Fracking given the go-ahead in Lancashire despite local opposition

[BungoWomble]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-37567866

Can't say it is surprising news. As soon as the government announced they were 'taking the decision away' from the local council who rejected fracking it was a foregone conclusion - why else would they do that after all.

But is absolutely infuriating. What kind of democracy are they still claiming we have in this country of the 'mother of parliaments'. Not to mention, of course, the reason for the initial local rejection, the environmental impact of fracking. Or the general attitude to people who don't live in the rich south-east.

You haven't come across the great extinctions much then? There have been 5 before, that affecting the dinosaurs was not the biggest. That honour goes to the Permian I think, or something beginning with p anyway. Overpopulation by homo sapiens sapiens is what is triggering this 6th one. I think Gerald Durrell had a lot to say on such matters years ago.

Most people around the globe do live in incredibly frugal lifestyles compared to us in the West. Ok no one wants to go back to living in caves but the current high consumption lifestyle, which was deliberately created to satisfy business - you can look up Bernays for that - enjoyed by some is entirely unnecessary. What's the current stats, richest 1% of the world has as much wealth and resources as the other 99% or something? In Britain top 10% owns half the wealth? We cannot afford these levels of private greed from the few.

Yes we know fracking has expanded massively recently. It's always been dogged by complaints too. We're not going to agree on that.

I thought the current problem with private health companies in drug research was well-known. They are skewing test results deliberately to bring drugs to market that are not proven safe and it is a major problem. You are right about this is why we need laws and regulations. Which should not be overturned at the convenience of big business and colluding government, which is what is happening. Which is what has happened here, Lancashire rejected the fracking and under current laws that should have been an end to it.

We can go on like this forever.

The pp is right, we need to look at the problem the other way, work out how much energy we can provide at what (environmental) cost and then share it equally and work within our limits.

the great extinctions...There have been 5 before

So its a natural cycle and nothing to do with global warming.

Most people around the globe do live in incredibly frugal lifestyle

Not by choice. And most people would never choose to live like that.

the current high consumption lifestyle, which was deliberately created to satisfy business

No, its the natural evolution of peoples choice to live in better conditions and business is the tool by which we achieve that.

In Britain top 10% owns half the wealth?

And yet the richest 1% pay over a quarter of all taxes in the UK and nearly half of Britons pay no income tax at all. If we lived in a communist state the poorest would be screwed.

problem with private health companies in drug research is well-known

Don't buy their drugs then.

Lancashire rejected the fracking and under current laws that should have been an end to it

And the government used laws which legally super-seed Lancashire's nimby authority to implement energy policy for the betterment of the whole country. Which should be an end to it.

work out how much energy we can provide at what (environmental) cost and then share it equally and work within our limits

Or work out how much energy people want and provide it in the most secure, price conscious, job creating, low carbon way possible.

Bungo I get where you are coming from but I disagree, the world isn't ending and most people don't want to live a frugal existence. In our life times we will probably send people to Mars and start populating the solar system. That isn't going to happen if we turn the clock back.

To be in the richest 1% of the world, you need assets of £533k according to Oxfam. Ignoring houses etc which will take many over, a pension of over £15 k a year puts you in that pot. Basically most UK public sector workers at the age of 65 are in the 1%.
Also, anyone with net debt (so renting with overdraft/credit cards) is amongst the poorest in the world because most poor cannot borrow to go into debt. Wealth is a bonkers statistic.
As far as income goes, world median household income is less than $10,000, even at today's rate, that is £8,000, less than most benefit claimants housing benefit. In the UK you are very rich.

This is getting ridiculous. I don't know whether this is deliberate goading or incredible ignorance. No, 5 great extinctions in 4 billion years do not make a natural cycle. The previous ones were generally thought to have been the result of asteroids crashing into the earth or unprecendeted volcanic activity, and the current one has everything to do with human activity of all sorts destroying habitats. Human acts collectively now have the destructive power of asteroids hitting the planet.

Business is not the only tool which people can use to better their conditions. The single thing which has had the most effect throughout evolutionary history is collective human endeavour. Mostly that has come not through 'business' and the modern private company but through social models. The modern private company's history only started in the 14 century AD, and since its explosion in the industrial revolution has been persistently accompanied by social and environmental problems. It was Adam Smith himself who came up with "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public". If you have a free market without checks it will end up as a conspiracy against the public, there is no way around that, that is what happens. We need those checks. Without them the poor are screwed, are being screwed right now. The extremes of political and economic models look the same as always. There is a half way state between USSR-style communism and 'no-state' free market capitalism and that is where we need to be.

The 'nimby' powers of local government against an exploitative central authority are part of those checks. That is why they have been and are being removed. The total energy needs of the country are not more important, not when it isn't actually 'needs' that are being satisfied but luxuries and satisfying those luxuries will destroy the local and global environment.

The current increase in the proportion of taxes the rich pay is because the overall tax take is going down because the extremely rich companies are not paying any and poor people have no money any more to pay them.

You are wrong. This world is in severe shit right now. People are in severe shit right now. Your refusal to see it is why. How many deaths will it take before you admit it? How many species need to be driven into extinction?

Getting back on track and trying to focus my ranting, Or work out how much energy people want and provide it in the most secure, price conscious, job creating, low carbon way possible.

People can't have all the energy they want is the short and simple message. Particularly not those who are on the plus side of the inequality ratios.

BungoWomble, I am trying to point out the ridiculousness of your statements. What does an asteroid crashing into the earth 4 billion years ago got to do with fracking for gas in Lancashire.

Human acts collectively now have the destructive power of asteroids hitting the planet
What are you talking about, this is just a wacko conspiracy theory. Its just not true, if I even understood what it meant. {confused]

a free market without checks it will end up as a conspiracy against the public
But we DONT have a free market, without checks.

the poor are screwed, are being screwed right now
The so called 'poor' in England are amongst the richest people in the world.

local government against an exploitative central authority
You mean a democratically elected government of the people.

How many species need to be driven into extinction?
You have just jumped off the bridge into La La land. This has nothing to do with fracking and everything to do with your crazy conspiracy theories.

You are the one who is blindly ridiculous. After this I am genuinely going to give up.

The current mass extinction is no wacko theory. Nor is the fact that humans are driving it. A quick google yourself would have told you that, but to give you an easy starting point www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/oct/20/the-four-horsemen-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction

The checks on the free market are being thrown whenever it suits those at the top. We've had a government in charge with the stated aim of 'minimal state' for some time and deregulation has caused one or two very well known problems. We do not live in a democracy in Britain. We don't even live in a 'representative' democracy anymore, at least not representative of most people.

As for this The so called 'poor' in England are amongst the richest people in the world how do you get the nerve. There are people dying of poverty in this country. Homelessness is climbing through the roof, food poverty likewise. You have no idea how the other half are living do you. The poor in England are living in the same circumstances they did in the 80s. It's the demands of the rich who are driving energy consumption.

lol a newspaper report on one speculative scientific study does not the end of the human race make. If that is your reason for not using shale gas and going back to living a life of penury fine but don't drag the rest of us there with you.

The checks on the free market are being thrown whenever it suits those at the top

That is your opinion, I don't imagine you have much actual evidence of that.

government in charge with the stated aim of 'minimal state' for some time

Yes because the state has been spending so much money for so long we need to cut back or our grandchildren will be paying off the debts for our profligacy.

We don't even live in a 'representative' democracy anymore

What you mean is they dont represent your extreme views. Even though the government achieved a majority of everyone who voted, they still represent the whole country.

We do not live in a democracy in Britain

Ummm try living in N.Korea

The so called 'poor' in England are amongst the richest people in the world

Have a look around MN, you will find threads where people consider £20,000 isn't enough for an unemployed person to live on and still have a middle class lifestyle. First world problem much?

The poor in England are living in the same circumstances they did in the 80s

And was wrong with the 80's? You can't have it both ways, the state shaking the magic money tree to pay everybody as much money as they want for doing as little as they want and then complaining about over consumption of resources.

Nothing you say adds up to anything consistent. There are buckets of evidence out there to support the need for a more equal and environmental society, I merely pointed out somewhere to start.

Thanks for the eye opener. I hadn't realised mumsnet was so much of a threat.

For the sake of argument - just leave aside the rights and wrongs of fracking for a second.

Just from a democratic perspective this is an abhorrent decision. The people said no. The councils said no. One minister overruled this.

How is it that when it comes to Brexit we are told "no means no" and that "the people have spoken and can't be overruled" and yet when it comes to a decision to do with fracking this doesn't apply.

This is corruption in action and an assault on democracy.

from a democratic perspective this is an abhorrent decision

Ummm how so? Locals who are only responsible for the beautification of their immediate vicinity, with zero responsibility for providing their own energy said no.

A government voted in by a majority of the nationwide electorate whose responsibility is to provide electricity and gas (at a cost people can afford), for the whole country, has legally decided that it is important for critical national infrastructure to frack where the gas is located, is indeed a demonstration of exactly how a representative democracy works.

To compare it to the Brexit referendum is wrong. The comparison would only be relevant if we had a national referendum on fracking where the gas is or importing the gas from around the world. Sometimes difficult decisions have to be made.

You can please some people all of the time, or all people some of the time. But you can not please all people all of the time.

"A government voted in by a majority of the nationwide electorate whose responsibility is to provide electricity and gas (at a cost people can afford)"

Fracking isn't something we can afford in any sense. It is inefficient and is not compatible with the Paris agreement.

They say that the only people who support fracking either don't understand it or have a vested interest. I'm also guessing they don't live within miles of any drill sites.

How is it that you can be so pro a technology that destroys the local environment, communities, water, wildlife and ultimately hurtles us faster over the cliff edge into the unknown? Do you genuinely not give a shit about where our children/grandchildren will be left when they are still facing the question we face now, only the shale is gone, vast swathes of this island are uninhabitable, we've destroyed the environment by burning more fossil fuels than we can afford and there's STILL no plan to provide energy that can be reliably sustained?

It is inefficient and is not compatible with the Paris agreement

Ummm, no its not!

people who support fracking ..... don't live within miles of any drill sites

Yes, they are called nimby's and they don't want solar farms or wind turbines near their houses either.

How is it that you can be so pro a technology that destroys the local environment, communities, water, wildlife ...

Because I dont believe it does all those things relative to the alternatives.

Because importing gas is a LOT worse and renewables are unable to provide the base load needed to keep the lights on.

Who says people in Lancashire don't want windfarms (there already are a quite a few) or solar farms (Ive only noticed one, but there may be more and of course loads of household roof installations)

And their will be people in Lancashire who don't mind using shale gas, its swings and roundabouts. Hence why a government needs a national energy policy.

Who says people in Lancashire don't want windfarms (there already are a quite a few) or solar farms

The people of Lancashire say they don't want wind farms or solar farms.

Residents in the Lune valley opposed proposals for a wind farm near Kirkby Lonsdale. West Lancashire residents opposed proposals for a wind farm between Lydiate, Formby and Ince Burdell.

Residents in Mawdesley and Heskin opposed proposals for a solar farm nearby. Residents in Aughton and Ormskirk opposed another solar farm proposal.

Where schemes have been approved it has usually (probably always but I haven't got time to check) been in the face of local opposition. For example, Scout Moor wind farm near Rossendale was approved by the government despite a local campaign and opposition from local councils and the county council.

Theres always some local opposition to such things anywhere - I dont get any sense of Lancashire being more nimby than anywhere else, which is what Anon seemed to imply. And clearly the local authorities dont make their decisions just based on local objections but on knowledge.

Anyway - just catching up with this week's New Scientist, article titled 'UK has no good reason to approve fracking'. Lots of reasons why its a bad idea. Mainly the reasons why it won't help achieve lower emissions and that this is an industry with no future.

No, I wasn't implying Lancashire was any more nimby that anywhere else, other than the amount of nimbyism does seem to increase with house price!

local authorities dont make their decisions just based on local objections but on knowledge

To suggest these councillors balanced the local nimby opposition with energy security, job creation, long term energy cost, implications of importing gas on the global environment and the impact on national energy strategy.

Knowledge my ass! Their decision was because they thought it might be a bit noisy and bring a few lorries into their pretty little part of rural England. aka Nimby

You do realise The New Scientist is a non-peer-reviewed magazine. I imagine the article your referring to was written by a university educated journalist, not a scientist and is only referring to the narrow issue of carbon emissions. Does it go something along the lines of, even if the world stopped burning coal right now global temperatures would still rise above the target of 2 degrees. I imagine it takes no account of what it will take to keep the lights in the UK switched on during the dark windless nights of winter and the cost to global temperatures (never mind the economy) as we start importing gas from the other side of the world. Does it refer to the renewable capital of Europe, Germany, and how they are building new coal fired power stations to provide lots of lovely pollution for the next 50 years?

Meanwhile back in the real world I will boil the kettle, have a lovely cup of green tea.
And look forward to our energy generated by coal being replaced by local shale gas by 2025, renewable & storage technology increasing, the lights staying on and pollution decreasing.

And of course I know what New Scientist is. The article is a 'comment' piece, and should be read as such. I thought some participants on this thread might be interested in it, if they have access to NS.

Ok, carry on caricaturing the decisions as nimbyism if you like. Thats not my reading of them so we'll have to agree to differ I guess.

There are of course shit loads of peer reviewed studies into the adverse effects of fracking, but this is like arguing with a climate change denier so there's probably zero point in going on here...

Here is some data on the 'local' opposition to the plans:

According to council officers, of 13,448 objections received, fewer than one in ten were actual letters (as opposed to forms thrust in front of people by pressure groups, mainly Friends of the Earth) and fewer than one in seven came from Fylde. So just 2.9 per cent of the adult population of Fylde objected to shale gas drilling.

People who've done a form (which they may have grabbed eagerly when proffered, and then were arsed enough not to just chuck) are quite unlikely to also write. One communication is likely to be made per household rather than per adult. So if you take out your rather arbitrary dismissal of forms and allow for joint objections the figures look rather different, don't they?

I think the answer here is to try several wells and see how they go, if they are successful then we build more. If they destroy the environment then we can just import our gas/export our jobs and let other countries environments take the hit/reap the benefit.

And that's a perfect plan if the bit of the environment is a long way from London, I guess.

Though I infer from CarolDeckers stats that most of the objections weren't nimbies, which is nice.

Heigh ho. I knew it was bound to happen as soon as the brexit vote happened and the first installment of pound-crash occurred. 'Take back control', oh yeah.