Campaigners plan national climate rally near Lancashire fracking site

pnr 180828 Ros Wills2

Fencing protest outside Cuadrilla’s shale gas site at Preston New Road near Blackpool, 28 August 2018. Photo: Ros Wills

Campaigners in Lancashire are planning a national climate rally near Cuadrilla’s shale gas site later this month.

The event, called a National Climate Crisis Rally, comes as Cuadrilla prepares for the first frack of a horizontal shale gas well in the UK. It will also be the UK’s first high volume hydraulic fracture since 2011, when fracking near Blackpool was linked to earthquakes.

A spokesperson for the organisers, Frack Free Lancashire, said:

“The industry and its friends in government should be in no doubt that their unsustainable pet project of yet more fossil fuels has no place in a modern-day energy strategy, and that any attempt to force fracking onto unwilling communities will be met with continued protest and resistance.”

The event, on Saturday 20 October 2018, is at Maple Farm, Preston New Road, near Blackpool, FY4 5RN. It is due to start at midday and is expected to feature speeches from trades unions, politicians and campaign organisations. The organisers said the event will include entertainment and food and culminate in a walk to the fracking site.

Frack Free Lancashire said:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report this week that leaves no doubt that “business as usual” in terms of energy generation and the link to global warming, is simply not an option.”

The group added:

“All concerned organisations, groups and individuals are urged to come together for a national rally. Anti-fracking and climate groups from across the country will be welcomed, along with faith groups, trade unions and NGOs.

“It will be a day of solidarity and good spirits, with continued support for the campaign of the “Free the Three”, following the unprecedented imprisonment of three anti-fracking campaigners after peaceful protests in Lancashire during 2017.”

  • Anti-fracking campaigner, Bob Dennett, is at the High Court in London this afternoon for his application for an injunction against fracking at Preston New Road. Mr Dennett is seeking a judicial review of emergency planning arrangements for the site. DrillOrDrop will be reporting from the hearing.

22 replies »

  1. I wonder if campaigners realize that the nation that leads the charge in reducing GHG emissions, is doing so because of fracking? I wonder if they realize that the UK’s “progress” in reducing carbon emissions is a mirage, generated through carbon accounting loopholes that allow the country to destroy forests so that wood can be fed into its old coal gen facilities? Those wood burning plants now emit more carbon and other particulates than even coal. But because it is viewed as “closed cycle” it qualifies as “zero emissions.” Of course the “closed cycle” argument is a bit of a hoax, because not all of the carbon sequestered in our forests is recycled into the atmosphere as trees die, instead some of it is buried deep underground for billions of years. I digress….

    While nations such as Germany and Australia have poured hundreds of billions into renewables, they have not made much progress toward reducing GHG emissions. The US, thanks to fracking, leads the world in carbon emission reduction. Serious environmentalists understand this, and back the push for fracking. This is especially true of domestic fracking, as domestically sourced local gas produces fewer emissions than imported gas.

    It’s not that complicated.

  2. As far as anyone is aware, the fossilised remains that are now used as fuels such as coal, shale rock gas, oil and gas bitumen and tars etc resulted from a greenhouse effect in the Precambrian, Paleozoic and Mesozoic, and that was from 540 million or so years ago to approximately 66 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous, There must have been many tectonic overlaying seismic and volcanic events that caused the vegetable and animal matter to become buried, and carbonised with a great deal of heat somehow and thrust deep down in the earth and the results of that are what we see now as fossilised carbon.

    The events of the Permian and Triassic about 250 million years ago, led to approximately 75% of all land life and 95% of all ocean life becoming extinct, the last and most devastating event in this period was caused by the permafrost at the poles melting and the frozen methane in the ocean floor melting causing massive amounts of methane to pour into the atmosphere.As you know methane is 20 times more volatile as a greenhouse gas as CO2.

    That caused a runaway greenhouse effect and the earth alternately froze and roasted for perhaps millions of years, most species could not survive that and most if not all the large animal life was lost to extinction, only the smaller more adaptable survived in sheltered spots.

    Almost certainly much of what we see as fossil fuels was a result of such devastations, so the question is really, what are we doing at present with CO2 and methane emissions that could lead to a similar event in these times?

    The answer to that? We dont know for sure, we have never seen such a world wide change of climate, but the greenhouse effect is accelerating, and climate change is real and it has shown its effects this year.

    So the question is really, what do we do about it, and what will we be handing our children, and their children to deal with as best they can?

    I am sure that fracking gas has reduced somewhat the reliance on coal, however that is not going to continue, with new coal fields being opened up in several places this year.

    Now i am not as died in the wool anti fossil fuel as some think, but there is one thing i am absolutely sure of, that we must find, as a matter of urgency ways to reduce emissions and the best way we can yet see to do that is to fully invest in renewable energy sources, and that is simply not happening.

    So in a way, speaking out about the use of fossil fuels has become a forum for talking about the alternatives, my personal worry is that the pushing for more and more fossil fuels is so strong for whatever reason, that it ignores and buries the real imperative, and that is a low carbon energy based upon renewable sources that at least begins to address the emission issues.

    What i find personally galling is that Exxon and Shell had their own scientists to project the results in the late 1970’s of relying primarily on fossil fuels in the earths climate and ecology, and the results that warned that such sole reliance would irreversibly damage the projected climate in the future, well, this is the future, this decade, but the information and papers were buried and has only recently become known thanks to researchers.

    So here we are at a crisis point in almost every way and we really must do something now, not tomorrow or the day after, it is only established inertia and present day financial power bases and power mad politicians that prevent this happening, surely we are intelligent enough to see that?

  3. Apparently according to jackthelad, Methane has the greenhouse effect of 84 times that of CO2, i think that depends upon how much methane is released and how long it remains in the atmosphere?

      • PHIL C

        The difference in your , Methane is 20 times more a potent greenhouse gas than C02 and what I posted about it being 86 times more a potent greenhouse gas , is all downs how they fiddle the figures .

        Taken from the above link , this will explain to other members of the forum.

        QUOTE, ” Policymakers typically ignore methane’s warming potential over 20 years (GWP20) when assembling a nation’s emissions inventory. Instead, they stretch out methane’s warming impacts over a century, which makes the gas appear more benign than it is, experts said. The 100-year warming potential (GWP100) of methane is 34, according to the IPCC. “

        • With reference to the above ……….

          SORRY……. I should of added for any not familiar with the abbreviations .

          ( GWP20 ) is the Global Warming Potential over 20 years

          ( GWP100 ) is the Global Warming Potential over 100 years

          • Thanks Jack, duly noted, as you say such figures are massaged up or down depending upon which emphasis is required by the funders of the studies or the personal interpretation of data by those involved. I think we can safely say the figures are likely to be a median of the original range spread? The problem with the great Permian extinction seems to be that vast amounts of methane were poured into the environment and atmosphere, so the natural decay cycle of methane did not have a significant effect on world-wide greenhouse effect and temperature swings to the point where all species suffered massive die off, and many total extinctions?
            All interesting stuff, but it does not bode well for the consequences of our present worldwide exponential increase in CO2 and methane emissions’.

            [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

  4. “But if we don’t get carbon dioxide under control and peak emissions by 2050, the new study suggests, then today’s methane emissions become irrelevant. They simply won’t be causing warming any longer. But a significant amount of the carbon dioxide we emit today will still be in the atmosphere.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/02/why-were-still-so-incredibly-confused-about-methanes-role-in-global-warming/?utm_term=.9a3f967c0747

    Methane is an issue but its relevance with respect to oil and gas operations is often overstated. The fact is that fugitive emission reduction efforts have had a large impact on methane from oil and gas, but the largest contributors continue to be agricultural in nature.

    • Perhaps Bob we tend to measure these things from the present relatively stable climate situation. It is perhaps unknown what effects increasing amounts of methane have after the potential “tipping point” of permanent climate change? I recall the phrase “tipping point” being used back in the 1970’s and the concept was then far in the future. We seem to be at the very least on the verge of that now, this is the future. Perhaps the climate change prediction models should be re examined to assess what, if anything, is the more likely scenario, otherwise we just throw figures at each other and become polarised camps and nothing gets done?
      An interesting debate, thanks you and Jack for raising this issue.

  5. The best way to reduce global warming is to restrict population growth. Anti fracking groups should start a World-wide,
    one child per couple movement. Also work to ban coal fired electricity generation World-wide.
    80% of UK homes are heated by gas and industry uses gas in production processes and as a feed stock.The UK needs its own gas supply, give fracking a chance,until we can build more tidal lagoons and pumped storage to store electrical energy produced by renewables. Gas will be used for the next 50 years or so, and it will be purchased from overseas, is it not better that we control the process, methane emissions will be better controlled than in Russsia or Qatar.

    • Im not a big fan of eugenics gasman, the concept leads to extremist measures such as we have seen in recent history.
      Besides, we seem to be doing perfectly well around the world without an official policy of eugenics becoming “who decides who lives and who doesn’t” and “who decides who decides, who decides” Dangerous ground best left in the darker chapters of the history books where it belongs.

      • Hi Phil, I’m not talking about eugenics “breeding of people to improve the race”, but reducing the population by birth control, fewer people less energy needed.

        • Actually you said this Gasman:

          “The best way to reduce global warming is to restrict population growth”

          Look at the unfolding in history China policy of one child per family, what it led to was genocide of unwanted female children, as only male children were seen as being valuable to carry the family, that resulted in sex slavery, murder, casting children out into the street, child prostitution and a “culture” of sexual perversion towards children, the police ignored them and that legacy has spead to an entire world wide industry in child trafficking, and no one cared, an entire generation of traumatised children and perverted society.

          And then you get to that sticky subject of just who or what constitutes the “ideal” genetics characteristics? And who decides who are the ones to decide who are the ones to be saved and those who will not.

          When you go down that particular route you get a “master race” attitude and the assumption of a “Ubermenchen and Untermenchen” policy where someone with the “right” genetic characteristics, gets everything and the unfortunates with the “wrong” genetic characteristics get slavery and subjugation and poverty and become just a cheap workforce for the “elite”.

          Then it descends into calling an entire race “inferior” to your chosen “superior” race and then the blood really flows, mass genocide of women men and children, babies even, Gas chambers, concentration work camps, concentration death camps, slavery for life however short, and the attitude of the “master race” becomes insane as it treats anyone “less” than perfect as not even human and a suitable case for the quickest cheapest form of extermination for the “betterment” of the race as a species.

          no thank you Gasman. This country fought that evil ideology seventy years ago, and still it raises its ugly head in these pages, the simple truth is that we all have something special, genetics are not fixed anyway, that is the point, there will always be different copies of one genetic DNA strand, its built into the entire life of the planet, we all have something unique within us, we just have not learned to see that yet.


          Sorry, but no, not again.

          • H, Phil, what a load of rubbish, you raised the subject of eugenics, I did not. I said “The best way to reduce global warming is to restrict population growth”, nothing to do with eugenics.
            It makes sense that we restrict the number of people, that can be fed, people able to lead a comfortable existance.Energy is essential to acheive this objective, UK natural gas would contribute to this. I agree we should also develop renewable and nuclear energy sources to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels, but it will take at least a generation. Best regards.

            • Hi Gasman,

              What is a load of rubbish?

              Look at the Chinese experience with their “one child” policy. That is all historical fact. Read up on it if you wish and look at the terrible results of that “population growth policy” I didnt make it up, its all there for you to see.

              Restricting population growth is eugenics, there is no other name for it, because if such a “policy” is to be enforced then it leads to all those results i spoke of above in the Chinese “one child” experiment.

              How do you want to restrict the number of people who can be fed? And what about those who it is deemed, presumably by those who can be fed, that cannot be fed? Starve them to death?

              Who decides? How do you implement it? What about those who will object to any such restriction? What are you going to do about them? Entire countries perhaps? Make war on them? Invade and enforce those “policies” on an unwilling population?

              Make sanctions on them and starve them of resources?

              Its the same result, poverty and starvation, it serves its purpose around the world, perhaps for the very same population control reasons right now doesnt it.

              Renewable energy sources are the only intelligent way forward, gas will be around for a while, but it is only a stopgap limited resource and the social and pollution effects have been proved to be dire and dangerous throughout the world, and the so called UK world class gold standard regulations just evapourate as soon as the industry wants to move the goalposts, so they are nothing of any regulatory ability whatsoever.

              Nuclear also has its problems, the long term storage of highly radioactive nuclear waste, and we know what is proposed for that, but as i have said several times, the use of Thorium reactors reduces that to a minimum and only needs fissionable Uranium to produce the thorium pellets. Thorium is also available in most places around the world, whereas there are only a few places that have Uranium mines, so it is less of a resource trap.

              The reason that is ignored and that Uranium reactors are used is that they produce weapons grade plutonium and depleted Uranium tipped warheads, as a by-product, and hence are more of a draw for those who wish to strut about the world as a nuclear armed country.

              The onshore natural gas industry has also had another by product, and that is the destruction of human and civil rights and the roller coasting over the entire democratic process by corporate interests, that might also be seen as a deliberate move by forces within government and industry, and fracking has been the catalyst that has enabled that to be rolled out in the UK with alarming speed.

              Have a nice day.

  6. “Research” now shows that intake of coffee increases male fertility, so all we have to do is close down all these coffee shops and world population should be sorted Gasman.

    Should also alleviate the “pressure” caused by closing public toilets, and GPs inundated with patients suffering bladder infections.

    Saving the world is so simple. Perhaps I will wear the pants outside the trousers today.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s