Fracking – hydraulic fracturing
- This topic has 52 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
That humans will extract energy from the earth in a modern efficient way likely to involve some fossil fuels to some degree for the foreseeable future might be a valid objection to some green political thought generally.That this may involve fracking if it can be made safe (many of fracking's opponents could agree with this) is speculation that is not based in current science or technology. Until there is any evidence to suggest 'safe fracking' (ie. where a leak will not irreversibly contaminate a water table) is possible we should not be bandying this industry PR notion around. To guess at what technology might be used in the future looks silly or dictatorial, since current technology does not always fix itself (as was stated in the SPGB pamphlets) – many technologies can end up as dead-ends, defunct or whatever.The effect of fracking now aren't hard to discern. The effects consists of observations that can be made both by environmentalists and socialists (whether some like the fact this overlaps or not);it is energy inefficient, but lately has become cheaper than other fossil fuel extraction. Gasland has figures for how much clean water is used, but to say it in capitalist terms, clean water is too cheap a commodity for the fracking process and its consequences.it is pollutive of the airif wells leak, the water table is contaminated. Its not clear that water tables can be decontaminated.What's unique to the socialist case, is any discussion of adverse negative effects are also maligned becauseboth the interests of industry and government (who are likely to be in a better position to assess the science) are in minimising the criticismThis is systemic because capital runs government and industry whereas greens think you can run capital and its just the fault of bad governments or evil capitalists and you need good governments and nice capitalists.
The petrochemical industry is not all that insignificant nor are its products:http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/1053386/analyzing_the_global_petrochemical_industryLet's not be too sweeping in our statements about oil.
More hand-in-glove agreements between industry and government over shale gas are reported in the guardian todayhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/17/emails-uk-shale-gas-fracking-opposition
Quote:Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said: "This is yet more evidence of the creepily cosy relationship between Decc and big energy. Apparently it's not enough to give fracking companies generous tax breaks, the government also has to help them with their PR. Instead of cheerleading for fracking, the government should be working with community and renewable energy to move us towards a low carbon future."An article in Socialist Standard claimed "These people don’t know what they’re talking about."I went over to the green party website and downloaded their policy on fracking from herehttp://greenparty.org.uk/policies.html
Adam, my argument is specifically about gas exraction by using Fracking. I am not, nor have not mentioned oil in this respect.
Just one of the anti fracking sites; Kate Sinding’s BlogNew Scientific Evidence on Fracking's Risks Shows Cuomo Should Stand Firm on MoratoriumPrint this pagePosted November 1, 2013 in Curbing Pollution, Health and the Environment, Living SustainablyTags:cuomo, drinkingwater, fracking, health, hydraulicfracturing, hydrofracking, newyorkMore Sharing ServicesShare | Share on twitter | | NRDC and a coalition of environmental and public health advocacy groups today sent a memo to Governor Cuomo outlining a variety of new scientific evidence showing the magnitude of potential risks from fracking has grown significantly. In light of this new evidence, we are urging the Governor to stand firm in maintaining New York’s moratorium on the controversial practice while the state thoroughly evaluates the science around risks to public health and the environment.We are further urging him to take the state’s on-going review of health impacts to the next level – by committing to perform a formal health impact assessment that would, among other things, provide for full public participation and input from New York State medical professionals.This new evidence includes:Evidence linking water contamination to fracking-related activities has increased. New evidence from across the country – in Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Dakota, Kentucky and elsewhere – is increasingly showing that fracking-related drilling, spills and accidents have conclusively resulted in drinking and surface water contamination.The disposal of fracking wastewater has been causally linked to earthquakes. From Ohio to Oklahoma – and with the new prospect of fracking in California on the horizon – the risk of earthquakes from the disposal of fracking wastewater through deep well injection is raising alarm bells.Air quality impacts from fracking-related activities are clearer than ever. They include evidence of unsafe levels of pollutants such as ozone, benzene, and silica dust – pollutants that are linked to costly, disabling health problems.The economic benefits of the fracking boom have been challenged as being over-hyped and short-lived. As the industry has overproduced its own product, driving the price of natural gas down to historic lows, companies have been forced to shut in operations in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.This new information comes to light just days before New York State GOP Chairman Ed Cox is expected to launch an attack on Governor Cuomo over fracking. Cox will take aim at him for not greenlighting the controversial process quickly, and instead taking the time to evaluate the risks and learn the lessons from the consequences we’ve seen unfold in states around the country.The evidence also comes out while we learn more about the people who are pushing for fracking to move forward, and insisting that it is safe. A Mother Jones piece out this week revealed that one of the more vocal proponents of fracking (including in New York State)—the deceptively named American Council on Science and Health—is, perhaps not surprisingly, solicits funding from the oil and gas industry, including the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, and ExxonMobil.This group—whose Executive Director spent two years in prison for defrauding the NYS Medicare program of $8 million—claims that its mission is to debunk what it calls “junk science” about environmental and public health risks from advocacy groups like NRDC (yes, we’re named specifically on their website – alongside the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Environmental Working Group).
Adam’s argument is perfectly reasonable. Capitalist drive for profits causes short-comings in safety precautions being taken. Socialism can rectify those. However, accidents and genuine misfortune do occur and socialism can only minimise those and not prevent them entirely. If the type and scale of technology used involve dire consequences if safe-guards fail – should we gamble with the odds when alternative technology already exists and there is no imperative requirement inside socialism to adopt fracking, GMO, nuclear energy and many other risk-carrying technologies.While we can easily recognise the benefits of medical research into drugs we do not endorse its priorities, that even capitalists such as Bill Gates can see clearly are skewed in the sense more scientific resources goes into curing baldness than malaria. So similarly some socialists feel the same about fracking etc That it should be opposed because it is a diversion from deploying the skills and knowledge to solve more pressing human needs. As we always point out, only socialism can turn tanks into tractors. Likewise, only socialism can end environmentally destructive extractive industries. To sit on the fence is to side with the capitalist class. As Adam also pointed out, the material requirements for socialism has long been achieved. I say the need for socialists to support dark satanic mills is also in the past. It is not for the current members of the SPGB to set what the acceptable risks are to be in socialism, but we can take a stand on what they should be in the capitalist world we live in now. We leave the quibbling over allowable CO2 and methane levels – and stick to our position – system change not climate change.
steve colborn wrote:The economic benefits of the fracking boom have been challenged as being over-hyped and short-lived. As the industry has overproduced its own product, driving the price of natural gas down to historic lows, companies have been forced to shut in operations in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.This is its Achilles' heel within capitalism. But having said that if a socialist society agrees that fracking is found to be feasible and potential risks can be mitigated, and also there is no scientific reason for opposing its adoption – there is no doubt it will become part of the energy strategy for maintaining human needs.In the meantime we don't support this technology of resource extraction due to the lack of scientific investigation on the risks involved.My pennyworth.
Bought a copy of the SPEW paper "The Socialist" (so-called) when I was in Brixton this morning. The back page has a banner headline "No to Fracking". Apparently a company wants to drill for shale gas in Salford. One passage quotes one of their members.:
Quote:Speaking from the platform at the rally Steve North, branch secretary of Salford City Unison, linked the struggle against fracking with the struggle against council cuts and austerity.Eh? Come again. How?No explanation of why they're opposed to it. They are just employing the Leninist tactic of trying to win the leadership of any discontented group, including as in this case nimbys. And of course it's much easier to attract support by being against something rather than for anything.
As we always argue – the State is the agent of the capitalist class. Ministers are considering changing trespass laws to make it easier for energy companies to carry out fracking beneath people's homes without permission. Currently operators need to ask homeowners before they drill under their land, but they have a right to appeal by law if an agreement cannot be reached. "There is an existing legal route by which operators can apply for access where this can't be negotiated. We're currently considering whether this existing route is fit for purpose," said a spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25914066
Short version.There is no socialist position on screw drivers.So too there is no socialist position on fracking.Fracking is not a political question. The political question is who rules? Once we've sorted that one out, then we can start arguing about fracking.
Interesting:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26007057State power in action:
Quote:Solicitors for residents near Fernhurst, in West Sussex, have written to Celtique Energie and the Energy Secretary Ed Davey to explicitly deny permission to drill under their land .It comes after the government said it may alter trespass law to make drilling under property easier for companies.[./quote]So, whilst some appear to be trying to assert their eternal right to property, the capitalist state, in the interests of wealthy extraction firms (and also strategic 'national interest') is preparing to override that (what is Cameron, a communist?).And according to the Times:
Quote:An estimated 400 planning cases will go before specialist judges working to fixed time limits as part of a move by ministers to stop "meritless" challenges that clog up courts and delay or scupper building schemes.The proposal for the new court is included in a package of measures to be put forward by Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, to halt a rise in judicial reviews, which have trebled in a decade to more than 12,000 a year.Strict new curbs will mean that only individuals or groups with a financial interest in a case can bring a challenge. The reforms will also put an end to challenges by individuals and campaigners who do not have to pay legal costs, which results in taxpayers picking up the bill. Campaigners who lodge challenges will have to reveal any financial backers, so courts can impose costs fairly.So, they want law for the owners of (some) property, but not others. Is a 370 wait for a big project unreasonable? In a society that even remotely tends towards democracy, the right to review decisions of elected and otehrwise officials is vital. the alternative is the dictatorship of the wealthy.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Is a 370 wait for a big project unreasonable?I don't know. What is a "370 wait"?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.