March to Parliament Square in central London in protest against government inaction on climate change, 17 November 2018. Photo: Eddie Thornton
Katja Garson, of the UK Youth Climate Coalition, reports in this guest post on a growing letter-writing campaign that urges the energy minister to ban fracking.
Something always has to give. And amidst ongoing tension relating to fracking in the UK, campaigners at the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC) are determined to show that it will not be their resolve, nor that of local communities.
As the UK Government pushed fracking through despite community and political opposition, UKYCC in October sent a letter calling for a meeting with Claire Perry, the Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth.
However, since the Minister declined this opportunity to hear informed youth and community perspectives on the social and environmental impacts of drilling for shale gas, citing a ‘heavily committed’ diary, the UKYCC campaign has grown in energy.
People all over the country have been invited to sign a letter which calls for a ban on fracking. Every signature (the number currently stands at 425) lines up another letter to be delivered by UKYCC to Westminster.
Protest in Preston against prison sentences imposed on three anti-fracking campaigners last week. Photo: Eddie Thornton, 6 October 2018
In recent weeks, the campaign has gained the support of a range of voices.
These include Friends of the Earth UK, Young Friends of the Earth Europe, Climate Action Network, Reclaim the Power, university climate societies, and the Incredible Hulk, Mark Ruffalo.
Anna Carlini, a UKYCC campaigner, said:
“We’ve been to the Preston New Road fracking site and heard the concerns of local people, as well as people from around the country.
“And these concerns are justified: both lived experience and scientific research show that fracking is incompatible with a healthy future for communities and climate.”
What’s more, this is also an issue of democracy. In November, over 850 councillors and elected representatives, including 71 Conservatives, signed an open letter against the government’s plan to fast-track fracking without the consent of local communities.
Paul Doughty, Conservative Councillor for City of York Council, said:
“Residents should have the say on what happens in their local communities. I strongly oppose any attempts to remove local decision making that might allow fracking by permitted development.”
Despite this opposition, recent words from Claire Perry show that she is not intending to reconsider her stance, reaffirming government support for the industry. In response to Cuadrilla CEO Francis Egan’s call to relax regulations that ‘strangle’ fracking, she emphasised the UK’s commitment to ‘safe’ and ‘responsible’ shale gas exploration.
Yet fracking was temporarily halted several times between October and December 2018 after seismic activity was detected around the Cuadrilla-managed Preston New Road site.
Fracking has been blamed for contamination of groundwater, air and noise pollution and for contributing to climate change through methane leaks. Gas is not a solution, nor a bridge to a better future.
Perry’s hope that “the industry can thrive in the years ahead” highlights that short-term economic gain ties the UK’s energy policy to an unsustainable status-quo built on fossil fuels and inadequate investment in renewables.
There are many examples of the Government working to the interests of the fossil fuel industry. For instance, the National Planning Policy Framework published last year supports ‘the benefits of onshore oil and gas development’ and calls for ‘policies to facilitate their exploration and extraction’ (Section 204a) while suggesting several barriers to the development of wind energy.
As UKYCC’s Laura Candy put it:
“Claire Perry didn’t listen to peaceful protests, or to Councillors’ views. Her defence of existing safety regulations may impress some people, but nothing can make fracking safe or clean. Will Claire take notice of a flood of letters landing on her desk, all telling her that UK communities are against fracking?”
While the answer to this question is uncertain, one thing is clear: as long as fracking goes on, signatures, opposition and resistance will continue.
DrillOrDrop always welcomes guest posts. Please get in touch here with your ideas.
Categories: Opposition
DRILL OR DROP? 
I note that yet again Claire Perry is too ashamed to meet with those most affected by her support for the fossil fuel industry. Apparently, she has a ‘Heavily Committed Diary’ which prevents her from attending even one meeting with people concerned by the effects of fracking. Whilst I would never question the word of the Minister and have no doubt of the most onerous nature of her duties, I am interested to hear her explanation as to how it is that, despite her enormous workload, she has found time to meet with fracking companies and their supporters. 31 times.
In 3 years.
That’s almost once per month.
If I were less generous I could almost think that she’s scared of meeting those who have done little but research the fracking industry for at least the past 5 years and have facts and figures together with the evidence to back them up.
It seems to me that Claire is meeting the people who have spent many years researching conducting research into fracking and who know how to conduct research properly. The guest post is totally misguiddd maybe after the author has obtained a research degree in a scientific subject.
‘ people who have spent many years researching conducting research into fracking and who know how to conduct research properly’
You mean like start up shale gas company Cuadrilla who, after their technical failings at Preese hall, requested a 1.7 magnitude threshold limit then spent the next 7 years telling everyone about a 0.5 magnitude limit but as soon as they started fracking again unsurprisingly say that a 0.5 limit is not going to get the gas out. Of course they presumably forgot to tell Claire about their 1.7 request based on their findings from Preese Hall.
No 3D surveys and drilling through faults and buckling the well and you are suggesting they know what they are talking about.
It is you who are totally misguided.
Great that the next generation are engaging with the global threat of climate change. disgusting that Claire Perry won’t meet them, and laughable to suggest that we have ‘people who have spent many years researching conducting research into fracking and who know how to conduct research properly’ guiding the UK forward on shale gas.
Not really a technical success now is it? Basic understanding of the English language can tell you that.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preese-hall-shale-gas-fracturing-review-and-recommendations-for-induced-seismic-mitigation
Cuadrilla were very silly agreeing to the 0.5 limit. However, what Preese Hall shoes is that fracking is very safe and that wells are very well designed so that the don’t leak at depth:
I don’t believe that the outcome would have been any different if the well had been drilled with a 3D survey. I really don’t know what you’re worried about regarding drilling through faults – we do it all the time
I agree JUDITH,
It’s better to talk to people who are highly qualified, at the top of their profession, about the health risks associated with Fracking.
Did Ms Perry talk to these ????????
Published in the British Medical Journal ( BMJ ), these highly qualified people WARN of the HEALTH DANGERS associated with FRACKING
https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2728/rr
Dr Robin Stott, Co-Chair, Climate and Health Council
Professor Sue Atkinson CBE, Co-Chair, Climate and Health Counci
Professor Hugh Montgomery, UCL
Professor Maya Rao OBE
Professor Martin McKee, LSHTM
Dr Clare Gerada, GP and former Chair of RGCP
Dr Christopher Birt, University of Liverpool and Christie Hospital, Manchester
Professor John Yudkin, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, UCL
Dr Sheila Adam, former Deputy Chief Medical Officer
Professor Klim McPherson, Chair of the UK Health Forum
Dr John Middleton, Vice President UKFPH
Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, KCL
Helen Gordon, Board Member, Climate and Health Council
Dr Frank Boulton, Medact and Southampton University
Dr Sarah Walpole, Academic Clinical Fellow
Professor Allyson Pollock, QMUL
Dr Julie Hotchkiss, Acting Director of Public Health at City of a York Council
Professor Jennie Popay, Lancaster University
Jackthelad – I’m not sure how you can take the letter seriously given it cites the Medact report, which actually doesn’t provide evidence that fracking had endangered health – it actually states in the report that such evidence is lacking
JUDITH,
For you to try and discredit this list of eminent people, at the top of their profession. You are going to have to do it on a one on one basis and offer more than just a few sparce words with zero credibility.
Ladies and gentlemen, lets see what JUDITH has against each and every one of the individuals on my above list.
They are no experts on fracking, they haven’t ever published research on fracking and all they have done is quote a report that clearly states that there is no evidence that fracking is dangerous to health but it ‘could’ be
LADIES and GENTLEMEN
JUDITH, is trying to put forward a typical SMOKE and MIRRORS from the Fracking industry, whilst offering SWEET NOTHING in evidence .
Although JUDITH may have difficulty , or choose not to read and understand the damming comments made against the Fracking industry. The letter is indisputable .
LADIES and GENTLEMEN please click on my above LINK , read the letter and take note of the names and positions of these people who are making this statement
MAKE up your own minds .
Jackthelad, it’s often wise to read the contents of letters and not just the names of signatories. The letter starts out with “We write as concerned health professionals who seek to draw the public’s attention to the dangers associated with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom, as highlighted by a recent report published by Medact.”
However, when one reads the Medact report one has statements such as “Although it is not possible to quantify the health and environmental risk of SGP”.
So the letter is clearly based on a report, which itself acknowledges that there isn’t robust evidence.
I’ve got nothing against the individuals writing the report but could you show me which ones of them have actually published any peer-reviewed research on the impact of shale gas production in health.
JUDITH you can continue to try and fudge the lines …. They have put their NAMES and reputations on the lines with what they have said …
YOU have put nothing on the line with YOUR opinion .
This long list of eminent people are all professional people of high standing … YOU on the other hand may be nothing more than an Ice cream salesperson at the end if Blackpool pier.
LADIES and GENTLEMEN, I ask you PLEASE, click on the LINK, read the letter and take note of the people who have put their names to it … MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS
LADIES and GENTLEMEN, please note.
Referring to my above LINK, with the names and positions of highly qualified people within the field of science and medicine .
As you will note in the letter they have signed……. THEY USE THE MEDACT report as a reference only…… THEY have already formed their own opinions on the matter regarding the dangers of Fracking…
IN FUTURE , PLEASE JUDITH , supply some evidence to what you say in your posts ( LINKS ) .
I’m just quoting their letter and the Medact report
I take it by your inability to provide links to peer-reviewed papers on fracking by those that signed the letter that you agree with me that they haven’t got experience in this area. Thanks for confirming that.
JUDITH ,
WARNING ……..LADIES and GENTLEMEN
After reviewing a further 350 academic papers , MEDACT come up with and UPDATED public health assessment on Fracking.
Fracking is a danger to public health in many ways .
https://www.medact.org/2016/resources/reports/shale-gas-production-in-england/
JUDITH,
After looking at 1300 peer reviewed studies
The WARNINGS are SIMPLE .
Major Review Confirms That Fracking Is A Clear And Present Danger To Millions Of Americans
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/major-review-confirms-fracking-clear-present-danger-millions-americans/amp.html
JUDITH,
PEER reviewed study .
WARNING to ALL expecting MOTHERS who live near a FRACKING SITE.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://epic.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/Fracking%2520Research%2520Summary.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjWvcmAlIzgAhUGURUIHfqfCM4QFjANegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw1ciI54upyQDpunV0G8QPGE
But there weren’t 1300 peer reviewed papers were there Jack? There were 1300 footnotes and the majority were not peer reviewed. The papers were also not directly relevant in that they included studies where the chemicals from fracking (in the USA) were shown to be carcinogens but no evidence was provided to suggest that these got into the environment. They also include studies on climate change. The Medact report wouldn’t have specifically mentioned that they couldn’t quantify health issues if peer reviewed papers were available. It’s also a case that the Medact report was written by political activists – so hardly impartial.
LADIES and GENTLEMEN please note carefully.
JUDITH has made a sweeping statement that the 1300 peer reviewed studies were nothing more than, quote, ‘ footnotes ‘ and the majority were not peer reviewed.
BUT and this is a big BUT , JUDITH offers ZERO evidence .
Let’s see your proof , let’s see your evidence ( LINKS PLEASE )
If we are going to play the game of plucking words out of thin air and supplying ZERO evidence to back up what we say .
Then I could say , I was walking on the moon last week .
PEER reviewed studies
FRACKING is bad for human health
Toward an Understanding of the Environmental and Public Health Impacts of Unconventional Natural Gas Development: A Categorical Assessment of the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature, 2009-2015
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article%3Fid=10.1371/journal.pone.0154164
Amazing that those who write the Medact report considered these studies but concluded “is not possible to quantify the health and environmental risk of SGP”. Anyhow, thanks for confirming that you also don’t agree with the contents of the Medact report.
JUDITH ,
YOU have made a comment, now please back it up with evidence ( LINKS PLEASE )
Can’t you find your own links to the Medact report?
BTW – links to papers that are not peer reviewed are worthless. Even if you do find links to peer reviewed papers that highlight clustering of illnesses around a fracking site you then need to prove cause and effect and also show that the clustering isn’t simply the same clustering that you would expect from a series of random events.
Here we go again , are you JUDITH and MARTIN sat at the same PR desk ???????
Very strange how both of you have a phobia about supplying links to back up any of your comments…
OR is that you have NOTHING that can dispute the the real dangers of FRACKING on public health ??????
It is very SILLY to expect members of this forum to spend their valuable time trying to find evidence to back up what you have said .
Like I said LINKS PLEASE
There is of course one other possibility why you would not be able to cut and paste LINKS , that is of course if you were a BOT
BOT meaning ……. an autonomous program on a network ( especially the Internet ) which can interact with systems or users,
When Katya realises that fracking is supposed to produce seismic activity, that would be a good starting point. You know, like producing chunks of granite to construct the infamous Swansea Lagoon, that would destroy a big piece of the Lizard-except the vast quantities of explosives for that would be a whole lot more seismic.
When the investors realise a 2.3 magnitude earthquake from 6 small fracking treatments can only produce a small gas flow then the future for the industry is bleak.
The recent AJ lucas UK shale report gives an optimistic UK success rate of 67%. Unfortunately for the investors the in depth report only references a 1.7M threshold but forgets to mention the fact that UK shale is bound by a 0.5M threshold limit. I wonder what percentage success rate would have been given at a 0.5M threshold. Odd that edison didn’t spot that over the past 5 years nearly all reference to seismic threshold was 0.5M.
https://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/?ACT=18&ID=20787&LANG
Judging by the AJ Lucas share price trend there are a lot of small time investors out of pocket.
They are in the Tesla boat, you suggest, John? Possibly. Maybe one of them will sail on to a sunny future! But sailing could be a problem as Jack will have the report that “shows” too many wind turbines could interfere with normal wind flow-adding to climate change. Oops.
I agree GBK. Been there and done it. Sweden to Davos still a long way to travel to show it.
We were all young and naive once.
It seems you are now old and naive?
Progress in Germany, only 13 years behind the UK….I wonder what they will use instead?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/26/germany-agrees-to-end-reliance-on-coal-stations-by-2038
Germany has agreed to end its reliance on polluting coal power stations by 2038, in a long-awaited decision that will have major ramifications for Europe’s attempts to meet its Paris climate change targets.
The country is the last major bastion of coal-burning in north-western Europe and the dirtiest of fossil fuels still provides nearly 40% of Germany’s power, compared with 5% in the UK, which plans to phase the fuel out entirely by 2025.
They will of course need more gas – where will that come from???
“Merkel, speaking in Davos last week, said that, as the country ditches coal and closes its last nuclear plants in 2022, “we will need more natural gas, and energy needs to be affordable.” Her government has a goal of increasing the share of renewables in electricity supply from 38% today to 65% in 2030.”
BEIS
Gas being cut, renewables on the up and battery storage double than predicted
https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2018/01/uk-government-halves-projections-for-gas-fired-power-capacity.html
regarding nuclear,
Jonathan Marshall, an analyst at the ECIU thinktank, said: “Shifting away from expensive, complicated technology towards cheaper and easier to build renewables gives the UK the opportunity to build an electricity system that will keep bills for homes and businesses down for years to come.”
Let’s get those 8 and 10MW onshore wind turbines up and start giving the UK a clean cheap electric supply using home grown North sea gas as back up.
John – I’m just as happy as anyone else to see renewables producing more energy (so long as sourcing REEs etc doesn’t cause environmental destruction elsewhere in the world). However, it’s total fantasy to think that current battery technology is sufficient to accommodate the intermittent nature of the renewables. That isn’t even considering the crunch that’s about to come regarding the supply of critical elements needed for batteries.
Yes, shift to something simple and reliable -gas….. John the link you posted is about new capacity not power generated. Anyone with half a brain knows that with a LF of 35-40% you have to install a lot more of it to generate what you want. Try 2.5-3x what you want to produce. But you still can’t predict when you will get it. Existing gas will continue for many years to produce reliable base and demand load – providing there is gas feedstock.
Germany – coal to gas…..
Battery storage double that predicted – amazing 2x not much still equates to not much. A bit like the 1 million electric cars globally – out of 1.2 billion; soon to be 2 billion……
And what are you gonna do when the gas runs out? Or the change in climate is irreversible due to the wasting of gas to produce electricity?
Use renewables to produce electricity; over produce if storage is a problem; use minimum gas to heat homes; cost of power reduces, less conflict over resources and damage to the environment, clean and safer option; a future for these children.
Stop being selfish old farts – leave the kids a space to breath, a land to live and work in, and food to eat; a better, less greedy world?
When the gas runs out in 300 years we might have a reliable alternative or we may have been hit by a meteorite…..
I fear you have missed the point, Paul. The consequences of your attitude to the young people will be dire; perhaps you may wish to contemplate this?
So where is my comment incorrect? It may not be what you want to see happening but this is what is happening….
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how the 2 billion vehicles forecast are going to be fueled and the source of that fuel?
It’s not about correct Paul, it’s about attitude…I thought you were better than this?
So you can’t enlighten us Sherwulfe? Your / my attitude will solve nothing.
Missed the point again; humm seems you and MC are indeed joined at the hip?
My attitude leads to action, which has and will continue to make a difference…
‘ Existing gas will continue for many years to produce reliable base and demand load – providing there is gas feedstock’
I presume your boiler is North sea gas compliant.
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/5126/oga_reserves__resources_report_2018.pdf.
UK shale gas production over last 9 years from single well………..Nothing
Anyone with a quarter brain knows nothing x lots is still nothing.
Although it might give you pleasure to think of the shale gas industry failing due to the number of years that have passed since it started. It is far more realistic to think of it in terms of the number of wells drilled. George Mitchell drilled quite a low of wells before he made his fortune
The future belongs to these young people, it’s only right that their voices are heard
The world is about everyone, past, present and future; but we must allow voices for all, including those who cannot vocalize – animals, plants, the earth.
What monsters are we to destroy the very place we live, taking all around us with it; to have offspring and condemn them to live in a toxic world?
Has the god of money really demonized us so much that we can only take for ourselves and not care about others?
We are all responsible.
Put it right.
Yes, and they are Fifi. But, if they want others to fund what those voices are saying then they need to get used to others saying sorry, don’t agree, but feel free to do it yourself.
I wonder if they are happy with their’s and their parents money funding 31 visits between CP and Cuadrilla?
Interesting concept that those who don’t agree have to apologize?
What are you on about Martin? I was referring to Claire Perry’s refusal to meet with the UKYCC.
They are writing to her, so their voices are being heard Fifi. Not difficult to grasp.
Doesn’t mean they are saying anything new that requires the Minister to meet them to discuss. If they were, perhaps she might.
If a Minister met everyone who wanted to say the same thing then there would be plenty who would criticise them for wasting their time upon a minority but not engaging enough with the, largely, silent majority.
Yep, Sherwulfe, 31 visits sounds pretty Gold Standard. Minister with the responsibility in regular contact with the company undertaking the first test. Obviously a lot of attention to the detail.
An environmental group against fracking in the minority??? Hardly.
But maybe you’re right and this government is far too busy to engage with young people and minority groups.
It was said after the last general election that young people cost Theresa May her majority and the Tories failed to win even one-fifth of ethnic minority votes.
Hardly? ACTUALLY. Read the research.
Yes, I am right.
Equally, a few organised young people are not all young people. A lot of young people are working hard to afford the lifestyle they want. That includes two or three overseas holidays a year and a nice car, with, or without go faster stripes. They would like to be helped to achieve that by paying less tax and see that may be assisted by not paying the tax to another country on imported gas and oil.
Most of us have been students at some time, and feel we are the voice of the generation and it is the generation that must be obeyed. Then, we find out we were wrong on both counts.
Young people do often believe false bribes by political parties, but those in work and managing their finances, are less prone to do so, as they recognise they may have to pay for them.