tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-90009481406380908912023-11-15T05:57:31.068-08:00Blog by members of the Wealden Green PartyThis blog is written by members of the Wealden Green Party. All opinions expressed here are those of the authors themselves and do not necessarily constitute the views of the Wealden Green Party generally, nor of the Green Party as a whole.Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-36799307326846928022015-01-27T08:53:00.001-08:002015-01-27T08:53:21.746-08:00We cannot have an effective NHS on the cheap<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Catching
up on the news yesterday (Jan 26) on the BBC website I saw a
reference to a comment made in the Sun something like "more
money won't solve the NHS problems". So I thought I'd do a few
sums. </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In
the recent past the UK has spent about 9.5% of its GDP on health.
This compares with about 11.5% of countries such as Germany and
France (and nearly 18% for the US!). So we spend about 2% of GDP less
than France/Germany.</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The
GDP of the UK is about 1.5 trillion pounds, but lets work in
billions; ie 1500 billion pounds (BP).</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">And
2% of 1500 BP is 2x1500/100 which equals 30 billion pounds! Rather
puts the Labour Party's promised 2.5 BPs and the Tory's even smaller
sum rather in the shade doesn't it?</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">So:
sure; money isn't everything but that extra 30 billion ought to solve
a few problems, shouldn't it?</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">So
the most fundamental problem with the NHS is that the political class
has failed to persuade the electorate that we can't have a world
class health system without paying for it! </span></span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Personally,
I think that this country needs a progressively </span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en">graduated
</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">h</span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en">ypothecated
health tax on income, collected by the Inland Revenue, with the level
set annually by an independent body responsible to Parliament.
Otherwise, this lack of funding will eventually bring down the NHS
and we will have to adopt a more expensive organisational model.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en"><br /></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Roger
Oliver</span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-75684381061611374182014-12-08T02:55:00.000-08:002014-12-10T09:10:52.782-08:00Gatwick Airport, a Big no to Expansion<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: small;">This post was written by Nick Anderson and has been posted on his behalf.</span><b> </b></span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><b> </b></span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="color: #1f497d; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">Gatwick Airport, Noise and other Pollution</span></b></span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: #1f497d; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Moi?</b> I
recently joined the Green Party. I am not particularly political but
thanks to Gatwick’s behaviour I now want to help to help fix the UK
so that our children can live healthily and in a sustainable
environment. For the record I am an ex-environmental scientist who
now works in the IT industry.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Main Parties Uncommitted</b>?
Currently, the only party to make a firm commitment against Gatwick
expansion and plane noise are the Green Party. The so called main
parties have turned their backs on us and supported the investors who
are sucking the life blood out of the South East; a fine example of
how democracy works.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Fake Economy Ignores Pollution, </b><i><b>we
pay twice</b></i>. The air industry is based on a false economy of
paying little or no taxes. So taxpayers unknowingly pay for the £500m
profit Gatwick are sending to their foreign investors, little left
for the UK. We also have to suffer the racket the planes make, both
now and in years to come. <i>If you think you are safe up North,
think again, this is only the beginning of the profit pumps.</i><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Consultation, a bad joke filling the
skies with pollution?</b> There has been little or no consultation,
and certainly none with South Eastern voters. It’s no joke, if
Gatwick is allowed to expand (they want to, see below) they will fill
the skies with planes as they have done for most of 2014 but three
times as bad. Gatwick planes have frequently flown very low over my
village until 02:50am (totally against regulations). We are 20 miles
from Gatwick.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Concentrated Flight Paths, a Trial?</b>
If they were trials then why are Gatwick still flying low over our
heads in December? Liars? Incompetent?<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Pollution? Surely not Gatwick</b>?
No one is even considering this and Gatwick are keeping this out of
the equation! Try not to think about the air pollution (<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=9000948140638090891#Environmental_effects">NOx</a>,
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=9000948140638090891#As_an_air_pollutant">SOx</a>, <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=9000948140638090891#Occurrence_and_pollution">PAH</a>,
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates">Particulates</a>
and un-combusted fuel) raining down on your head whilst the profits
wing their way overseas. This combination a good delivery method for
inserting toxic components right onto the surface of our lungs, where
they can easily be absorbed. No one can tell us if the pollution is
damaging us and our children, <i>no one is checking</i>. <i>The
authorities are turning their backs.</i><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Gatwick Noise line? It’s another
Joke!</b> The laughable ‘Noise’ line fail to respond to more than
a couple of complaints from any individual and their ‘responses’
do not refer to noise at all. I also understand they took a 67 year
old lady (Ann Jones) to court for making multiple complaints, see <a href="http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/Persistent-complainer-cleared-Gatwick-court-case/story-12597340-detail/story.html">Ann
Jones Article - Crawley News</a>. Charming eh?<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>No Joke, they are not interested in
us</b>. So far there has been little or no consultation, and
certainly none with the Kent and Sussex consumers/voters who have
paid for it in more than one way. It’s no joke, if these people are
allowed to expand they will fill the skies with planes as they have
done for most of 2014; but three times as bad; you won’t be able to
sleep or think. Gatwick have been flying low over my area until
02:50am, totally against regulations, charming! Today is Friday 5<sup>th</sup>
December and they are flying low over our village all day from 8am to
now (9pm), one after the other. I do not understand why East Sussex
CC are not opposing Gatwick plans for expansion (see below). Kent CC
have recently come out and sided with their voters. Gatwick have
stated that they will only fly over “fields”. Liars!<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Anti-Gatwick Support</b>. I note
that the recent <a href="http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/11/all-local-mps-speak-out-against-gatwick-2nd-runway-at-packed-protest-meeting/">GACC
Meeting</a> was attended by around a thousand people. Some support
when you consider that each citizen (i.e. voter) attending may
represent between 10-50 others who could not make it or have not been
reached out to. The <i>additional</i> number of people affected has
been estimated at 30,000. I believe the figure is higher, but no one
is collecting such data, another scandal. Also consider the springing
up and increased membership of many pressure groups such as <a href="http://www.gacc.org.uk/latest-news.php">GACC</a>,
<a href="http://www.cagne.org/take-action/">CAGNE</a>, <a href="http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/">Airport
Watch</a>, ESSCAN etc. and the local groups all over the South East.
I also note that Paul Carter recently pulled Kent CC’s support for
Gatwick expansion as have several other councils.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Start Here, if you have not already</b>.
Here’s where you can start if you are affected by plane noise or
worried about the pollution:</div>
<ul>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Get People to join the Greens</b>.
Enough said! Look at the Green Party’s policy on this tawdry
industry.</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Pressure Groups</b>. Support
and get information from one or more of the anti-Gatwick groups such
as <a href="http://www.gacc.org.uk/latest-news.php">GACC</a>, <a href="http://www.cagne.org/take-action/">CAGNE</a>,
<a href="http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/">Airport Watch</a>, ESSCAN
(Crowborough) and also one of the many in local area groups (Hever,
Sevenoaks etc.).
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Complain</b>! Every time you
get a noisy plane over your head report it via one of the methods
you will find on the <a href="http://www.gacc.org.uk/latest-news.php">GACC</a>
or <a href="http://www.cagne.org/take-action/">CAGNE</a> web sites,
make sure you let the CAA and the DFT know as well (full
instructions on the <a href="http://www.cagne.org/take-action/">CAGNE
Take Action Page</a>.). You can also download an <a href="http://www.cagne.org/downloads/">Android
Compatible App</a> to automate complaints from your Android phone
(e.g. Galaxy). Check the site to see if any other versions are
available. <i>Above all make your voice heard.</i></div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Don’t have Internet</b>? If
your neighbour or friend does not have internet access tell them how
to do this in writing or by phone.
</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Council not onside?</b>
Complain to your local council (e.g. <a href="mailto:'cllr.francis.whetstone@eastsussex.gov.uk'">Councillor
Francis Whetstone at East Sussex CC</a> who still support Gatwick)
if they continue not to defy Gatwick. Also go to your Parish Council
meetings and make your voice heard. Get elected if needs be!</div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Do Something</b>! Do something now
unless you want you and your children to live in a hell-hole run from
overseas!<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Sir Howard Davies Consultation</b>.
Gatwick want to expand and are after a second runway, totally
unfeasible . To make <i>your</i> voice heard do the <b>Airports
Commission </b>consultation at
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/increasing-the-uks-long-term-aviation-capacity">https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/increasing-the-uks-long-term-aviation-capacity</a>
and then scroll down to <b>Ways to Respond</b> (online, email or
post). Just remember those flights are paid for by you. Also
remember, do not be a NIMBY, support non-expansion, whenever you can.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I am saying NO to <u>any expansion</u>
and NO to second runways; it’s based on false accounting, unknown
pollution levels and looks like a whitewash.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Finally, I intend to devote the rest of
my life to making sure that I did my best to leave our children with
a decent environment. Right now I need to work, like all of us, but
I fully intend to spend as much time as I can helping the Green Party
with other issues once we have solved the Gatwick problem. If you
want to help you will need to use your vote wisely and give a and to
stop the current “snout in trough” politics that is ruining our
planet.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i><b>Get involved.</b></i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Nick Anderson</div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-13875942033768606442014-12-04T09:39:00.002-08:002014-12-04T09:39:36.702-08:00The Autumn Statement and A Green Infrastructure
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What I find astonishing about the
"Autumn" Statement on Wednesday and the commentary on it is
the (almost?) complete lack of consideration of the problem of
climate change, in this year of record temperatures. Isn't this the
most serious problem that this country and the world faces?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Where is the extra support for new
green technologies? Where are the plans for fleets of white vans
working their way down our streets providing free insulation and
draft proofing (backup by the legislation demanding minimum standards
when properties are sold from 2020 onwards? ). Currently money is
cheap to borrow and labour plentiful.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What a contrast with the attitudes
shown in last week's letter to the Guardian (20/11/14) by Caroline
Lucas and others with their plan for a "green infrastructure
initiative for jobs", using a form of quantitative easing to
make £50bn available a year.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is why I am a member of The Green
Party.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Roger Oliver (4/12/14)</div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-31255466196048319512014-11-18T08:56:00.000-08:002014-11-18T08:56:08.882-08:00Go Low Carbon AND do it for the money!
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: medium;"><span lang="en-GB"><b>Go
Low Carbon AND do it for the money!</b></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB"><i>précised by
Jenny Huggett from an article in New Scientist by Fred Pierce.</i></span></div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">A few weeks ago the
</span><span lang="en-GB"><i>Better Growth, Better Climate: the New
Climate Economy Report</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> was put before
world leaders at the UN Climate Summit 2014 in New York. The new
message is that fighting climate change does not, or need not, have a
price tag, and that nations should cut emissions out of
self-interest. The publication comes from the Global Climate
Commission on the Economy and Climate, an independent body chaired by
Felipe Calderon (former President of Mexico) and Nicholas Stern of
the London School of Economics). </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">The report states
that if the world spends wisely on reducing emissions the climate
problem could be largely solved and that economic growth would be
greater than in a high-carbon economy</span><span lang="en-GB"><b>.
If all energy subsidies were removed the setting of emissions targets
would be unnecessary, as market forces would create a low carbon
economy!</b></span><span lang="en-GB"> Maybe not news to Greens, or
people actually working in renewables, but this is paradigm-shifting
stuff for most politicians. The report goes on to say that delay is
dangerous, for every coal fired power station built, the cost of
shifting to a low carbon economy will be greater. In summary the
reports recommendations are:</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB"><i>City structure</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
- Cities need to become compact instead of sprawling, and with mass
public transport and cleaner power. Though how this could be achieved
in practice with existing cities is not covered.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB"><i>Degraded farm
land restoration</i></span><span lang="en-GB"> – Restoring just 12%
of degraded land could feed 200 million people. Most degraded land is
in the third world where most of the undernourished live, rather a
lot of the rest is in the USA (that last bit is my view!).</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB"><i>Energy generation</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
– Half of all </span><span lang="en-GB"><i>new</i></span><span lang="en-GB">
energy generating capacity is now renewable and the price of solar
power has fall by 90% in less than a decade. The report concludes
that solar now can outcompete coal, and that the switch is a “no
brainer”. Ill health caused by fossil fuel generated smog cuts GNP
by 4%.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">Critics say that the
switch to a low carbon economy requires large infrastructure
investment not accounted for in the way the report compares fossil
fuel and renewable energy sources. But the authors point out that
such costs will be “swamped” by better health and economic
efficiency benefits.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">And this report is
not a lone voice, a report from the Cambridge Econometrics, forecast
that with a cut of 60% carbon emissions in the UK by 2030, the GDP
would be 1.1% higher than today. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en-GB">If markets had
perfect foresight the low carbon switch would just happen, but so
long as the market is skewed by fossil fuel subsidies (which the
International Energy Agency says are worth more than five times those
for renewables), it is not going to happen. Only governments can
change this. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-14645530472274140322014-09-02T09:39:00.000-07:002014-09-02T09:39:18.486-07:00Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste: National Screening Exercise - 1 Day MeetingGeological
Disposal of Radioactive
Waste:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
National
Screening Exercise<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<a href="http://report.mynewsletterbuilder.com/t.js?s=53fcaf03af5225b838000d93&u=32599087&v=3&key=e7ef&skey=baf4cf8334&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geolsoc.org.uk%2Fradioactivewaste%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3DMyNewsletterBuilder%26utm_content%3D%23subscriber_id%23%26utm_campaign%3DThe%2BGeological%2BSociety%2Bof%2BLondon%2BNewsletter%2B-%2BIssue%2B240%2B1412142339%26utm_term%3D" moz-do-not-send="true" style="color: #0076a3; font-size: 10pt;" target="_blank"><img align="left" alt="Geological
Disposal of
Radioactive Waste" border="0" height="150" moz-do-not-send="true" src="http://media.jbanetwork.com/image/cache/1/7/9/1/3/8/6_w150_h150_s1_PR15_PCffffff.jpg" style="border-width: 0px; display: block;" width="165" /></a>Most
of the radioactive waste
produced as a result of
nuclear power generation
in the UK since the
1950s is currently
stored at the surface. A
recent <a href="http://report.mynewsletterbuilder.com/t.js?s=53fcaf03af5225b838000d93&u=32599089&v=3&key=ba00&skey=baf4cf8334&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geolsoc.org.uk%2FPolicy-and-Media%2FPolicy-and-Position-Statements%2FImplementing-Geological-Disposal%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3DMyNewsletterBuilder%26utm_content%3D%23subscriber_id%23%26utm_campaign%3DThe%2BGeological%2BSociety%2Bof%2BLondon%2BNewsletter%2B-%2BIssue%2B240%2B1412142339%26utm_term%3DWhite%2BPaper%2Bon%2Bimplementing%2BGeological%2BDisposal" moz-do-not-send="true" style="color: #0076a3; font-size: 10pt;" target="_blank">White Paper on
implementing
Geological Disposal</a>confirms
government’s policy
objective of disposing
of higher level wastes
in a Geological Disposal
Facility (GDF),
minimising the need for
management by future
generations by isolating
waste within a suitable
rock formation, at a
sufficient depth that
harmful quantities of
radiation do not reach
the surface. The White
Paper recognises that a
GDF must be sited in an
area in which the local
community has
volunteered to host the
facility, and which is
geologically suitable.
The Geological Society
issued a <a href="http://report.mynewsletterbuilder.com/t.js?s=53fcaf03af5225b838000d93&u=32599091&v=3&key=420b&skey=baf4cf8334&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geolsoc.org.uk%2FPolicy-and-Media%2FPolicy-and-Position-Statements%2FImplementing-Geological-Disposal%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3DMyNewsletterBuilder%26utm_content%3D%23subscriber_id%23%26utm_campaign%3DThe%2BGeological%2BSociety%2Bof%2BLondon%2BNewsletter%2B-%2BIssue%2B240%2B1412142339%26utm_term%3Dstatement%2Bon%2Bthe%2BWhite%2BPaper" moz-do-not-send="true" style="color: #0076a3; font-size: 10pt;" target="_blank">statement on
the White Paper</a>.<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
The
process outlined in the
White Paper identifies
geological evaluation as
a priority from the
outset. The developer, <a href="http://report.mynewsletterbuilder.com/t.js?s=53fcaf03af5225b838000d93&u=32599093&v=3&key=0abf&skey=baf4cf8334&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nda.gov.uk%2Frwm%2F" moz-do-not-send="true" style="color: #0076a3; font-size: 10pt;" target="_blank">Radioactive
Waste Management
Limited (RWM)</a>,
will undertake a
national Geological
Screening Exercise over
the next two years, and
effective communication
of the results of this
exercise and of
supporting geological
information will be
vital in informing the
deliberations of
potential host
communities. An
independent review panel
will be established by
the Geological Society
to review the robustness
and suitability of the
screening guidance and
its subsequent
application.<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
The
screening exercise will
be discussed at a
one-day technical
meeting at Burlington
House on 30 September.
The meeting is aimed at
geoscientists and other
professional specialists
involved in the process,
<b>but is open to all. </b>It
will be followed by
other events giving the
public and interested
stakeholders the
opportunity to express
their views. Attendance
is free but advance
registration is
required.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
Jenny Huggett (2/9/2014)<br />
</div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-64511486255997030392014-07-28T09:10:00.000-07:002014-07-28T09:16:59.548-07:00International comparison of various national health systems (including the NHS)<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It seems at times that it is taken for
granted that our NHS performs poorly and is in urgent need of reform.
The tactics of the NHS's enemies are pretty transparent: find some
lapse (exaggerate this if necessary – regrettably not always
needed!), and give it wide publicity. Often the intention is to imply
such lapses are typical of the NHS and indicate the need for radical
reform. And under the current government (and often, sadly, the last
Labour government) the assumption is that movement to an
American-style privatised system is required.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The remarkable thing is how
infrequently detailed comparisons between the NHS and the proposed
alternatives are cited. The cynic in me suspects that that's because
comparisons fail to show the performance of the NHS in a poor light.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As it happens a recent survey by the
The Commonwealth Fund, an American private foundation, ranks the UK's
NHS FIRST in the 11 nations surveyed! And the US comes last!</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="firstHeading"></a>The NHS
comes first for efficiency (perhaps not surprisingly to some of us)
and first for “patient-centered care”. So much for the argument
that our <span lang="en">dirigist, top down, statist, monopolistic,
clunky, socialistic system can't deliver!</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en">The one factor in which
the UK does poorly (“healthy lives”) reflects the ability of the
society in general to support and promote public health. On this
factor the US does even worse. Readers may recall that Wilkinson and
Pickett's The Spirit Level showed that high income inequality is
related to unhealthy populations, and, of course, the US and the UK
have much higher income inequality than other developed nations.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span lang="en">So the next time
someone makes an argument that assumes the NHS is rubbish, you can
quote this study. </span><br />
<br />
<span lang="en">The URL for the complete report is http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror.</span><br />
<br />
<span lang="en">Roger Oliver (26/7/2014) </span></div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-86794374920546281212014-02-04T06:59:00.004-08:002014-02-04T06:59:44.030-08:00fracking - news from abroad<pre wrap="">From the Petroleum Exploration Society of GB’s magazine, and article on exploration in Lithuania:
Chevron has pulled out of the recently awarded Silute-Taurage shale gas block following proposed changes in the law that would have increased taxes and imposed additional protection provisions. While the central government is eager to reduce its dependency on Russia for natural gas imports, anti-cracking sentiment took the form of both local protests and political proposals for a moratorium on the practice (sic), ultimately creating too much risk and uncertainty for the US company.
This shows that the protests ARE worthwhile.
----------------------
And the government of Jordan has told Shell that “if a single goat dies" as a result of their planned oil shale extraction in their country they will be kicked out. (I have that from someone very close to the source).
Jenny</pre>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-16340700993682148672013-12-20T09:06:00.000-08:002013-12-20T09:06:06.387-08:00<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB"><b>Anti-fracking
Meeting in Heathfield</b></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">Sorry
to be telling you about this after the event, it was very badly
advertised and I only found out about it at the last minute. Last
week I went to a presentation by Ian Crane, the anti-shale gas
campaigner. Ian is an interesting man, he worked in the drilling
industry for 20 years, becoming a vice-president of Schlumberger and
head of their HR for the Middle East. He resigned after attending the
4</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">th</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">
funeral of a member of staff. Four separate crews, four different
places, all of them members of fracking crews, all of them died of
very aggressive cancers. I can’t easily summarise an hours
presentation and an equally long film, but I can give you a few
choice snippet. Please not very little of this can I substantiate
myself, I am simply passing it on, if you want more evidence go look
for it on the web.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">Did
you know that John Browne, the Governments chief advisor on petroleum
matters, with a cabinet post to boot, is also a senior executive of
Cuadrilla? And that he is not the only government advisor involved in
Cuadrilla at a senior level? These people were probably responsible
for the government decision that the tax payer will pay to clean up
any environmental pollution resulting from shale gas extraction, not
the companies responsible for the accident. Isn’t this a carte
blanche to do what they like to get the reserves out? In the USA the
industry is now effectively deregulated, and the scale of surface and
near-surface pollution in parts of Colorado is shocking. Dick Cheyne
introduced what is known as the Haliburton Loop hole; which removes
all responsibility from the oil industry to report, let alone clean
up, and contamination of water as a result of fracking. Apparently
waste water from test-drilling in Lancashire has been pumped into the
Manchester ship canal, so they are pollution right from the very
start of the industry in this country.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">The
cement casing used to line boreholes, most importantly to line them
through aquifers is not as a reliable preventer of leakage of
fracking fluids into our aquifers as the oil industry would like us
to believe. 50% of cement casings fail over a period of 30 years, 6%
fail immediately. The oil industry would probably argue that shale
gas wells have a working life rather less than 30 years, but that 6%
value is worrying enough. Cement casing failure resulted in both the
Piper Alpha accident and BP’s Gulf of Mexico disaster. The
statistics for cement failure in fracked wells are probably worse
than for conventional drilling because the fracking can trigger
cement failure. Even if the oil companies doing the drilling were not
using any chemicals dangerous to health, cement failure could permit
gas to enter near surface aquifers. Whilst the setting fire to the
tap water incident in the film “Gaslands” has been discredited as
the gas has been tested and is not from shales being fracked, this
does mean that shale gas (“thermogenic” gas) can enter drinking
water. There are reports in the USA of people receiving skin burns
from their tap water.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">Our
privatised water companies are very keen to get into bed with the
shale gas explorers as they see them as their big new market, because
they are going to need so much water. Where is that water going to
come from? We don’t have the enormous aquifers or lakes that occur
in the USA, and if we did it would be highly damaging to the
environment to do so, as has been found in the USA.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">The
presentation included the film “Dash for Gas” which is a well put
together film with some good solid science. If we could get a
screening of that locally and give it some real publicity it would be
well worth doing. “Gaslands” is not a film I would want to show,
as the participants have all been paid off to keep mum. Why? Too much
exaggeration in order to get the environmental point across? Attempts
by US scientists to reproduce results of events filmed have been
stone walled. This is all a great shame, there was no need for such
manipulation.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB"><b>Fracking
Leaks - the following I have gleaned from recent scientific articles.</b></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">Professor
Peter Styles states, in a recent edition of the newsletter of the
Geological Society, that contrary to claims by the Shale Gas
industry, leakage of methane (the principal gas in shale gas) from
extraction, transportation and elivery infrastructure, means that
shale gas cannot be considered to have a low carbon footprint. In
addition there is now incontrovertible evidence from Duke University
(North Carolina) that fracking wells leak. Which leads me onto one
reason why shale gas in Western Europe is such a poor prospect. The
gas-bearing shales of Western Europe have a higher proportion of
natural fractures than do those of N America. It’s not difficult to
imagine what happens if a well is fracked and the man-made fractures
join up with the natural ones. However this is not deterring the
companies such as Cuadrilla, IGas and 3</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">rd</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">
Energy, who will take note of this problem only if they loose large
amounts of propant fluid and sand. As it is they loose 50% of the
fracking fluid into the surrounding rock, and this is considered an
acceptable loss, though they are working to reduce it, if only to
save money. The other big headache for the Shale Gas industry is
people, legislation, high population density in many of the areas
with shale gas resources and the environmental movement. We should
not underestimate the results of our resistance. I have it straight
from the mouth of a geologist working for a major oil company that
the anti-shale gas movement will drive the industry offshore, at the
moment it is prohibitively expensive, but then so was onshore shale
gas extraction 20 years ago….</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">Jenny Huggett</span></span></div>
<br />Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-68223742836771565942013-10-22T07:27:00.003-07:002013-10-22T07:27:33.331-07:00George Monbiot on nuclear power
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
George Monbiot has written about
nuclear power and Hinkley C today in the Guardian (22/10/2013). He
restates his view that electricity generation by nuclear power is a
necessary evil given the threat of man-made climate change. One the
issue of its safety he points out the relatively few deaths caused by
this method of power generation compared with, for example, those
caused by the pollutants resulting from coal-fired power generation.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
However, he ridicules the decision over
the proposed Hinkley C on cost grounds, with an electricity purchase
price tied to the rate of inflation for 40 years.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
He also criticises the decision on the
grounds that it is “outdated” technology, and that integral fast
reactors and thorium reactors would have been more sensible choices.
Such reactor systems have the property of running on nuclear waste
and so reducing not increasing the burden caused by these materials.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Roger Oliver (22/10/2013)</div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-38038707483395490192013-10-12T07:21:00.000-07:002013-10-12T07:21:16.232-07:00fracking (water use and chemical contaminants)
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Yesterday I learnt from an
environmentally minded geologist something rather shocking, but not
entirely surprising: a New Zealand journalist decided to carry out an
investigation into the integrity of the making of the Gaslands film
(about fracking). The idea was that he would interview everyone who
participated in the film. Every single one of them refused to be
interviewed, and it turns out they had all received payment in return
for refusing to comment on the film or the accuracy of what was
portrayed. I find this quite shocking; Gaslands should have been a
truthful film, there was lots that could have been portrayed that
would have been honest and convincing of the necessity to fight those
who want to extract oil and gas from our shale. I am deeply saddened
to learn that the film was even more of a sham than I thought it
was.<br /><br />Today I attended a session on shale gas and fracking and
gleaned a couple of snippets. <br /><br />I can verify the figure I
quoted of around 350,000 gallons of water per frack, BUT I gather
that the average well is fracked 10 times. Hence the confusion in the
values quoted by various sources. What is deeply shocking is that
only 10-50% of the water is recovered, and this is a figure that the
oil industry is working hard to increase.<br /><br />Most of the
environmental concerns are about leakage into aquifers and leakage
from surface holding tanks for the 10-50% water that is returned.
These are factors that can be controlled, and hence the likelihood of
pollution of drinking water, soil etc is, in a well run operation,
very low. The most worrying source of water contamination should be
the escape of tracking fluids from the fractured shale. Whilst
modelling suggests that it does penetrate into the shale very
successfully, after all this is what it is intended to do, the
chemical additives are largely absorbed by the clays in the shale. In
shale being fracked for hydrocarbons the clay content is typically
40%, and because of the small size of clay particles (<4<span style="font-family: Lucida Sans Unicode;"> </span>micrometers)
the surface area for absorption is vast. For the same reason clays
are used for cleaning up contaminated land. So, it may be that
although the water moves into the shale to a distance of several
meters, the chemical additives don't get that far. The average shale
being tracked, is 10s to 100s of meters thick. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Jenny Huggett (12/10/2013) </div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-15820709386542700702013-08-03T10:50:00.000-07:002013-08-17T08:33:06.137-07:00fracking
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB"><b>Fracking</b></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">It
may shock you to know that the anti-fracking campaign is as guilty as
the pro-fracking oil and gas industry of being inaccurate. Rather
than look at all aspects of fracking I am therefore going to
concentrate on some misconceptions. There are plenty of other aspects
I could write about, so this maybe just the first of a series.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>Can
fracking lead to contamination of drinking water?</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">In
theory it can, but there are no proven instances. The oil and gas
industry is less regulated in America than it is here, though even
there liners are placed all the way from the surface to the shale
being fracked. After all it is in no ones interest to loose oil and
gas on the way up. I would like to think that drill-hole liners would
be heavily regulated in this country, to ensure that under normal
circumstances contamination of aquifers could not happen. Fortunately
we don’t have earthquakes big enough to damage liners in this
country. Much of the opposition to shale gas exploration has been
generated by Josh Fox’s film </span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><i>Gasland
</i></span></span><span style="color: #231f20;"><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;">which
is marketed as a “documentary”. This contains the astonishing
film of one Mike Markham, of Weld County, Colorado, setting fire to
water emerging from a his bathroom tap. This has nothing whatsoever
to do with adjacent shale gas production. The phenomenon was
investigated by the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission in
2008 who concluded that the gas was biogenic methane. This conclusion
was not as exciting as the film clip, and so has passed the media by.
In Texas in 2010 year there were reports of groundwater contamination
by shale gas. The Environmental Protection Agency slapped an
emergency protection order on Range Resources’ production of gas
from the Barnett Shale in Parker County. Subsequent investigation
revealed, however, that the contamination predated the shale-gas
fracking. The contaminating gas consists of a mix of methane and
nitrogen, and nitrogen does not occur in the Barnett Shale gas. It
is, however, characteristic of gas from sands in much shallower
sediments. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 0; widows: 0;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>What
is used in the fracking?</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">Between
50,000 ad 350,000 gallons of fluid are used during a fracking
treatment, plus 75,000 to 320,000 lbs of sand to hold the fractures
open. There are also the nasty additives being used in fracking. This
website gives a list:
<a href="http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used">http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used</a></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">It
sounds worse than it is because most of them are inert, and most of
the liquid is water. BUT every company uses a different mix and some
are much worse than others. Shell insist that they use very little
apart from water, sand and gypsum, though this doesn’t let them off
the hook, where is all the water going to come from? And all the
sand? More holes in the ground to put our rubbish in?!</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>How
leaky are the fractures?</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">Real
data collected on many thousands of hydraulic fractures indicate
that the fractures are almost unviersally contained within the shale
being fractured, and do not extend into adjacent aquifers if present.
This however doesn’t mean that fractures can’t and don’t extend
into aquifers. There is also the question of natural faults, ie
natural fractures along which movement has occurred in the past,
causing a displacement of the rocks either side, they can either seal
against or enhance lateral and vertical fluid movement depending upon
the type of fault. This is one I have not heard anyone mention apart
from a retired colleague, and if it had occurred to both of us it
must have occurred to others. In the geological basins being fracked
in the USA the natural fault density is low, in the UK it is high,
not least in the Kimmeridge Clay (actually a shale) being
investigated at Balcombe. What will happen if a faulted shale is
fracked? We believe that the faults, or at least some of them, will
be reactiviated, and may allow fracking fluids to extend much further
than is suggested by the theoretical and experimental work. We also
suspect that it was a fault reactivation that caused the (very minor)
earthquake in Lancashire that has been linked to testing for shale
gas.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB"><i>The
cost of gas and the value of Campaigning</i></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">While
Quadrilla were being worried into reducing the scale of their
operations around Balcombe I was discussing shale gas and shale oil
with oil company geologists, and I thought you would find what they
see in their crystal balls rather interesting.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">In
the 19</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">th</span></span></sup><span style="font-family: Arial, serif;"><span lang="en-GB">
century Oil Shale (when it is called oil shale rather than shale oil
it means the hydrocarbons have not matured sufficiently to become oil
or gas and therefore be able to flow) was quarried and burnt, causing
horrendous pollution: no one wanted to repeat that. Twenty years ago
getting hydrocarbons out of shale was dismissed as fantasy, utterly
uneconomic. Then the price of oil rose steeply, and at the same time,
country’s with highly developed oil technology such as the USA and
the UK found themselves running out of hydrocarbons. Suddenly, even
though vastly more expensive than conventional hydrocarbon
extraction, shale began to look attractive, BUT, only onshore.
Offshore shale gas/oil extraction is still considered too expensive.
With enough campaigning and the continuing rise in the price of oil
we will drive shale gas/oil extraction offshore. In an ideal world we
would not be burning our precious oil and gas reserves, but using
them in other ways (eg plastics), unfortunately that is simply not
going to happen, at least not for a long time, but if we can drive
the oil industry back off shore, we can at least protect our
landscape and aquifers.</span></span></div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div lang="en-GB" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Jenny Huggett (updated 17/8/2013) </span></div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-60172581556269862502013-07-19T08:11:00.000-07:002013-07-19T08:11:03.105-07:00party funding
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There has been much controversy
recently about the role that the trade unions play in the operation
and funding of the Labour party.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This has been sparked by the row over
events in the Falkirk constituency with Unite being accused of paying
the Labour party membership fees for some of its members. There have
even been accusations of people being signed up without their
consent. The latter, of course, is, if true, indefensible. And Len
McClusky is reported (Guardian, 18/7/13) as regretting the former.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Surely more state funding of political
parties as is common in mainland Europe would be better, although the
PR aspects of such a policy don't look too good at the moment! And
more state money in order to produce even more fatuous party
political broadcasts would look bad too.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But hey! Let's get some balance in this
debate. Let's consider the, usually unremarked on, donation of funds
to, usually, the Conservative Party by public companies. These
companies are owned by members of the public, directly as
shareholders, or indirectly via their pension funds. The latter get
absolutely no say on some of their income being diverted to the
Tories. And even share holders can only tick, or not, a box regarding
political donations. A contrary vote does not allow individual
opt-out (as with some Labour Party donations from trade unions) and
the totality of vote is only advisory.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So let's demand an end to individual
political donations in excess of, say, £1000, and a complete end to
donations from public companies and trade unions! We're told that
austerity is good for organisations so let's put the two big parties
on a diet too!</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Roger Oliver (19/7/13)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9000948140638090891.post-19034648980795675062013-07-08T08:45:00.000-07:002013-07-08T08:45:20.197-07:00Fracking, shale gas and climate changeThere's been an interesting exchange of emails in the Guardian recently regarding climate change, shale gas and fracking.<br />
<br />
July
2, 2013 had several letters for and against this source of energy for
the UK. David England stated that methane is 200% as effective as a
greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide and that therefore methane leakage of
shale gas reduces its low-carbon credentials. He mentions concerns in
the US that as much as 16% of methane may be lost in fracking
operations.<br />
<br />
On July 3 David Hookes corrects England's
figure of 200% to 2000% and quotes a figure from a study at Cornell
University that suggests a leakage of only 5% would cancel out the
apparent gain from using shale gas rather than coal.<br />
<br />
On
July 5 Peter Hansen confirms Hookes's figure (well; he quotes methane
being 21 times worse than carbon dioxide which is 2100% but let's not
quibble), and suggests that with 16% leakage of methane this fuel would
cause over 50% more greenhouse warming than using coal.<br />
<br />
So
Hookes and Hansen are, roughly speaking, in agreement and the claim
that using methane extracted by fracking as a fuel helps mitigate
climate change looks pretty dubious.<br />
<br />
Roger Oliver (8/7/13)<br />
<br />Roger Oliverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02011616466762370585noreply@blogger.com0