuels, that is a really peculiar take.

But anyway, this is a thread about fracking and the future.

As for 'seem to welcome a climate apocalypse' presumably that is this year's version of 'lockdown lovers'.

I couldn't care less if you change your views or not. People who are in denial about change always lose the argument in the end, the mainstream just moves on past them.

I honestly don't know what you're banging on about, your comments are mostly irrelevant. Everyone knows that infant mortality has improved due to improved nutrition, medical advances, better housing, heating, lower birth rates, education etc. etc. It is not due to fossil fuels, that is a really peculiar take

You need fossil fuel inputs to get more output from your land. Farm equipment run by fossil fuels; chemical fertilizers made from fossil fuels. Without these we cannot support large-scale agriculture. Local crop failures will not kill people as in the past due to global markets

Medical advances cannot happen without plastics—fossil fuels. Better housing and infrastructure built by heavy machinery, run by fossil fuels, materials shipped via ship, truck or plane, all using fossil fuels.

HEATING ffs 🤦‍♀️ bad winters used to be very deadly, especially for the very young and very old. Still is if you have the bad luck to have electricity cut during a snowstorm.

You take it all for granted. We all do. Pray that we can continue to do so.

Everyone knows this, your posts are stuck in the past, it is really weird . No one can take any of the benefits that have already happened away, you can stop worrying about that.

You can get electricity from fossil fuels or from other sources for example nuclear or renewables. We are not going to lose the benefits of electricity by using non-fossil fuel electricity.

Heating - it is possible to get heating from fossil fuel sources or from non-fossil fuel sources. No one is trying to make you live without heating.

It is a bit like when people made the transition from horse-drawn vehicles to internal combustion engine - the wheels still turned. And next we move to electric engines - the wheels will turn.

No one wants to take you back to the dark ages. Embrace progress, backs the positives we have already gained, move forwards.

Antibiotics. Hygiene.