June 05, 2016

Fear of climate change leads Scottish Parliament to vote for fracking ban

Holly NicholasRebel Commentator

The Scottish parliament has voted in favour of a ban on fracking. It’s not binding, but it’s a step further in the direction of keeping fossil fuels in the ground and implementing a green energy strategy.

The argument centres around climate change fear mongering with more platitudes than facts and the usual claim that the science is settled. It’s not. There’s ongoing debate between scientists about how much impact humans actually have on the environment.

What greenies fail to realize is that studies have been done and the results show that the benefits of fracking outweigh the risks. There’s a common misconception that fracking is a new technology. It’s not, having been used safely and effectively for decades. The newer technology is horizontal drilling in which more fractures are induced along the wellbore but the same general processes have been used for decades.

There’s a call for public consultation and more research before another well is drilled. The politicians don’t directly state the feared risks but it’s usually a concern over the effects on groundwater and earthquakes. But this research has already been done. In fact, the United States Environmental Protection Agency recently released a report on the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water stating “We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.”

The United States Geological Survey has also done extensive studies on fracking and earthquakes finding that human induced earthquakes aren’t caused by the fracking procedure itself but by the disposal of waste water which creates pressure under the surface, causing fractures, which in turn cause slight tremors. The majority of these events measure at magnitudes between 2 and 3 – so, they’re not major and are rarely even felt.

The argument to ban fracking and fossil fuels isn’t a logical one based on available research. Green energy sources are unreliable and require fossil fuels as a back-up. Green advocates would like us to believe that the science is settled and that green energy is viable but we need only look at Germany to see their coal consumption has increased and so have green house gas emissions as a result.

Despite all this, the advocates of green energy continue to choose to ignore the facts and stick to their narratives – all in the name of something that has yet to be proven.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-06-06 11:40:32 -0400
Ilma Sixthirty commented – “They obviously don’t fear plunging millions of consumers and businesses into darkness when the renewable sources fail”

Well that’s the point isn’t it – there are no repercussions for disastrous policy from poor/damaging government. Damage this large cannot be repaired by simply voting the scum out and replacing them with more grafting dystopian scum.

The democratic systems in the west are broken and people are experiencing the decline of getting worse and worse government which is less and less accountable to them.
commented 2016-06-06 08:16:33 -0400
They obviously don’t fear plunging millions of consumers and businesses into darkness when the renewable sources fail to generate, and these same millions of consumers into fuel and general poverty when they get hit with the inflated renewables bill. Also, if the UK votes to leave the UK, they’ll need to divorce themselves from the UK Union and go grovelling to the EU for cash to prop up their failing economy, but that process will take years, if ever, so they’ll be both lonely and bust. You would think a little common sense would be present, but for socialist (SNP, Labour) MPs, it’s totally lacking.
commented 2016-06-06 08:01:24 -0400
Fracking has been going on for 70 years…funny they are just ‘discovering’ the dangers…didn’t anyone notice the catastrophic effects of it before now or are some people who produce oil just averse to other countries, towns, cities,benefiting from the financial security of oil production?
commented 2016-06-06 07:34:22 -0400
@ John Landry commented 19 hours ago
The Scots might be holding their cards close to their chests, just like Quebec with it’s yet untapped massive oil wells. If either of them were to separate in the future, it would be a quick source of funding.
Kebec needs to leave soon – yesterday would have been four days too late
commented 2016-06-06 02:28:51 -0400
JAY KELLY…quote:- “It seems that the negative effects of fracking are felt almost immediately (within a few months).”… Can you name even ONE “within a few months” example???….
commented 2016-06-06 01:41:17 -0400
Well at least Putin will have them by the balls.
commented 2016-06-06 01:40:42 -0400
So not utilizing an extremely clean source of energy is being green?
commented 2016-06-06 01:39:06 -0400
Jay Kelly that is total crap , i suppose you believe that property owner found 3 types of military grade Uranium in his water as well? If you believe that then tell us why there have been more than 1,000,000 wells since the 50’s and no huge amount of earthquakes? You do realize it has been around for decades now eh?
commented 2016-06-06 01:08:34 -0400
I love Holly’s oil videos.
commented 2016-06-05 22:39:50 -0400
I was startled when I saw a report on fracking in Ohio that said the property insurance rates have to change because Ohio now has more earthquakes and tremors than California.

It seems that the negative effects of fracking are felt almost immediately (within a few months).

Scotland, and other potential fracking areas, will probably have to experience it for themselves. Once the property insurance rates go up people will go with their wallets.

No more fracking, no thanks.
commented 2016-06-05 20:13:57 -0400
If the science has been settled would it not make economical sense to fire all the scientists who settled the science? It would seem to me they’re job would now be redundant.
commented 2016-06-05 19:11:06 -0400
well Scotland…go frack yourself!
how did they turn into a bunch of pussies?
commented 2016-06-05 18:29:56 -0400
The science is not settled and enough doubt in AGW theories exists that politicians enacting damaging economic agendas on such dubious |crisis" management should be considered dangerously irresponsible and dealt with accordingly
commented 2016-06-05 16:39:36 -0400
Lookout Canada, this settled science his coming to a country near you.

Where Germany is a great example of how well Green energy works, we have an example closer to home, it’s called Ontario.
commented 2016-06-05 15:20:12 -0400
Add Scotland to the list of countries i will never go to . Come on Trump be president already.
commented 2016-06-05 13:52:06 -0400
Ironic…. Looking at the Scottish flag – the Cross of St. Andrew – I am reminded that on this side of the pond we have Nova Scotia who’s provincial flag is a deliberate reversal of the Scottish flag, yet Bluenosers also have a ban on fracking… They would rather live off federal transfer payment from Ottawa and inflated contracts for shipbuilding…
commented 2016-06-05 13:38:51 -0400
Good luck Holly.
Somewhere on the inter web net thingy I found this quote from Bill Murray ( not sure if he was the original source )
“It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”
There are a lot of stupid sheeple in the world.
commented 2016-06-05 12:44:11 -0400
About 160 days until Trump-mas.

And while the rest of the world stays economically crippled, the US will expand its reach.
commented 2016-06-05 12:22:38 -0400
The Scots might be holding their cards close to their chests, just like Quebec with it’s yet untapped massive oil wells. If either of them were to separate in the future, it would be a quick source of funding.
commented 2016-06-05 12:16:57 -0400
One of the few countries I had faith in – I just lost it.

The pragmatic Scot seems to be dead.

Becoming more like the Brits and French and Germans every day.