Quantcast
Fracking - Page 4 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Rico1304

Fracking

Recommended Posts

You seem not to grasp that it would require constant participation above all other things. You also seem rather keen to change the subject or disappear when people point out to you the actual practicalities of your system.

Yes, democracy requires proper participation, maybe we could hold hands with uru geller and transmit how we want our mps to vote each day instead.

 

And i have never run away from addressing that question its the best part.

 

If you had a copy of the current laws on your fone now and instead of pointless hours arguing on here to and thro, and tick off or amend to what you wanted, saved and submitted it thats done, only when you decide youve changed your mind about say capital punishment are you likely to go in and change that, the laws are live but people dont change their positions on the law every day, its incredibly simple and you musnt be reading right if you choose to lie again and say i run away dont let me stop you making more things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate, think about the global deaths from fossil fuel accidents. Then add in the damage it has done to the environment. Then factor in the absolute fucking mayhem it's going to cause with food shortages and wars when climate change really kicks in.

 

It's genuinely not even in the same ball-park.

I once bonnetted a man and nearly got eleven years for it, does that count as a fossil fuel accident?

Its a dubious claim, also youd have to factor in what wouldve happened in each accident had it been nuclear already we are in fantasy land of make beleive. One nuclear disaster could destroy part of the planet for thousands of years whereas oil at most a hundred years but frequency is all you factor in.

In the end our opinions on this dont matter our masters will do as suits them unless we take their power away to decide on our behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, democracy requires proper participation, maybe we could hold hands with uru geller and transmit how we want our mps to vote each day instead.

 

And i have never run away from addressing that question its the best part.

 

If you had a copy of the current laws on your fone now and instead of pointless hours arguing on here to and thro, and tick off or amend to what you wanted, saved and submitted it thats done, only when you decide youve changed your mind about say capital punishment are you likely to go in and change that, the laws are live but people dont change their positions on the law every day, its incredibly simple and you musnt be reading right if you choose to lie again and say i run away dont let me stop you making more things up.

 

What is the turnout threshold on your laws then if participation is required?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once bonnetted a man and nearly got eleven years for it, does that count as a fossil fuel accident?

Its a dubious claim, also youd have to factor in what wouldve happened in each accident had it been nuclear already we are in fantasy land of make beleive. One nuclear disaster could destroy part of the planet for thousands of years whereas oil at most a hundred years but frequency is all you factor in.

In the end our opinions on this dont matter our masters will do as suits them unless we take their power away to decide on our behalf.

You only do 2 days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the turnout threshold on your laws then if participation is required?

Mine? My laws?

This would be a good discussion a consensus on a methodology is not something as important as the ability to change a methodology if flaws occur, you are asking me to control democracy by laying down elaborate laws before the democracy votes on anything and my flow chart points back to the people deciding that.

 

That said im not avoiding answering, my answer is that we can put a reasonable percentage and allow these markers to be changed as a working progression, as we see fit. I dont think turnout can be the mark, pretty sure we have stick with percentages here as realistically there are important issues that a lot of people may not vote on, as you say, then again when these issues arise in the media suddenly everyone gets engaged if something blows up.

Its just an extension of parliment to everyone, using technology.

These things can be ironed out long before the tories term has finishedyou could wait 5 years for ed milliband to return like jesus, or we could get them out by morning, if you weren't so hostile I wouldnt have to kiss your sweet lips each morning your just using me for mind sex. Forget this

 

(Ditches vr headset)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See. Fucking about. Again.

Its almost as if you dont want to hear a good idea, cant to stamp my forehed with a red F. Whats your motive for rubbishing me are you still on a revenge tip or is there a means to the rear ending me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/13/government-will-step-in-if-councils-dont-fast-track-fracking-applications#comments
 

Government will step in if councils don't fast-track fracking applications

56247c76-f275-4c53-9253-70b29674f55c-206

Ministers will intervene on planning applications for controversial fracking operations if local authorities fail to act quickly enough, the government announced on Thursday, in a bid to fast-track fracking.

Industry and the government have been frustrated at the slow rate of progress on exploratory fracking for shale gas and oil in the UK, which has been bogged down in the planning process. Ministers have been told that applications to drill and frack in Lancashire could be delayed by 16 months in an appeals process after they were rejected by Lancashire county council.

Under the new planning guidance issued today, councils will be strongly encouraged to meet the existing deadline of 16 weeks to approve or reject fracking applications. Greg Clark, the secretary of state for communities, will now systematically be able to ‘call in’ applications and decide himself.

David Cameron said last year that the government is “going all out for shale” and energy secretary, Amber Rudd, said after the general election that she would “deliver shale”.

The Lancashire applications by energy company Cuadrilla, to drill and frack eight wells, were first submitted in May 2014, but Lancashire county council’s development control committee repeatedly delayed to consider more evidence. The committee finally rejected the bids in June, on the grounds of unacceptable visual impact and noise.

The new guidance will affect shale applications at an early stage in Yorkshire and the Lancashire case, as shale appeals and call-ins will now be prioritised by the Planning Inspectorate.

Officials said the changes did not affect other planning hurdles that shale gas companies had to go through, such as applying for environment permits.

Clark said: “People’s safety and the environment will remain paramount and communities will always be involved in planning applications but no-one benefits from uncertainty caused by delays in planning decisions. By fast-tracking any appropriate applications, today’s changes will tackle potential hold-ups in the system.”

Marcus Johnstone, cabinet member for environment, planning and cultural services at Lancashire county council, and a Labour councillor on the committee, said that councils already had to make planning decisions within 16 weeks. The reason the Cuadrilla case had “dragged on” so long, he said, was the deadlines had been extended to get more information.

“I can see what the direction of travel is: it’s to remove local determinism, and the right of local people to have a say,” he said of the new guidance.

Johnstone added that reducing the role of local planning risked storing up problems later. “If they [government] don’t gauge the anger now, they run a real risk of not giving the public any outlet to express their views. If you shut out off the safety valve, you’re going to have problems.”

Rudd admitted the UK had not moved very fast yet on shale exploration, but made clear that she would not allow the current delays to continue, saying they don’t serve anybody.

“What we’re signalling today is the delays that have been taking place on deciding if these applications could go ahead, have simply been taking too long. Local authorities are still going to be very much involved, but the secretary for communities and government will have an increased role in making sure they stick to the planning timetable which is already in place,” she told the BBC.

But campaigners contrasted the government’s approach to localism and shale gas, with its action on planning rules for onshore windfarms. In June, the government changed planning rules to make it easier for local communities to block wind turbines, which now must be “clearly backed” by local people in a local or neighbourhood plan.

Naomi Luhde-Thompson, Friends of the Earth’s planning adviser, said: “Bulldozing fracking applications through the planning system, against the wishes of local people and councils, will simply fan the flames of mistrust and opposition.

“Local authorities have been following the rules. These changes are being made because the Government doesn’t agree with the democratic decisions councils have been making.”

Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP, said: “This is a shockingly anti-democratic and environmentally reckless move. Yet again, ministers are doing the dirty work of the shale gas industry and taking away the rights of local people to say no to fracking, whilst making contemptible claims that fracking is somehow compatible with tackling climate change.”

Under the new rules, officials said councils will be labelled as “underperforming” if they fail to act quickly enough. Johnstone said it was not clear what change there would be, as councils could already be deemed underperforming if they did not determine enough planning applications in time.

The government also said today that it would later this year be detailing the design of a long-promised sovereign wealth fund for shale. Public support for fracking for shale gas has slumped to a new low, with just one in five people backing it, according to government polling published last week.

Today’s planning guidance does with the need for shale gas companies to apply for planning permissions for water monitoring installations at fracking sites, which they will now only have to notify councils of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the comments:

 

 

In July 2015, Private Eye reported that Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Amber Rudd, faces a potential conflict of interest because she is to decide on the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station whilst her brother Roland is chairman (and founder) of Finsbury, which represents a construction company with a £100m contract to help build the nuclear plant.

The Private Eye report noted that despite the MPs’ register of interests including a new category of 'family members engaged in lobbying' Rudd "makes no mention of her brother or his interests", and added, "The Eye asked the Department of Energy & Climate Change if Rudd had told its permanent secretary about Roland and Finsbury (another conflict of interest procedure) but it did not reply".

The links between decisions to be taken by the Department for Energy and Climate Change and Rudd’s brother’s lobbying interests had previously been reported in The Daily Mail. In May 2015, the newspaper’s chief political correspondent, Daniel Martin, reported that Rudd would not be making a decision on plans by Halite Energy Group to store natural gas in underground caves in Lancashire. Halite is represented by the lobbying firm Rudd’s brother chairs. Martin reported: "It is one of the first big decisions in Energy Secretary Amber Rudd’s in-tray – but she won’t be making it.
Last night Miss Rudd conceded that she would play no part in the decision. But the Department for Energy and Climate Change insisted that this was not because of any conflict of interest. A spokesman said the decision was never due to have been made by her, and that it would be down to a junior minister. But last night officials were unable to say which minister would make the decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I listened to a radio programme and the radiation released from Fukushima was tiny, like an MRI scan. I think it was a woman nuclear scientist on Life Scientific. I'll try and find it.

 

 

Good article here:

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html

 

Excellent radiation infographic here:

 

https://xkcd.com/radiation/

 

Two weeks in the Fukushima exclusion zone will expose you to an extra 1 mSv of radiation.

 

A CT scan of your chest is 7 mSv.

 

Greenpeace launches high tech investigation into radiation impacts of Fukushima disaster on Pacific Ocean
 
Press release - 25 February, 2016
Tokyo, 25 February 2016 - Greenpeace Japan today announced it is conducting an underwater investigation into radiation contamination from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean. The survey will be conducted from a Japanese research vessel using a one of a kind Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV), fitted with sensitive gamma radiation spectrometer and sediment sampler.

 

On the opening day of the investigation, Mr Naoto Kan, the former Prime Minister of Japan and leader at the time of the nuclear accident, joined the crew of the Greenpeace flagship, the Rainbow Warrior. As the country nears the fifth anniversary of the Fukushima disaster Mr. Kan called for a complete phase out of nuclear power.

 

“I once believed Japan’s advanced technology would prevent a nuclear accident like Chernobyl from happening in Japan. But it did not, and I was faced with the very real crisis of having to evacuate about 50 million people at risk from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. I have since changed my mind,” said Mr. Kan on board the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior. “We do not need to take such a big risk. Instead we should shift to safer and cheaper renewable energy with potential business opportunities for our future generations.” 

 

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has produced over 1.4 million tonnes of radioactive contaminated water in an effort to cool the hundreds of tonnes of molten reactor fuel in Fukushima Daiichi reactor units 1, 2 and 3 [1]. In addition to the initial releases of liquid nuclear waste during the first weeks of the accident and the daily releases from the plant ever since, contamination  also flows from land, particularly the forests and mountains of Fukushima, and will continue to contaminate the Pacific Ocean for at least 300 years.(2)

 

“The Fukushima disaster is the single largest release of radioactivity into the marine environment in history. There is an urgent need to understand the impacts this contamination is having on the ocean, how radioactivity is both dispersing and concentrating and its implications,” said Shaun Burnie, Senior Nuclear Specialist with Greenpeace Germany.

 

“TEPCO failed to prevent a multiple reactor meltdown and five years later it’s still an ongoing disaster. It has no credible solution to the water crisis they created and is failing to prevent the further contamination of the Pacific Ocean.”

 

The investigations will continue into March and will take place along the coast of Fukushima prefecture, including within the 20km radius of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The team is working with scientists from the independent laboratory Chikurin-Shya in Tokyo, and ACRO in France. The radiation survey is the 25th the organisation has conducted into the impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident since March 2011.

 

“There is still no end in sight for communities in Fukushima, many of whom can’t return home due to radiation contamination. Rather than pushing for the restart of nuclear power, the Japanese government should put these people first and focus on managing the Fukushima Daiichi site,” said Mamoru Sekiguchi, Energy Campaigner with Greenpeace Japan. “Many people in Japan have rejected nuclear power and are demanding the only safe and clean technology that can meet Japan’s needs - renewable energy.”

 

Only three of the 54 commercial nuclear reactors that existed in Japan in March 2011 are currently operating. The Japanese government has set an unrealistic target of 35 reactors to be operating by 2030, despite multiple technical issues and citizen led legal challenges threatening the revival of a nuclear “renaissance” in Japan.

 

Notes to editors:

[1] “Situation of Storage and Treatment of Accumulated Water including Highly Concentrated Radioactive Materials at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (237th Release)” January 29, 2016 Tokyo Electric Power Company, see here.

[2] The Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Current status and Marine Impacts - briefing can be found here

 

 

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Greenpeace-launches-fukushima-investigation/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought with the reduction in oil price that fracking has been put on the back burner somewhat? Does anyone know if the Government are still trying to strong arm councils into going ahead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought with the reduction in oil price that fracking has been put on the back burner somewhat? Does anyone know if the Government are still trying to strong arm councils into going ahead?

Why be held to ransom by the Middle East if you can produce your own? As I understand it the oil price is being manipulated to make US fracking uneconomical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why be held to ransom by the Middle East if you can produce your own? As I understand it the oil price is being manipulated to make US fracking uneconomical.

 

Definitely. 

 

Not sure I'd be looking at fracking over other energy sources but totally agree with energy independence being important.

 

The you don't have to overpay the Chinese to run your own power plants. For decades. *sigh*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why be held to ransom by the Middle East if you can produce your own? As I understand it the oil price is being manipulated to make US fracking uneconomical.

That's why Saudi and Iran etc are mass producing. It's a proxy war.

 

My problem with fracking is that I don't think there is enough evidence that it isn't counterproductive to the environment. Well, it obviously is going to have some negative impacts, but do we have any idea on the scale of the impact?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why Saudi and Iran etc are mass producing. It's a proxy war.

 

My problem with fracking is that I don't think there is enough evidence that it isn't counterproductive to the environment. Well, it obviously is going to have some negative impacts, but do we have any idea on the scale of the impact?

I think that lots of the early fracking in the US was poorly managed and caused all manner of issues. There's a better understanding now and we could have tighter controls. Energy security + jobs = win for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that lots of the early fracking in the US was poorly managed and caused all manner of issues. There's a better understanding now and we could have tighter controls. Energy security + jobs = win for me

I'd just like more certainty. Does it poison the water over a prolonged time? That's got to be a major concern. It uses a lot of water, and we kinda need water for other reasons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that lots of the early fracking in the US was poorly managed and caused all manner of issues. There's a better understanding now and we could have tighter controls. Energy security + jobs = win for me

Do you really believe that the environmental safeguards will be kept if profits are not there?

 

I dont,they'll backtrack on the safeguards or the companies will be lax in enforcing them. Once the land is fucked its fucked no second chances. I dont like it. Plenty of sun,air and waves to use for energy

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really believe that the environmental safeguards will be kept if profits are not there?

 

I dont,they'll backtrack on the safeguards or the companies will be lax in enforcing them. Once the land is fucked its fucked no second chances. I dont like it. Plenty of sun,air and waves to use for energy

Yes.

 

When it's sunny, or windy or when nibbys don't complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

When it's sunny, or windy or when nibbys don't complain.

 

Nimbys are there for the fracking too, so not really a swinger. 

 

It's plenty sunny and windy, and wavey, and hydroelectricy in this country for my money.

 

I'd turn to nuclear before I turned to fracking.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an interesting article in this week's Time Magazine about fracking in Oklahoma. A couple of stats jump out:

 

In 2007 Oklahoma had one earthquake*.

Last year there were more than 900. 

* At a magnitude of 3 or higher, which is the lowest level they can be felt. 

 

0 = number of seismologists employed by the state of Oklahoma.

20% of jobs in Oklahoma that are related to the oil and gas industry.

 

300 million = number of years since some of Oklahoma's faults were last active, before the recent earthquake. 

 

Early reports suggest Godzilla is stirring. 

 

 

(I may or may not have made up the last fact).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in NSW in sunny Australia, the Liberal/National Party, right wing cunts through and through, looked like losing some very safe seats in last years state election purely due to opposition to Coal Seam Gas issues. This prompted them to leap upon the anti CSG bus just for long enough to win the election.

Now safely in power they have reduced penalties for breaches by mining companies from >$100,000 to $5000 while enacting laws preventing peaceful protests - to the point where farmers locking the miners out of their property (THEIR property for the tories and other slow learners amongst you) now face up to 7 years imprisonment.

Government of the people by the corporates for the corporates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×