Category Archives: Fracking

Stuff on fracking , mostly in Lancashire

Where have all the earthquakes gone? Kansas and Ohio.

This is a short blog by a geologist in New Mexico about quakes caused by injection in the Kansas /Ohio area

Of course frackquakes are part of the scaremongerers’ armoury in Lancahire


But this is typical damage from a Mag4 quake in Los Angeles and few caused by even injection are that big.


In Kansas, seismic activity dropped from 1,967 earthquakes to 668 earthquakes over two years when regulations on oilfield disposal wells were applied. How did they achieve this?

Source: Where have all the earthquakes gone? Kansas.


Fracked Gas is worse than Coal. Whoops, another paper claiming that is retracted!!

Coal-power-plant-sunset-retire-XL_721_420_80_s_c1So often we are told fracked gas is worse than coal for emissions. Here is a peer-reviewed article which claims just that.

Oh dear, it has been retracted for errors which showed just the opposite

Retraction of Peer Reviewed Report Indicates Need for Smear Review
Posted on March 4, 2018 by Tom Shepstone
penneast pipeline – Tom Shepstone ReportsTom Shepstone
Shepstone Management Company, Inc.

A retracted study that had been peer reviewed indicates the danger in relying on it to ensure sound science when it comes to fractivist applauded reports.

Back in 2015, this is how an Akron, Ohio newspaper headlined some methane leakage research then being conducted by the University of Maryland:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas Wells
Are Increasing & Traveling Far Downwind



A new University of Maryland study shows a steep rise in greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas wells produced by fracking in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The emitted gases travel far downwind from the producing states, suggesting the need for regional cooperation in monitoring and reducing emissions from natural gas production, say the authors.

The preliminary reporting turned into a study released in April, 2017 as a peer reviewed document. Now, the study has been retracted. It’s a lesson in the risk of depending on the words “peer reviewed” as a measure of credibility.



Here’s more from the early reporting on the preliminary research conducted by the same University of Maryland team that produced the subsequent retracted study:

Emissions linked to hydraulic fracturing, the method of drilling for natural gas commonly known as “fracking,” can be detected hundreds of miles away in states that that forbid or strictly control the practice, according to a new paper published in the journal Atmospheric Environment. The study, conducted at the University of Maryland (UMD), is among the latest data presented in the ongoing debate over fracking’s long-term effects on the environment.

The team used years’ worth of hourly measurements from photochemical assessment monitoring stations (PAMS) in the Baltimore, Md., and Washington, D.C., areas to identify the sources of organic carbons in the region’s air. Starting in 2010, the data didn’t seem to make sense…

Preliminary research revealed that there was nothing happening in Maryland that could account for the steep increase. Maryland does not currently permit fracking, but when Ehrman’s team compared the rise in ethane to the extraction of natural gas from the Marcellus shale play in neighboring states, they found a month-to-month correlation. After running a wind rose analysis – a tool used by meteorologists to track the wind direction, distribution and speed in a specified area – they felt even more confident that Maryland was receiving the tail end of emissions originating from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio…

“The question you start to ask yourself is, if ethane levels are going up this much, and it’s only a small percentage of all natural gas, how much methane and other, more reactive emissions are escaping from these wells?” says Ph.D. student Tim Vinciguerra, the paper’s lead author. “Following the fracturing process, the well undergoes completion venting to clear out fluid and debris before production. A substantial amount of hydrocarbons are emitted as a result of this flowback procedure.”

These new findings on natural gas emissions also are consistent with established findings by University of Maryland scientists showing westerly winds can carry power plant emissions and other pollution from states like Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania to the Washington, D.C., region and elsewhere on the East Coast of the U.S.

Thus was a false story born. The University of Maryland team that effectively generated it went on to conclude, in the retracted report, the following (emphasis added):

We estimate the mean ± 1σ CH4 leak rate from O&NG operations as 3.9 ± 0.4% with a lower limit of 1.5% and an upper limit of 6.3%… Although recent regulations requiring capture of gas from the completion venting step of the hydraulic fracturing appear to have reduced losses, our study suggests that for a 20 year time scale, energy derived from the combustion of natural gas extracted from this region will require further controls before it can exert a net climate benefit compared to coal.

There was just one problem; the University of Maryland team had made a critical error, revealed, to their credit, by themselves in the subsequent retraction:

The article… has been retracted by the authors because of an error in wind measurements used to calculate methane emissions in the southwestern Marcellus Shale region. The error was discovered by the authors in October 2017 upon their installation of an improved, differential GPS, wind measurement system onto the aircraft used in this study. The original wind measurements led to an overestimate of methane emissions from oil and natural gas operations.

A reanalysis with corrected winds reduced the total estimated emissions by about a factor of 1.7, with a correspondingly larger reduction in emissions of methane attributed to oil and natural gas in the southwestern Marcellus Shale area.

This is expected to reverse a conclusion of the paper, which had asserted that leakage from oil and natural gas extraction in this region results in a climate penalty compared to the use of coal.

The authors are in the process of submitting a new manuscript based on an updated analysis that will describe the process to correct the erroneous wind measurements used in the original manuscript, provide a more accurate estimate of the methane emissions, and assess the implications of the fossil fuel production from the Marcellus Shale.

If your wondered whether the Akron Beacon Journal covered the retraction with the same enthusiasm as the original research, the unsurprising answer is a simple “no.” That almost never happens, of course. The public was told something that was blatantly wrong and it is now ingrained in memory as part of a big picture on fracking that is one gigantic distortion because of a rush to judgment in a mad dash for political correct publicity and research dollars. Correcting the false impression, as usual, is no easy task and will require years of explanation.

Who’s at fault? Well, we can blame lots of folks, but most of the discredit has to go those who gave the 2017 a peer reviewed imprimatur. Here’s how Tim Benson at the Heartland Institute summed it up:

Jordan McGillis, a policy analyst at the Institute for Energy Research, says with so much potential to affect public policy, it’s troubling the initial paper passed peer review.

“That an error of this magnitude made it through the publication process is unfortunate,” said McGillis. “It is not difficult to imagine the paper’s startling conclusions influenced the public against hydraulic fracturing, against gas infrastructure, and against gas generally.

“Misinformation perpetuates anti-energy bias in our culture and can result in real harm,” McGillis said.

McGillis says state governments in two regions near Marcellus energy operations have limited pipeline development because of environmental activists’ opposition.

“Consider the fact the New York and New England regions should be benefiting from the Marcellus Shale’s proximity but are instead hamstrung by pipeline opposition,” said McGillis. “Just this winter, ISO New England [the regional electric power transmission provider] produced a report citing insufficient gas infrastructure as a leading factor in their prediction of future fuel insecurity and operator-imposed blackouts.”

And, who were those peers? We’ll never know because their names aren’t provided. There’s no accountability with much of peer review today and these are the fruits of such lax publication and university policies. Peer review today now requires smear reviews to get to the truth.



Evolutions in Trust, Part 2: Blockchain (Citizen) Science

The serious problem of citizen science, when so often measurements are made by thosue who haven’t a clue

The Risk-Monger

In Part 1 of this blockchain series, the idea of “blockchain trust” was introduced. We no longer trust our experts, institutions and authorities but will happily get into a car with a stranger or rent out our sofa-bed to people we have never met based on widely shared reviews, believed to be transparent and objective. This is the world of blockchain trust – where everyone is watching and reviewing everyone else forming an anonymous, decentralised consensus (chain) of affirmation. Authority is determined by all parts of the chain who participate (and are allowed) on the chain.

The Risk-Monger has long ago been voted off the island.

As most scientists have also been voted off (or given merely one voice among the chain), we need to focus on how this blockchain trust tool functions for environmental health policy decisions that should be evidence-driven. This is the purpose of Part…

View original post 3,588 more words

Fracking debate in Yorkshire, March 2018

  Fracking debate in Yorkshire

Fracking creates a stir in both Yorkshire and Lancashire. On March 8th there is to be a debate in Yorkshire between the local MP Kevin Holinrake and the expert engineer Mike Hill from Lancashire. For a debate you need an impartial chair who is not aligned to either postiion. That chairman is Bishop James Jones, who like me has long been concerned about the environment.
DEBATE EVENT “This house believes that UK regulations make fracking safe”
2 tickets per applicant

“This house believes that UK regulations make fracking safe”
Proposed by Kevin Hollinrake MP
Opposed by Michael Hill C.Eng. MIET
Chaired by Bishop James Jones KBE
Please note that tickets are restricted to 2 per applicant
Organised by Kirkbymoorside Town Council


I first heard Bishop Jones speak on the environment in about 2003, where he was introducing his book
It was good to see evangelicals in Lancashire being challenged on the environment, but I felt he was trying to draw too much out of the gospels.
I have considered environment for decades having read Carson’s Silent Spring in the 60s and when working for a mining company in Africa I could see many problems. In the 70s I found that churches were just not interested and in the early 80s the Board of social Responsibility in Jones’ future diocese of Liverpool ignored my request to put the environment on the agenda!
This is a brief and simple summary of my views on the environment

It was only after the mid-80s that the churches belatedly became concerned about the environment and after 2010 most threw in their lot with anti-frackers and divestment, almost taking the lead of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. By 2014 fracking became the litmus-test on whether you were environmentally sound. I failed dismally, but that is another story.
Today within the Church of England almost all Green voices oppose fracking and support divestment and alternatives with approaches like those  Mark Lynas, late Sir David Mackay, Lord Deben and even groups like DECC, BGS are either side-lined or rebuffed. With the exception of the Fletcher/Holtham report, I have been unable to find church discussions on fracking which do not oppose it. They are also usually deficient in accuracy. This is the case within my diocese of Blackburn
Local news in Yorkshire report the coming debate as here;—facts-and-fiction-debate/

Kirkbymoorside town council is to host a major debate on fracking in Pickering on March 8.
Chartered engineer Mike Hill will go head to head with Thirsk and Malton MP, Kevin Hollinrake at Lady Lumley’s School, Pickering at from 7 – 9pm
Mr Hollinrake, whose Thirsk and Malton constituency includes the fracking site at Kirby Misperton, will argue that UK regulation can make hydraulic fracturing safe.
Mr Hill, who has worked in the industry for 20 years, will make the case against this view.
The debate will be chaired by retired bishop, the Right Reverend James Jones KBE, formerly Bishop of Liverpool and as Chair of the Hillsborough Inquiry. Bishop Jones is presently an adviser to Amber Rudd, The Home Secretary.
Kirkbymoorside Town Council has opposed fracking activities locally since December 14.
Fracking has been expected in Ryedale since November 2017, when Third Energy said it was ready to start work at its KM8 well in Kirby Misperton.
Mike Hill, UK Expert Member|TWG Hydrocarbon BREF|JRC/EU Commission said:
“This debate is very important not just for Yorkshire but for the U.K. The Govt. position on fracking is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what unconventional fossil fuel (UFF) exploration means.
The severe risks to the public health, the environment and local economy have not been mitigated anywhere near adequately enough.
The wider implications for climate change are also being “confused” by the government. Fracking is not a bridge to a low carbon future and never was.
It is a bridge to nowhere, a dead end, and is in reality a far “dirtier” fuel to develop, in terms of green house gas emissions, than coal.
Add to that the propaganda being spread that we can somehow reduce our dependence on Russian gas and the entire case of fracking is totally destroyed.”
Kevin Hollinrake, MP, said:
“I welcome the opportunity to have an open debate about shale gas exploration in the constituency and to answer questions.
I believe that shale gas exploration is in our national interest and there are strong economic reasons for supporting it.
However, I do so only as long as we make sure development does not pollute the environment, reduces our carbon footprint and the impact to our landscape and communities are properly managed.”
Kirkbymoorside Town Mayor, Angus Ashworth said:
“I hope that this event will provide an opportunity for residents of Kirkbymoorside and the locality, to hear both points of view on the subject of fracking regulations.
I have every confidence that the evening will be informative to all parties and on behalf of
Kirkbymoorside Town Council
I would like to thank the speakers and chairman for agreeing to participate in this debate.”
Later this month, a Government appointed planning inspector will begin to examine the North Yorkshire joint minerals and waste plan, which will set policy on fracking for the next 20 years.
The day set aside for oil and gas submissions is a week after the Kirkbymoorside debate, on Tuesday 13 March.
The shale gas company, INEOS, is also expected to begin seismic testing for shale gas in its licence areas in North Yorkshire in 2018.

Bishop Jones has been recognised for his work on Hilsborough and has now retired to Yorkshire. He was interviewed for the Yorkshire Post in December 2017, where he also gave his very negative views on fracking
Here Bishop Jones makes clear his opposition to fracking

Image may contain: text


If you had to change one thing about Yorkshire what would it be? I would stop fracking in Yorkshire. I am seriously worried that the regulation is not coordinated or robust enough. I worry about the impact it will have on our water. The risks are too high. If the water ends up contaminated it could have a disastrous impact on our health, our agriculture, tourism and the whole economy of Yorkshire.

This needs a little consideration
JJ said; If you had to change one thing about Yorkshire what would it be? I would stop fracking in Yorkshire. I am seriously worried that the regulation is not coordinated or robust enough.
I say; At government departments etc eg PHE, HSE, EA DECC say that the regulation is robust. So why is the Bishop concerned. This concern sounds like an echo from Mike Hill, one of the debaters, who claims the regulations are thoroughly lacking and has convinced many local groups and churches about this.

JJ says; I worry about the impact it will have on our water. The risks are too high.
I say; What grounds? This is the standard anti-fracking argument whichdoes not hold water.
JJ says; If the water ends up contaminated it could have a disastrous impact on our health, our agriculture, tourism and the whole economy of Yorkshire.
I say; The usual scare story put forward by Green NGOs like Friends of the earth, who under Andy Atkins (see below) mounted a campaign in Lancashire. Again no claim could be demonstrated.
I feel here that Bishop Jones has fallen for the usual anti-fracking scare stories, as have too many in the churches.
Now back to Mr Hill.
Mr Hill has long claimed that regulations for fracking are very poor. He also wrongly claims that only ONE of the TEN recommendations in the RS/RAE report of 2012 have implemented, though many have challenged him.
His views are widely accepted in the churches and it is clear he influenced the 2015 report on fracking from Blackburn diocese. This comes from his own website and members of the diocesan committee.
The group claimed to take expert advice but the only “expert” mentioned in Mr Hill. The paper was very inaccurate with a gross bias along with bad theology.
My blog on it is here in which I took advice on many aspects which were beyond my skills .
In 2017 Mike Hill wrote a paper criticising the Church of England briefing paper on shale gas, which is the nearest to the official view of the church;
Shale Gas and Fracking A Briefing Paper from the Mission and Public Affairs Council and the Environment Working Group of the Church of England December 2016
Here is Hill’s   review

Hill makes a lot of charges againon Shale Gas and Fracking is to be found on his website Shale Gas Office.


was used by the Blackburn environment Group to show why the Flectcher/Holtham paper was misguided; Among other things nearly all the references Hill uses are his own UNPUBLISHED papers.
I do wonder whether the Bishop’s concern for regulation comes from Mr Hill

So much for Mr Hill,  back to Bishop Jones and to consider his previous connections with fracking.. Many will know of Friends of the Earth campaign in Lancashire against Cuadrilla. FoE were involved since 2011 and encouraged by their CEO Andy Atkins. Atkins visited anti-fracking groups in Lancashire on several occasions and gave some environmental awards. It culminated with the ruling of the Advertising Standards Authority against their leaflet seeking funds of their work
Andy Atkins was CEO of Friends of the Earth from c2010 to 2015 and encouraged the anti-fracking campaign in Lancashire, yet Jones praises him
“Andy (pictured) has been described as ‘one of the leading environmentalists’ by former Bishop of Liverpool Rt Rev James Jones, who chaired the independent panel on the Hillsborough disaster. ‘He’ll lead not only A Rocha UK – but also the whole Church – to a new level of action towards the earthing of heaven,’ said the bishop.”

Jones along with 3 other retired bishops and numbers of clergy wrote this letter to the Guardian to divest from Exxon-mobil. There is not space here but some of the arguments are contentious and one-sided.

To conclude it is difficult to see Bishop Jones as an impartial chair for this debate as he is clearly anti-fracking and biased against petroleum.
All in all for a long time he has supported a negative view of fracking , repeats their myths and seems to back FoE

To it, does not bode well for a debate like this.

Appeal judgement further legitimises Cuadrilla ongoing operations – Lancashire For Shale

A short blog from Lancashire for Shale on the recent court decision over the frivolous attempt by child-entertainer Gayzer Frackman and a few Preston Newroad residents to stop exploration at Preston New Road. The two groups alsways seem to get their facts wrong anyway



An appeal against the decision to approve fracking planning permission in Lancashire has failed, demonstrating yet again that the decision to consent was reached properly and that Cuadrilla possesses all the permissions it needs to lawfully explore for shale gas at its Preston New Road site. Three Court of Appeal Justices have today ruled that the …

Source: Appeal judgement further legitimises Cuadrilla ongoing operations – Lancashire For Shale

An appeal against the decision to approve fracking planning permission in Lancashire has failed, demonstrating yet again that the decision to consent was reached properly and that Cuadrilla possesses all the permissions it needs to lawfully explore for shale gas at its Preston New Road site.

Three Court of Appeal Justices have today ruled that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid MP, acted properly when granting planning permission to Cuadrilla in October 2016, and that planning law has been complied with.

It is the second unsuccessful challenge brought by campaigners, who had previously sought to overturn the Secretary of State’s decision through the High Court, which dismissed claims last year.

A Lancashire For Shale spokesperson said: “We are very pleased with the decision of the Court of Appeal. It means that Cuadrilla can continue its operations, which have already ploughed around £5 million into the local economy in just a year.

“However, it’s not just potential suppliers that stand to benefit from a successful shale gas industry here.

“One way or another, Lancashire’s 52,000-strong business community relies on a secure and affordable supply of gas, but most of that gas is currently imported. As the unexpected outages in December showed, our dependency on gas from overseas leaves businesses vulnerable to supply shortages and price spikes.

“It’s vital that we get on with securing more of our own, affordable gas, and Cuadrilla’s work in Lancashire is an important first step in doing just that.”

Francis Egan, Cuadrilla CEO, said: “We are very pleased that the Court of Appeal has robustly dismissed both challenges on all the grounds presented, as well as dismissing requests for further appeal. The same challenges were previously dismissed by the High Court in a similarly detailed judgement made in April 2017. We have always remained confident that that the planning consent would stand, particularly after such a lengthy and thorough review of the application and positive recommendations for approval by both the professional Planning Officers at Lancashire County Council and subsequently an experienced Planning Inspector.

“As our lawful planning consent remains in place, even whilst the Court of Appeal case was heard, operations on site have continued to progress well. We have successfully completed our data
acquisition programme in the shale and will commence drilling the horizontal sections of the first of two initial wells this weekend. Local businesses and workers in Lancashire continue to benefit from the significant investment and jobs that our operations are bringing to the county.”

The journey to this point began back in February 2014 when Cuadrilla announced the proposed location of its Preston New Road site, as this timeline shows. It’s clear from this that the decision to grant planning permission has not been rushed, and has instead been properly considered at every stage.

The summary judgement can be found here.



All the Facts about Fracking – er – um

Ever since I started to find out what fracking entailed  I have been amuzed by the sheer nonsense put out by opponents of fracking. Worst are those who should know better like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace  and Guardian Environment. They have been successful both in raising an awareness and hostility to fracking, but at times their followers/dupees come out with complete tosh.


Here is a prime example from a female protester at Preston New Road.  On 3rd of Sept this was posted on the FB page Lancaster fights Fracking entitled “All the Facts about fracking”

Here it along with my comments;

You can read it here.

All the facts about fracking


I went to Preston New Road on Friday to demonstrate against the fracking company Cuadrilla. The idea was to go and stand outside cuadrilla’s gates to prevent deliveries etc from coming and going,

Is this actually legal? And how would she liked it if someone stopped her clients entering her premise for their “Neuroplastcity”?

this is what demonstraters were doing since March.
I found that the local people I talked to were very upset as the value of their properties had dropped 70% since Cuadrilla’s arrival.

Really! On what evidence? The evidence shows that house prices have not dropped

Fracking has already caused huge amounts of damage and fear in the area with ground tremors.

Yet another! Even tremors of Mag 2.3 don’t cause damage. This is simply falling for scaremongering

In 2011 at Preece Hall there were two significant tremors of Mag 1.5 and 2.3. Few felt them and no one reported any damages, though later some claimed that their property was damaged.

This image is useful. It shows that a Mag2.3 is about the same as a lightning bolt and that tremors that size are very common, with a about half a million every year. Further they are at least a billion times smaller than either the Nepal quake or the 2004 tsunami.


Fracking does cause seismic activity and many refer to 50 at Preece Hall. all but two were Mag 1 or less and would hardly cause a ripple in a teacup. Despite this many have used these “earthquakes” as a scare-mongering tactic and was used in the Greenpeace “Not for Shale” Campaign.


That was effective in conning locals and here its influence can be seen with concerns of “huge damage”. There was pretty clearly no damage.

The way the damage is caused is by enormous amounts of water poured a mile down

A profound mis-undrestanding of fracking. The water is pumped in under very high pressure, not poured.

into a pocket of gas,

I am beginning to despair. conventional sources have pockets of gas. Gas in shale is simply found in microscopic interstices in the shale.

This is a terrible misunderstanding. Some gas deposits, as in Holland, are found in underground caverns, but in fracking gas is extracted from shale, where the gas is found in the shale in tiny interstices in the rock. Hence in exploration a rough test is to put a piece of core from the shales into a “fish tank” and the amount of gas is indicated by the number of bubbles. There is simply no pocket of gas, but gas spread throughout the shale

Featured Image -- 4589

this forces the gas up, along with all kinds of methanes

The gas is methane and there are no other kinds of methanes. This is so face-palming.



and other toxics.

Presumably a clumsy reference to the variopus stuff in flow-back

The drilling disturbs the land plates

This is simply hilarious and shows and incredible ignorance of even school-level geography. She is vaguely aware of palates but ain’t got a clue about plate-tectonics and quakes

and causes tremors and disturbances.

More guff

We heard that the government was going to start putting nuclear toxic waste down the drilling hole when the drilling was finished and cover it in! 😳 Terrifying !

If she hadn’t come out with such silly stuff before, I’d say she was lying. This is simply repeating someone else’s blatant lie.

There was about 50 or 60 of us and the same amount of police. People were very amusing , someone called to the police “I hope no one is getting robbed in Blackpool”
I can’t say I wasn’t a bit scared as I’d seen videos on FB the night before of the police being very rough indeed. Saying this, my own experience was that the long term demonstraters , who were there every day, were quite offensive to the police, but I saw why later!


We stood in the same spot outside the gates, as was customary , the police arrested one of our group for obstructing the highway.

That is illegal!!

We weren’t on the highway we were where we thought it was legal to stand. It turns out that Lancashire council had redesignated the land, that morning, to become part of the highway. The police are always talking about cooperation , if they had told us the facts, we would have moved , this was a really slimey way to get an arrest.
The police were arrogant , unpleasant and far too authoritarian, there were far too many of them, at one time one police person per demonstrator . Don’t we have a shortage of police ?

Well if you bait the police and continue pushing them to the limit, they may not be friendly.

We noticed an awful lot of support from motorists going past who beeped and waved.
Lancashire council voted against fracking

And a lot who didn’t beep. It was a the planning committee not the whole council

but a conservative minister over ruled this and granted a license !

No, the minister did not over-rule it. Cuadrilla appealed as is their legal right and after much evidence was taken, the minister upheld the advice of the Planning Officer


It seems it makes no difference to this government what the public want, they just need to get their hands on more cash and deal more destruction to our environment!

More of the usual mantras!

I am afraid i didn”t find one fact in this article




The author is a lady working in Lancaster and according to her FB page is;

As you read it you will see she makes a lot of statements about fracking and the behaviour of the police at the fracking site near Blackpool.

The post has been shared 40 odd times, including to to RAFF and RAG. If RAFF and RAG shared it , why didn’t they correct its howlers. It makes you wonder!

Here is a complimentary comment for “all the facts about fracking”

  • grace


  • RAG liked it too, with one saying “well-written and observed”
  • rAG on Grace


Mark Lynas – On why GMOs are vital to food security in our world


This is an excellent address by Mark Lynas on the value of GMOs

One of the annoying things about the environmental movement today are those who apply heresy tests to anyone claiming to be green.

GMO EU action

and so;

If you don’t regard GMO as frankenstein food you hate the environment


If you don’t only eat Organic food you are doomed to a green hell

If you don’t hate Glyphosphate then you are poisoning the earth and our food

If you support nuclear energy, you deserve the green version of being nuked.

If you don’t support divestment from fossil fuels, you are a shill for the coal industry

If you support fracking you don’t give a damn about climate change and are a shill for Big Oil.


Sadly, I have only taken a little poetic licence there, but sadly these attitudes are only too common. They are essentially the views of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, who possibly do more damage to the environment and humanity than anyone else


Anyway ignore my rant and read Mark Lynas


Source: Mark Lynas – Speech to the Oxford Farming Conference 2018