Drone footage of Tinker Lane, Nottinghamshire, 2 January 2019. Photo: Eric Walton
This post has live updates from the parliamentary debate on government proposals to fast track fracking plans.
In May last year, the government announced plans to classify non-fracking shale gas sites as permitted development. This would allow operators to avoid the need for a full planning application and bypass the normal local authority decision-making process.
Ministers also proposed to designate major shale gas production sites at Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). This would mean decisions would be made the local government secretary, rather than local councillors.
Today’s debate is the first time the proposals have been discussed in the main chamber of the House of Commons.
Statement from campaign groups
In a joint statement after the debate, Friends of the Earth, CPRE, FFU, 350.org, 38Degrees and SumofUs said:
“There have been 57 earthquakes in Lancashire since fracking started. Yet the government wants to rip up the planning rulebook and fast-track fracking without community consent.
“Today MPs from across the political spectrum voiced their outrage at these plans and condemned the fracking industry for attempting to weaken vital earthquake regulations.
“This industry is bad news for our climate, environment and local democracy, and proposals to fast-track fracking should be thrown in the dustbin where they belong.”
5pm: Verbal vote
The House votes in favour of the motion that it has:
considered use of permitted development and the nationally significant infrastructure project regime for shale gas exploration and production.
4.59pm: Wera Hobhouse, Lib Dem, Bath
Wera Hobhouse, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Concluding the debate, she says fracked gas is a fossil fuel. She urges the government:
“Ditch fracking”
4.51pm: Kit Malthouse, housing minister
Kit Malthouse, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Mr Malthouse says no final decision has been made on whether to bring forward the proposals.
The consultation responses are being considered. They are part of a range of measures to speed up decisions on shale gas schemes, he says.
Sir Clive Betts asks the minister how decisions would be speeded up.
Mr Malthouse says permitted development would not apply to fracking schemes or affect regulation by the Environment Agency, Health & Safety Executive or the Oil & Gas Authority.
There could be controls on noise, height of structures or locations.
Kevin Hollinrake asks whether permitted development would allow developers to establish a well pad anywhere they wanted. Mr Malthouse says the consultation asked this question.
Kit Malthouse, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Communities should continue to be involved in planning decisions, he says.
we understand that communities feel that they are often not consulted closely enough before planning applications are submitted by developers to the local planning authority. That can lead to opposition to developments and a longer application process.
A separate consultation was launched by the government on compulsory pre-planning consultation, he says. Responses are also being considered.
Domestic gas production has a role to play in future energy supplies. There are potential benefits from the safe and sustainable exploitation of shale gas, he says. Decisions should be faster and fairer, he adds.
We remain expressly committed to ensuring that local communities are fully involved in planning decisions that affect them and to making planning decisions faster and fairer at the same time. We have now delivered on our promise to consult on how best to develop our planning processes for both the exploration and production of shale gas development, while ensuring that communities remain fully involved. We are currently considering the responses from those consultations and will respond in due course.
4.44pm: Roberta Blackman-Woods, shadow planning minister
Roberta Blackman-Woods, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Ms Blackman-Woods says: “The Government should accept that fracking is both dangerous and exacerbates global warming.”
She says
In Labour’s opinion, fracking should never be allowed, and it should certainly not be approved via permitted development or the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime instead of achieving local planning permission.
The proposals bypass the local decision-making process and local people. It would be reckless, she says.
Currently, shale gas schemes need to go to the full planning system which analyses the impact on land use and communities. This should continue, she says.
The consultation on permitted development did not make it clear whether the impact on agriculture, safety, heritage, flooding or safeguarding land would be analysed or protected under the permitted development regime or what conditions might be required to be met.
She quotes the conclusion of the Royal Town Planning Institute:
“Blanket permissions for shale gas exploration in England are completely unsuitable and fly in the face of good planning”.
She asks where are the responses to the consultations on permitted development and NSIP.
We know most of the responses are against the permitted development proposal. Some have called this an “affront to democracy”, she says. People who live nearby have a right to be heard.
The permitted development proposal would fundamentally undermine the planning process, she says.
A permitted development right for shale gas exploration would fundamentally undermine the local planning process and stop councils consulting on issues that are relevant to frackingapplications, such as the potential for seismic activity, which we know has actually happened, and water pollution; the disposal of waste water; well construction and integrity; and water availability.
These serious areas of concern have not been addressed by the government.
The government should think again about the proposals and about fracking itself, she says.
Community and environmental groups have opposed the proposals but the government has ploughed on, she says. Labour will ban fracking and invest in renewables. We strongly urge the government to refuse the NSIP regime and permitted development for fracking.
4.38pm: Deidre Brock, SNP, Edinburgh North and Leith
Deidre Brock, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
She says extravagant claims are made about fracking and shale gas benefits. The government must balance this against evidence on climate change.
These are genuine concerns because there is evidence of impacts from other countries. There are calls for bans in the US and it has been banned in the Netherlands.
She says the UK government could learn from what she calls the cautious approach of the Scottish government.
“Perhaps a more thorough regulatory regime will reduce the likelihood of some of the worst public health and safety hazards that we have seen in the States and elsewhere, but frankly I would not trust this Government to ensure that the checks and balances were robust enough, and the rewards are simply not worth the risk.”
She says:
“the UK Government seem intent on slashing red tape and fast-tracking fracking through the planning process, bypassing local democracy and those pesky protestors who get in the way of things. I do not have a lot of faith in the Government to put public interest before that of big business.”
No amount of regulation will prevent shale gas being a new source of greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is the biggest crisis that the planet is facing, she says.
She says school children are fed up of politicians who are stuck in the past, robbing the next generation of its future.
She says there is a long way to go to move away from fossil fuel dependence. Onshore fracking is the wrong direction for energy policy, she says.
There is a majority against fracking in the Scottish parliament, she says. She urges the UK government to put an end to this “damaging dash for gas”.
4.35pm: Matt Rodda, Labour, Reading East
Matt Rodda, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
We face a stark choice if we are not to face unstoppable climate change, he says. We have to stop exploitation for shale gas.
He says there are deep concerns about the local environment, particularly noise and the impact of major infrastructure projects. The very last thing the constituency needs is a major threat, he says.
He supports the concerns about the weakness of the planning system and the lack of government investment in renewable energy.
We have 12 years left to reduce carbon emissions. Communities have serious concerns about fracking.
Shale gas exploitation has to stop and stop now.
4.33pm: Geraint Davies, Labour, Swansea West
Geraint Davies, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
He says we cannot go forward with fracking and fulfil our Paris Agreement on climate change. There are also issues of water quality and usage, he says. We don’t have the infrastructure to treat fracking fluid, he says.
Mr Davies says following Brexit, multinational companies will fine the UK if it tries to stop them from fracking.
4.30pm: Justin Madders, Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston
Justin Madders, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
He says there is a growing consensus across the country against the proposals. They would make it easier to establish a shale gas site than a two-bedroom semi-detached house, he says.
The proposals read like a wish-list from the fracking companies.
How can the government’s fine word on climate change be consistent with the proposals on permitted development, he asks.
We are sleepwalking into a climate catastrophe. We need to shift away from fossil fuels now. If we don’t do it, it will be the next generation that suffers, he says.
4.27pm: Sir Clive Betts, Labour, Sheffield South East
Clive Betts, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Sir Clive says the local government select committee opposed the permitted development proposals. Local communities should not be excluded from the planning process, he says.
He says NSIP would not speed up the application process. He says Lancashire County Council had to ask Cuadrilla for more information five times – the delay was not the council’s fault, he says.
Listen to the weight of opinion across the chamber, he says. It is a row-back from localism.
4.23pm: Kevin Hollinrake, Conservative, Thirsk and Malton
Kevin Hollinrake, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Mr Hollinrake says he does not oppose locally–produced shale gas. But he says he is against permitted development for these sites.
He says gas has a future. He is concerned about impacts on his constituency. He says it is compatible with the landscape if it is done properly with clear planning guidelines.
He says most people in his constituency do not know gas sites are there.
There should be government-backed remediation plan. Landowners should not have to pick up the tab, he says.
I am against NSIP and permitted development. It is the wrong thing to do. The government should withdraw its plans.
4.21pm: Thangam Debbonaire, Labour, Bristol West
Thangham Debbonaire, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
She says she will not be able to look the next generation in the eye about what she had done to prevent climate change if fracking went ahead.
She says every single decision we take should be considered on the basis of what it does to prevent climate change.
4.16pm: Lee Rowley, Conservative, North East Derbyshire
Lee Rowley, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Mr Rowley says there is a cross-party consensus that there is a problem with fracking in the UK. There is no majority for permitted development or NSIP for fracking and probably not for fracking at all.
He says he came to fracking as an agnostic. But he says when you start to unpick fracking it starts to fall apart. If the prospectus does not work we should put our effort into something else.
“If there was a traffic light system to be applied today in this house, it would be flashing red that there is no majority for permitted development.”
Mr Rowley says:
Fracking does not have a place in our future energy mix. The government should abandon it.
There is a people-problem, he says. As knowledge increases then opposition increases.
We have to give local communities their own say. The community in Marsh Lane in my constituency should not have to accept the industrial site in the greenbelt and lorry movements in their community.
He reads to the chamber the infrastructure that Ineos proposes to put on the site at Marsh Lane. He says the field next door had been rejected for a car boot sale.
4.14pm: Louise Haigh, Labour, Sheffield Heeley
Louise Haigh, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
She says the government has been taken in by the experience of the United States.
But she says fracking in the UK will live or die in the Bowland shale. One well has been introduced in this basin and this has been dormant because of fracking. Many million people live in the basin, she says.
“There can be no pretence to localism when the government is riding roughshod over the voices and rights of local authorities and local people.”
She says it is not too late for the government to rethink its approach.
4.10pm: James Heappey, Conservative, Wells
James Heappey, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
He says he opposes fracking because he doesn’t accept the energy policy arguments.
He says there is a role for gas but not for fracking the UK energy mix because of the rapidly decreasing costs of renewables and storage and an upsurge in finds in the North Sea.
There are many more exciting opportunities if the government would just ditch fracking.
4.04pm: Sir Ed Davey, Lib Dem, Kingston and Surbiton
Sir Ed Davey, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Sir Ed Davey, as a former energy secretary in the coalition government, says he was cautious about shale gas. It had to be sensible regulated, he says.
Controls on seismicity and planning are in danger of being taken away, he says.
On the seismicity regulations, the coalition took evidence from scientists. We needed a precautionary approach because the experts were telling us that even a small seismic event could damage the borehole.
It was important to give that reassurance to the public and we decided we would go ahead but only with that cautious approach.
At the time, the coalition said it could look at the regulations in future, Sir Ed says. But he adds that a review had to be evidence-based. We have had very few fracking experiences. We don’t have anywhere near enough evidence to review that limit, he says.
He says he has got more sceptical about fracking over the years. After Paris, we have to got to push the renewable agenda further.
Without carbon capture and storage there is much less argument for fracked gas. With advanced renewable technology means we will need fracked gas.
“The relaxation of regulation, whether on seismicity or planning, is completely unjustified.”
He says permitted development is unnecessary. The case for fracked gas is much much weaker than it was a few years ago.
3.57pm: Nick Herbert, Conservative, Arundel and South Downs
Nick Herbert, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
He says there is oil extraction in his constituency. The sites are located sensibly and people do not get excited about them, he says.
Public interest in fracking in West Sussex is concerned about below-ground activity – impacts on ground water – and above ground – effects of traffic. People get most concerned when they are worried about large amounts of traffic.
A proposal for drilling at Wisborough Green was refused because of the impact of lorry movements on rural roads.
Mine concern is whether permitted development is appropriate for oil and gas exploration, he says. He doesn’t oppose permitted development in principle, he says.
The government’s proposal was in the manifesto, the chamber is told. Mr Herbert says other manifesto proposals have not seen the light of day:
It would be wise to keep in the bottom drawer firmly locked away
Local authorities should be able to decide proposals like this in their areas, Mr Herbert says.
There is no non-controversial way of generating energy in our country.
Large scale solar panels can excite just as much controversy as drilling.
I do not have an in principle objection to extraction of oil and gas, he says.
“There is concern about the potential random industrialisation of the countryside. We cannot allow that by one tick in a ministerial box.”
There has to be the ability of local authorities to decide on issues like traffic and put conditions on it, he says. The existing planning regime should be retained. This is not a proportionate or sensible policy.
3.50pm: Sir Mark Hendrick, Labour, Preston
Sir Mark Hendrick, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
He says he was originally agnostic about shale gas in Lancashire.
He says in April and May 2011, Blackpool experienced tremors because of fluid injection into a fault zone. Cuadrilla had mapped out of the faults and this would never happen again, Sir Mark says.
Cat Smith, Labour, Lancaster and Fleetwood, says her constituency are concerned that the traffic light system of regulations should remain.
Sir Mark says his constituents feel the same. The regulations require fracking would stop if earth tremors reached 0.5ML. Ed Davey was the energy secretary when the regulations were announced. He promised tough regulations, Sir Mark says.
Things turned out rather differently, he says. Sir Mark there have been earthquakes when Cuadrilla fracked recently He says the people of Lancashire have had enough.
The British Geological Survey have said the limit could rise to 1.5ML. That is not what was promised, Sir Mark says. Other scientists have said it could be raised higher. That is not acceptable, he says.
3.42pm: Mark Menzies, Conservative, Fylde
Mark Menzies, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Mr Menzies represents Fylde where Cuadrilla is fracking for shale gas at Preston New Road.
He says it was a former Labour government that put in place shale gas operations in Fylde.
Sir Ed Davey, Lib Dem, Kingston and Surbiton, (below right) says the coalition government put in place controls on shale gas operations.
Mr Menzies says permitted development is appropriate for a house conservatory, not an industrial site with thousands of truck movements.
He welcomes the refusal of permission for Cuadrilla’s proposed Roseacre Wood site. The traffic management plan did not work, he said. This reason would not be under consideration under permitted development.
For a reason why this proposal does not stack up, just turn to Roseacre Wood, he says.
Sir Greg Knight, Conservative, East Yorkshire (right), says to be consistent with wind farms, the government should not change the planning rules for shale gas.
Mr Menzies agrees that permitted development for shale gas would undermine public trust in the planning system. The proposal should be taken off the table because it is not sensible. The planning system should be reviewed to stop decisions dragging on for years.
There should be guidelines for what would be a suitable site for shale gas, he says.
Shale gas should only play a part if there is robust regulation and not something that is done to local communities.
Permitted development should not be a tool used by the shale gas industry, Mr Menzies says
3.30pm: Wera Hobhouse opens the debate
Wera Hobhouse, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Ms Hobhouse, Lib Dem, Bath, says two Westminster Hall debates on the issue showed that parliament had a view and wanted to be heard.
She says the government proposals are bad idea for two reasons.
Local communities would be deprived of a voice and supporting fossil fuels would contribute to climate change.
Kevin Hollinrake, Conservative, Thirsk and Malton, suggests that shale gas would displace imports.
Ms Hobhouse says this is the wrong argument. Shale gas is a fossil fuel.
Bill Esterson, Labour, Sefton Central, says:
“My local authority has now twice voted overwhelmingly against fracking in nearby West Lancashire, which affects my constituency as well, but the authority’s views are completely ignored by the approach the Government are taking. Does that not demonstrate that significant local interests should be taken on board?”
Stephanie Peacock, Labour, Barnsley East, says constituents don’t want fracking and should be listened to.
Ms Hobhouse says the UK was a leader in decarbonisation but is falling behind. She says the industry waste water and threatens the hot springs in her Bath constituency.
Kevin Hollinrake, Conservative, Thirsk and Malton, says the issue is where the gas comes from. He asks whether Ms Hobhouse’s house is connected to the gas main.
Ms Hobhouse says her home is connected to a community energy scheme. She says fracked gas is a fossil fuel and we should be investing money to renewable schemes.
Matt Western, Labour, Warwick and Leamington, says new homes being built now have gas boilers when they could have had heat pumps.
Wera Hobhouse, 28 March 2019. Photo: Parliament TV
Ms Hobhouse says fracking in the US has resulted in contamination of the water table. She says the government policy will take decisions out of local authority control.
Geraint Davies, Labour, Swansea West, says methane leaks from shale gas sites makes fracking worse than coal for global warming.
Ms Hobhouse says the local government select committee opposed the government’s proposals. She says 300,000 people have signed petitions against the proposals.
She says shale gas sites do not meet the criteria nationally significant infrastructure. Along with permitted development rights, this would take decisions away from local communities, bypassing those that are most affected.
The government favours fracking over renewables, she says. We have 12 years to complete the transition away from fossil fuels, she says. We must reinvest in renewable energy, she says. Communities across the county are asking for investment in renewables. We need a carbon zero target at our core. The government has gone in the opposite direction.
The government cannot prioritise big oil over climate change, Ms Hobhouse says. There is no time to lose.
Categories: Politics
DRILL OR DROP? 
Nick Herbert has a short memory.
Nick Herbert would do better to know what is happening in his constituency!
Pretty dandy, isnt it? Let just import all our gas.
TW – that isn’t too much of a problem – we could have JC as the next prime minister and he can use his little money tree to buy what ever we want. Happy days are coming.
So yet again the pros have been voted down and are squealing foul play; shame…
I suggest you ask someone to read it for you, Sherwulfe. Nothing been voted down or up, still awaiting review.
Shirawulfe: how have pro’s been voted down?, squealing for review. I think you have us confused with premiership footballers or eccentric clothing designers..,
The government favours fracking over renewables, Wera Hobhouse says.
We have 12 years to complete the transition away from fossil fuels, Wera Hobhouse says.
12 years?, from which tree was this timeline picked?
We must reinvest in renewable energy, Wera Hobhouse says.
Yes we must, but in tandem with Fossil Fuels. Without Fossilfuels you cannot power the whole country, transport, airline / cargo / food produce etc.
New homes are being built with the means of Gas for heating and cooking, nothing renewable about that!
Communities across the county are asking for investment in renewables.
Who in these communities are asking for renewables, these investments are not yielding and create no dividend or pay-back they are fully government subsidised, when is the renewable incentives to be realised?, Money out and no Money coming in!
We need a carbon zero target at our core.
Yes we do, but its all about timing and the UK is addicted to Gas!!, i font see this changing if the policies on new homes are still to be heated by gas.
The government has gone in the opposite direction. Who advises the Government?, Employment, Taxpayers, Pensions managers, The Big £££!
Eli-Goth ” 12 years to transition from fossil fuels.” From which tree was this picked?”
Not a tree, the IPCC Report.
How many reports have there been Pauline, since the 10 Commandments, that have not been accurate?
There has been part of one report that says individuals can take their own decisions and together, they will make a difference. Seems there are a number of antis who are objecting to be part of that. Even one, who is a CHILD, who likes to fly around Europe telling others the end is nigh. Others who travel from far and wide to leave their undies at PNR. Another, who is old enough to know better, has an emotional attachment to his 3 litre diesel.
So, pick your report to suit your purpose. But, in 12 years we will know. At the moment the “report” is just that. Not known until another 12 years, and if there are one or two large volcanos during the 12 years (which there will be) then the report will be nonsense, and they will trot that out as an excuse. I don’t believe I EVER saw a report during my working life, that predicted 12 years time, that was accurate when the 12 years had passed-and many of those were penned by pretty competent scientists. Even the Bible, by todays assessment, would be found to be inaccurate. (I know that is more than 12 years, but it was God!)
But, if 12 years is the key, what on earth are you bothering about with trying to modify what would be the flea bite on the mammoth, rather than addressing the mammoth itself? Get China to return to the one child policy-good luck with that. Or, you could reverse the reduction in child mortality in India. Good luck with that.
If you want to hitch your Nimby wagon to climate change, it is a global issue, and if we have such a short time left to adjust it, then the big issues need to be addressed-otherwise the flea bite will not matter in the slightest. Perhaps somewhere in between the flea bite and the mammoth are issues such as what are the levels of emissions from the manufacture and operation of a fleet of ships to transport gas from US fracking to European utilisation, compared to the emissions from on the door step production of UK fracking. Difference probably would compensate for a whole fleet of 3 litre diesel BMWs. So, on the basis of the UN report, and us each doing our bit, there is a moral imperative that, if we can, we frack locally. Ms Brock may be unaware of what is happening around her, but some of the rest of us, are.
But Thangam was recommending her carbon zero policy in Bristol, except she forgot to mention the intended expansion of Bristol airport flies a whole fleet of Airbuses through it, leaving it in tatters. But, MPs are like owls-they can turn their heads 180 degrees when required, and that is most of the time.
12 years is the line in the sand drawn by an international body of climate scientists, via the IPCC report. A period in which, if we don’t seriously forestall FF/carbon emissions and act to effectively limit or reverse any additional atmospheric carbon then the chances of runaway climate change become critical. The rate of change in greenhouse gases and associated effects like polar and glacial ice melting, are (currently) all accelerating, pointing to feedbacks and suggest we’re already approaching tipping points where runaway greenhouse effects may be unstoppable.
PhillipP – luckily the IPCC are always very pessimistic- they need to be to get people to act. It seems like people don’t travel very much if they really think things will get sorted in 12 years time. I spend massive amounts of time in the developing world and things there seem to be accelerating in the opposite direction regarding emissions.
Correct Judith. The antis on this BB can’t get their heads around the fact that middle classes in the developing world aspire to what we have – personal transport, TVs, premier league football, holidays, fashion etc etc. But to realise this you need to have been and lived there. And what gives us the right to deny these people their aspirations?
They also don’t understand global politics and live in a Nimby bubble preaching their BS that if we do this and that in the UK we will save the planet….
Hence this 12 years is not sustainable, achievable and above all it is an IPCC nonsense target!!
Ban of shale gas will work in favour for Scotland because of our reliance on North Sea and Scottish renewables wind industry. So just like France, which want to protect its nuclear industry, Scotland want to its renewables subsidies from Whitehall.
Good heavens ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, what do we have here? What a sad belated display of outright denial and refusal to admit that climate change is all ready upon us.
And what erudite scientific and well researched peer reviewed papers and scientific journals and scientific experts are referenced to support their case…..
The Bible…..errr…..hang on a bit…..the Bible?? Well. Heavens to Betsy! Hallelujah! Yodelayheehoo! Whodathunkit?
I know i said that the fossil fuel climate change deniers were a pseudo religious or perhaps even a “death cult” (BTW’s contribution to the debate) sect, but i didnt expect them to take it so literally?
At least it was the New Testament that is referenced i suppose, not the old Testament and Revelations, so i guess we have to be grateful for small, if not environmentally catastrophic mercies….
Perhaps shouldn’t i mention the seven plagues of Egypt environmental collapse that set the scenario for the New Testament in the first place…..? No, perhaps not.
What we actually see here ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is the climate change denier’s overprotected carapace, so busily and badly propped up and poorly buttressed with bitterness and bile and that old defence of “i cant see you” and never admitting any of the growing libraries of climate change information and proof actually exist even, at last the cracks start to split and shatter and the light of reason begins to dawn.
So, where do we begin?
Well apart from the usual litany of broken discredited French novelist fictional character memes and empty rhetoric that typically pervades the Martian Chronicles (Ray Bradbury), lets put The Last Martian (Fredrick Brown or Matt Damon?) right on one thing that is often repeated here on Drill or Drop but that is not true and never has been:
“Seems there are a number of antis who are objecting to be part of that. Even one, who is a CHILD, who likes to fly around Europe telling others the end is nigh.”
I assume that “child” (insert your own capital letters) you referred to is Greta Thunberg, the Swedish 16 year old girl who has not only gone on strike from school every Friday to protest to the Swedish Parliament about the lack of action on climate change but has also been invited to travel to various European capitals and conferences to speak he reasons for doing so.
Greta does not fly anywhere and has said so many times, and she has been transported by her parents using hired electric vehicles to all those venues, and she has even persuaded her parents to do the same, so i am afraid that typical little accusation that Greta flies anywhere, is, as usual, not all true at all. Wrong Martian, clearly French novelist fictional character myth and magic and pooly researched Biblical allusions are preferable to fact in your frankly laughable diatribe.
The twelve year figure is the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) predicted limit called the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” (ECS) based upon the theoretical climate feedback loop of melting ice caps (fact) and rising sea levels, temperature absorption and release and the natural heat and CO2 sinks that we are consistently destroying.
We as a species must reduce CO2 and Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions by 15% each year or suffer a 1.5 degree Celsius rise in ambient global temperatures which in itself represents a tipping point situation, and that is an estimate based upon that old word bandied about here so often, “science”
The figures are in fact not the most pessimistic estimates at all, but this latest twelve year target is the most optimistic estimate yet because it was increased from the previous three year estimate that was proposed last time the IPCC report was made.
That is because it assumes we will actually DO smething about it, now that really is optimism, judging from the present bunker mentality.
Other estimates however, indicate that 1.5 degrees is all ready assured by our lack of action on reducing emissions and will probably be more like 4-6 degrees if we continue to fail to actually DO anything about the continuing rise of greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-revises-climate-sensitivity/
A more recent estimate is far more pessimistic report:
https://countercurrents.org/2019/02/24/the-ipcc-and-climate-tipping-point-revised-trajectories-for-the-21-23rd-centuries/
But hey guys, i am sure that the usual Trump response if far more preferable to actually admitting that we have failed to do anything since predictions were first made by Exxon and Shell’s own scientists that reliance on fossil fuels would affect the climate and has been proved correct in the last decade.
And then of course you lot can always argue that you cannot possibly reduce further exploration and extraction of fossil fuels that will mean we will be trapped into using them in preference to anything else, and not have to move to the only sane intelligent use of renewable energy resources, because the present course may well be suicidal, but, hey, there is a lot of money to be made from exploiting fossil fuel energy resources because its all based upon greed and self interest, and to hell with the consequences for everyone.
Yeah, that a really “sane” response to the future of ourselves and future generations that is, isnt it.
Have a nice day, and have a nice future and i am sure the future generations will thank you warmly, far too warmly, for your care and concern for those who will inherit your consequences.
Well, that was fun! Usual suspect doing the “stop the neighbour building his garden shed and it will save the Amazon rain forest”, or something even less profound.
Meanwhile, another April Fools joke shortly where energy tariffs in UK will rise by over £1 BILLION next week. That’s what you get when overpriced off shore wind creates £500m/year excess charge for ONE off shore site. For those who thought that charge just disappears, that’s where it goes to.
You are correct Paul. We are unable to deny all the aspirations of the billions of coming middle classes, so a few (often Western middle class!) stamp their feet in pointless gestures. It’s a strange world where some in developing areas actually want to produce gas and then utilise it to produce fertilizer so they can increase food production and keep their children alive. And, the Chinese will help them do it whilst stamping of feet goes on elsewhere.
If there are only 12 years no time to waste on messing about with should UK frack or should we just buy in fracking from USA. A flea bite on the mammoth. The mammoth will decide not the flea, but it is easier to try and stamp on the flea than the mammoth.
Must sort out my garden now, before the weather changes. It does that in the Spring.
Ahh, the gobspell according to Saint Paul? Perhaps he too will have an experience on the road to Dumb Ass Cuss?
Deny! Deny! Deny! Wasn’t that Peter?
All we need now is Mary, or perhaps May, and we will have the complete set, Peter, Paul and May….? Nah, it’ll never catch on…..
It does not fly Martian, and neither does Greta Thunberg….
Oops!