Fracking banned in UK as government makes major U-turn

The automobile cause chaos in the horse and buggy era. Big deal. I aint giving up my automobile to back to the house and buggy. That's stupid.

Here's some chaos that did some good--it ended Stalin's reign.



As to Putin. He's read Ayn Rand. He has no excuse for being a Stalin-Lite despot.

 

This is immoral, for each mind must answer to its own conscience. Otherwise, what's the point of life, to serve the minds of others? Isn't that slavery?

The human mind is superior to God's; its real, not supernatural.

Absurd. Intelligence is the "knowing" of things, to say that to take pride in the "knowing" of things leads one to ignorance is an excellent example of being ignorant of maintaining a contradiction.

Capitalism: Ford made auto's available to the common man. Death toll so far? About 3,500,000. Mass murderer? Uncaring neanderthal? Altruist? Or a selfish man looking to make a buck. (Ford had to know that people would die driving cars. Don't you think so?) God bless the selfish, they will remake the earth in their image.

Collectivism: Over 120 million slaughtered by Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot, Xi Jinping, Kim Il-Sung Ho Chi Minh, and I'm sure Putin will find his place in the history books as a footnote about tyranny. It appears to me that at the very least, the capitalists have more living and the collectivists have more dying. God dmn the altruists, there is no limit to the number of screams of horror and terrors, nor fields of corpses, they will create in their quest "for the good of all".

And lastly, as this is about fracking and the coming end of human life on the planet, I suggest the evidence is that fracking will cause for less damage to the environment than Russia's nuclear program. Not because it's nuclear, but because it's Russian.

 

Foreign nuclear companies, too. Creating a nuclear power alternative for the world would likely be an all-hands-on-deck effort by nuclear capable companies and countries.

 

I know of two times that man's greatness was lauded, and that was by the ship designer of the Titanic and the architect of the World Trade Center who said they were a testimony to what man can achieve. (When I read it at the time it bothered me. I felt he was tempting God - even though I and everyone else in NY considered those buildings extremely ugly).

The Nazi hymn was also a testimony to man's 'will' and what man will can achieve if he wants to. The hymn oddly enough starts off the same as the beautiful Christian hymn 'How Great Thou Art', and then the melody becomes less spiritual and instead of glorifying God, it becomes an empowerment of man's own will.

Notice the similarities and the differences.

Christian Hymn and God's Will


Nazi Hymn and Man's Will

 

Nope there are countries we need to not have any nuclear capability. It was a mistake to allow Pakistan, india,iran and north korea to have what they already do. China and Russia could be added too

 

That's fine, but they have the genie now.

If we determine climate change is real and action must be taken, it follows we should figure out what we have to do to rescue the planet. If nuclear reactors are part of the energy mix--for some countries closer to the Poles?--we need an international treaty to deal with use and control of reactors and nuclear material.

 

Instead of labelling people so as to impose a fallacy into people's minds, how about telling us what Vladimir Putin did that makes him tyrannical? Is it because he didn't invade Ukraine and kill the illegal junta, mafia and Nazis that were put in by Nuland, or that he didn't support the terrorists in Syria and help them ethnically cleanse the Christians and destroy the country like the UK, Fr., Turkey, KSA, Qatar and yes; Israel.

Russia was invited in legally by the elected president Assad to protect his people and his country. What country was the US invited into these past 20 years? Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria? Now let me ask you something else, is labelling others without facts and proof what you mean by using your own mind and going by your own conscience? Sounds more like going by your own prejudices and self interests - which is very reminiscent of our own foreign policy of 'Strategic Ambiguity'.

Time to face reality, Russia didn't end the arms treaty, Washington did, and Russia isn't the one surrounding the US with bases either. Everything Russia does is purely defensive and for its survival. Can we say the same?

On Ode To Our Strategic Ambiguity Foreign Policy

.​

I'm singing now a wondrous song
To tell the world that right is wrong
and what you thought was naught before
was just a lie that you had bought -
from us - Jeannette



​

(Strategic ambiguity - presenting interpretations rather than facts so as to impress fallacies into people's minds.)

​

 

Since we are the most aggressive nation on the planet, and the one that breaks international law continuously, aren't we the ones that shouldn't have nuclear arms? This is not the same country it was when Eisenhower was President, and when we had a certain amount of decency and humanity. We are now a criminal nation. Putin started rebuilding Russia's military from the time Clinton ignored Russia's veto and bombed Belgrade for 78 days and killed thousands on false premises.

Since then we invaded Iraq illegally killing thousands; Libya illegally killing thousands; Syria illegally killing thousands, and overthrew an elected president of Ukraine in a coup so we could install criminal oligarchs and Nazis in Ukraine. This too resulted in wars and the deaths of thousands. The oligarchs stole billions from the IMF, and the Ukrainian people are trying to survive on $200 a month.

 

Nothing wrong with killing enemies.

 

Putin was not an enemy, and understood that the US would do what's in its own self interest. He excused the robberies in the 90's when we installed Yeltsin and Russians were going hungry, because its wealth was bought up by oligarchs with money from foreign banks and sent to Britain, Switzerland and Israel.

He even excused the CIA agents that were found embedded with the terrorists in Chechnya and who were tearing the country apart. He warned Bush not to mess around with terrorists, and two weeks later 911 happened. The US wanted to split Chechnya from Russia to destroy the pipe lines that was part of Russia's life line so it could establish its own pipe line from the Caspian through Turkey. We were costing Russian lives and yet Putin was still not an enemy.

The only people that are to blame for the situation that exists today are the idiots who form our foreign policy in Washington - and Trump is a prisoner to it. Had they listened to men that are knowledgeable about Russia like Dr. Paul Craig Roberts or Prof. Stephen Cohen, the situation would be way different. But Washington is so full of hubris that they think they know everything and they know nothing.

Before Russia began developing its hypersonic weapons, Putin blew up at the reporters for not telling the American people what our government was leading us into so he wouldn't have to develop those weapons - but it was to no avail.

Washington Gods
​

Take that you fools of misery,
for we are gods of lofty see,
and dwellest not like folks below
who knowest not, but what we show.

In the media that is - Jeannette



​

 

I am against fracking. It appears to cause shifting in the earth. Causing earthquakes. Something drilling for oil has rarely been tied to. It appears that Oklahoma is one area that it greatly effects and that State should be allowed to pass legislation to ban it. It should be up to each State.

 

Stalin is not the one who burned down 60 thousand churches, many with people inside, and killed over 20 million Christians. It was Lenin and his side kick Trotsky. When Lenin died and Stalin gained power, he gave the murderers their due - something they well deserved.

 

It opens holes in the earth, and that allows magma to seep through and cause earthquakes. Those holes can never be closed. If you see the amount of fracking installations throughout the country you will get sick. I did!

 

I have had a look and it does appear that there is a strong pressure for people to say that nuclear must be a part of the solution - it seemed to be mainly coming from the US. It looks like the IPCC was getting a lot of pushing possibly both ways it moved back and forth. I think but am not sure that the current is no fission - that is because I could not find it among their suggested sources of energy. I can remember hearing some years ago that nuclear was going to be the answer. I was up to thinking about that because having a planet to live in was more important than worry about the occasional accident which was the only danger I knew about them.

However when I started following this seriously I soon came up against scientists strongly against them and the strongest reason they gave was that with the massive increase in weather extremes - and indeed wars due to problems which climate extreme will possibly bring, they were incredibly dangerous. I am thinking in particular of Guy McPherson but others as well who could see them being blown up and destroyed - I seem to remember them particularly mentioning with them being built near the sea.

Most of the reasons against fission are in the link I gave before

https://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/Nuclear-power-a-false-solution-to-climate-change-44206

It is mentioned there but I think it is worth mentioning again nuclear waste which will remain a hazzard to the world for hundreds of thousands of years. I was reading last night that Britain had been offering astronomical amounts of money for anyone prepared to take ours for the past 70 years without success.

There certainly seems to be a 'push' for appropriate bodies to say that nuclear will be a ''necessary component'' of climate survival but that push seems to come from the US and from those nuclear bodies themselves and looks to me like the worst possible solution and one which is likely itself to finish off the job it would be there to stop.

As far as I am aware fusion is different in that it does not have the negatives of fission so obviously that would be an ideal if that is correct. The problem there being it has not been developed.

As far as needing nuclear. Well I noticed last night that my county, Scotland does not believe it needs nuclear though I also note that we are having pressure to buy small nuclear, which initial reading suggests are worse. We do not appear to need them so imo it would be crazy to have them, I noticed that Westminster had initially suggested the UK would need them for 30% of energy but that people were now saying it ought not be anything like that amount.

Renewables become much cheaper in time so cost is not a problem. I see nuclear fission as the worst possible alternative to fossil fuels and one which is at core exceptionally dangerous and insane to put in when the very point is to make the planet safe. IMO they should be kept to the absolute minimum while work is going on with renewables until we wait to see if fusion, assuming it is as safe as I think becomes available, if it does.

 

I oppose the tyranny of the ignorant and support fracking, and the right of any individual to frack away to his hearts content.

 

One’s free will is one’s ability to choose a course of thought and action. Some choose evil, like Putin; some choose beauty, like Alma.

The will to create:

 

Relevance?

Someone in the government? Who?

Again, who says you won't need nuclear power? What are your options?

They're not cheaper than fossil fuels--yet.

So much for having an open mind.

We need to get going on solutions to global warming. We can't afford a gradualist approach.

 

Sorry Russia is our enemy. Always has been. It is not Russia's right to resist regions seeking their freedom.

 

LOL. Ask the Kulaks about Saint Stalin. Or the Generals purged before WWII, or the prisoners of the Gulags. Ah, Father Stalin, he left us all too soon.

Collectivisation in Stalin's Russia
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/ztqmwxs/revision/2


This collectivization, destroying individual lives for the good of all, sounds a lot like the fracking ban, and the push to ban all fossil fuels. Bet that human slaughter that will exceed Stalin and Mai’s body count ten-fold.

 

If renewables are so wonderful and cheap, why do they need the government’s gun to force individuals to use them?

 

Hopefully the US isn't stupid enough to ban fracking. This is how you can gain energy Independence.

 

It is always relevant to see where a particular demand is coming from.

I did not mention anyone in Government.

We intend to be 100% renewables for electricity by 2020 for everything by 2045- the 2050 date in the link below has been changed to 2045 for virtually zero carbon. It is likely that this will need to be brought forward more but to date we have been ahead of our estimates.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/sco...ind-energy-to-power-its-homes-twice-over.html

You can look at where our renewables come from here
https://www.gov.scot/policies/renewable-and-low-carbon-energy/

This appears to be the attitude of the US. Looking up on your interest in nuclear power I discovered the US shut some of its nukes in order to get 'cheaper' from gas, possibly the subject of this thread, fracking gas.

Renewables will soon be the cheapest and will continue at that. The added advantage over the one you stated is that they do not make our planet uninhabitable.

https://www.power-technology.com/features/cheapest-renewable-energy-sources/

Like others before it Tidal will likely come down in cost. Storage is currently also a bit costly but that no doubt will also change and even if it did not, there is not going to be much fun in living in a planet not fit for human habitation because one gets cheap fossil fuel.

I suspect that in your desire to attack personally you forgot what having an open mind means. Having an open mind does not mean agreeing with what you or anyone else says. Having an open mind means being open to various options and then choosing what you believe is best. I explained how initially I was open to nuclear but on getting more informed I believe it is the worst option for replacement energy. Of course in recent years many countries have actively expanded their renewable capability. It would seem from your earlier comment about fossil fuels being cheaper than renewables as well as well as the US shutting nuclear power stations to use this cheaper fossil fuel which I am imagining comes from fracking, that the US living on the basis of what is cheapest at the moment is best, plus some other things I have seen has not properly invested in renewables and is somewhat behind much of the world.

Exactly. The US should have been working on that rather than reneging on Paris 2015, investing in fracking and closing its nuclear power stations before it had invested in renewables. It is the US not the world, certainly not Europe and parts of the ME who has been slow to act. That is why you are thinking about not a 'gradualist' approach when most people have been working on this for at least a decade. New nuclear power stations take around ten years to build and are extremely expensive - a couple of other things against them. The rest of the world will be well settled with their renewable energy plans by then.

 

BS Big time.

 

Ageism... How sad...

 

I couldn't believe it when Japan began building their nuclear energy plants considering the amount of earthquakes they have. Well it turned out I was right. The Pacific is still endangered by leaks into the water. Germany was smart to stop them and make amends with Russia who has proven to be dependable. At least someone has some brains.