Proposed Coal Bed Methane Well…
-
Posts
-
If Wrexham declares itself a ‘frack Free Zone’, will they continue to receive funds raised through taxes raised on fracking in other areas?
“Frack-Free Wrexham is at the forefront of campaigning against unconventional underground gas extraction of which there are major environmental concerns.”
The row over underground gas extraction erupted again this week after Wrexham MP Ian Lucas and Clwyd South MP Susan Elan Jones abstained from a vote to suspend fracking in the Commons.”
This is a quote from the Daily Post . Our local MP’s sat on the fence and missed an opportunity to vote in favour of suspending fracking.
From Tessa Munt’s blog (Vince Cable’s former parliamentary assistant who resigned a few days ago over this issue):
‘Interestingly, two of Britain’s biggest unions – the GMB and Unite – weighed in yesterday morning, begging Labour MPs not to support a ban on fracking. This may go some way to explaining the confusion over what was happening in the House of Commons and Labour’s 180˚ about-turn.’
This story was also reported here: GMB and Unite unions helped save fracking from ban | City A.M.
@Captain C 18421 wrote:
Why would they want to carry out fracking in the House of Commons?:rolleyes:
I’d love to see fragging not fracking in the House of Commons!
@Captain C 18421 wrote:
Why would they want to carry out fracking in the House of Commons?:rolleyes:
Oh. My aching sides. Oh.
So far all the arguments I’ve seen from the anti-fracking groups are of extremely dubious scientific sources and contain a high proportion of quackademics. It also seems strange that they are agitating against fracking when the coal mines they agitated for in the 80s had the same issues of minor earth tremors and such.
There are genuine objections to fracking, it is still a fossil fuel, even if it is cleaner than coal and oil. Shouldn’t we be investing in sustainable energy, finding ways of making it more reliable and economic. Not wanting an industrial site where there was once a green field is also a genuine reason. Yes it’s nimbyism but still genuine, understandable and honest.There has been a rise in the last few decades of an anti-science culture, from anti-vaccination groups to anti-GMO. They protest and harangue but their arguments are based on sandcastle science, impressive only to builder and gone in a wave. However they have built up a huge following using fear as a motivator and have succeeded in causing real harm. A measles outbreak in South Wales claimed a life, investments into GMO has fallen, which means instead of being closer to ending world hunger we are futher away.
Using fake science and fear to fuel your protest against something, does nothing but harm to your cause. The whole green cause was badly damaged by these tactics making it harder to take ecological issues seriously. Thanks to the unreasonable behaviour of militant fanatics the genuine message was lost for too long.
I am not suggesting that people shouldn’t be passionate about things they support, or they are against. I am asking that they present arguments based on fact and evidence supported by rigorous testing and research. I am asking they present their arguments in reasoned debate, using speech and intelligence to persuade people that their view is correct. I also ask that they apply critical thinking to any claims made by either side of the argument, and don’t just accept outlandish claims because they a shouted the loudest.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
