I disagree with them,
but those are honest arguments; it’s just the premise on which they are based which
is in question. Equally honest are the arguments
of those who think that what is required is a wholesale shift from carbon fuels
to renewables, and that extending the large scale use of gas is deferring, rather
than solving the problem. From that viewpoint,
opposition to fracking is a natural consequence.
Rather less honest,
though, are those who seem to be arguing that we should continue to use gas ‘but
not that gas’. Any politicians who have supported
– or merely failed to oppose – the construction of new gas-fired power stations
are being more than a little disingenuous in trying to ride a wave of public opinion
concerned about fracking. Effectively
they’re saying that using gas is fine as long as it comes from somewhere else.
Now it might be
argued that fracking has an environmental cost associated with it; but then so
does all extraction of fossil fuel from the earth. It’s just that, when we see the gas being delivered
to the Haven in large tankers, we’re not seeing that environmental cost. It doesn’t mean that nobody else is. A determination to protect the environment at
home whilst depending on products produced by environmental damage done elsewhere
isn’t being green; it’s just nimbyism writ large.
We can make choices
about policy on energy as on anything else; but when we’ve made a choice, we have
to be willing to accept the consequences, not just load them on someone
else. For me, the choice is a simple
one; either plan to phase out the use of gas, or else accept that, sooner or
later, it has to come from fracking. It’s
not honest to support the continued use of gas whilst opposing the exploitation of reserves.
6 comments:
The truth is that we will not have any choice in the matter whilst we remain a colony of the English empire.
So I would oppose fracking because it wouldn't give us any benefits at all.
Spot on John. Your verification system is a nightmare!
Da iawn - cytuno 100%
Os dwi'n deallt yn iawn, mae'r UDA wedi lleihau CO2 fwy nag oedd angen o dan y drefn Kyoto.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/08/03/eia-us-co2-emissions-at-20-year-low/
John
In Canada roads were built using a system of extracting stone from roadside quarries. We did and still do the same thing here but on a smaller scale
In Canada the water table filled the resultant holes which were then widely used as swimming pools. From the 1960's township rubbish started to become a real problem as everyone had access to Hydro electic. ---before then woodfires solved much of the rubbish problem.
So the swimming holes started to fill up with anything and everthing but there was a cosequence in that water for everthing came from bore holes and people slowly latched onto the fact that water quality was dissapearing as waste products contaminated the water on an increasing scale
This I believe will be the long term legacy of fracking
A colourful picture, and it may well turn out that way. But I'm not supporting fracking - merely pointing out that some of those who claim to be opposing it have been tacit, or even active, supporters of building gas-fired power stations, and that, in the long term, one requires the other. That's dishonest.
G Horton-Jones
So in Canada they found that contaminating the ground water that was used for drinking was a bad idea. How is this is connected to the Fracking process? Especially in the UK where we don't use water in the same way.
Post a Comment