Fracking - for or against?

[oldcolner]

59-60
If you lived in Aberdeen you would be a loon. That’s what they call men there!
Women are quines
Amazing how the SNP think oil was good but fracking is bad.

Isn’t global warming really caused by the population quadrupling since 1900. Most of the growth is in the Far East.
The impact of a fracking ban in Scotland is the the Square root of diddly squat.

[sinkov]

Forgive me if I am wrong Sinkov, but you are sounding like a climate change denier. Which is fair enough - we are all unique and it would be an awful world if we agreed on everything.
I personally think that the evidence is overwhelming and therefore would lobby for a greener solution to our energy needs than fracking, or more gas, oil or coal usage.
So in effect you are calling me an "eco-loon".
When you start insulting people in a debate then I reckon you are losing the argument - no need for it.

As for the USA reducing CO2 emissions, yes there WERE good signs during Obama's time as President, but the signs are that they are on the increase once more with greater emphasis on coal and oil, and by the fact that Trump is not taking climate change seriously. He is still basically a climate change denier.

You are wrong 59-60, I am not what the current orthodoxy likes to call a denier, but of course I forgive you. That the climate is changing I accept is undeniable, where I differ is in what we attribute the causes of the changes to, and what we then do about it. I haven't the time or space now to explain my position thoroughly, but I certainly could, it will just have to suffice for me to say that imo our efforts to mitigate the effects of climate- change are futile and severely damaging the economy of this country. As for the eco-loon bit, look at the Climate Change Act, a more lunatic piece of legislation I have never seen. Anyone who supports that and the disastrous implications for our economy, (it's already virtually seen off our steel industry already) is by definition an eco-loon in my book, sorry if that offends, mais c'est la vie, the whole renewables scam offends me.

[1959_60]

Yes Sinkov, I think I know where you are coming from and I used to think the same.

I used to think that climate change was just a natural event. I the past we have had cold and hot periods, nothing to do with human intervention, and I was not convinced that, this time, humans were to blame.

I have read enough compelling evidence since then to convince me otherwise.

And having reached this conclusion I was never sold with the argument that "What Britain does is irrelevant. If the US, China etc don't clean up their act then we can't change anything".
This is obviously true and that's why I also support global collaboration (EG The Paris Accord) to make a difference.

Given that climate change is real and, at least partly, caused by burning fossil fuels, then I oppose any expansion of it - where there is a viable alternative. And we really do have viable alternatives, especially round Britain (tidal power).

Given the choice I can't understand why anyone wouldn't support the green option.

But I really respect that others have different opinions and may not be convinced that burning fossil fuels is damaging our planet. Even though it is now a minority view. I am a Lib Dem for God's sake, so I DO support the minority view on lots of issues!

[sinkov]

59-60, this Paris Accord, it's completely meaningless, a virtue- signalling irrelevance, the great and the good slapping themselves on the back, while out in the real world there are currently 1,600 coal-fired power plants either in the planning stage or under construction.

This is why I talk of lunacy as we increase energy costs for heavy industry in the UK, throwing people out of work, and millions more into fuel poverty as we artificially hike up their energy bills. And with 1,600 coal fired power stations coming on line in 62 different countries worldwide, for what exactly ?

[1959_60]

Hi Sinkov.

We have to remember where we started here.

The worlds two biggest polluters (USA and China) signed up to the Paris Accord. You are right, the USA has been successful in reducing it's emissions over the last few years. That may be about to change now that Donald Trump is in charge.

The great news is that China has recognised it's obligations and is forecast to meet, or exceed, it's 15% reduction by 2020 as agreed in Paris. In fact, China is leading the way here.

Wordwide emissions have finally gone into reverse, mainly as a result of these two countries.

In the Summer, for the first time, Britain (for a short time) generated most of it's electricity using renewable sources - this has to be great news.

So what we are doing is not a waste of time - it is beginning to make a real difference.

I well remember as a child when all our local towns were engulfed in a blanket of smoke due to burning fossil fuels. Whenever you had a cold it was likely to turn into bronchitis. I remember that from Rossendale you could never see Manchester from the hills, except during the holiday period. The rivers were filthy and polluted. Now fish have returned - even to the Irwell which was essentially a dumping area. Thankfully that has all changed as we recognise the importance of a clean environment.

But we have still got the massive problem of "invisible" air pollution, which as well as affecting public health, also (most people agree) has a bad effect on the climate.

Most developed countries now recognise that something needs to change - and there ARE plenty of ways to do this.

Ramping up the burning of fossil fuels is certainly not one of them.

[oldcolner]

59-60
I’m all for a cleaner environment, but what to we do when it’s cold, dark and no wind to help us keep warm or power our all electric card. Gas is cleaner than oil and we have the chance to not have to pay for it, maybe even generate income from it. Imports were up by 18% last year.

[sinkov]

59-60, your faith in the Paris Accord and Chinese promises is I suggest slightly misplaced. This from a far eastern newspaper, The Straits Times in July. I offer it without further comment.

BEIJING • When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as US President Donald Trump vowed to "bring back coal" in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing's new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.

However, new data on the world's biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China's energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.

These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, a Berlin-based environmental group. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, about a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, said Urgewald, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world's coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent.

The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord. Electricity generated from fossil fuels such as coal is the biggest single contributor globally to the rise in carbon emissions, which scientists agree is causing the earth's temperatures to rise.

"Even today, new countries are being brought into the cycle of coal dependency," said Urgewald director Heffa Schuecking.

[1959_60]

Another spin on it here Sinkov.

China are in transition and still have a way to go but they are certainly changing their ways.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...nergy-trump-us

[Altobelli]

I don't know much about it to make a comment, only with all the coal mining, diamond mining and all the rest it could be a reason (as Norder suggests) why we may be having all these earthquakes, I'd agree this and other Governments don't have a clue and will go for the most dangerous and over priced equivalent, like the solar power on folks house's roofs, at the beginning they gave everyone 48pence for every Kilowatt, then tor the @rse out of the idea by dropping it to 2p.

As for climate change, yes I believe its making big changes, but not because of us, in Dinosaurs times there was 3/4 times the amount of pollution, IMO its just the World doing its cycle.

And can anyone tell me where all this money combating climate change goes ?

[1959_60]

Evening Alto!

Like I said earlier, I wasn't convinced that climate change was man made but since then I am 100% convinced that it is.

Practically all the scientific evidence says it is. Yes, I realise that it is in vogue to go against the opinions of "experts" but the evidence is overwhelming.

And I have found that this subject (like Brexit) seems to polarise opinion based on age. Most under 60's I have discussed it with believe that CO2 increases are mainly human made. A bigger percentage of older people don't think like this, and see nothing wrong with burning more fossil fuels. (Donald Trump?)

What evidence would make you think that we have to clean our act up?

It is true that our generation has nothing to worry about, but our children and grandchildren certainly will.

There ARE viable, affordable alternatives to burning more and more fossil fuels, but the oil, coal and gas industries will fight them all the way.