www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

I whole heartedly support Sami and congratulate her for going out and making her views known.

I cannot put forth an educated argument on why I don't like fracking but I am certainly uncomfortable with the idea of it.

I think insofar as modernist ideas are concerned the 20th century had us steaming ahead with industry and fossil fuels in a way which was wholly unsustainable. The challenge of the 21st century is finding a way of bringing the population round to understanding that this cant go on and we have to look to green energy sources even if this means some uncomfortable changes in lifestyle.

As our lifestyles become more sustainable and we work with nature wildlife should benefit.

I don't see why NIMBYism is seen as unreasonable. Regardless of the benefits or necessity to society-as-a-whole of any development, it's perfectly reasonable to not want it on your doorstep if it's in any way detrimental to your property or way of life. Maybe you can't expect others to fight for you, but it's understandable that you might object nevertheless.

The chemical contamination of our essential water supply is at high risk from fracking, just one of the many reasons why the French government banned it (but hey, its okay to bu**er up another countries water!!!). Sadly our government is at the mercy of 'expert' specialist advice from scientists that just 'might' have vested interest in what they advise about. I was surprised and heartened to hear that there was an active MP actually on site during Sami's support visit to Barton Moss... wow!...there's hope yet people

Fracking is a highly contentious and devisive issue, and we can argue our personal views on the matter ad infinitum (Jack probably realised - its a loaded thread ).

I also admire and respect Sami for saying it as she see's it, if we ever meet Sami I'll buy you a well deserved mega gateaux...

Bill

The trouble I have with this issue, is every time I see a debate, or read an article. Its always could, might, possibly, highly likely, or shouldn't, highly unlikely etc. After being scare mongered into believing the oceans would be 4 meters deeper by now. I tend to take it all with a pinch of salt, when the so called experts (from either side) start with their could possibly's.

With the way the worlds population is spiralling out of control, in 25 years fracking will be the least of our problems.


Regards Gruditch

The problem with issues such as fracking is that you never get the basic facts on which to come to your own conclusions. There is always an agenda, everyone has a vested interest. I view with deep suspicion the arguments put forward by the industry who are very adept at presenting a credible economic case and soothing the concerns of the few who care about the environment. By the time we find out the truth it will be too late. So I, too, commend Sami and her colleagues for having the guts to make a stand.

I believe global warming (a terrible label – extreme weather would have been more accurate) is almost certainly an incontrovertible fact. If anyone can be trusted, it is the global scientific community, despite the odd manipulation of data by a few academics and the hijacking of the entire issue by politicians for dubious objectives such as green taxes. Quite why a large percentage of the population chooses to believe global warming is a myth is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps it is a matter of “if you ignore it, it will go away”. History, if there are any generations to record it, will show conclusively that the human race deliberately and knowingly destroyed the planet in the early 21st century. They had no excuse. Greed trumped any concern for the environment.

If such supra-national bodies such as the UN had any real purpose, they would be addressing climate control and population growth, but they have long ceased to have any real influence or motivation on any meaningful issues.

It also seems that each new generation has less concern for the environment that those that preceded it. Dumbing down now seems the inexorable trend in most theatres, particularly entertainment and education. Of course such a generalisation cannot be applied in all cases, but as a general trend it cannot be denied. In 2006 a film called Idiocracy was released. It is one of the best films ever made in my opinion, but sadly may not be too far from the truth. Here is a YouTube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsJFNQd62Wk

I'd be really interested to hear Sussex Kipper's opinion on this. If anyone can give an informed and rational argument it would be him. This subject is probably a bit sensitive and contentious though under the circumstances so I would understand if he would prefer not to comment.

The thread has inevitably drifted off topic but that was to be expected.

Some thoughts.

North Sea Oil and Gas exploitation has resulted in hundreds of deaths - fires, helicopter accidents, etc.

Coal miners around the world continue to be killed.

People don’t like the appearance of wind turbines.

Solar farms always raise objections as being “ugly”.

Hydro electric is seemingly benign. I recently visited a “flagship” scheme, Cruachan in Scotland – it was very environmentally friendly. Then I learnt, from what was a throwaway away line by the guide, that 36 workers had died during the construction.

Nuclear energy scares people because of - amongst other things - its [wrong] association with nuclear weapons. As an aside, to date no one has died as a result of the Japanese nuclear power station meltdown.

The Severn barrage has wildlife issues.

Fracking scares because it is “unknown” technology.

We need electricity. So how can we make it without upsetting some people?
It is impractical to say: “I don’t like that, I don’t want this on my doorstep, I object to ......everything”. There has to be compromise. It’s rather like voting at elections: you cannot agree with all that any particular party offers in its manifesto so you vote for the ”least bad” option.

Fracking might be the least bad option.

Jack

Six protesters arrested for stopping lorries and threatening security staff yesterday tut tut

Jack Harrison wrote:
Nuclear energy scares people because of - amongst other things - its [wrong] association with nuclear weapons. As an aside, to date no one has died as a result of the Japanese nuclear power station meltdown.

Earlier in this thread we were encouraged to feel ashamed of being open to supporting fracking on the grounds that France has banned it (ergo, it MUST be dangerous).

Yet nearly 80% of France's electricity is derived from nuclear power. They have nuclear plants all over their country.

France is the world's greatest net exporter of electricity because of it. That's probably why EDF is keen to invest billions in new nuclear plants in the UK.

I should also point out that France has (in the recent past) also banned alcopops, Red Bull, burkhas in public and British beef. It even tried to 'ban' the internet in its infancy in order to protect its long standing Minitel service.

I'll post just a couple of links, whether or not you want to delve deeper or not is up to you.

Fossil fuels, wave action barrages, windfarms, even nuclear power can ALL be replaced. But vested interests keep them alive and kicking, rather than progressing. Have a look, that's all I ask.

http://www.trueactivist.com/multiple-sc ... the-proof/

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... ir-effect/

Cheers,

Gibster.

I'm not all that impressed by those articles: there seems to be a degree of faith rather than substance - rather like those who WANT to believe in extra terrestrial UFOs.

But having said that, undoubtedly one day a far more benign source of energy will be developed. And it is probably correct to presume that the multinational petrochemical giants don't see it in their interests to pursue the research at the moment with anything more than "tokenism" so as to appear to be "doing the right thing".

Jack

Interesting articles Gibster although reduced price energy would be a better statement than free energy as for example with the Casmir effect one presumably would invest billions creating the necessary vacuums to produce the energy and it would then need to be extracted and transported to the consumer. I wonder if all these costs are factored in when using such statements. Still interesting though.

My other worry would be what would be the effect of removing world poverty, presumably the population would spiral further out of control and we would require even more energy and the planet would become destroyed at an even faster rate.

This is a massive discussion but an extremely interesting one. All food for thought.

Paul Wetton wrote:My other worry would be what would be the effect of removing world poverty, presumably the population would spiral further out of control

I think all the evidence is to the contrary. 'Developed' countries where people have access to education and birth control have much lower birth rates. Of course their citizens have much larger environmental footprints too.

When talking about reducing world poverty presumably we're not talking about developed countries. I doubt free energy will suddenly develop the third world countries into a different way of thinking but I see your point.

So for a moment, let's forget the pros and cons of fracking.

My query is: what might be the impact on wildlife of exploration and possibly later exploitation of shale gas at Barton Moss (and indeed, other places).

Jack[/quote]
So jack we are no nearer to your original question yet !!!

maverick

So Jack we are no nearer to your original question yet !!!

I fully expected that the thread would drift and many other issues would be discussed.

The Times had a good article mid-week. The implication was that once up and running, a fracking site would be small. The concern was the traffic and disruption involved in developing the site.

So in an attempt to answer my own question, in the long term, probably minimal impact on wildlife.

But the development process needs to be watched carefully. I would have much more sympathy with protesters if they concentrated on that aspect (the development) to exert put pressure to do so in the least damaging way possible rather than blandly object to fracking full stop.

Jack

just thought i would put my twopence in;

this fracking business will produce gas for a maximum of 50 years according to the press. what will happen after that ? burn the forests for firewood ?

the only sensible option given the population level is to go 100% nuclear. windmills are fine if the population is at iron age levels and engaged in foraging for mushrooms.

Charles Nicol wrote:...the only sensible option given the population level is to go 100% nuclear.

I fear the protesters would like that even less.

Sami is up there again right now, back home on Monday evening. Via coach and then a car-share to the site, same as last time for those who were wondering. This is how my wife is spending her days off from her full-time (50+hrs per week) job. She has researched both sides of the argument regards fracking. Reading about it in what the national newspapers or TV news broadcasts choose/are told to drip-feed us is not seeing the full picture. So much is being skewed or withheld! All of those arrests, how many actual convictions? None. Not a single one. The judges have asked the police to stop arresting the protestors and clagging up their courtrooms. They are being released on unconditional bail yet are being re-arrested (and re-released) repeatedly. You probably didn't hear about that part on the news though. Peaceful Dan and Tristan are two of the camp's main "camera crew", if you like. They film anything they perceive as being infringements on the protestor's rights. And guess what, they've both been temporarily "removed" from the scene. Surprise surprise. After three months the police and protestors know each other very well. To the point that the police have snuck in their own guys as bogus protestors. This is fact and has been proven. I expect everyone has heard about the flare being fired at a helicopter? And that someone has owned up to it via the forum? Yep, that someone is a known police officer logging in under a false name. There was no flare, these folks won't even light a Chinese lantern for fear of damaging the environment! I would go so far as to say that almost everything written by the national newspapers and broadcast by the big TV/Satellite channels is strongly skewed and not telling the facts as they are. You may be reading this thinking I've lost the plot. You may think I'm a police-hating paranoid loony. I'm neither.

Jack, Sami is trying to find out more about the local wildlife and the immediate/longer term effects the site may have on it. Unsurprisingly you are not the first to worry about this. There are other nature reserves nearby, expect to hear more in the next couple of days.

Cheers,

Gibster.

Send her my love and support please Gibster.