Just one in seven women would be happy about living within five miles of a fracking site, according to a new opinion poll.
The survey also found that almost three-quarters of Labour voters would be unhappy about fracking in their area
Overall, fewer people would be happy about living near a local fracking site than a small nuclear reactor.
But about two-thirds of people would be happy about an onshore wind farm or a single turbine locally.
The survey, by YouGov for the climate change organisation 10:10, sampled 1,660 UK adults randomly selected from the YouGov panel on 12-13 September 2017.
When asked how people felt about a fracking site within five miles of their home, only 14% of women said they were happy, compared with 65% who said they were unhappy. The figures for men were 25% happy and 58% unhappy.
Women were more likely to say don’t know (22% compared with 15% for men). But the overall figure for “don’t know” of 18% in this survey was much lower than the 51% recorded in the government’s quarterly WAVE tracker survey for “don’t know” or neither “support nor oppose”. (DrillOrDrop report on the latest WAVE results)
Only one in seven (14%) Labour voters would be happy about living near a fracking site, compared with 71% who would be unhappy and 16% unsure.
Even among people who voted Conservative, the single large party which supports fracking, just over half (55%) would be unhappy about living near a fracking site. 31% would be happy and 14% said they didn’t know.
Two-thirds of Lib Dem voters would be unhappy about a fracking site in their area, compared with 22% who would be happy and 12% who didn’t know.
How people voted in the 2016 EU referendum appears to make little difference in their attitudes to fracking. 19% of Remain voters were happy about living near a fracking site, compared with 23% of Leave voters.
As with other surveys, support for fracking was higher among older people. Just 14% of people aged 18-24 were happy about the idea of living near a fracking site, compared with 27% of people aged 65+.
But the proportion of people who said they would be unhappy about living near a fracking site was little different across the age groups. Younger people were much more likely to say “don’t know” than people aged 50+.
AS A POINT OF INTEREST…….
Here are USA, Fracking GOLD STANDARDS .
Far away from any witnesses, my small town is being poisoned by fracking waste.
More like lax re injection standards.
Looks like a bit of a ramshackle operation, being a reception pit, pumps and the re injection will. I guess it is a class 2 well.
The injection in Ohio is stated as being because it’s cheaper and the States regulations are lax, although in other information Ohio is held as having higher standards than Texas.
Certainly not to to U.K. Standards.
Interestingly there is a link in linked info from that report to the Rosharon TX explosion. This is held as an example of the dangers of re injecting frack water. In the investigation a fair amount of skullduggery was uncovered re what was injected, and people were prosecuted.
However, the incident was due to, inter alia, the dropping of waste water from condensate tanks into an open trough, rather than piping it into holding tanks. The report reads as a good case of how not to run a re injection site, as well as how not to handle condensate waste. No concept of process safety, no written procedures, no training, no ER procedures and so on.
Such condensate waste is being collected and trucked around the UK today, on its way to treatment facilities. But a lot more carefully than as above.
I would take issue with the reporting, as clearly there are witnesses, and it’s not being dumped there because they are poor. Maybe more pork barrel than witness free issues, and which party is in power in the state vs the county?
I see that Ohio voted for Trump, in the main, but Athens county, where the injection well is, did not, being a blue spot in a sea of red.
Sad but true. Unfortunately the lying and cover ups have been institutionalised at the highest levels. Poor areas have been picked routinely as their people are less likely to have the wherewithal to challenge the corporates/government and take them to court.
… “her young family continue to protest wells, despite the attempts of the fracking industry to, according to her, ‘paint anyone who is organizing resistance around this stuff as outsiders or extremists’..” Anyone notice this pattern used here?
Meanwhile on climate matters: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger?CMP=share_btn_fb
Are you just talking about the US, or do you include the UK in the comment re fracking in poor areas?
US and Canada to date. I don’t imagine there will be much fracking going on in UK’s Surrey or on Duchy of Cornwall property for similar reasons. Of course I don’t believe it is explicit policy to play fast and loose with regulations in poorer areas but it’s funny how it works out that way. Also in many US States the land owners hold mineral rights and with the payouts and contracts it has been easy to buy the silence of landowners vis-a-vis damages and environmental/health impacts by way of gagging orders. The lump sums involved work wonders. I wonder how far the industry would get if gagging clauses were banned here – for those being offered ‘inconvenience’ or nuisance’ money.,
[Typo corrected at poster’s request]