Category Archives: Fracking

Stuff on fracking , mostly in Lancashire

Private Eye frack themselves – again!

Private Eye  is always a good read, and for decades has cast its pen dipped in hydrofluoric acid on so many issues.  Its comment is always amusing and usually pertinent.

However, when they dabble in fracking they get fracked. Probably the reason is that they look to a persuasive experts, whose credentials are more in bullshit than anything else.

Here is their latest from May 2017. It is all very convincing but Ken’s letter to Private Eye eviscerates it. I will let him speak………..

 

Image may contain: text

 

Ken wrote to Private Eye

I just sent this to Private Eye.

‘Old Sparky’ who writes the ‘Keeping the Lights on’ column has been following the line of BS from the antifrackers. I was a bit surprised by what Old Sparky wrote about shale gas production. He seems to have swallowed some of the fake news from antifrackers.

I write this as I wrote the complaint which challenged the claims of Friends of the Earth last January. FoE were unable to sustain their claims about water pollution, health effects, asthma. See I am a retired, totally independent 12 years experienced oil rig engineer who, like Strobes, dislikes bullshit. The antifracking movement is entirely founded on bullshit.

So the Tories plan to reduce the regulatory hoop jumping? Why should ill informed people be able to pass comment on technical issues that occur underground?There is no evidence that the proposed fracking system will cause any problems, and 1 million wells in the US with not a single proven case of water pollution or health effect should indicate its intrinsic safety. There are however possible pollution paths from surface spills, and the regs in the UK block all of those potential leak paths. They do not need inspection.

Like any other industry, if the regulations say that you have to use a fluid particular system, then thats what you have to use. How many personal inspections does that need? In fact on previous wells there have been drop in visits by the HSE and Environment Agency, though Old Sparky’s ill informed ‘advisers’ will doubtless claim different. (I have never voted Tory BTW and hate Mrs May and Brexit!) Planning docs run to hundreds of pages will all techniques, chemicals etc exposed to public scrutiny. The regulations are here and here All of these would still be required, its just that the years that it takes to drill a perfectly safe well would be bypassed. The wells would still need to follow planning law, and comment on location/truck movements/etc are still in place. The Lancashire vote against permission was taken against legal advice, by councillors who were not competent to pass comment on the technical issues. These issues had already been dealt with by the expert Planning Dept who recommended approval. So the Tories are ‘gung ho’? Why not, for something that could be a massive revenue earner, with minimal intrusion on the beauty of the countryside? (I have visited the proposed Yorkshire frack site, its almost invisible, like the 100 wells in posh Poole Harbour…) Recently protestors tried in Pickering tried to block access to a well, and they couldnt find it! 😅

********************************************************************

An aside from MR; Here’s a well in Lancashire clearly visible from the road

DSCF0639

************************************************************************

Somehow the shale gas debate has been highjacked by fake reports of health impacts, financed by many anti fossil fuel organisations, yet there is not a single lawsuit in the most litigious country in the world. Claims of cancer/asthma are dismissed by experts, and extensive research into water pollution has revealed no cases of pollution but still the antis go on about it. In the UK carcinogens, and toxic chemicals are forbidden by UK and EU law, but that doesnt stop people claiming they will be used. Please feel free to contact me for a more sober view on what all of the expert engineering and geological groups say is a low risk technology. I expect Strobes to be able to get to the truth, rather than the bullshit surrounding these matters. The truth in this case is rather boring. Shale gas is a low risk activity. Ask the Royal Academy of Engineering, or the BGS.

Fake news is nothing new: 6 pseudo-news websites have colored GMO debate for years

Ummmm! Interesting

A review of 6 fake sites on GMO foods. The last two are of interest.

The Ecologist –a long standing eco-magazine which I took in hte 70s and loved. It now publishs OTT stuff on Green issues whether GMO or Fracking

 

RT – Russia Television – a Moscow based disinformation channel which is implacably opposed to fracking, but never deals with pollution caused by petroleum extraction in Russia

 

 

‘Fake news’ may be new to most people, but not to followers of the anti-GMO debate. Here are some of the leading purveyors of misleading information.

Source: Fake news is nothing new: 6 pseudo-news websites have colored GMO debate for years

“Fake news” is now a well-known term, at least to Americans in the wake of the US presidential election. But followers of events in genetic modification of food and crops have been familiar with the “fake news” phenomenon for years. A number of websites have thrived for years, offering misleading stories with alarmist headlines — in opposition to GMO crops and livestock. Some of these sites (they all have a strong, if not exclusive, online presence) focus directly on GMOs, while others provide a forum for selling products, and still others take a broad stroke on a number of environmental and health issues. Here is a selection of these “Fake news” sites.

Natural News

Natural News, renamed from NewsTarget.com in the mid-2000s, is headed by the self-described “Health Ranger” Mike Adams, who has described biotechnology scientists as “the most despicable humanoids to walk the face of this planet.” [Read GLP’s profile of Mike Adams.] The site publishes original articles, while also aggregating the work of others — almost unanimously in opposition to GMOs, vaccines, or anything it considers to be under influence of corporations. It is affiliated with the non-profit organization Consumer Wellness Center, created in 2006 by Adams.

The website promotes natural health and lifestyle products, including this $2,000 “hydrogen infusion machine.” It was dubbed the “worst anti-science website” by science-based Skeptic.

.] In December, 2016, for example, a story headlined “US Court of Appeals: States and counties can ban GMO crops despite federal laws,” claimed the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had passed a law allowing local and state authorities in Hawaii to enact bans on genetically modified crops. In fact, the Ninth Circuit (which under the US Constitution cannot pass laws) did the opposite: it overruled decisions by county and local officials in Hawaii to ban GMO, citing the authority of the state and the US Plant Protection Act.

And in May, 2016, the site published a story claiming: “CRISPR gene editing lies exposed by genomics expert.,” It wrote:

The biotechnology industry is carrying out a concerted public-relations campaign to promote the idea that new, so-called “gene editing” technologies are the more accurate, safer successor to now-defunct traditional genetic engineering (GE). But this campaign is founded upon several straight-up myths about the new technology, which is nothing more than the same reckless GE paradigm under another name.

The expert? Jonathan Latham, editor of another “fake news” site, Independent Science News. In reality traditional genetic engineering is anything but defunct, since 90 percent of all corn and soybean planted in the US is genetically modified, and, in Hawaii, the papaya industry was saved by the introduction of a modified, virus-resistant version of the popular fruit.

Natural News is not exclusively devoted to opposing genetic modification and promoting organic and “natural” products. Adams has promoted such causes as AIDS denialism, 9/11 truther conspiracies, Barack Obama citizenship ‘birther’ claims and is a believer in ‘dangerous’ chemtrails and the ‘danger’ of vaccines.

Mercola.com

The website Mercola.com has been publishing online for more than 20 years. In addition to selling a wide range of “natural” products, books and fitness plans all under the Mercola brand, it also publishes articles favoring organic foods, and opposing genetic modifications.
Mercola is the creation of Joseph Mercola, an Illinois-based doctor of osteopathic medicine, who claims it as “the world’s No. 1 health Website.”

Arguing that traditional medicine (including vaccines, pharmaceuticals and surgery) kills, he offers alternative cures including prescribing “organic, non-commercially harvested” seaweed supplements to treat thyroid problems. Mercola promotes and sells a variety of “alternative” products; for which he has received multiple warning letters from the FDA.

His website offers a steady stream articles opposing (among other things) GMOs, and which offer his natural products as alternatives.

In a recent article arguing against eating soy, Mercola points to the fact that most soy grown in the US is modified to resist the herbicide glyphosate, which, he claimed is responsible for the disruption of the delicate hormonal balance of the female reproductive cycle. The article cites two studies, one in amphibians and the other in hamsters, showing how (in amphibians) a “tiny amount” of glyphosate caused anatomical abnormalities and (in hamsters) infertility in three generations. None of these appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Instead they were published by the Pesticide Action Network and in the Huffington Post. The site also uses anti-gmo stories to help promote a $99.00 glyphosate testing kit.

Independent Science News

This news site was started in 2011, by the Bioscience Resource Project, an organization that says it provides independent research and analysis in the agriculture-related biosciences and has been in existence since 2006. The site is edited by Jonathan Latham, who holds a PhD in virology and has published papers on a wide variety of topics, including genetics.

According to the organization’s website:

Powerful interests routinely succeed in influencing the answers. In science, external forces influence strongly what is studied, what is published, and what is reported. When that happens, individuals (or policymakers) no longer have the information to decide rationally and choose thoughtfully. Society becomes dysfunctional at a fundamental level.

At ISN we chooses (sic) our stories carefully. Most concern simultaneous manipulations of the scientific process, the food/ag system, and the science media.

According to the site, these stories include:

  • “False agribusiness claims about the safety and performance of GMO food and crops
  • Bee Learning Behaviour Affected by GMO Toxins
  • Roundup-Ready to Yield?
  • Regulators Discover a Hidden Viral Gene in Commercial GMO Crops.

At best, the headlines and stories under them are misleading, at worst, they are simply false.

The website has posted stories arguing there is no scientific consensus on the safety GM foods (there is a consensus, actually), a guest post by well-known GM food opponent Vandana Shiva, and conspiracy theories about genetic testing and population mass surveillance by the government. It also has been linked by anti-technology intellectual Naomi Oreskes, who linked one of her Tweets to the website’s article on Monsanto, a piece by Jonathan Latham speculating that GM food (and therefore Monsanto and others who make them) were in peril because Chipotle had vowed to remove GMO products from its restaurants.

Sustainable Pulse

This website says it is owned and maintained “by a group of concerned citizens and scientists.” While some editors claim it is based in the UK, it is registered in Bulgaria, and two of its chief editors, Henry Rowlands and Radostin Nonkin, work in Bulgaria. In addition to its site, which predominantly features articles about opposition to GMOs, it is connected to what it calls “reference projects:”

  • GMO Evidence—“a simple resource that shows the global picture of harm from GMOs & Roundup.”
  • GMO Seralini—a main source page for all of Gilles-Eric Seralini’s papers and other materials, including his famous 2012 discredited study on tumors in rats that had been retracted, and subsequently republished in a so-called “pay for play” publication.
  • GMO Judy Carman—a similar source page for Australian anti-GMO advocate and researcher, who is best known for her (also discredited, based on questionable methods) 2013 study in the little-known open access Journal of Organic Systems, in which she claimed to have found a link between genetically modified maize and inflammation of the stomach in pigs.

On its main page, one of its most popular posts is a story, “Review Links Roundup to Diabetes, Autism, Infertility and Cancer,” referring to a 2013 paper by anti-GMO advocates Stephanie Seneff and Anthony Samsel. No link between glyphosate and these diseases by any reputable scientific lab has ever been found.

In a lead story, Sustainable Pulse quoted “experts” from the anti-GMO activist community, such as GM Watch and GM Freeze, on their opposition to testing by Rothamsted Research on a type of wheat engineered to more efficiently use photosynthesis to increase crop yields. While the group also quoted the head of the Rothamsted project, quotes from the anti group questioned whether farmers needed to grow more wheat:

What is the purpose of growing more wheat in the first place? World food production already far exceeds the needs of generations to come but people still go hungry. Nobody is starving because of some fundamental flaw with photosynthesis; they are starving because they are poor.

Which is half right.

The Ecologist

“Setting the environmental agenda since 1970,” according to the news site’s masthead, the organization was established as a journal in London, publishing scientific papers that were, according to the papers’ authors, too radical for other journals and magazines. It published in print until 2009, when it became an online magazine and stopped publishing academic-type papers.

Taking a clear anti-globalization, pro-local effort stance on issues, it has posted stories pertaining to climate change, the oil industry, nuclear power, animal rights, and genetically modified foods. Jonathan Latham is frequently posted on the site, including this story accusing the Cornell University Alliance for Science for “being chicken,” in allegedly turning down a debate with anti-GMO activists. It turns out that the “invitation” was tucked into a dense comment section on social media. It also has been running stories critical of policies of the new UK government in the wake of the nation’s vote to withdraw from the European Union. The site also posts screeds from Carey Gillam, a former Reuters reporter who left the news agency for US Right to Know, and whose work is reliably anti-GMO.

The Ecologist’s editors and writers often produce pieces that look well-researched, but the conclusions invariably fall in line with their anti-GMO, technology-skeptic editorial trends. In February, a large piece on the Zika virus in Brazil and other parts of South America cited several studies discussing the possibility that a pesticide, or a previous genetically modified virus, was responsible for the microcephaly cases seen early last year. While the story was updated extensively and even refuted some of its earlier claims of “jumping DNA” and inserted transposons, it still concluded that any future release of genetically modified insects (such as the Oxitec modified mosquito):

Were to take place, it could give rise to numerous new mutations of the virus with the potential to cause even more damage to the human genome, that we can, at this stage, only guess at

Russia Today (RT)

Russia Today, or RT as it now known–its pedigree is Pravda, the propaganda organ of the Communist Party–made a headlines in January when a US intelligence report pointed to it as a major propaganda instrument used in attempts to influence the US presidential election. The television network and website (which have US versions) follow a pattern familiar to followers of Russia and the former Soviet Union—a state-run news agency that claims to be independent but generally hews to Russian policies and authorities..

It is often accused to spreading propaganda and violating journalistic traditions of impartiality. In the United Kingdom, the media regulator Ofcom repeatedly found RT breached rules on impartiality, and of broadcasting “materially misleading” content.

RT reports on a wide range of global issues, much like Reuters, the BBC, AFP or CNN. On GMOs, RT is solidly critical, as is the Russian government, which recently enacted a ban on any foreign GMO from entering the country, and outlawed the creation of a commercial GMO product.

Some stories, including this one on FDA approval of the Simplot potato last year that has a Reuters copyright on it, appear to be straight news, but emphasize comments from anti-GMO activists. The Reuters story heavily quotes Jeffrey Smith, founder of the anti-GMO organization Institute for Responsible Technology:

“It makes sense on paper,” he said of the potatoes that are purported to be resistant to blight – the pathogen responsible for the Great Famine. However, one of the issues is that the effects of modified these genomes are largely unknown.

“When we tamper with the genome in the way that they’ve been doing with genetic engineering in our food supply, you end up increasing allergens, toxins, new diseases or other problems – causes massive collateral damage in the DNA” he said.

This quote, of course, ignores the extensive testing by developers of the potato, reviews by FDA officials, and the advances in knowledge of genetics in general.

A video on RT spends more than six minutes opining on a number of issues, from the so-called “DARK Act,” to alleged “wheat escape” and perpetuates many of the typical myths that are refrains of the anti-GMO movement, such as whether QR codes really work, and the false story of the “world killing” Klebsiella microbe that was modified to increase alcohol production and boost decomposition.

Andrew Porterfield is a writer, editor and communications consultant for academic institutions, companies and non-profits in the life sciences. He is based in Camarillo, California. Follow @AMPorterfield on Twitter.

Vivienne Westwood fracks the Archbishop of Canterbury

Well , well, well, Dame Vivienne Westwood is chastising the Church of England for their report on Fracking chaired by the Bishop of Salisbury

This is hilarious in many ways and shows the folly of those opposing fracking, especially dress-designers.

Cuadrilla

An earlier set of false claims about fracking from Westwood and Talk Fracking

 

frackedbaby

This is what she thinks fracking will do to babies.

The Church’s report is remarkably good and thorough. Her claims of being flawed are simply daft. She tries to rubbish the excellent Mackay/Stone report as it didn’t use Howarth’s 2011 paper on fugitive methane. Two points, the late sir David Mackay was one of Britain’s best experts on energy and his early death is a great loss. Howarth’s paper was simply dodgy and gave way-out results which cannot be reproduced.

In other words, her report is utter nonsense

I hope no one in the churches are silly enough to go along with Westwood, but on past form I suspect some of the churches’ Green experts will agree with her.

http://createsend.com/t/d-29A4A6A6C3A0FD1B

Church and State Used Flawed Data for Fracking Report

Dear ,

Dame Vivienne Westwood and The Grim Reaper visited the home of the Archbishop of Canterbury to deliver our damning new report proving fracking could be considerably worse than coal in terms of its effect on climate change.

The report completely undermines the Conservative manifesto and the Church of England’s report in support for hydraulic fracturing. Our report compiles peer-reviewed studies which prove that the MacKay-Stone report, which the government depended on to support their case for fracking, is fatally flawed and riddled with false data. MacKay-Stone did not disclose any of their industry associations and only utilised biased industry directed samples.

Is Fracking Worse than Coal?

Our report shows that the government was evidently misled and in turn continued to mislead parliament and the public with the findings of the MacKay-Stone report. Furthermore, this evidence now suggests that shale oil and gas extraction could be considerably worse than coal in terms of its effects on climate change and global warming.

The environmental impact of shale gas extraction is proven to be 300-400 times higher than reported in the MacKay-Stone report. In the MacKay-Stone report, the figure for leakage calculation was only half what it should have been. The figure for gas production is twice what it should have been. Additionally, MacKay-Stone deliberately excluded the figures in the Howarth study (2011) from their final calculations to support their own findings.

Conservative’s Shale Manifesto Left in Tatters

Our report completely undermines the Conservative party’s policies in support of shale oil and gas extraction. May’s manifesto does a complete u-turn on their promise to give communities a voice in deciding whether or not fracking happens in their local area. The Conservatives would allow drill sites they consider as “non-fracking”, to be authorised as ‘permitted development’, bypassing the same scrutiny and regulations of fracking applications.

The Church & the Flawed MacKay-Stone Report

The Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council, and the Environment Working Group chaired by the Bishop of Salisbury, stunned Christians nationwide in January 2017 when it said that fracking was “morally acceptable” because it replaced “dirtier energy”, meaning coal.  The Church also quoted MacKay-Stone in its ‘Briefing Paper on Shale Gas and Fracking’.

The Church owns 100,000 acres of farmland and has already allowed energy company Aurora to carry out seismic surveys to assess shale gas potential on land near Ormskirk, Lancashire.

Vivienne vs The Church of England

Dame Vivienne Westwood wrote to The Archbishop of Canterbury on 18th May 2017 expressing her concerns over our new found evidence.  A representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury responded saying “shale gas should not be ruled out”, criticised the report’s author for his findings despite our report being a compilation of peer-reviewed science.

The Church conceded however, that if new research comes to light, it will be open to changing its position.  Dame Westwood hit back pointing out that the Allen report, cited by McKay-Stone, uses a faulty Baccharach sensor that has a serious design fault which causes the machine to significantly under report methane emissions.

Is this the Final Nail in the Coffin for Fracking?

MacKay-Stone said fracking would help the UK transition to a renewable energy future whilst helping us reach our climate change reduction targets. However, our report proves that using this method of extreme energy extraction will completely blow out our climate change targets under the COP21 agreement which 195 countries signed included the UK and would send us on a backward course.

This also completely contradicts the aims of The Climate Change Act 2008. If we don’t stop fracking, we will never meet our agreed climate change targets.

Find out more at talkfracking.org  Read report in full

PLEASE SHARE:  Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Forward Email

FOLLOW US:
Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Instagram

Teaching critical thinking to combat fake news and bullshit: You have to start young

This road sign sums it up!!

Within science there is fakescience from the left and right, not only rejection of global warming , but creationism, fracking ‘elth studies, and the usual anti-GMO, anti-vaxxer, pro-organic garbage

Thanks to social media, fake news, conspiracy theories, and health scams spread faster and farther than ever. The world is in need of critical thinking skills now more than ever. Fortunately, there…

Source: Teaching critical thinking to combat fake news and bullshit: You have to start young

Labour MP Natascha Engel’s Views on Fracking

With the Labour Party being anti-fracking  ( and by implication in favour of importing higher GHG emission fracked gas from the USA) , here are some wise comments on fracking from a Labour MP in Derbyshire.There is little to disagree with her apart from quibbles.

Congratulations to her and a pity that more aren’t as rigorous.

Image may contain: 4 people, people standing and outdoor

Source: Natascha Engel’s Views on Fracking

 

Natascha Engel’s Views on Fracking

With the calling of the snap General Election, I wanted to try and set out in detail my position on fracking as a whole and the INEOS application for an exploratory well at Bramleymoor Farm in Marsh Lane in particular.

These are my own personal views which I have arrived at after a great deal of research. These views are not shared by the Labour Party nor local Labour councillors.

There has been a lot of pressure with the general election on June 8 for me to campaign to ban fracking. It would have been an easy campaign to justify and may well be a vote-winner. But those of you who know me also know that I stand by my principles and would never campaign for something I don’t believe in. I have always put my constituents’ well-being above all else and would never support anything that I thought was unsafe.

Since hearing of the possibility of fracking in North East Derbyshire, like many of you, I have immersed myself in the subject. I have read reports and talked to campaigners against fracking, the industry, experts, and academics on shale, geology and energy.

I have had several meetings with the Energy Minister who is responsible for shale to discuss my concerns and spent much of Easter travelling around North Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire looking at the sites where fracking is due to take place as well as some of the existing oil and gas wells that are dotted around the country.

 MY CONCERNS

Lorry movements: My chief concern about the Bramleymoor Farm application is lorry movements. The route through Coal Aston will need to be looked at again both for residential parking, safety for people on pavements, traffic blackspots like at Snowdon Lane, HGVs managing the little roundabout towards the petrol station and garden centres. I am also worried about the number of lorries and the times of day they will be passing through.

Proximity to housing: I have also been talking to INEOS about how close the site is to the nearest residential houses and how noise and light pollution can best be reduced and kept to a minimum to make sure that those people who are worst affected are best compensated.

 PLANNING PROCESS

The government regards shale as an important potential industry and they are keen to see if there is enough of the right sort of shale in the UK to make it viable. If it comes off in the amounts that they hope, then this would lead to a huge tax take for them – in fact the government hopes that it will go some way to funding health and social care.

This means that the government has gone a long way to make sure that shale exploration will take place. They have done two things. They have made the planning framework for a shale application far more rigorous than any other conventional oil and gas application, but, once those planning requirements have been met, then if a council rejects an application it is called in by the Secretary of State who will almost certainly overturn the decision.

 DISRUPTION, SAFETY, HEALTH AND HOUSE PRICES

I know how upset and worried some people are about fracking especially about health, safety, house prices and security. From visiting sites, speaking to engineers and public health experts, I have not heard, seen or read anything that convinces me that shale exploration is any more or less safe than conventional oil and gas drilling.

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is a technique that has been used since the late 1940s to extract conventional oil and gas. We have had thousands of onshore oil and gas wells drilled over the decades (some of which have been fracked) and currently have over 200 wells around the country pumping quietly away with little or no concern to local residents.

There will, without a doubt, be significant disruption during the building phase of a shale site during the clearing, rig building and initial fracking phases, and there will be more than usual heavy lorry movements carrying water and aggregate. This is the part of the development that I have most concerns about and is the subject that I am in close communication with INEOS on.

But the disruption caused by the building and drilling phase is the same as with any large build project, whether it’s industrial, a new school or a new supermarket – and in the case of a supermarket, the increased lorry movements will continue throughout the life-time of the supermarket and there will be no compensation paid to locally-affected residents.

 THE WATER TABLE AND OLD MINESHAFTS

The other real concern that people have raised is over the water table, drinking water and the potential risk to disused pits and mineshafts. Again, this is something that we have to keep a close eye on but the regulations covering fracking are extremely tight and the planning conditions have been strengthened over the years.

It means that 3D seismic testing has to take place to find fault-lines or disused mineshafts before anyone can frack, and baseline testing has to have been carried out a year before fracking happens so that any changes in the soil, water or air are immediately noticed and drilling is stopped. These conditions are far more rigorous than any conditions the construction industry has to meet.

From what I have seen, the independent engineers I have spoken to at the Royal Society for Civil Engineers and the British Geological Survey, the casing of a shale pipe through the water table has to be three steel tubes, each injected with a layer of cement. The chance of any contamination of the water table from shale extraction in this country is almost impossible.

 RELIABLE INFORMATION

One of the biggest problems about shale exploration that I came across was that no-one knows where to get trustworthy advice or facts about fracking – what it actually entails and what the risks are. There is a lot of information on the internet and much of it is either not relevant to the UK or just plain scaremongering.

There is the industry on the one side which people don’t trust because they have a vested financial interest in downplaying any risks, and on the other side are the green campaign groups for whom anti-fracking campaigns have seen an enormous boost in donations and membership. They have a different agenda which is to see the country de-industrialise.

 PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

I totally agree with the green campaigners who make the case for more investment in renewables and winding down our reliance on fossil fuels. We should be doing far more to encourage wind, solar and water energy generation as well as putting more money into researching carbon capture and storage.

But spreading scare stories for which there is no reliable evidence about increases in cancer rates and low-birth-weight babies is unforgiveable. I have not seen credible evidence to support this and it should have no place in the debate about energy, climate change and shale.

While I agree that we should do all we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, I do not believe in de-industrialisation. Most people (including me) want to come home after work, switch on the lights, turn on the heating, run a hot bath and cook meals on their hobs.

Most people would rather pay less for utility bills and many people are also concerned for the environment and would rather have less pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

But the fact is that at the moment only 7% of the energy we use comes from renewables such as wind and solar. The rest comes from gas and oil. A decreasing amount comes from our domestic wells in the North Sea, but increasingly we are importing shale gas from America and Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) from Qatar. As we become more reliant on imports, we can expect our energy bills to rise even higher.

And if our concern is reducing global greenhouse gas emissions then we ought to start calculating the real carbon footprint of importing oil and gas. We know working conditions are bordering on slavery in Qatar and health and safety regulations are almost non-existent with spillages, accidents and gas escaping into the atmosphere commonplace.

Once the gas is captured, it has to be frozen to liquefy it and put onto hugelypolluting diesel ships to transport to the UK where it is re-gassified and pumped into our domestic network. Each of those steps has a very large carbon footprint which would be avoided if we took shale out of the ground here.

From a green perspective, investment in renewables is essential. But gas will still have a role to play for the foreseeable future and we might as well make it as low-carbon as we can, controlling it better, and getting our domestic energy prices down. This will be especially important after Brexit.

 JOBS AND INDUSTRY

Energy is something which Derbyshire is expert in with its proud coal mining history and mineral richness. It seems that beneath our feet could be another large-scale manufacturing industry that is nowhere near as dangerous as sending people down deep mines. If the shale industry develops in the UK, it would use some of the most advanced civil and petro-chemical engineering technologies in the world and could create a whole new generation of jobs for our children and grandchildren.

In Danesmoor near Clay Cross, we already have the country’s best rig-building company being used by the industry all over the country. They are struggling at the moment with protesters chaining themselves to the factory gates. But if this industry comes off, we could see a massive expansion creating many more jobs in Danesmoor alone.

If, on the other hand, we allow the protesters to stop the company from supplying rigs, the opposite will happen. The jobs that exist in Danesmoor today will not be there tomorrow.

As a former trade union organiser, I am proud that the UK has the strictest Health and Safety regulations in the world. It means that the kind of gung-ho drilling and spillages that have happened in America are simply not allowed to happen here.

Our planning regime is extremely rigorous and our environmental laws so tight that the industry is constantly complaining about the hoops through which they have to jump. Quite right too. This, of course, does not mean that accidents can’t happen. It just means that the risk is minimal and the penalties great.

 MINIMISING RISKS

I appreciate that people ask why they have to put up with the disruption. We should look carefully at every application to make sure that drilling and fracking happens away from homes and in the remotest places with the least disruption possible. We should certainly not have wells covering every inch of our beautiful countryside.

Many people say that even a small risk is a risk too far. If this is how we lived our lives, we would have no development of any kind. It is about making sure any development is safe. We need an army of inspectors and environmental protection officers to keep a careful and constant eye on the industry to keep it safe.

I am not against fracking as long as the industry stays highly regulated and controlled. If taking shale out of the ground in the UK means that we have fewer greenhouse gas emissions, that we can control our own energy and get prices down because we are not importing it, if it creates a whole new industry with good jobs, if it is good for Derbyshire, then I support it.

Our next step has to be setting up a strong Community Liaison Group to negotiate with INEOS on lorry routes and times, on making sure that noise and light pollution are kept to a minimum and that individuals and the community are properly compensated.

Marsh Lane and Apperknowle need a bus service to Sheffield and Chesterfield. Let’s see if we can get a shale bus from the industry. And if fracking does actually happen, let’s ask for free energy for all homes within a certain radius. That would increase house prices and certainly reduce bills. Let’s see if INEOS can work with Eckington School (which has an engineering specialism), or pay for local people to train as lorry drivers.

If shale exploration is going to happen, let’s make sure that we get the most out of it.

I hope this will start a proper debate on shale exploration in which everyone can raise their issues and concerns. It has been very one-sided until now so I am looking forward to hearing your views on this and everything else!

All good wishes as always

NATASCHA ENGEL

Labour Party Parliamentary candidate

tel: 01246 439121 twitter: @nengel2017 email:natascha_engel@labour.org.uk

Climate Deniers, The Demons under every Rock

One of the scourges of polarised debate, is that if you diverge even slightly from another, you are branded as an opponent and are, to use old church terminology, a heretic. Thus to a Christian fundamentalist if you believe that evolution occurred or that the Bible is not 100% inerrant and without error, you are a heretic worse than Servetus and an infidel worse than Richard Dawkins. That has happened to me on many occasions 🙂

Today the worst thing to be heretical on is Climate Change and if you don’t believe every word St Naomi Klein or St Bill McKibbin say then you are both a heretic and, God forbid, a Climate Denier.  It is no good if your name is Barack Obama or Lord Deben aka John Gummer, because you are still as bad as the Koch brothers or any others connected with the Great Satan, Big Oil.

Today, it is impossible to deny that Climate Change is happening with serious risks to our planet, both for humans and other forms of life. That means it is vital to both prepare for it mitigate against it, and, hopefully, arrest it or even reverse it. But then comes the division. There are those who see anything other than full-scale fossil divestment and de-carbonisation as anathema. McKibbin is one of the most forceful on this, and his views are echoed by many greens, including christian groups like Operation Noah , Green Christian and US counterparts. If you dare question this, and worse reckon fracking is part of the solution, then the Green gatekeepers will eject you from the green sheepfold and a thief and a bandit. That has happened to me on several occasions!!!!

To retain Green purity to be  anything else is often regarded as being a Climate Denier, for example if you see fracking as preferable to coal and necessary until viable renewables are developed, or support nuclear energy, or don’t think we should divest from all fossil fuels ASAP.

This cartoon says it all

Image may contain: 1 person, text

For myself, I found it depressing to find so many Christian Greens were taking this line, that I felt isolated. It was hard to put one’s head above the parapet whether in secualr or Christian circles. However I gradually found those where were not so strident Mark Lynas, Stephen Tindale, John Gummer, the late David Mackay and even Mark Ridley  (up to a point). Within churches they were not so common, but many Christians with less environmental knowledge were not happy with the stridency which was becoming Green Christian orthodoxy.

Over the pond I found the Breakthrough Institute very helpful as it had a very realistic approach to environmental problems.

Here is an article from them on the absurdity of the charges of Climate Denialism, which I think needs wide circulation.

Ted Nordhaus is a leading global thinker on energy, environment, climate, human development, and politics. He is the co-founder and executive director of the Breakthough Institute and a co-author of An Ecomodernist Manifesto.

https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/ted-nordhaus/demons-under-every-rock

Demons Under Every Rock

The Ever-Expanding Definition of Climate Denial

{photo_credit}

May 04, 2017 | Ted Nordhaus

In his 1993 New Yorker story about recovered memory and “Satanic Ritual Abuse syndrome,” Lawrence Wright tells the story of Paul Ingram, a Pentecostal and Thurston County, Washington, sheriff’s deputy accused of ritually abusing his daughters in a Satanic cult that he had allegedly started with his poker buddies. Ingram had no memory initially of the events that were alleged to have happened. But he didn’t unambiguously deny them either. After hours of interrogation, and thanks both to leading questions from his interrogators and a shared Manichean worldview, Ingram begins to recover memories of the abuse. His daughters, too, begin uncovering new memories.

The tendrils of the conspiracy slowly seem to reach into all corners of the community, culminating with the girls announcing the interrogators themselves to be part of the cult that had abused them. As the case begins to unravel, a social psychologist from Berkeley is brought in to investigate what had gone wrong. The “false memories,” he concludes, had been manufactured through group pressure and persuasion, building an increasingly elaborate—and increasingly social—narrative far removed from the events on the ground.

This disturbing and memorable story has kept coming back to me the last few years, as a cadre of climate activists, ideologically motivated scholars, and sympathetic journalists have started labeling an ever-expanding circle of people they disagree with climate deniers.

Climate change, of course, is real and demons are not. But in the expanding use of the term “denier,” the view of the climate debate as a battle between pure good and pure evil, and the social dimensions of the narrative that has been constructed, some quarters of the climate movement have begun to seem similarly unhinged.

Not so long ago, the term denier was reserved for right-wing ideologues, many of them funded by fossil fuel companies, who claimed that global warming either wasn’t happening at all or wasn’t caused by humans. Then it was expanded to so-called “lukewarmists,” scientists and other analysts who believe that global warming is happening and is caused by humans, but either don’t believe it will prove terribly severe or believe that human societies will prove capable of adapting without catastrophic impacts.

As frustration grew after the failure of legislative efforts to cap US emissions in 2010, demons kept appearing wherever climate activists looked for them. In 2015, Bill McKibben argued in the New York Times that anyone who didn’t oppose the construction of the Keystone pipeline, without regard to any particular stated view about climate change, was a denier.

Then in December 2015, Harvard historian and climate activist Naomi Oreskes expanded the definition further. “There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late,” Oreskes wrote in the Guardian, “one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power.”

Oreskes took care not to mention the scientists in question, for that would have been awkward. They included Dr. James Hansen, who gave the first congressional testimony about the risks that climate change presented the world, and has been a leading voice for strong, immediate, and decisive global action to address climate change for almost three decades. The others—Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley—are all highly decorated climate scientists with long and well-established histories of advocating for climate action. The four of them had travelled to the COP21 meeting in Paris that December to urge the negotiators and NGOs at the meeting to embrace nuclear energy as a technology that would be necessary to achieve deep reductions in global emissions.

So it was only a matter of time before my colleagues and I at the Breakthrough Institute would be tarred with the same brush. In a new article in the New Republic, reporter Emily Atkin insists that we are “lukewarmists.” She accuses us of engaging in a sleight of hand “where climate projections are lowballed; climate change impacts, damages, and costs are underestimated” and claims that we, like other deniers, argue “that climate change is real but not urgent, and therefore it’s useless to do anything to stop it.”

None of these claims are true. For over a decade, we’ve argued that climate change was real, carried the risk of catastrophic impacts, and merited strong global action to mitigate carbon emissions. We have supported a tax on carbon, the Paris Agreement, and the Clean Power Plan, although have been clear in our view that the benefits of these policies would be modest. We have supported substantial public investment in renewables, energy efficiency, nuclear energy, and carbon capture and storage.

Atkin’s story initially simply linked to our Wikipedia page. When I pointed this out to TNR executive editor Ryan Kearney and asked for a correction, he instead added further links that he claimed showed us to be “lukewarmists.” Of those, two were links to criticisms of our work on energy efficiency rebound. One is a link to two footnotes in a book by climate scientist Michael Mann, neither of which is material to the claim either. One links to a blog post that criticizes our view that An Inconvenient Truth contributed to the polarization of public opinion about climate change. The other makes the demonstrably false claim that the George and Cynthia Mitchell Foundation is our primary funder.1

These sorts of attacks, supported by multiple layers of links that never actually materially support the claims that are being made, used to be the domain of a small set of marginal activists and blogs. Atkin herself cut her teeth at Climate Progress, where her colleague Joe Romm has spent over a decade turning ad hominem into a form of toxic performance art.2

But today, these misrepresentations are served up in glossy, big-budget magazines. Climate denial has morphed, in the eyes of the climate movement, and their handmaidens in the media, into denial of green policy preferences, not climate science.

“The ‘moral argument’ for fossil fuels has collapsed. But renewables denial has not,” McKibben wrote in Rolling Stone last January. “It’s now at least as ugly and insidious as its twin sister, Climate Denial. The same men who insist that the physicists are wrong about global warming also insist that sun and wind can’t supply our energy needs anytime soon.”

“We can transition to a decarbonized economy,” Oreskes claimed in the Guardian, “by focusing on wind, water and solar, coupled with grid integration, energy efficiency and demand management.”

This newfangled climate speak is based on newfangled energy math. Oreskes and McKibben, like much of the larger environmental community, rely heavily these days on the work of Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor whose work purports to show that the world can be powered entirely with existing renewable energy technologies. Jacobson’s projections represent an extreme outlier. Even optimistic outfits, like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, conclude that even reaching 80% renewable energy would be very technically and economically difficult.

Advocates, of course, will be advocates. But the fact that those claims are now uncritically repeated by journalists at once-respectable publications like the New Republic speaks to how far our public discourse has fallen, and how illiberal it has become. Fake news and alternative facts are not the sole province of the right wing. Inserting links to unhinged bloggers now passes for fact checking for a new generation of hyper-aggressive and hyper-partisan journalists. The righteous community of self-proclaimed climate hawks is now prepared to meet the opposition, exaggeration for exaggeration and outrage for outrage.

The continuing escalation of rhetoric by climate advocates, meanwhile, is unlikely to do much to solve climate change. After eight years of excoriating hard-fought efforts to make headway on the issue by President Obama and candidate Clinton (McKibben in recent years labeled both deniers), we can thank provocateurs like McKibben and Oreskes for helping to put an actual climate denier in the White House.

More broadly, the expansion of the use of denier by both activists and journalists in the climate debate, a word once reserved only for Holocaust denial, mirrors a contemporary political moment in which all opposing viewpoints, whether in the eyes of the alt-right or the climate left, are increasingly viewed as illegitimate. The norms that once assured that our free press would also be a fair press have deeply eroded. Balanced reporting and fair attribution have become road kill in a world where all the incentives for both reporters and their editors are to serve up red meat for their highly segmented and polarized readerships, a dynamic that both reflects and feeds the broader polarization in our polity. It is a development that does not bode well for pluralism or democracy.

[1] In 2014, we received a single small grant from Mitchell Foundation to organize a workshop with innovation scholars, DOE scientists, and some of the surviving engineers from Mitchell Energy and some of the other firms that pioneered hydraulic fracturing to better understand the role that the federal government played in fostering the innovations that led to the shale revolution and what lessons that history might hold for public efforts today to support clean energy innovation.

[2] Even Romm didn’t have the temerity to use the term to describe those who accepted the scientific consensus on global warming.

One of the scourges of polarised debate, is that if you diverge even slightly from another, you are branded as an opponent and are, to use old church terminology, a heretic. Thus to a Christian fundamentalist if you believe that evolution occurred or that the Bible is not 100% inerrant and without error, you are a heretic worse than Servetus and an infidel worse than Richard Dawkins. That has happened to me on many occasions 🙂

Today the worst thing to be heretical on is Climate Change and if you don’t believe every word St Naomi Klein or St Bill McKibbin say then you are both a heretic and, God forbid, a Climate Denier.  It is no good if your name is Barack Obama or Lord Deben aka John Gummer, because you are still as bad as the Koch brothers or any others connected with the Great Satan, Big Oil.

Today, it is impossible to deny that Climate Change is happening with serious risks to our planet, both for humans and other forms of life. That means it is vital to both prepare for it mitigate against it, and, hopefully, arrest it or even reverse it. But then comes the division. There are those who see anything other than full-scale fossil divestment and de-carbonisation as anathema. McKibbin is one of the most forceful on this, and his views are echoed by many greens, including christian groups like Operation Noah , Green Christian and US counterparts. If you dare question this, and worse reckon fracking is part of the solution, then the Green gatekeepers will eject you from the green sheepfold and a thief and a bandit. That has happened to me on several occasions!!!!

To retain Green purity to be  anything else is often regarded as being a Climate Denier, for example if you see fracking as preferable to coal and necessary until viable renewables are developed, or support nuclear energy, or don’t think we should divest from all fossil fuels ASAP.

This cartoon says it all

Image may contain: 1 person, text

For myself, I found it depressing to find so many Christian Greens were taking this line, that I felt isolated. It was hard to put one’s head above the parapet whether in secualr or Christian circles. However I gradually found those where were not so strident Mark Lynas, Stephen Tindale, John Gummer, the late David Mackay and even Mark Ridley  (up to a point). Within churches they were not so common, but many Christians with less environmental knowledge were not happy with the stridency which was becoming Green Christian orthodoxy.

Over the pond I found the Breakthrough Institute very helpful as it had a very realistic approach to environmental problems.

Here is an article from them on the absurdity of the charges of Climate Denialism, which I think needs wide circulation.

Ted Nordhaus is a leading global thinker on energy, environment, climate, human development, and politics. He is the co-founder and executive director of the Breakthough Institute and a co-author of An Ecomodernist Manifesto.

https://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/ted-nordhaus/demons-under-every-rock

 

Demons Under Every Rock

The Ever-Expanding Definition of Climate Denial

{photo_credit}

May 04, 2017 | Ted Nordhaus

In his 1993 New Yorker story about recovered memory and “Satanic Ritual Abuse syndrome,” Lawrence Wright tells the story of Paul Ingram, a Pentecostal and Thurston County, Washington, sheriff’s deputy accused of ritually abusing his daughters in a Satanic cult that he had allegedly started with his poker buddies. Ingram had no memory initially of the events that were alleged to have happened. But he didn’t unambiguously deny them either. After hours of interrogation, and thanks both to leading questions from his interrogators and a shared Manichean worldview, Ingram begins to recover memories of the abuse. His daughters, too, begin uncovering new memories.

The tendrils of the conspiracy slowly seem to reach into all corners of the community, culminating with the girls announcing the interrogators themselves to be part of the cult that had abused them. As the case begins to unravel, a social psychologist from Berkeley is brought in to investigate what had gone wrong. The “false memories,” he concludes, had been manufactured through group pressure and persuasion, building an increasingly elaborate—and increasingly social—narrative far removed from the events on the ground.

This disturbing and memorable story has kept coming back to me the last few years, as a cadre of climate activists, ideologically motivated scholars, and sympathetic journalists have started labeling an ever-expanding circle of people they disagree with climate deniers.

Climate change, of course, is real and demons are not. But in the expanding use of the term “denier,” the view of the climate debate as a battle between pure good and pure evil, and the social dimensions of the narrative that has been constructed, some quarters of the climate movement have begun to seem similarly unhinged.

Not so long ago, the term denier was reserved for right-wing ideologues, many of them funded by fossil fuel companies, who claimed that global warming either wasn’t happening at all or wasn’t caused by humans. Then it was expanded to so-called “lukewarmists,” scientists and other analysts who believe that global warming is happening and is caused by humans, but either don’t believe it will prove terribly severe or believe that human societies will prove capable of adapting without catastrophic impacts.

As frustration grew after the failure of legislative efforts to cap US emissions in 2010, demons kept appearing wherever climate activists looked for them. In 2015, Bill McKibben argued in the New York Times that anyone who didn’t oppose the construction of the Keystone pipeline, without regard to any particular stated view about climate change, was a denier.

Then in December 2015, Harvard historian and climate activist Naomi Oreskes expanded the definition further. “There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late,” Oreskes wrote in the Guardian, “one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power.”

Oreskes took care not to mention the scientists in question, for that would have been awkward. They included Dr. James Hansen, who gave the first congressional testimony about the risks that climate change presented the world, and has been a leading voice for strong, immediate, and decisive global action to address climate change for almost three decades. The others—Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira, and Tom Wigley—are all highly decorated climate scientists with long and well-established histories of advocating for climate action. The four of them had travelled to the COP21 meeting in Paris that December to urge the negotiators and NGOs at the meeting to embrace nuclear energy as a technology that would be necessary to achieve deep reductions in global emissions.

So it was only a matter of time before my colleagues and I at the Breakthrough Institute would be tarred with the same brush. In a new article in the New Republic, reporter Emily Atkin insists that we are “lukewarmists.” She accuses us of engaging in a sleight of hand “where climate projections are lowballed; climate change impacts, damages, and costs are underestimated” and claims that we, like other deniers, argue “that climate change is real but not urgent, and therefore it’s useless to do anything to stop it.”

None of these claims are true. For over a decade, we’ve argued that climate change was real, carried the risk of catastrophic impacts, and merited strong global action to mitigate carbon emissions. We have supported a tax on carbon, the Paris Agreement, and the Clean Power Plan, although have been clear in our view that the benefits of these policies would be modest. We have supported substantial public investment in renewables, energy efficiency, nuclear energy, and carbon capture and storage.

Atkin’s story initially simply linked to our Wikipedia page. When I pointed this out to TNR executive editor Ryan Kearney and asked for a correction, he instead added further links that he claimed showed us to be “lukewarmists.” Of those, two were links to criticisms of our work on energy efficiency rebound. One is a link to two footnotes in a book by climate scientist Michael Mann, neither of which is material to the claim either. One links to a blog post that criticizes our view that An Inconvenient Truth contributed to the polarization of public opinion about climate change. The other makes the demonstrably false claim that the George and Cynthia Mitchell Foundation is our primary funder.1

These sorts of attacks, supported by multiple layers of links that never actually materially support the claims that are being made, used to be the domain of a small set of marginal activists and blogs. Atkin herself cut her teeth at Climate Progress, where her colleague Joe Romm has spent over a decade turning ad hominem into a form of toxic performance art.2

But today, these misrepresentations are served up in glossy, big-budget magazines. Climate denial has morphed, in the eyes of the climate movement, and their handmaidens in the media, into denial of green policy preferences, not climate science.

“The ‘moral argument’ for fossil fuels has collapsed. But renewables denial has not,” McKibben wrote in Rolling Stone last January. “It’s now at least as ugly and insidious as its twin sister, Climate Denial. The same men who insist that the physicists are wrong about global warming also insist that sun and wind can’t supply our energy needs anytime soon.”

“We can transition to a decarbonized economy,” Oreskes claimed in the Guardian, “by focusing on wind, water and solar, coupled with grid integration, energy efficiency and demand management.”

This newfangled climate speak is based on newfangled energy math. Oreskes and McKibben, like much of the larger environmental community, rely heavily these days on the work of Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor whose work purports to show that the world can be powered entirely with existing renewable energy technologies. Jacobson’s projections represent an extreme outlier. Even optimistic outfits, like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, conclude that even reaching 80% renewable energy would be very technically and economically difficult.

Advocates, of course, will be advocates. But the fact that those claims are now uncritically repeated by journalists at once-respectable publications like the New Republic speaks to how far our public discourse has fallen, and how illiberal it has become. Fake news and alternative facts are not the sole province of the right wing. Inserting links to unhinged bloggers now passes for fact checking for a new generation of hyper-aggressive and hyper-partisan journalists. The righteous community of self-proclaimed climate hawks is now prepared to meet the opposition, exaggeration for exaggeration and outrage for outrage.

The continuing escalation of rhetoric by climate advocates, meanwhile, is unlikely to do much to solve climate change. After eight years of excoriating hard-fought efforts to make headway on the issue by President Obama and candidate Clinton (McKibben in recent years labeled both deniers), we can thank provocateurs like McKibben and Oreskes for helping to put an actual climate denier in the White House.

More broadly, the expansion of the use of denier by both activists and journalists in the climate debate, a word once reserved only for Holocaust denial, mirrors a contemporary political moment in which all opposing viewpoints, whether in the eyes of the alt-right or the climate left, are increasingly viewed as illegitimate. The norms that once assured that our free press would also be a fair press have deeply eroded. Balanced reporting and fair attribution have become road kill in a world where all the incentives for both reporters and their editors are to serve up red meat for their highly segmented and polarized readerships, a dynamic that both reflects and feeds the broader polarization in our polity. It is a development that does not bode well for pluralism or democracy.

[1] In 2014, we received a single small grant from Mitchell Foundation to organize a workshop with innovation scholars, DOE scientists, and some of the surviving engineers from Mitchell Energy and some of the other firms that pioneered hydraulic fracturing to better understand the role that the federal government played in fostering the innovations that led to the shale revolution and what lessons that history might hold for public efforts today to support clean energy innovation.

[2] Even Romm didn’t have the temerity to use the term to describe those who accepted the scientific consensus on global warming.