Bishop Hill Greenpeace labouring night and day to make you colder and poorer
Feb 28, 2013 Climate: Parliament Via a correspondent, Greenpeace's latest mailing, about Tim Yeo's efforts to secure a decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill and put our fuel bills up even higher:
This is massive. So far, 267 MPs have shown support for clean electricity after more than 20,000 of us emailed them over the past 10 days. 326 is our target - a majority of Parliament. It's not going to be easy, but we can do this.
We’ve got Conservative, Labour and Green MPs to support this critical amendment to the Energy Bill - the one that will clean up our electricity for the next 30 years. But here's the shocker: despite some promises only a single Liberal Democrat MP has signed it so far.[1] Just one! To get that vital majority we need to get Lib Dem MPs on side.
Please donate just £20 towards our 'Fighting Fund' so we can continue to lobby Lib Dem MPs on the ground.
The deep irony is that the Liberal Democrats were the original champions of the zero-carbon target in the Energy Bill. Only 5 months ago the whole party voted to support it.
The upcoming Lib Dem spring conference - when party members get together - is a huge opportunity to pressure them to stick to their principles. We need your support so we can take the strongest possible message - Greenpeace style - into the heart of their meeting. Please contribute what you can to help.
Let's get the Lib Dems to sort it out and join all of us who realise that if there's one issue bigger than politics, it’s climate change. Let's keep that pressure on,
Pete and the Energy team
Greenpeace
[1] Julian Huppert - Liberal Democrat MP for CambridgePS Last year, 21 people from No Dash for Gas shut down a gas power station for a week. Now its owner, EDF, is suing them for £5 million - a day's profit for this massive company but a lifetime of debt for the activists. EDF is trying to stamp out protest and we can’t let that happen. Please take a moment to help No Dash For Gas by signing their petition here.
It's hugely encouraging that so few LibDems have signed up for the "lights out" amendment. Surely they can't have found their collective backbone?
Reader Comments (53)
What does "so we can continue to lobby Lib Dem MPs on the ground..." actually mean ? More lunches, free tickets ..Can I upgrade ?
My God thats funny, "Please donate just £20 towards our 'Fighting Fund' so we can continue to lobby Lib Dem MPs on the ground." There you have it. How did they arrive at the figure of £20?. Is that the price of a LibDem MP?. Wall to wall useful ijits I say.
There has got to be a way of countering this sort of anti-social behaviour if only I could work out what!
This simply bears out what I have said ad nauseam about greenie groups: their message is so seductive and their aims on the face of it so plausibly "right" that their lies are half-way round the world before we have even realised that they aren't truth, let alone before truth has got out of bed.
Somewhere down the line people will wake up to the damage this amendment is going to cause:
to the UK economy;
to UK society;
to human life.
By then it will be too late.
The only way to counter the activists is to contact your MP and let them know that Greenpeace et al do not represent your view. They rely on the apathy of the silent majority. If you do nothing, don't complain about the result.
It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.
Oh I hope EDF wins their law suit!!!! :)
Mailman
EDF is showing the way! Bankrupt the b*ggers.
Bishop said:
"It's hugely encouraging that so few LibDems have signed up for the "lights out" amendment. Surely they can't have found their collective backbone?"
On the contrary Andrew, 267 MP's have shown 'interest' in this mad proposal/amendment - the green lurgy infects most of Westminster. In fact, all of the 'bubble' needs deep steam cleaning because the green infestation clings and is passed on to others from the myriad advocates of the religion of alarmist lunacy in the cesspit that is Westminster.
I keep my LibDem MP very much up to speed on the issue of our energy future. I have certainly informed him of the impact of the Yeo amendment to the Energy Bill. Here is the gist of what I sent him:
It didn't cost me £20 and I definitely had my feet on the ground when I lobbied him.
I think the lib-dems will support it, but they have been a little distracted of late...
@Philip Bratby - I may (will) borrow that to send to my MP (a Fib Dem).
Morph:
Feel free to use it. I and a couple of colleagues keep well in touch with our MP and we always get his attention - it pays to build up a rapport with your MP and then you are more likely to be taken seriously and not easily dismissed.
Is that why I kept walking past greenpeace chuggers in Glasgow yesterday? I was curious what they were stopping folk in the street to talk about unfortunately I didn't get approached to find out.
"cesspit that is Westminster".... (Bishop @8:29am) Somehow those words make me feel quite sad. Then again I suppose it's been described as such many times in the past few hundred years or so.
Any MP who participates in this should lose their seat.Those who have destroyed our power generation should be remembered and exposed when the blackouts start.
Philip, I will borrow that note with your permission to send to my MP. Don't know if it will have much impact he's a Gummer, but he is in a marginal seat.
*Greenpeace style*
Activism based on fearmongering to circumvent democracy.
Phillip Bratby
That's an excellent letter. I'll, likewise, be sending that to my MP.
Which makes me think, why don't we do this more often? Works for Greenpeace, apparently . . .
20,000 emails to mp's?
Or 20,000 gullible clicktivists clicking a link saying "submit", and an automated mailshot to all uk mp's?
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/battleforbritain
Capell:
As I said above, I'm in regular contact with my MP; concerned citizens should keep their MP informed, whether by letter, email or visiting him/her at his/her surgery; and get him/her to trust what you are saying. I always get a response from my MP - I have a large file of his letters on best parliamentary stationary - remember: they work for you!
This is the email we received from one of the activists parents:
Our daughter Claire was one of 21 activists who spent a week up a chimney at West Burton power station to protest against the use of gas-fired power stations.
It was a peaceful protest to draw attention to the environmental consequences of burning fossil fuels for power. No one was hurt but now EDF Energy are suing our daughter and her fellow activists for £5 million.
We believe this is totally unfair and unprecedented. That's why we have started a petition to call on EDF to drop the suit against our daughter and her friends, the West Burton activists. Click here to sign our petition.
Our daughter and her friends protested peacefully. They knew they would be arrested but were brave enough to accept this possibility. Peaceful protest has never before been followed by an injunction for costs like this. If EDF are successful in this suit it will set a dangerous precedent for the right to peaceful protest in this country.
We are proud of what Claire and her friends are trying to do. It’s heartbreaking to think that they are being punished for putting themselves at risk for the good of humanity. If EDF pursue this suit they will put my daughter and her friends in debt -- possibly for the rest of their lives. For EDF it is a mere drop in the ocean, but for them it is a lifetime's income.
EDF might think it can silence 21 activists but it has to listen to consumers. If enough consumers show they are outraged by EDF's actions, the impact to the company's brand will be worth more than £5 million and the suit will be dropped.
Please sign our petition asking EDF to drop this unprecedented legal assault.
Thank you,
Russ and Barbara Fauset
In the P.S. ... that "lifetime of debt" for the 21 activists gives a true indication of the activists' (lack of) actual earning power.
Work out the numbers ... £5,000,000 divided by 21 activists is just shy of £240,000 per activist; roughly the same as the mortgage on a small manor house in t' moors or a squalid flat in London.
Of course £240,000 isn't something one could pay off without seriously milking the social security cow. Maybe if they worked their way up the activists' ladder (usually identified by the letters "ICLEI") in Councils and started collecting on those £200,000 p.a. salary packages for stopping other people doing sensible things, they could quickly pay off the debt they incurred when they chose to damage the lawful operation of a business.
This was my partner's reply:
I have no idea where you managed to get my email address, Mr & Mrs Fauset, but you have chosen the wrong party from whom to request support for your cause.
As far as I am concerned it is high time people who hold your kinds of irresponsible views in regard to power generation took a step back and reviewed them absolutely and became a little more realistic. Otherwise the lights will simply go out and we'll be traveling around in carts pulled by the few horses that are not on our dinner plates.
Are you serious? Do you really and truly believe that the children you have taught all your lives will thank you for reducing the number of jobs available to them in industry when gas and coal fired power stations are switched off and they have to rely on wind turbines and so forth? Renewables simply do not work well enough to replace tried and tested (and far cheaper) sources. So let's get real and embrace the fact that there is a glut (not a shortage) of oil and gas in the world, and use it to our advantage.
I would respectfully suggest that you might want to read a little more widely to find out what the facts are rather than relying absolutely on 'Guardianista' sources for your views. For instance, why not buy a copy of The Real Global Warming Disaster (Is The Obsession With 'Climate Change' Turning Out To Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History?) by Christopher Booker. This and many other extremely well researched and well founded books are worth the effort because they do not ignore the hard facts of the matter.
Naturally, as the parent of two sons, I would not wish any suffering on anyone's offspring. But frankly EDF have every right to get on with their work without being interrupted by badly informed activists such as your daughter. She was trespassing on EDF property rather than how you have it. Peaceful protest it was not. Had she and her friends protested outside EDF property, on the public highway, that would have been more defensible. But she did not. I wish her well but I will not support her cause, nor yours.
Please do not write to me again.
Here's what I sent:
Dear Mr Hancock,
I see that you are being lobbied by GreenPeace, that irresponsible offshoot of the CND, about Mr Yeo's Energy Bill amendment. May I put a counter-argument to their demands?
Yesterday morning I watched the UK's energy consumption (which is conveniently displayed at http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/). Total demand was 53 GW, supplied by coal 20GW, nuclear 8 and gas 17, with ICT another 2GW. Wind was producing 1GW from a nameplate capacity of 8.
We are about to lose a large percentage of our coal power as the Large Combustion Plants Directive comes into force.
It may be that this winter is over and we now have a few months breathing space before the new, reduced capacity is tested. When it is the only way the Grid will cope is by bringing on line all its back-up, which means deploying much more wasteful gas stations and even oil burners.
We don't need more CO2 reduction targets; we need more power.
I don't need anything other than an acknowledgement to this: I know the arguments put forward for carbon reduction and do not agree with them. I particularly object to Mr Yeo and Lord Deben, both of whom have interests in Big Wind, pushing their own financial interests over those of this country and the poor.
Julian Flood
Coney Weston
I wouldn't widdle on GreenPeace if it caught fire in a urinal.
JF
@ Mailman
I think that will eventually prove to be the way forward. If there is personal cost to people like Nurse libelling Lawson and right-on students disrupting a power company's operations, such that it is their lives rather than our own that are ruined, that will eventually cure these loonies.
German and Japanese militarism was eventually cured - permanently - by copious amounts of fire from the sky. Once the consequences of their attitudes became personally unpleasant, rather than being unpleasant only for others, they rethought rapidly and rejoined civilisation.
The Green movement needs an equivalent experience. It needs its Bomber Harris, its Curtis LeMay.
Good for EDF. I am sick of activists making themselves a nuisance, justifying that by appeal to their convictions. Unchecked, this leads to animal rights fanatics making peoples lives a misery, IRA blowing people up in pursuit of their own fantasies. "Direct Action is the only way" is the leftist mantra. Fine. Take direct action. But don't whine when there are consequences, when those you have damaged strike back, with the support of all those who don't share your obsessions. The moral high ground is where the solipsists live.
Well, bully for you, Mr and Mrs Fauset. Perhaps you (and your dear daughter) would like to volunteer to buy your electricity only from renewable sources. (How are you on nuclear, by the way?)
Buying only from renewable sources, incidentally, does not just mean signing up for the green eco-tariff. It means you only get to have electricity when the windmills are producing the stuff and even then you only get to have your share of it along with all the other wide-eyed naifs who have also signed up.
With the new smart meters that are going to be compulsory by 2019 (allegedly) it will be a simple matter to ensure that your electricity will be rationed accordingly and in the highly unlikely event that I am Prime Minister at the time I shall take great delight in ensuring that that is all the electricity you will be allowed to have.
You will also not be allowed to access any electricity made by what are known as "conventional" methods — so forget train travel or shopping at your local supermarket or indeed any activity where electricity is needed (which includes operating the pumps that put fuel in your car!). If I am feeling unusually generous, I may allow you a dispensation for medical emergencies, but I shouldn't bank on it.
You could on the other hand point out to your daughter that though the right to peaceful protest is one that most Britons hold dear, attempting to disrupt other people's lives on the basis of a totally misguided misunderstanding of how the world works and in complete ignorance of the actual (as opposed to the hoped-for or believed-in) effects of one's actions is not going to endear her to the people who rely on reliable energy to go about their daily lives — which is to say everybody, including her and you.
So perhaps a better course of action would be to try and knock some sense into your daughter's well-meaning but obviously fairly vacant head rather than condone her idiocies and simply demonstrate your own by being "proud" of such irresponsibility.
Perhaps one can, in future use such a device to dislodge activists from a chimney.
Dr. Julian Huppert MP (one of the few science trained MPs in this parliament) is a fully committed "greenie". I know because I have had extensive correspondence with him about the BBC and "28Gate"- reported here
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/12/7/huppert-on-28gate.html
(and alot worse since!)
Could his enthusiasm for all things green be in any way connected with his father, who just happens to be Chairman of the EASAC Working Group producing report for European Parliament on Carbon Capture and Storage?
It is difficult to know whether the shamelessness of the likes of Greenpeace is exceeded by their ignorance. Either way, I still find it had to believe that any semi-sentient being – and being generous I will include MPs in this group – cannot see through their nonsense in about one second flat..
Yeo is a bad MP and a self serving [snip -raise the tone please] as is his good friend Lord Deben. They should both be placed on a desert island and see how they can exist without energy.
The vote is actually quite useful.
It will allow the 2025 Energy Tribunals to identify and punish those responsible for the UK's blackout in 2016, which caused the deaths of thousands of old people, and set our industry back a generation.
Claire Fauset video here
Well-known phrases and sayings didn't come into being for no good reason. In the case of Claire Fauset, "empty vessels make most noise" comes to mind.
This was my reply to that silly email.
Dear Mr & Mrs Fauset
I'm afraid that I have no sympathy with you or your daughter. She has no right to interfere with the lawful business of any company. Least of all in a misguided belief that she is 'saving the world'.
Have any of you actually worked out what effect this de-carbonisation of the UK will have on the prospects of future generations? Do any of you know exactly by how much GLOBAL temperatures would be reduced by a complete de-carbonisation of the UK? Are any of you aware that CO2 is a trace gas that every single living thing on the planet relies on for survival? Are any of you aware that CO2 represents a mere circa 3% of the total composition of all GHGs and the anthropogenic input is only circa 3% of that figure?
The IPCC's own scientific literature tells you, should you care to read it, that a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial times is likely, at most, to result in a 1 degree Celsius rise in the AVERAGE global temperature. The rest of the scary scenarios are premised on unproven forcings of which no one can produce conclusive evidence.
You cannot have MMCC without MMGW and as Dr Pachauri, The MetOffice, James Hansen and others have recently confirmed a 'pause' in GW (not accounted for in their models) I suggest you and your daughter stop trying to interfere with ordinary people's lives and get on minding your own.
As I assume you will take me off your mailing list may I wish you and your family all the best in the future. A future, hopefully, not dominated by unscientific scare-mongering which is simply lining the pockets of already extremely wealthy people with money extracted from ordinary working-class families.
Yours faithfully
It now looks as though California is about to have the same problems as the UK - brought on by the same renewable energy policies. http://www.thegwpf.org/green-madness-californias-faces-electricity-crisis-due-renewable-energy/
And the net result of all this perfidious ultra-expensive 'Green' tosh is:
LONDON, Feb 28 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Power production in Britain fell to the lowest level in 15 years in 2012, according to government data published on Thursday, but carbon emissions in the EU’s second biggest emitting nation likely rose as electricity produced from coal soared.
Even by their own distorted lights this policy = FAIL.
Greenpeace: "We need your support so we can take the strongest possible message - Greenpeace style - into the heart of their meeting."
So what does "Greenpeace style" mean- driving a motorboat across the floor of the meeting room with scant regard for the occupiers, while shouting loudly?
(One thing leads to another and I hope I have not drifted too much off topic with this: just thinking aloud really.)
Referring to the video, did I hear her say towards the end “Spread the fear - keep the public in its place”?
CO2 concentration continues to increase in the atmosphere but the global average temperature has been static for years. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of nature here. Satellite measurements have shown that CO2 comes overwhelmingly from the forests of South America and Asia, where very few people live and where industry is practically non-existent. The increase of CO2 is not a simple straight line or even a smooth curve. It is consistently wavy and the seasonal variation of the CO2 increase does not correlate with industrial activity. [Salby]
CO2 is a trace element. Its purported effect on the climate comes not from CO2 directly but from magnifying feedbacks, which are little more than arbitrary guesses. Solving the equations is a very difficult process and simplifying assumptions have always to be made. Are they adequate to describe what really happens to CO2 when it gets airborne? That aside, the resulting climate programs simply do not bear comparison with observations. Remember:
The atmosphere contains less than 0.04% CO2
Man contributes about 3% of atmospheric CO2
The UK contributes about 2% of man-made CO2
Does Ms Fauset understand percentages, let alone physics? Does Ms Fauset understand that the less well off cannot afford the artificially inflated energy prices but have as much right to survive the cold as she and her affluent Greenpeace friends do?
Sadly, its a waste of my time writing to my MP on this subject - its Julian Huppert..!
As an aside - one of the more barmy causes to which, according to the Cambridge Evening News, he is lending his support - is the proposal here by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign - that expressing anger at cyclists who (as is rife) ride through red lights; on the pavement; and at night with no lights - should be treated as a 'race hate crime'..!
Anyway - back to Greenpeace exhortation - I note that they have got '...support from Conservative, Labour and Green MPs...'
I thought there was only ONE Green MP - the batty Caroline Lucas..?
Feb 28, 2013 at 9:31 AM | Grumpy
/////////////////////////////////////
I am all for peaceful protest but any protestor should take full responsibility for their actions. If their actions hurt or injury another (whether this be a third party, or a company) they should be held liable to compensate that injured party.
This is not a victimless crime,. just like shoplifting or insurance fraud is not victimless crimes. If EDF lose money, that loss is eventually passed onto the consumer. The price of energy has to rise so that every EDF consumer will pay a fraction more in their next bill for years to come.
I would sign a petition supporting the action of EDF and I wish them every success in their action against the protestors.
It is blindingly obvious that the likes of Greepeace and the Fauset family haven't got the foggiest clue as to how much electricity the country needs on a daily basis...
Why isn't EDF suing the actists for a WEEk's loss of profits..?
This is what I have sent to my MP ....who just happens to be the same as Phil Bratby
You will probably recall from previous correspondence over many years that I have grave concerns about climate change policy and the effects this will have upon the country at large. It is with Tim Yeo’s extraordinary amendment to the Energy Bill in mind that I write to you again.
As I understand it the amendment would add a further £100 to domestic energy bills thus doubling the climate change levy already imposed upon consumers. It would also render many businesses uncompetitive in the global market. I fully understand that someone must pay but I question the basic tenets which drive this foolishness.
Quite frankly it beggars belief that intelligent human beings can swallow the propaganda of the Green Movement without any thought that the opposing views have any validity. In the past few years it has become self-evident that the bible which the Greens promote and follow has its roots in flawed science; I refer, of course, to the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was self-evident by the failure of the Copenhagen conference 2 years ago to come anywhere near unanimity in approach and was further confirmed with the result of the Mexico meeting a couple of months ago.
In more recent times Professor James Lovelock, himself a founder member of the Green lobby, has recanted saying that no single contributory factor can be found to be responsible for climate change. Almost daily more independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence is emerging which supports the view that increasing levels of carbon dioxide do not materially add to global warming. In this context it is a complete mystery why increased atmospheric CO2, for which mankind is held responsible, is promulgated as the sole driver of climate change!
The only logical conclusion is that those who promote these fantasies stand to benefit from their beliefs and actions. For all the pain and anguish that will descend upon the people and businesses in this country there will be little or no advantages and in a global sense will have no effect whatsoever on emissions. Rather it will be nothing more than cynical political posturing on a Biblical scale.
It would be easy for you to simply dismiss these views as the hysterical ramblings of a climate change denier. Let me re-iterate to you my stance on this: in almost 20 years’ involvement in the debate I have NEVER denied climate change but accept it as a normal and cyclical natural phenomenon supported by independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Neither am I ignorant of many of the factors which illuminate the debate. Before retirement almost 5 years ago I spent nearly 50 years in the gas industry. I saw the emergence of natural gas and the impact it had, not only on what was a dying industry but upon the fortunes of the country at large. At the time of its discovery estimates told that there were some 20 years’ reserves. Here we are 50 years on and we still have not exhausted those reserves; which brings me to shale gas. I quote
,… For the second time in the last couple of months, the Times reports industry sources as claiming the upcoming British Geological Survey’s (BGS) official assessment of UK shale reserves, due next month, will be “increased dramatically”. If the report is to be believed, the figures being touted for domestic reserves could well prove to be a dazzling “200 times greater than experts previously believed”. The Times suggests that the BGS’s previous estimate of 5.3 trillion cubic feet is likely to be increased to a huge 1,300 to 1,700 trillion cubic feet. And that would be “enough shale gas to heat every home in Britain for 1,500 years.”
If the figures are borne out when the report is finally published in a few weeks time, it would have major ramifications for the UK economy with cheaper gas prices and for investment in the green energy industry.
The UK’s biggest gas supplier BG’s (formerly British Gas) Centrica has already pulled out of green energy commitments in America to invest directly in the US shale gas revolution. But at the recent World Energy Conference in Davos, Centrica CEO Sam Laidlaw was doing his best to play down the potential of UK shale gas. Politics? Because at the same time, Cuadrilla, long vilified for claiming it has around 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in its section of the Bowland Shale Group in north-western England, was being courted by some of the industry big boys, including Shell, Statoil and Exxon-Mobil – and Centrica’s parent company BG.
There, surely, lies the future for the energy industry in this country? Back in the 60’s the environmentalists of the day were issuing dire warnings of the consequences of drilling for natural gas. Some were even convinced that removal of the gas from its pockets beneath the sea bed would lead to it collapsing and draining the North Sea! Today’s warnings of the dangers of fracking leading to earthquakes and contamination of the aquifers must be regarded as the same fatuous nonsense.
If nothing is done to arrest the march of the Green Ideologues the future of our country is in mortal danger. I want my sons and their children to live in a country built upon common sense and honesty, not greed and obfuscation and that can keep them in plentiful, secure and continuous supplies of energy. If you believe in the same values I hope you will oppose Tim Yeo’s amendment and lobby your colleagues to do the same.
Before it is too late!
This is what I have sent to my MP ....who just happens to be the same as Phil Bratby
You will probably recall from previous correspondence over many years that I have grave concerns about climate change policy and the effects this will have upon the country at large. It is with Tim Yeo’s extraordinary amendment to the Energy Bill in mind that I write to you again.
As I understand it the amendment would add a further £100 to domestic energy bills thus doubling the climate change levy already imposed upon consumers. It would also render many businesses uncompetitive in the global market. I fully understand that someone must pay but I question the basic tenets which drive this foolishness.
Quite frankly it beggars belief that intelligent human beings can swallow the propaganda of the Green Movement without any thought that the opposing views have any validity. In the past few years it has become self-evident that the bible which the Greens promote and follow has its roots in flawed science; I refer, of course, to the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was self-evident by the failure of the Copenhagen conference 2 years ago to come anywhere near unanimity in approach and was further confirmed with the result of the Mexico meeting a couple of months ago.
In more recent times Professor James Lovelock, himself a founder member of the Green lobby, has recanted saying that no single contributory factor can be found to be responsible for climate change. Almost daily more independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence is emerging which supports the view that increasing levels of carbon dioxide do not materially add to global warming. In this context it is a complete mystery why increased atmospheric CO2, for which mankind is held responsible, is promulgated as the sole driver of climate change!
The only logical conclusion is that those who promote these fantasies stand to benefit from their beliefs and actions. For all the pain and anguish that will descend upon the people and businesses in this country there will be little or no advantages and in a global sense will have no effect whatsoever on emissions. Rather it will be nothing more than cynical political posturing on a Biblical scale.
It would be easy for you to simply dismiss these views as the hysterical ramblings of a climate change denier. Let me re-iterate to you my stance on this: in almost 20 years’ involvement in the debate I have NEVER denied climate change but accept it as a normal and cyclical natural phenomenon supported by independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Neither am I ignorant of many of the factors which illuminate the debate. Before retirement almost 5 years ago I spent nearly 50 years in the gas industry. I saw the emergence of natural gas and the impact it had, not only on what was a dying industry but upon the fortunes of the country at large. At the time of its discovery estimates told that there were some 20 years’ reserves. Here we are 50 years on and we still have not exhausted those reserves; which brings me to shale gas. I quote
,… For the second time in the last couple of months, the Times reports industry sources as claiming the upcoming British Geological Survey’s (BGS) official assessment of UK shale reserves, due next month, will be “increased dramatically”. If the report is to be believed, the figures being touted for domestic reserves could well prove to be a dazzling “200 times greater than experts previously believed”. The Times suggests that the BGS’s previous estimate of 5.3 trillion cubic feet is likely to be increased to a huge 1,300 to 1,700 trillion cubic feet. And that would be “enough shale gas to heat every home in Britain for 1,500 years.”
If the figures are borne out when the report is finally published in a few weeks time, it would have major ramifications for the UK economy with cheaper gas prices and for investment in the green energy industry.
The UK’s biggest gas supplier BG’s (formerly British Gas) Centrica has already pulled out of green energy commitments in America to invest directly in the US shale gas revolution. But at the recent World Energy Conference in Davos, Centrica CEO Sam Laidlaw was doing his best to play down the potential of UK shale gas. Politics? Because at the same time, Cuadrilla, long vilified for claiming it has around 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in its section of the Bowland Shale Group in north-western England, was being courted by some of the industry big boys, including Shell, Statoil and Exxon-Mobil – and Centrica’s parent company BG.
There, surely, lies the future for the energy industry in this country? Back in the 60’s the environmentalists of the day were issuing dire warnings of the consequences of drilling for natural gas. Some were even convinced that removal of the gas from its pockets beneath the sea bed would lead to it collapsing and draining the North Sea! Today’s warnings of the dangers of fracking leading to earthquakes and contamination of the aquifers must be regarded as the same fatuous nonsense.
If nothing is done to arrest the march of the Green Ideologues the future of our country is in mortal danger. I want my sons and their children to live in a country built upon common sense and honesty, not greed and obfuscation and that can keep them in plentiful, secure and continuous supplies of energy. If you believe in the same values I hope you will oppose Tim Yeo’s amendment and lobby your colleagues to do the same.
Before it is too late!
The famous social commentator P J O Rourke famously said " No woman in history has ever had a sexual fantasy about being ravished by a man dress as a Liberal".
In the case of dirty old wandering hand groper Lib Dem Peer Lord Rennard the exact reverse appears to be true.
I would like to protest about the amendment to my MP, but he is Tim Yeo......
Tim Yeo and Greenpeace, such strange bedfellows.
Sorry Bish im on a bit of a roll
http://www.sexymp.co.uk/index.php?gender=F
Guildo Fawkes check this out .One for Lord Renneard
Notice Caroline Lucas needs to up her game if she wants more TV slots The Camera loves sexy and stylish. Shes 126 Way behind Diane Abbott whose 108.Margerat Beckett near the back as you would expect.
Zac Goldsmith is first for the male MPs Boo.But thats the gay vote.
remember: they work for you!
Unfortunately Philip, some seem to take this more seriously than others. My experiences with Nick Herbert has certainly not moved in the direction of building a rapport - getting a reply is difficult enough. When I eventually got one, I was palmed off on to DECC.
If someone asked you "would you like cheap, non-polluting, abundant, renewable energy?" you would certainly answer, yes, wouldn't you?
The only possible reason for answering no would be that you know that any source of energy that the questioner had in mind would not be cheap AND non-polluting AND abundant AND renewable. However the modern generation of politicians have been brought up on spin and therefore they judge policies on who they appeal to, not on whether those policies are realistic.
As an Australian I can't really join in here (I don't have a UK MP - Don't worry, I write to my own). :)
I just want to say, you all have written some brilliant letters and I do believe the tide is turning everywhere in the world.
It's heartening to find that Greenpeace has secured only one signature. Don't worry about the 267 who showed support. Sometimes it's easier to agree with whoever is in your face just to get rid of them. From what I can make out, Britain is waking up.
I reckon everyone is getting sick of Greenpeace (and green in general) and their bullying tactics.
Cheers.
To AD Everard
To use a saying familiar to you Antipodeans ....'Good on yer, Blue!.