Teenager campaigns against oil production in the Surrey greenbelt

A 17-year-old climate activist from Brockham in Surrey is urging local people to object to plans for 15 years of oil production plans in her village as the deadline approaches for public comments.

Chloe Pearce campaigning in Brockham, Surrey. Photo: XR South East

Chloe Pearce has been leafleting local homes and campaigning on social media against a planning application by Angus Energy.

The company is seeking permission to produce oil until 2036 from a well at its Brockham site in the Surrey greenbelt.

A Surrey County Council public consultation on the application runs until Monday 20 December 2021.

Photo: XR South East

Chloe Pearce said the proposal contradicted Surrey County Council’s climate policy and international agreements made at the climate talks in Glasgow last month:

“I have been campaigning against the application, as I believe that it goes against what was agreed on by the government at COP26 and the declaration by the Council that there is a climate emergency.

“Rejecting this application means a lot to me, as someone who cares about the environment and the effects of climate change. It hits even harder when it’s the area that you have grown up in.

“Therefore, I have been campaigning locally and on social media to spread the message of how oil drilling will affect our futures and the village’s future.”

She said most people she had talked to hadn’t heard about the application but supported her actions.

Reinjecting waste fluid

No oil has been produced at the Brockham well site since November 2018.

Angus Energy has said it needed to reinject waste fluid into rocks beneath the site to make the oil flow commercially from the Portland Sandstone reservoir.

But it said the waste fluid produced from Brockham alone was “insufficient to restore reservoir pressure”.

The local campaign group, Brockham Oil Watch, said:

“This would mean truckloads of toxic, radioactive and salty waste fluids coming through local country roads to be disposed of at Brockham.

“We are opposed to any plans to restart production from the Portland Sandstone reservoir due to the associated unacceptable environmental risks.

“This means that the current application should be refused and that all wells at Brockham should be properly plugged and the site restored.”

The Environment Agency prohibited waste fluid reinjection at Brockham in 2018 and is currently considering a new proposal from Angus Energy.

Brockham Oil Watch said:

“In our view, a positive decision would be a major retrograde step.”

  • Surrey County Council has currently listed the Brockham planning application to be decided by planning officers under delegated powers, rather than by the planning committee of elected councillors.

24 replies »

  1. So, Chloe is campaigning on (anti)social media against what is used to make (anti)social media possible?


    Typical XR.

    “One rule for them, different rules for others.”

    “Don’t do as I do, do as I say”.

    Good luck with that.

    • Oh millennials, go get a job / career, buy a house, fuel a car, put your kids through school & care for a loved one in medical care, etc, and you’ll see the true value of hydrocarbons!

    • Well done Chloe, it is your generation and the following generations that will have to bear the brunt of the deaths and pollution caused by the fossil fuel corporate oiligarchies last gasps at profiteering through greed and corruption, destruction of our already severely damaged climate, poisoning the air, the soil and our water supplies.
      They care nothing for you, for me, or anyone else but themselves. Only money floats their last titanic sinking ark. Without that, they are nothing.

      You and your generation and all present future generations aren’t important to them at all. They would rather destroy the planet for a few shekels, than do anything that even approaches sanity. They think they have corrupted and disabled COP26 with their hypocritical interference in disabling the wording in the documents.

      But what they can never do, no matter how hard they try, is to stop the forward movement and progress, true progress, into a saner, more responsible naturally supportive future for all of us and the planet Earth that supports us.

      They cannot eat money. And look what it does to them. sour, bitter, hateful and bigoted greed and corruption of everything and anything they touch or try to control. Their future is no future at all, not for any living thing.

      Without plant Earth’s ecology, without an environment that supports life, without clean air, soil and water, the human race, and all other living species on Earth, there is nothing. Nothing at all. Just a dead planet littered with greed soaked decaying skeletons grasping onto their dead money bags. Much good will it do them. If it was just their own greed and hatred of the planet, then that is their fate to suffer from their own demise. But they want to force us all into their narrow minded insane destructive suffering too.

      That will never happen. Not while you and every other sane person on this planet stand up and say. “Stop Angus Energy” “Stop Brockham”.

      Don’t take any notice of the insults from the usual suspect sources Chloe. They hate anyone who stands up and speaks out. All their empty rhetoric says, is that you are over the target to receive the usual fossilised flack.

      Well done Chloe, and keep at it, you are already seeing the panic from the ones who cannot bear the truth from being spoken.

      • A closer look at the air pollution claims.

        The IHME’s Global Burden of Disease study and the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that between 6.7 and 7 million deaths per year are caused by indoor and outdoor air pollution.

        Pollutants of major public health concern include particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide.

        Around 2.6 billion people cook using polluting open fires or simple stoves fuelled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal.

        Each year, close to 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to household air pollution from inefficient cooking practices using polluting stoves paired with solid fuels and kerosene.

        Close to half of deaths due to pneumonia among children under 5 years of age are caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.

        Outdoor air pollution in both cities and rural areas is estimated to cause close to 3 million premature deaths. This mortality is due to exposure to fine particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), which cause cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and cancers.

        91% of those premature deaths occurred in low to middle income countries, and the greatest number in the WHO South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions.

        Some deaths may be attributed to more than one risk factor at the same time. For example, both smoking and ambient air pollution affect lung cancer. Some lung cancer deaths could have been averted by improving ambient air quality, or by reducing tobacco smoking.

        Most sources of outdoor air pollution are well beyond the control of individuals and demands concerted action by local, national and regional level policy makers working in sectors like transport, energy, waste management, urban planning, and agriculture.

        • So there it is Chloe. You can see how the subject of deaths from fossil fuel pollution is blamed on the people who are unfortunate enough to be subjected to the corporate fossil fuel industry pollution.
          Rather than place the blame entirely where it belongs, deep in the “heart” of the polluting activities fossil fuel corporate industry. While all the alternatives are attempted to be minimised and rendered impotent by the same greed and avarice that pervades the fossil fuel industry in order to preserve its monopolistic profit motive.

          So, lets take an even closer look at fossil fuel pollution deaths, just to put the entire subject back into its true perspective. I’ve said all this before, but its always worth raising the discussion into the facts, rather than to minimise and obfuscate the true issues here.

          1st lets look at the reports that state that fossil fuel pollution s responsible for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. this is the report by the BMJ. There are other corroborating sources of the same report:

          Fossil fuel air pollution blamed for 1 in 5 deaths worldwide (.pdf download link on page)

          Air pollution from fossil fuels a major cause of premature deaths

          “The report, entitled “Toxic Air: The Price of Fossil Fuels” and co-published with the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA)[1], is the first of its kind to assess such costs. It says that globally, around 4.5 million deaths each year, and estimated economic losses amounting to USD2.9 trillion, or approximately 3.3% of global GDP, can be attributed to air pollution from fossil fuels.”


          There are many more if you wish do do your own research.

          What the figures say is that the situation from fossil fuel pollution is more urgent than the deaths from SARS Cov-2 and its associated various variants. The figures are are as follows:

          Number of deaths per year, World (UN Sourced)

          For comparison, approximately 60 million people die worldwide per year from all causes, and it seems the numbers are steadily increasing. Presumably due to population increase:

          How Many People Have Died From Coronavirus?

          Compare that with the SARS Cov-2 pandemic. Which, based upon recent statstical estimates, that worldwide approximately 40,000 to 850,000 people died of SARS Cov-2 between March 2020 to September 2020. That is approximately 6 months.

          Wait, there is more.

          • [Duplicate material removed]

            So for an entire year, double that to 1.7 million people as an upper estimate in 2020. It not yet possible to establish similar statistics for 2021. But I doubt there will be a 7 times greater increase in deaths from the recent pandemics.

            Divide 60 million deaths worldwide from all causes by 5 (1 in 5 deaths). 60,000,000 / 5 = 20,000,000. The actual figure of deaths from fossil fuel pollution could well be 20 million per year. Which is an astonishingly enormous figure. In spite of the excuses that its due to people cooking with fossil fuels inside houses in developing countries. Those figures supplied by John Harrison would pale in comparison to the total figure. So lets also look at the attributable statistical percentages of emissions from various sources:

            Emissions by sector


            1. Energy (electricity, heat and transport): 73.2%
            2. Direct Industrial Processes: 5.2%
            3. Waste: 3.2%
            4. Agriculture, Forestry and Land Use: 18.4%

            It may be more relevant to know that 73.2% of fossil fuel pollution comes from industrial sources which far outweighs that caused by internal cooking fires.

            So to put that into perspective: 1 in 5 deaths from fossil fuel pollution compared to the 60 million people that die each year from all causes reveals some rather alarming statistics.

            Approximately 12 million to 20 million people per year die from fossil fuel pollution (depending upon which statistical analysis you look at). Using the lower figure only, compare that to the 1.7 million (upper estimate) in 2020 from SARS Cov-2 and the relative figures are that there are 7 more deaths per year from fossil fuel pollution than from SARS Cov-2.

            Using the lower figure only, that makes 7 more deaths from fossil fuel pollution, which is far far worse than deaths recorded in 2020 from SARS Cov-2. And fossil fuel pollution has been continuing exponentially for tens of decades.

            Using the upper figure (60 million deaths worldwide from all causes by 5 (1 in 5 deaths). 60,000,000 / 5 = 20,000,000), that makes the deaths wordwide from fossil fuel pollution per year, to be 11.76 times the deaths from SARS Cov-2 in 2020.

            The question that well might be asked, is:

            Then why are not deaths from fossil fuel pollution classed as a pandemic and locked down entirely?

            • My comments are taken from the WHO report on air pollution Phil C. Allowing countries to develop and lift their citizens out of poverty, so that they can switch to cleaner fuels and not have to rely on wood, coal, kerosene and animal dung for fuel and energy, is the key to preventing millions dying prematurely and unnecessarily from air pollution. But it appears that there are people here in the UK taking court action to actively prevent that from happening.

              • So John Harrison, when it is fossil fuel pollution that kills 1 in 5 people worldwide, (fact) and equally that the fossil fuel corporations are responsible for the fossil fuel pollution which is responsible for killing countless millions, or maybe billions of all other living creatures on planet Earth in the 6th Major Extinction Level Event in the history of planet Earth. That fossil fuel pollution causes between 7 times to 11.76 times more deaths worldwide than from the recent pandemic. That is not to be mentioned. However, it is W.H.O. statistics that are only mentioned again.

                So, in this atmosphere of enquiry and to establish the facts of the issues. It is important to establish just “who” owns the World Health Organisation? (Who owns the W.H.O.?)

                Bill Gates Has Been Controlling WHO

                And again, “who” has been buying up all growing land in America and elsewhere worldwide? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation of course. (to clarify that, just read Bill Gates himself)

                Is W.H.O. Director Tedros a Terrorist? Global Ties to Bill Gates, Clinton Foundation, Dr. Fauci, China and Genocide

                And “who” owns everything else?

                “MONOPOLY” – Who Owns the World – “Best Documentary Ever”

                Its a little more sobering to realise that the poverty and lack of resources of those people living in developing countries you mention (at least those that don’t own 90% of the wealth in those countries of course) is caused and imposed by the very people that claim to be:

                “Preventing” those very same people that hold the key to “allowing countries to develop and lift their citizens out of poverty, so that they can switch to cleaner fuels and not have to rely on wood, coal, kerosene and animal dung for fuel and energy, is the key to preventing millions dying prematurely and unnecessarily from air pollution.”

                Couldn’t those very same people who own so much of the wealth in those countries, pay for shared renewable resources for all those people who are still suffering and alleviate their plight that way? Just the pocket change from those people who own so much of the wealth in those countries and the entire world would change the that situation practically overnight. So why don’t they do so? It couldn’t be that old issue of greed corruption and manipulation of corporate power and control to promote yet more monopolistic profit at the expense of everyone else could it?

                Now there is a question worthy of more research isn’t it?

                Maybe, its that that those “who” created the very dire situation in the first place, will only “prevent” further deaths and health issues of those who have no power to change their situation themselves, such as those you mention. If they are coerced and manipulated into accepting the very same fossil fuel corporation control, influence and fossil fuel pollution that is killing them and us, in the first place?

                Another interesting question for you.

                Have A Nice Weekend.

                • This is a very sobering report from DeSmog regarding the meeting of residents of a community in Laredo, Texas, USA, about the Ethylene Oxide chemical pollution that is causing cancer amongst adults and children in the local schools. This is in the USA.
                  Similar reports in the UK however seem to be few and far between, perhaps because the censorship here in the UK, is even more effective than in the USA? Nevertheless, here is a brief summary of the USA DeSmog report:

                  By Sharon Kelly and Julie Dermansky
                  on Dec 14, 2021

                  Texas Border Town Demands Stronger Action to Tackle Cancer-Causing Chemical Pollution

                  Environmental Justice Communities Bear the Brunt

                  “The chemical industry’s air pollution — and the ways that it too often affects people in racially and economically discriminatory patterns — has drawn increasing scrutiny over the past several years as the shale rush and fracking have propelled a building spree for petrochemical projects. ”

                  “A report published last week highlighted the role that chemical plants play in driving climate change. The report, “The Chemical Industry: An Overlooked Driver of the Climate Crisis,” was published by Coming Clean, a national environmental health and justice network, and concluded that roughly 7 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the chemical sector — and that percentage is predicted to grow as the energy transition pushes other sectors away from fossil fuels and towards lower-cost and less polluting renewable energy sources.”

                  “Speakers including council members, members of the Clean Air Coalition, and members of two other communities exposed to EtO shared information about the chemical, and what the process to limit the communities exposure entails. While some community members said they had expected that once the government identifies a risk to the public it would act quickly to protect them, too often that isn’t how it works when it comes to chemical exposure.”

                  “In many ways, EtO is a poster child for the ways that industry and regulators have, for decades, failed to effectively protect people from chemical safety hazards and health threats like cancer. The Laredo meeting reflects a growing backlash against the petrochemical industry amid rising awareness of the sector’s deadly risks, particularly for communities of colour, as well as its climate-altering impacts.”

                  “EtO is a colourless flammable gas that’s used to make plastics, anti-freeze, and adhesives, and also to sterilize medical equipment. In addition to cancers including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, breast cancer, and leukaemia, the chemical has also been linked to reproductive problems, breathing issues, and memory loss. A volatile organic compound (VOC), it was included as one of the 188 hazardous air pollutants recognized in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, alongside notorious carcinogens like asbestos and benzene.”

                  “Even after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized in 2016 that the chemical was a potent carcinogen, it failed to communicate those risks to people who lived near sites that pump EtO into the air, the agency’s own internal watchdog found.”

                  “In December 2016, following an assessment by the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System, the EPA concluded that EtO turned out to be 30 times more powerful as a carcinogen for adults than previously thought. For children, the EPA added, EtO proved to be 60 times more carcinogenic than previously believed.”

                  “In fact, it’s now believed to be so carcinogenic that a 2019 investigation by the Intercept concluded that EtO and two other air pollutants, chloroprene and formaldehyde, are “responsible for more than 90 percent of the cancer risk from air pollution in the 109 census tracts that have an officially elevated risk” of cancer nationwide, according to the EPA. “If these three pollutants were eliminated,” the Intercept reported, “only one census tract in the U.S. would have a cancer risk from air pollution above 100 per million.”

                  Two heart breaking videos are attached below:

                  Edna Ibarra, A member of the Laredo Coalition for Clean air at Dec 8 Community Meeting

                  Maria G Salazar speaking at Dec. 8 Community Meeting

                  Now there is another subject for further research into similar industrial petrochemical operations in the UK isn’t it.

                  Apropos of that. You may be interested to note that Ethylene Oxide (EtO) is used as an industrial sterilisation product in surgical protective mask industry that is making countless £/$ billions of profit during this pandemic. Masks are products of the plastic industry that are amongst all the other plastic waste products that are swamping the land and oceans with billions of toxic plastic mask dumped detritus, choking, poisoning and killing countless species of wildlife on land, in the air (birds) and in the oceans worldwide.

                  15 List of Chemicals in Plastic – Properties – Dangers

                  Also similar toxic chemicals are used in the swabs that are used for testing. Not only that, certain surgical hand gel fluids also contain similar cancer causing agents as well. Fascinating that never gets mentioned on Drill or Drop? Isn’t it?

                  I would post a link to that report on hand gels. However, due to censorship in the USA, the Dr. Mercola articles are deleted after 48 hours. I have a copy of the report which I will post later and attach the permission notice to do so.

                  Have a great Sunday with family and friends…..Within the recommended recent lock down curfew restrictions of course…..Unlike Boris and his dwindling cheese and wine cabinet, who clearly cling to the hypocritical belief that there are no rules for them, but that its every rule in their rapidly expanding totalitarian manuals for everyone else. Isn’t democracy wonderful?

                  After all, “we” are all in this together….aren’t “we”? Hey! I just did two “we”‘s!

  2. Such condescension from our resident polymath who uses words against what words were arguably developed for – precise communication of needs, facts, the truth, the sublime – rather than to malign, denigrate, pervert, distort.

    • Ahh, the new improved 1720! (Is ith 1720?) Maybe, maybe not. Maybe a polyvalent.

      Please correct any errors of fact I made. I was referring to a statement made by someone else-Chloe. I believe there was no distortion of what was stated. (Not sure that is a good example for one activist to try and supply to another-I am hopeful Chloe is better than that.) And, if my post was fact how can it be malign, denigrate, pervert or distort? [Edited by moderator]

      More facts coming!

      If Brockham is allowed to progress, how will it have any impact upon climate change? It would not. It might simply replace/transfer a little piece of the imports that demand in UK creates. Fact. And, whilst there are those creating that demand, including Chloe, then it will be met. But, if locally, with reduced transport emissions and air pollution. Not to mention the record day that has been recorded for Gatwick today. All that air pollution. And, best not to remember the recent pictures of folk in the north waiting anxiously for the diesel powered generators to turn up to provide them with some electricity. Where were XR then?

  3. Much bigger issues than a small oilfield in Surrey, Miss Pearce would be more productive directing her energy at issues such as global coal use – as would XR, FOE etc. Of course she may be doing this as well?


    “Coal power is on track to hit a new global record this year after an economic rebound that could drive worldwide coal demand to an all-time high in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency.

    The amount of electricity generated from coal power plants has soared by 9% this year after a surge in fossil fuel demand to fuel the recovery from Covid lockdowns, a report by the watchdog says.”

    • And now we have IPCC predicting with “medium confidence” that average wind speeds over land in large parts of Europe will fall by up to 10% in the summer months, by 2100. A 1% drop in wind speed can imply a 3% drop in energy generation from wind, so a 10% drop in wind speed would equal a 30% drop in energy generation.

      Hmm. So much effort for what could be just a waste of money-again.

      Meanwhile, RR have achieved their funding target for development of SMRs. Now there is a good use for old on shore fossil fuel sites!

  4. You are doing a brilliant job Chloe. If everyone took action like you are on local problems the world could be a lot safer. Well done.

  5. Oh dear, Bob.

    So, it is a local problem Chloe is taking actions on!

    Well, that has undermined her actions completely.

    I thought climate change was the issue, with COP26 being referenced.

    More mixed messages.

    • Hi Bob.

      Do you think that someone terrified of yet another 17 year old climate activist?

      Chloe is protesting against Angus Energy and their efforts at Brockham in Surrey for 15 years of oil production plans in her village as the deadline approaches for public comments.

      Chloe lives in Brockham in Surrey and is therefore completely justified in urging local people to object to Angus Energy plans in her own village.

      Isn’t there an oft repeated comment from just that source, about activists from far and wide and not being local? Now that is an interesting hypocrisy right there isn’t it? Funny how their own words trip them up isn’t it.

      I’m sure everyone now is aware of another 17 year old who protested against climate change and fossil fuel pollution in Sweden just a few years ago. And just look at what that 17 year old from Sweden has been able to achieve in just a few years? That persons name is on everyone’s lips. Especially, it seems, the “contributor”, who has expressed a regular repetitive fixation about her. Whereas, contrary to the “contributor”, Greta Thunberg is now a very famous young adult.

      Therefore Chloe is in good and famous company along with many thousands of other young adults and children who are protesting that their future is a grim one if left to those who care for nothing except their own exploitative power-mongering motivated greed and profiteering.

      I’m sure we all(!) wish Chloe all the best for her promising future and hopes for a better world unsullied by the greed and the one sided equations of profiteering insanity that pervades the fossil fuel profiteers own posts.

      Another timely reminder at this time of year, for what Angus energy and all the other fossil fuel extractors are really responsible for. The inconvenient fact of 1 in 5 deaths from fossil fuel pollution worldwide. That equates (in a real world two sided equation) to between 7 and 12 times the number of deaths per year, than from the present pandemic. Not to mention the accelerating climate destruction and the increase in the target of COP26 from an increase of 1.5 degrees C to an increase of 2.4 degrees C. That effect is now seen worldwide

      So those inconvenient facts always return to the inevitable question that will haunt the human race forever if something is not done here and now about it.

      Why isn’t there a total ban and lock down today on further fossil fuel extraction and exploration and a total ban and lock down of all present and future fossil fuel operations in Great Britain and worldwide?

      Isn’t the number of deaths (real deaths) worldwide from fossil fuel pollution a far greater and far more urgent issue than the present pandemic hype? Or is it just power-mongering greed and profiteering that are more important to this government and their fossil fuel industry influencers than the real world fossil fuel pollution deaths issue?

      Mathematics in the real world doesn’t lie. We have politicians for that.

      That is the real issue here and exposes the total myopic hypocrisy of everything this government and every other government has been and is doing.

      All the Best to Chloe and all who fight the good fight. They are all doing so all for the Greta good of course.

      Have a great winter solstice and peaceful lead up to Christmas, in spite of the “Bah! Humbuggers!”

  6. “Why isn’t there…??

    Because there isn’t, that then moves to the following:.

    It is quite clear that Net Zero is not zero fossil fuel, and it is quite clear new UK exploration will be authorised if it meets the current and proposed criteria.

    Those who profit from supporting a demand for fossil fuel are to be found in the strangest places, in the strangest disguises, Chloe. Hypocrisy has no boundaries.

  7. Ahh! So! The inconvenient truth of 1 in 5 deaths due to fossil fuel pollution worldwide is avoided once more…

    However. Just look around you at the moment, and you will see the inescapable and clearly very inconvenient fact, that fossil fuel pollution causes 7 to 12 times more deaths per year than are due to the latest pandemic. 20,000,000 out of the 60,000,000 deaths from all causes per year. Approximate rounded figures from 2020. Links provided previously.

    And yet there is no lock down of the fossil fuel operations that have caused the problems worldwide in the first place.

    The real world answer, is not that there isn’t a lock down on fossil fuel extraction and exploration.

    Oh No! The real world answer is that unless the government wants to be seen as totally hypocritical and avoiding the real issue that is causing more deaths than covid worldwide, there has to be a lock down on fossil fuel extraction and exploration.

    Considering the latest Plan B (there is no planet B), that anything less than complete lock down of fossil fuel extraction and exploration is sheer Hypocrisy.

    Nothing to see here, move along please. These aren’t the inconvenient truths they are looking for….far from it.

    And Net Zero what? We’ve been here before on that too.

    If not Net Zero fossil fuels and fossil fuel pollution that has caused the 6th Major Extinction Level Event in Earth’s history? Then what?
    If not Net Zero fossil fuel pollution and fossil fuel pollution, then what has caused the present accelerating climate destruction worldwide? Then what?
    If not Net Zero fossil fuel pollution and fossil fuel pollution, then what has caused more deaths per year than the present pandemic? Then what?
    If not Net Zero fossil fuel pollution and fossil fuel pollution, then what has been the very cause of the very climate change destruction problems worldwide in the first place? Then what?

    No answer? No, is that is because the answer is only too clear, that the cause is fossil fuel pollution and it is that, which must be locked down for the safety of everyone.

    ((**Perhaps Paul Seaman should examine this comment too, considering the latest advice for comments. **

    ** “Those who profit from supporting a demand for fossil fuel are to be found in the strangest places, in the strangest disguises, Chloe. Hypocrisy has no boundaries.”)) **

    More mixed messages and hypocrisy from the usual suspect…..

  8. [Edited by moderator]

    Locking down fossil fuel pollution? Yes, indeed. So a good place to start would be to make sure that the transport emissions are reduced for and during the transition period whilst fossil fuel will be used. Easy fruit to pick, if the fruit is there. Is there some at Brockham? Maybe, maybe not. Like foraging for fungi. If you don’t forage, you will find none.
    I cut down on transport emissions by growing as much of what I eat as I can. If my oil comes from a local source, which is being encouraged, at last, by the powers that be, then I gain as local taxation is better than over the horizon taxation. And Chloe will not get such a bill for her education. The environment gains as pollution is reduced, and the risk of Torrey Canyons are reduced. (Bit before Chloe, but she can Giggle it, and also the remarkable numbers of worldwide maritime issues with transporting materials that still occur.)
    Maybe Chloe feels her right to protest overturns those points? Probably so. Many when they were 17, including myself, exercised those rights. It should not be confused with being correct.

    2036, I understand, is quite a few years this side of 2050, and the UK will still be using oil beyond 2050.

    • [Edited by moderator] Faced with the facts of the deaths caused by fossil fuel pollution worldwide, and the plans by Angus Energy at Brockham in particular, all that can be said by the fossil fuel industry hacks, as you see here above, is more of their endless prevarication and avoidance of the facts. I’m sure you will have noticed how that is avoided at every turn.

      I am sure that you will have noticed by now, that when the fossil fuel protagonists are totally unable to answer the most profound criticism of the fossil fuel industries legacy of deaths from fossil fuel pollution. Or even able address the facts honestly and clearly.

      These endless twisting and turning, squirming and wriggling attempts to avoid the subject entirely merely highlight the inescapable fact that all they have left to say, is nothing of any real world value, import, not to mention mathematics, scientific method, or physics. And only empty endless insulting rhetoric.

      I wish you all the best in your efforts to raise the issues of Angus Energy plans for 15 years of oil production plans in your village of Brockham in Surrey. Your own youthful truth and honesty will reward your efforts. Age is irrelevant. Truth is paramount.

      I wish you and all your friends and family a Great and Rewarding Christmas and Joy in your Hopes and Ambitions for the future for yourselves and for us all, and I wish you a Very Happy New Year. 2022 may well be the turning point in all these matters. Your Intention for a better more just world is all you need.

      You can safely ignore the “Bah! Humbuggers” to their own miserly self imposed misery.

      All the Best.
      Phil C

  9. Chloe-have a great Christmas and a good 2022.

    Hope you are able to practice what you preach going forward, and your social media remains intact, (thanks to fossil fuel), that your further education is supplied at a controlled cost thanks to taxation revenue upon others, including UK industry.

    And, as Greta has been championed, remember her angry words about the UK being responsible for exporting a large carbon footprint, whilst falsely pontificating about superiority.

    Much better to have a smaller, locally controlled carbon footprint, even if part of it will be in someone’s back yard.

    And, if you have a spare minute over the festive season, take a look at the investments being made by that miserly fossil fuel industry to ramp up supplies of hydrogen. I suspect even Brockham will be connecting into those investments going forward.

Leave a Reply to John Harrison Cancel reply

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s