5 replies »

1. Reblogged this on Bedford Burrow & Other Curious Stuff and commented:
   Follow the Cuadrilla inquiry.

   Reply

2. What strikes me here is that taking away resident’s concerns is that the ONLY climate change objections come from Friends of the Earth. It would be interesting to hear from Greenpeace, WWF, and most especially Lord Deben, the Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, the independent overseer of the UK’s climate change targets.

   He is notable by his absence. Perhaps Friends of the Earth should call him as a witness. Surely his opinion should carry some weight? Cuadrilla certainly should consider calling him as expert witness.

   Friends of the Earth are an outlier in climate change: Their extreme no carbon at all (nor nuclear, nor modern agriculture) position is more a thought experiment or a strongly held sentiment, and not a practical solution. They don’t get understand how simply describing the problem while not contributing to it’s solution perpetuates the issue and makes the problem actually worse. Their view is not shared by the grown ups in the now mainstream renewable industry. Let’s recall that the UK CEO of Dong Energy, who just this week announced a huge new investment in offshore wind (largest single project in the world) is Brent Cheshire. He was, and remains, a 5% early shareholder in Igas Energy.

   The mystery as to why the FoE are alone in opposing onshore natural gas was explained to me by Professor Paul Stevens. Professor Stevens was in the Canterbury Debate early last year on the same platform (and side) as Julie Wassmer and Mike Hill. When I asked him at an oil conference panel I was chairing in June why did he think FoE opposed shale gas, he immediately and with no prompting on my part, said that it was solely a fund raising tool on their part. (By the way the BIG SECRET that Ruth refuses to ask is what is exactly the membership number of Friends of the Earth. Is the answer so embarrassingly small, as the recent National Gathering showed, that they refuse to release it?)

   There was a time when environmentalists supported natural gas, back in the days when they didn’t see it as a commercial threat. The notion that it is a threat simply isn’t upheld by the facts from the United States. This link from Platts shows that natural gas is in reality far more threatened by wind than the reverse.

   http://www.platts.com/news-feature/2016/naturalgas/global-gas/index?hootpostid=eb1205905f098e12ac14573ebc0b4369

   If wind is not threatened by natural gas in Texas of all places, what possible impact could Lancashire natural gas have on either the wind industry or climate change?

   Kevin Anderson is a reasonable man and a scientist. I look forward to his testimony with interest: After all I have always had on open mind. However, you can be sure that under cross-examination he will have to discuss natural gas in the world energy mix in the light of the triple surge of US fuel efficiency, wind/solar insertion and natural gas today. The US example of cutting CO2 via the coal to gas switch was the underpinning of the COP21 agreement. It simply would not have happened without it. China and the US made this agreement work: They both see natural gas as a key part of an all of the above strategy where efficiency, renewables and natural gas provide practical solutions on a global scale. The surge in all three has provided the greatest transformation the energy industry has seen since Edison and Ford. It’s an incredibly exciting time, a hopeful time. But if you have a business model (and your job in FoE’s case) that depends on scaring people into action instead of leading them along with you on facts, you will be ultimately condemned to failure. That’s especially sad in the FoE case. They do so much good in their campaigns for habitat protection, bees and bio diversity for example, and I’m especially pleased to see on their web site how they share my other obsession, how important it is for the UK to remain in the EU. Their monomania about shale may be a short term fund raising success, but is that what the base supporters really want or is something that keeps them paid spinning out the problem instead of contributing solutions?

   We have a saying in the natural gas industry that in shale anything over six weeks old is ancient history – the technology and the results are that fast.

   FoE and it’s army of well paid activists continually repeat the same fears from 2011 and, just like climate change deniers, cherry pick and quote reputable sounding scientists who agree with their view as representing the mainstream, not the outliers they are. We don’t accept shoddy science from climate change deniers and we shouldn’t accept it from green activists either.

   Reply

   • ”We have a saying in the natural gas industry that in shale anything over six weeks old is ancient history – the technology and the results are that fast. ” Yes, and this saying needs amending to and any damage can then just as speedily be attributed to something else so we gain a free get out of jail card.

     I find FOE rather puzzling in their continued adherence to the climate change argument, though I understand it is more about a metaphorical motto and statement for global change, with an unfortunate literal meaning. In Yorkshire there remains the Norwegian sea at Thornborough Henge, reminding us that climate change as in meteorological sense is going to happen whatever we do do. It evidences that come what may the earth has a different plan to anything those deemed scientists and therefore ”messiahs” imagine and elude themselves is the solution, and which ultimately delivers greater problems and more devastation. FOE focus on the main drivers for climate change are important, and we do need to pay attention to emmisions, pollution as well as the killing of sea life such as sperm whales recently beaching on our shores, a rising event since 1998, and not yet linked to offshore drilling which needs addressing.

     I don’t find FOE has an army of well paid activists, most activists I meet deliver campaigns aided by the FOE, and those campaigns may never otherwise have delivered grass roots democratic protest or awareness nationally and internationally.

     And what is wrong with raising money via campaigns? it is a charity after all, and at least doesn’t engage in any surreptitious phone calling as do other charities, but it does retain support from the public voice it serves rather than exploits. Onshore drilling companies have been subsidised in their campaigns to the tune of millions of pounds of public money with not one voter allowed to vote on whether this is acceptable or not, isn’t that greater cause for concern?
     Isn’t Kevin Hollingrake and Lancashire pro drilllers using millions of pounds of money (our taxes) given to the EA to do the money go round delivery of Disneyland fracking farm myth a greater scandal?

     Reply

3. By the way, must add WWF are important in this assault on water as their report shows quite clearly that water supplies for both Lancashire and Yorkshire regions will not sustain the amount of population being herded there post 2020, and with Yorkshire’s water basin already highly modified and Lancashire’s Water Utilities one of the worst offending for water governance and pollution, isn’t it time something better was being done than a fracking WMD roll out in those regions?

   Reply

4. Mar g and Nick you need to chill, why you spending your time typing up some long ass paragraphs that no one is going to read

   Reply