Your organic fruits and veggies might have been irrigated with fracking wastewater

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s organics standards, written 15 years ago, strictly ban petroleum-derived fertilizers commonly used in conventional agriculture. But the same rules do not prohibit farmers from irrigating their crops with petroleum-laced wastewater obtained from oil and gas wells — a practice that is increasingly common in drought-stricken Southern California.

As I reported last month, oil companies last year supplied half the water that went to the 45,000 acres of farmland in Kern County’s Cawelo Water District, farmland that is owned, in part, by Sunview, a company that sells certified organic raisins and grapes. Food watchdog groups are concerned that the state hasn’t required oil companies to disclose all of the chemicals that they use in oil drilling and fracking operations, much less set safety limits for all of those chemicals in irrigation water.

A spokesperson for the USDA’s National Organics Program confirmed that it has little to say on the matter. “The USDA organic regulations do not directly address the use of irrigation water on organic farms,” said the spokesperson, who asked to be quoted on background, “but organic operations must generally maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including soil and water quality.”

Read more here.

Woodland Trust raises potential impact of fracking on ancient woodland

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Woodland Trust Chief Executive cites the concerns the Trust has about fracking especially to ensure that ancient woodlands are protected

Beccy Speight, Chief Executive of the Woodland Trust said: “The potential significant impact on ancient woodland caused by drilling and exploratory test wells for fracking, along with the associated infrastructure that may be needed to access and transport shale gas and oil, are of great concern.

“The Infrastructure Act states that fracking will not take place within 'protected areas'. However, these areas will not automatically include ancient woodland. As the Government prepares secondary legislation to define these areas, we are calling for ancient woodland to be explicitly included. With more than 600 ancient woods currently threatened by planning applications, more than the Woodland Trust has ever seen in its 40 year history, it's clear that existing planning legislation is just not sufficient to protect this irreplaceable habitat. It's therefore vital Government ensures energy companies will not be allowed to base their fracking operations in or adjacent to ancient woodland by explicitly naming it within the 'protected areas' definition.”

Fact is that the definition of the so-called 'protected areas' appears – or is it just me – rather vague and, as the Woodland Trust CEO stated, there are no provisions for “ancient woodlands” per se, unless they, somehow, fall into the 'protected areas'.

It would also appear as if government, more of than not, does not even understand what ancient woodland means and that such woodlands form intricate ecosystems where any disturbance, aside from proper management of the woods themselves, can cause irreparable damage.

Furthermore government also does not seem to understand that the 400 or more years for a wood to classify as “ancient woodland” does not mean that the trees in those woods have to be 400 year or older. More than once statements have come out from ministers and other politicians stating that those woods simply cannot qualify as ancient woodlands as there are no trees in Britain older than 200 years, or similar.

As far as fracking and ancient woodlands are concerned, they are also not the only important areas under threat. The same goes for all “public” parks and “public” open spaces and many of the large ones bordering the countryside also include quite often sites of ancient woodlands.

In the pursuit of “national energy security” the British government just puts, apparently, no concern and value on such areas that are important for people, wildlife and also local economies, such as people and businesses that depend on such woodlands for their livelihoods.

It would be better, far better, if the government of the British Isles looked towards renewables for energy security rather than destroying the countryside and polluting the environment by giving the go ahead to fracking companies. But, obviously, there are no backhanders to be had from renewable energy operations and operators.

Once it was said about the US government, for instance, that it was in bed with the oil industry and then it became the oil industry through the two Bush Presidents. The UK government definitely is in bed with the oil and gas sector and has now added the fracking sector to its bedfellows.

The problem in all of this is capitalism for capitalism cares only about profit that it can extract from Nature, and from people, and about nothing else. The capitalists seem to think that they can exploit the Planet ad infinitum and that there will be resources, of one kind or the other, for ever and as long as the cash registers are ringing they are happy though never content.

And as far as “national energy security” is concerned we just cannot, but then I am preaching to the choir here, I am sure, continue to carry on with it. Even so-called mainstream media have come out in favor of the campaign “Leave it in the ground” and that includes coal, oil and gas, in whichever form. The British government does not seem to get the message though, it would appear. And no, voting in another lot will not make on iota of a difference either. We, the people, have to force the change that we want to see, but first we will have to begin to be the change.

© 2015

North Dakota Finds Itself Unprepared To Handle The Radioactive Burden Of Its Fracking Boom

North Dakota recently discovered piles of garbage bags containing radioactive waste dumped by oil drillers in abandoned buildings. Now, the state is trying to catch up to an oil industry that produces an estimated 27 tons of radioactive debris from wells daily.

Existing fines have apparently not been enough to deter contractors from dumping oil socks — coiled filters that strain wastewater and accumulate low levels of radiation.

“Before the Bakken oil boom we didn’t have any of these materials being generated,” the state’s Director of Waste Management Scott Radig told the Wall Street Journal. “So it wasn’t really an issue.”

The state is in the process of drafting rules, out in June, that require oil companies to properly store the waste in leak-proof containers. Eventually, they must move these oil socks to certified dumps. However, North Dakota has no facilities to process this level of radioactive waste. According to the Wall Street Journal, the closest facilities are hundreds of miles away in states like Idaho, Colorado, Utah, and Montana.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427345/north-dakota-radioactive-waste-fracking/

This could happen anywhere where fracking will be allowed. Are we prepared too having to deal with the aftermath just to get more fossil fuel to burn? Ed.

No quick fix: Fracking shale gas won’t make UK energy self-sufficient, says study

Government researchers claim politicians have “overhyped” the energy potential of the shale gas industry, claiming it would not necessarily result in the UK’s energy self-sufficiency.

Research from the Imperial College based group UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) found shale gas was unlikely to become a primary resource within the next 10 years, and that the UK was unlikely to follow in the footsteps of America, whose shale gas industry has contributed to increasing energy self-sufficiency.

A second report from UKERC claims that by 2025 global gas consumption will have peaked. That will in part be due to strict limits imposed by the 2050 goals of an 80 percent reduction in global carbon emissions.

The results suggest that, given the predicted timescale for the implementation of shale gas drilling in the UK, the resource will not provide the ‘quick fix’ it has been publicized to be.

The coalition government has promoted fracking in the UK, with Prime Minister David Cameron saying in January 2014 that Britain is “going all out for shale.” However, reports indicate there is a limited capacity for the effective use of shale gas.

Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Sussex and author of the report ‘The UK’s Global Gas Challenge’ claimed that government ministers and industry professionals had “overhyped” the impact shale would have on the UK’s energy security.

Read more: http://rt.com/uk/204751-fracking-overhyped-uk-research/

Man-made climate change is one of the UK's biggest threats

Man-made climate change is one of the UK's biggest threats: British Prime Minister

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Prime Minister David Cameron has said that man-made climate change is one of the greatest threats to Britain and, indeed, the rest of the world. And while the Prime Minister seems to acknowledge this fact little has been done as to mitigate it under the “greenest government ever” in Britain.

David Cameron was responding to a question made by Labour Party leader Ed Miliband at Prime Minister's Question Time at the end of February of this year where he asked the Prime Minister to set out his views on man- made climate change.

The Prime Minister replied: "I believe man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats that this country and this world faces. That is why we have the world's first green investment bank here in Britain.

"That is why, unlike 13 wasted years of Labour, we are building the first nuclear power station for 30 years in our country. That is why we have cut carbon emissions emitted by the Government by 14% since we came to office."

David Cameron also noted that the UK was on track to meet its renewable targets.

To this the leader of the Labour Party said that the Prime Minister's remarks were “excellent” but named a number of his ministers who had questioned the need to tackle environmental change.

Ed Milliband quoted the Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, as saying: “People get very emotional about this. People should just accept the climate's been changing for centuries.”

He also quoted the energy minister Michael Fallon answering a question about climate change: “You are not going to draw me on that. I haven't had time to get into the climate change debate.”

And he then asked the Prime Minister as to whether he is happy to have climate-change deniers in his Government.

The Prime Minister replied saying: “The most serious form of denial we have today in Britain's politics is the reality deniers of the party opposite.

“What is their plan for long-term investment because that is what climate change requires? Long-term investment like high-speed rail, long-term investment like nuclear power, long-term investment like fixing our economy. That is what this government is doing. All he does is get up and deliver a lot of hot air.”

Elsewhere, the Prime Minister's record on climate change has come under fire by some environmental groups. Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said: “Thousands of people mopping out their homes know it, the vast majority of scientists have proved it and mainstream public opinion agrees – extreme weather events will become more frequent as the climate changes. Yet David Cameron is hanging on to his Environment Secretary who is in denial about the impacts of global warming.

“It is time that David Cameron replaced Owen Paterson with someone who will be tough on flooding and tough on the causes of flooding.”

Avaaz campaign director Alex Wilks added: “The majority of Britons think that without action to slow it, climate change will pose a threat to their way of life, and scientists warn we need to cut carbon pollution in half by 2030. Cameron's mandate is clear – it's time to face down the deniers and commit to strong action, now.”

What the Prime Minister also does not seem to realize, and many other politicians here and abroad that nuclear is not an option as it leaves a legacy to be tackled later and one that will be with us and our children and their children for thousands of years.

High-speed rail is not going to be tackling climate change but is going to be destroying important areas of land and ancient woodlands. But, no problem there, as Owen Patterson is reported as saying, “we just move the woodlands”.

The Environment Secretary, I am afraid to say, knows less about the environment than does the proverbial female bovine about the milk and is not and never has been fit to hold that office, an office that is to be about care for the environment. When someone believes that he can simply “move” ancient woodlands that are in the way of HS2 then he is more deluded than someone high on drugs believing to see angels.

We do not need investment in nuclear power stations but investment in real and true alternatives on the renewable energy front. And the most important step would be to change the approach and turn from large-scale wind farms and solar farms, etc. to an approach that would make every roof in this country a power station.

Fixing the economy to continue in the way it has before the crash also is not going to tackle the issue of climate change. Far from it. It will just be business as usual if and when the fix has happened.

The strong action that is being asked for by the Avaaz campaign director, who so clearly states that people are concerned about the impacts of climate change on their way of life, is not going to happen either for that would also impact on people's way of life and people who are concerned are, unfortunately, not prepared to make the changes required either, as that would mean making real changes, such as giving up the car for most journeys, for starters.

Man-made climate change is not just one of the biggest threats to the UK and indeed the world but it is by far greater a threat than any conflicts and terrorism threats combines, short of an all out thermonuclear war. And playing around with nuclear power to tackle climate change adds to the dangers we face and does not bring about a solution.

Only the other day I saw the power that was generated by the solar panels on the roof of the Vauxhall Interchange being 3.4 Kwh during almost thick fog at about 9am and this alone should tell us how much energy could be generated if we mandated that every roof was covered with photovoltaic panels. Add to that one or two small wind turbines at every home and larger turbines on the roofs of commercial buildings, especially well designed vertical axis ones which can handle almost all wind speeds, and a change in the way we use electricity and we would have energy security and some.

We would also create an economy that would create jobs, more than any fracking operation or what-have-you. However, this is not about to happen unless the people are prepared to make changes to the way this country is being run for if every building would generate power where would the profits come from for the energy companies and that is what the governments of this country are concerned with more than energy security and climate change.

As far as the high-speed rail thing is concerned it is not going to benefit anyone bar the developers. No one wants it, not even the frequent travelers, as many an opinion poll conducted has shown. It is going to be a white elephant that the tax payer will pay dearly for and the environment even more so.

We need a total change in the approach to things and the government certainly does not seem to have a clue. Neither Cameron nor Patterson nor Fallon. But for any change to come about, I am afraid, the people of the country and the world themselves have to properly wake up first and take matters into their own hands. Only then and only then will we see real change.

For that, however, the people need to stop believing the lies that are being peddled by the likes of Fox News in the USA and other outlets elsewhere, as well as by many of the so-called leaders and understand that unless they, the people, make changes in their way of life we are all going to hell in a handcart. It is as simple as that.

And many of the answers are, in fact, very simple, and the changes, while they will be drastically affect the way people do things will benefit the Planet and the people themselves.

Climate change is a greater threat to Britain and the world than any threat of (Islamist) terrorism, much of the latter which does not even really exist but is only something that we are being led to believe. Therefore things must be done to mitigate climate change or otherwise we are all facing a very bleak future.

It is, however, possible that changes will come upon us that will halt the way we do things right now as already the UN has announced that the industrial age is coming to an end. That means that in the very near future we will be facing a post-industrial time and that will have to be combine with a post-carbon or better a post-fossil fuel one but also one without nuclear.

Yes, it will mean changes to the way we live, work and do things but it will be a change for the better. For a better environment and for a better, other than material things, way of life. Let's welcome this new future.

© 2014

The Revolution That Wasn’t: Why the Fracking Phenomenon Will Leave Us High and Dry

A new, landmark report shows that hopes of a long-term golden era in American oil & gas production are unfounded.

America’s energy landscape has undergone a dramatic shift over the last decade—literally and figuratively—as a result of the widespread use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Whole areas of the country have been transformed in a matter of months, while the fossil fuel industry has reversed the decades-long decline in crude oil production and increased natural gas production to record highs. Thanks to shale gas and tight oil (“shale oil”), by 2013 annual crude oil production was 24% higher and natural gas was 20% higher compared to just ten years earlier.

While this achievement is impressive, it pales in comparison to the sea change that has been triggered in “conventional wisdom” about our energy future. In a few short years we have gone from President Bush warning that the U.S. was addicted to oil and dangerously reliant on Middle East imports to fears of a production glut, as a recent New York Times article stated:

With domestic oil production growing month after month, many oil experts predict that the country’s output will rise to as much as 12 million barrels a day over the next decade, which would mean the country will be swimming in oil the way it is currently dealing with a surplus of natural gas.

Analysts at Turner, Mason & Company, a Dallas engineering consulting firm, say the country could hit a saturation point when production hits 10 million to 10.5 million barrels a day, at which point large exports will become necessary or drilling and production may have to slow.

Running Down a Dream

While the so-called “shale revolution” came as a complete surprise to most analysts and government forecasters, the conventional wisdom now appears to be that this is the beginning of a long-term transformation. Production of shale gas and tight oil in the U.S. is expected to grow at breakneck speeds throughout the decade, with natural gas production increasing for the next 25 years while domestic oil production peaks by the end of this decade and slowly declines to near current levels by 2040. Not only will supplies expand, according to conventional wisdom, but oil and natural gas prices will remain stable and relatively low for decades to come.

Far from being an academic exercise, the implications of this shift in conventional wisdom are profound and far ranging—influencing geopolitics, climate policy, domestic manufacturing and jobs, investments in renewable energy, and the health and well-being being of communities across the country. In fact, the perception of a long-term oil and gas boom has led to:

Read more: http://www.postcarbon.org/the-revolution-that-wasnt-why-the-fracking-phenomenon-will-leave-us-high-and-dry/

Shale is not a miracle solution for Europe

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Shale is not the miracle solution for Europe that is being made out to be by especially the British government.

Shale oil and gas have had but limited benefits for the US economy and their advantages for Europe will be even slimmer, a French think tank said recently.

The shale boon in the US has mainly benefited local economies and the gas industry with only "minimal" impact on macro-economic growth, the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI) said.

A sharp fall in gas prices that has benefited consumers is unlikely to be sustained, and for the foreseeable future, the United States will remain a big importer of crude oil, it said in an analysis.

The report cautioned that the advantages for Europe would be even narrower, given restrictions in geology, environmental considerations about exploration and a long and costly lead time to exploit finds.

"It is often overlooked, but the US shale revolution came after several decades of geological exploration which scaled up massively in the years preceding the boom," IDDRI said.

"Between 2000 and 2010, the US drilled a total of 17,268 exploratory natural gas wells, at an average of 130 per month. Exploration in the EU is in its infancy, with about 50 wells drilled" thus far.

A middle-of-the-road scenario suggests that by 2030-2035, the EU could meet between three to 10 percent of its projected energy demands from shale, IDDRI said.

"Shale gas should therefore not be seen as a solution to the EU's energy, climate and competitiveness challenge," said the forecast.

"The EU needs a holistic strategy combining energy efficiency, eco-innovation, low-carbon energy sources and a stronger, more integrated internal market."

It added: "Shale gas could be a complement to this, in so far as it could contribute to a more liquid, resilient internal gas market, particularly in those member states currently highly dependent on polluting coal or Russian gas."

The fact is that several shale gas and oil wells that have been drilled in the UK, for instance, have already been abandoned again with the comments by the company that no fracking be necessary as the gas and oil is unfracked in those rocks. Sources, however, have suggested that the real truth for the companies having abandoned the drilling is that the gas and oil is actually far too costly to extract. Still, however, the UK government is hellbent on getting almost half of the country, drilled and fracked, mostly in environmentally sensitive areas and in parks and open spaces, even within towns and cities.

The true forecasts that the UK government does not want to have the people know about as to prices is as suggested, namely that they will not be reduced at all to benefit the consumer.

It is therefore a completely fruitless exercise, except for the bent politicians, to continue with this dangerous practice and the it would be easily possible to cover the small amount of natural gas any shale exploitation would create by means, for instance, of methane digestion.

There are suggestions that if all sewage works and landfill sites would extract the methane produced there instead of flaring it off and is all farms would digest the slurry and such produced into methane that a very large amount of natural gas could be created almost for free.

We must remember that the Edison electricity generating plants of those early days were not designed to run on coal or oil but on sewage gas and the gas was extracted directly from the sewers. That, however, does not fit into the schemes of the powers that be and of industry.

Not far from where I live there is a small sewage works where five methane flares are burning day in day out and that is a serious waste of resources for which the natural environment would not need to be exploited were that gas to be used. In some instance, on some landfills, the methane gas is not even flared off but vented into the atmosphere and that is not just as waste but a crime as the gas, methane, is a much more dangerous greenhouse gas than even carbon dioxide (CO2) and thus should not be vented to the outside at all.

Not only must we develop energy efficiency, eco-innovation, low-carbon energy sources, we must get away from carbon energy sources in the first place to renewables and while methane from digesters may still be a carbon energy as it will release carbon during the burning process it is a gas where there drilling and fracking does not enter in.

Other sources must be developed, however, that are renewable and low to zero carbon such as solar (photo-voltaic), wind and hydro and the most important way forward is the micro-generation of electricity on every home and business property.

If every roof would become a power station and, in addition to that, our energy usage be reduced there would be no longer any need for oil and gas. And while some advocate nuclear energy as a low to zero carbon option and one, so they say, must be put into the equation, it must be a no on that one until such a day that fusion is totally feasible as the latter does not produce the radioactive waste. But until such a time nuclear is not an option.

The only options are solar, wind, water and methane using methane digesters and from paces such as landfills and sewage works. As far as wind and solar are concerned the proper answer also would be more or less small scale generation on ever roof available and the change of the current in use as regards to voltage and current and changing the power for most applications to 12V DC with inversion of current where required.

In addition to that, or, to be more precise, before all that we need to reduce our energy consumption and also our use of fossil fuels in transportation and that will require a change in the way we live and work.

© 2014

Stop the biofuel madness

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

It is said that there is not enough land on which to grow food, and this is, more than likely true, and yet land is being taken out of food production at the same time to satisfy our “need” for gasoline and diesel in the form of bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. If you think that this, somehow, does not compute I have to concur with you. It does not.

We must have gone totally insane to put fuel before food, whether it is corn (maize) being grown for biofuel or miscanthus, or whatever.

Somehow it would appear that automotive fuels have greater priority to those that claim to be our “leaders” than food security. Can we really not think beyond the motorcar and are we going to put driving before food? It would appear that those “leaders” most certainly do.

We can neither eat our gars nor the fuel on which they run, whether made from mineral oil or from plants and we must make the choice and make this clear to those that pretend to be our rulers.

Furthermore, aside from using valuable farm land, or in the case of palm oil for bio-diesel destroying the rainforests of Asia, biofuels will do nothing whatsoever to reduce carbon emissions and pollution, it is just a change from fossil fuel to another one to be burned in combustion engines.

Additionally, bio-diesel particle emissions, the ones held responsible for the increase in asthma, have been found to be several times greater than those from fossil suel diesel.

We are jumping from the proverbial frying pan right into the fire, and losing out as regards to farming areas at the same time. Has everyone gone insane?

It would, however, appear that everything is being done to maintain the motoring madness instead of getting people out of their cars and onto or into alternative means of getting about.

The British capital London has been told to cut air pollution by 2020 or face hefty fines and the cutting of pollution, whether in London or elsewhere, is not going to happen if we keep on motoring as we do right now and, as far as diesels are concerned, it will only get worse with bio-diesel. Time to wake up!

It is good to see though that many young people in the early part of the second decade of the twenty-first century are going car-less and are walking, cycling or using public transport instead. This is, to a degree, due to the ever increasing cost of running a motorcar as with tax and all that aside from the purchase price but also because they begin, and it is but a beginning only, so far, to understand that motoring is not a sustainable way.

There are still too many people who are not comprehending this, as yet, and firmly believe that mineral oil derived fuels and others will continue to make personal private motoring, which many see as a (human) right even by now it seems, possible.

This is, however, an illusion conjured up to them by those – unfortunately – in power with their snouts firmly embedded in the trough of the oil and motor industry.

You can't eat your car, or roads, neither most bio-fuel crops. We have to understand that we either can drive and by this very action destroy the Planet or change our ways and eat. Both at the same time soon will no longer be possible.

And here we are coming back to the issue of the way ever since World War Two the car has been put on a pedestal and we have separated ourselves not only further from Nature but also, as far as where we live further from our places of work and thus have become dependent and reliant on the car to get from home – often many tens of miles away – to work and back.

With mineral oil, if I may call it that, running out all over the place cheap and plentiful petroleum products are about coming to an end and no amount of tinkering, such as with hydraulic fracturing – fracking – for shale oil and shale gas is going to make any difference in that quarter. It is just going to prolong the agony and the destruction of ecosystems.

We must transition now to a oil-free future, and that included one free of biofuels, which still pollute and possibly even much more, to one without the internal combustion engine. And even methane produced by anaerobic digestion be best reserved for use in our electricity generating plants and for cooking and heating than for use in motor vehicles.

It is time – high time indeed – that it was realized that the time of personal motoring is over, is history and that the motorcar is and will have been but a blip in the history of mankind. The future is car-less, at least internal combustion engine car-less. And the sooner this was being realized the better and the futility of biofuels (and fracking) be abandoned.

© 2013

Fracking will not get economy growing

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In response to the announcement the British Geological Survey on the quantity of shale gas underneath Lancashire on Thursday, June 27, 2013 Greenpeace said, and rightly so, that it could lead to a surge in exploration activity across the UK, bringing increased traffic, noise and flaring to communities, while threatening house prices.

According to Greenpeace research almost two thirds of England has been earmarked for potential fracking, and local opposition, particularly in Conservative constituencies, is expected to be fierce. Local hostility in Balcombe, West Sussex is already delaying the fracking process, with the Campaign to Protect Rural England warning of a massive backlash if large areas of countryside are 'transformed into industrial sites'.

Commenting on today’s announcement Lawrence Carter, energy campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “The idea that shale gas is going to get the economy moving again is groundless. There’s a huge difference between the amount of gas in the ground and how much fracking companies will be able to commercially extract. Even if they do manage to get some gas out, the fracking industry’s own research reveals that production wouldn’t reach meaningful levels until well into the next decade. If shale is the answer to Britain’s economic malaise then the Chancellor is asking the wrong question.”

He continued: “Analysts from energy regulator Ofgem, Deutsche Bank and Energy UK are lining up to say that UK shale gas won’t bring down bills for households or businesses. Even the company with the biggest stake in Lancashire shale gas, Cuadrilla, privately admits that it won’t reduce energy prices. It’s alarming that the Chancellor is staking his growth strategy on an industry that doesn’t buy his hype.”

Last month Greenpeace recorded a senior member of Cuadrilla, the company planning to drill in Lancashire, saying the impact of fracking on energy bills would be “basically insignificant”. Its spokesman also said locals in Lancashire were right to be concerned about “well integrity” and increased traffic.

Polling in the Chancellor’s Tatton constituency revealed a majority are opposed to fracking, with widespread concern about noise, disruption, falling house prices and earth tremors. Even more interestingly, 12% of those who voted Tory at the last election said they’d be less likely to do so again should fracking get the go ahead.

Responding to the government ‘s proposed financial package to communities affected by fracking, Lawrence Carter said: "Whilst communities should receive benefits from local energy development, a cash package won’t alleviate concerns about fracking's impact on water supply and house prices."

Once again we can see that this government is lying to the people to get its way and they will do so on any matter that will benefit them and their cronies.

On the same issue Friends of the Earth said that shale gas is not solution to UK's energy challenges.

Friends of the Earth Energy Campaigner Tony Bosworth said: “Shale gas is not the solution to the UK's energy challenges. Its potential has been hugely over-hyped and there's little evidence it will drive down fuel prices.

“Extracting shale gas will have a significant effect on local communities and our environment - the more that's extracted, the bigger those impacts will be.

“The North could be at the heart of Britain's green energy and economic transformation, but not by turning it into another 'gaslands'.

“We need a 21st century energy revolution based on efficiency and renewables, not more fossil fuels that will add to climate change.”

But we have also learned in the speech of the same day by Treasury Secretary Alexander that the government is going to be subsidizing the building of a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point rather than looking properly, following examples in countries such as Germany, at renewables – all kinds of renewables – to meet our energy needs and towards a target of reducing our energy consumption.

In Germany several communities and areas have gone – basically – off-grid, including areas with industry, and those communties have become net suppliers to the grid rather than consumers. Still, however, the UK government keeps telling us that the lights would go out would we put our money on the renewables card.

While nuclear may be considered a low carbon energy source it seems to be forgotten how much carbon is being generated in creating the plants in the first place. And also forgotten seems to be the environmental footprint of the production of the uranium to fuel those reactors. It is not a clean energy source; not by a long shot even, and that is without even considering the issue of nuclear waste. The brown envelope manufacturers are definitely having a field day with the amount of those things that seem to be needed presently in which to package the bribes that are being paid to politicians and government officials. From the tune being played we can see only too well as to who is paying the piper.

© 2013

Fracking may threaten UK climate targets and may not cut costs – MP report

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Reacting to a new report published on Friday, April 26, 2013 by the Energy and Climate Change Committee on the impact of shale gas on energy markets, Friends of the Earth Energy Campaigner Tony Bosworth said: “This report does little to back the case for a UK shale gas revolution.

“MPs say clearly that shale gas production may threaten our climate targets, may not stop the price of gas from soaring further and we can't rely on it to improve energy security.

“Fracking is dirty, unnecessary and a threat to our climate and environment – it's little wonder so many communities are in opposition.

“Instead of gambling with shale gas we should be building an affordable power system based on our abundant clean energy from the wind, waves and sun.”

Friends of the Earth's Clean British Energy campaign, backed by TV Dragons' Den's Deborah Meaden, is urging the Government to act now to fix our broken energy system by setting a target in the Energy Bill to clean up our electricity by 2030. Slashing energy waste and developing renewable power from our wind, sun and waves will tackle climate change, create thousands of UK jobs, and make our future fuel bills more predictable.

It is amazing that, despite the fact that even its own MPs come out against fracking, basically, the British Con-Dem coalition government continues to try to browbeat the public into accepting fracking.

The latest shenanigans of the government is trying to buy the support of the people in the areas of which fracking is to take place by promising them cheaper energy bills if they will just support fracking to take place.

It would appear that certain politicians have taken much by way of support from the companies that wish to do the fracking for shale gas (and oil) in the British countryside and cannot back down now and have the deal not go through.

In addition to wind, waves and sun for energy security there is, as is being used in many other countries that go the renewables route firmly, the gas that we can produce from waste and effluent, namely methane gas, which is the same, and please don't anyone connected to the fossil gas industry try to tell us differently, not after an industry spokesman so nicely slipped up on a radio broadcast and called natural gas nothing more than methane, is but natural gas and can be used in exactly the same way and is being used in exactly the same way already in many other countries.

The UK's politicians, however, in the same way as those in the USA, are deep in the pockets of the oil and gas industry and thus simply do not want to see any alternatives to the status quo.

UK and US politicians are not interested in the Planet and in tackling climate change. Their interest is solely their pocket and how much money they can reap from the lobbying firms. The brown envelope manufacturers also must be laughing all the way to the bank.

We need a new system, not a new government...

© 2013