Friday
Aug232013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Greens back shale
Aug 23, 2013 Energy: shale This is a bit of a turnup for the books:
One [green] group in Surrey set up to encourage sustainable living has come out in favour of exploration and fracking, the process which may have to be used in future to extract the oil and gas.
Transition Dorking says it has surprised even itself.
But it looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion producing fuel locally may be less damaging to the environment than importing fossil fuels.
They should expect a visitation from the climate police, I would say.
Reader Comments (56)
Aug 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM | Julian Flood
/////////////////////////
I have made that point a number of times before when discussing Shale Gas.
The Shale Gas revolutiion in the US has freed it from dependancy on the Middle East. It no longer has the same interests in the area, and this has already had, and will continue to have an ever increasing influence upon US foreign policy in the area.
Because of Shale gas, the US is now far less likely to intervene in the Middle East than it used to. Witness Libya where is did not take the lead. Witness the restrained response to Egypt and Syria.
I do not think that people realise the shift that this is causing in US foreign policy. Even the European leaders are behind the ball on this and have yet to wake up to the full implications.
If Europe was to develop its Shale reserves, then most of the deveoped Western world could just leave the Middle East to themselves. Let them sort their own affairs out in a manner that best suits themselves. This may not appear atteractive in the short term, but is likely to result in the most stable long term position.
Any intervention by the West inevitably ends in failure, and it inflames jihads and the like. At best, it merely dampens the heat in one area which then, within a short period of time, resurfaces in a different area. Long term, it is like pouring petrol on flames since the West receives no thanks for its intervention. I am not sure that it is due any thanks, but my point is that intervention is a thankless task, is not supported long term by the locals of that area, and only serves to rienforce views that the West is imperialistic and decadent; with current mentality this increases the risk of terrorist attacks on the West, not reduces those risks.
PS. I do not wish to see people killed or injured or displaced in Syria (or elsewhere for that matter), but I am of the view that there should be no form whatsoever of military intervention howsoever classified (including the arming of rebels, training. tactically advising them etc) and to the extend that 'we' respond this should be limited to humanitarian aid only.
I've taken a look at the Transition Movement which is a loose-knit group of local organisations set up to cope with the twin problems of climate change and peak oil.
It's worth reading a bit about them.
I'm hardly likely to be all that sympathetic since I disagree with their two fundamental principles: that climate change (as usually defined) demands any action on our part or that we are anywhere near peak oil. However they do appear, as we have seen with Transition Dorking, to be attached to the real world and prepared to let facts and evidence influence their decisions.
They look like the true inheritors of the original Green ethos unlike the ragbag of anti-capitalist, anti-development, anti-civilisation protesters that stopped off for a quickie at Balcombe last week. At least the Transition Movement is unlikely to do any harm even if it doesn't do much good.
"This is a bit of a turnup for the books"
No Bish, it would sit better with them if it was a "turnip for the books", they are, after all, greenies.
One swallow does not a summer make, as the saying goes. I believe anyone who looked at the fracking process would be convinced that with proper regulation it's a safe as taking a ride on a bus. But congrats to them for reading it up and taking it on board.
George Monbio has clearly read it up, and found there is nothing to fear, so he's changed his line of attack to it being "macho" to want to drill for shale gas. "Macho" being a dirty word in the progressive lexicon it will give a new reason not to frack without the need to know that it's perfectly safe. If you are macho then you must by right wing and by definition, wrong.
geronimo: That's hilarious about Monbiot. Macho also means, presumably, that we actually enjoy emitting carbon dioxide. And I have to admit that with every breath I take, I do look forward to the next part. I'm scum but at least I know it.
Julian Flood and Richard Verney
That is a good point, isn't it. I had vaguely registered it but spelling out the implications brings it home. Typical Greenies - ignoring but damaging other parts of the world with their obsessions.
A wonderful example of "Concerned Acceptance"
Original phrase by Radical Rodent on an earlier thread.