One year on from Blackpool and Fukushima....

[Demetrius]

The EPA isn't a commercial organization, it's the US government's Evironmental Protection Agency. If you're only going on one article, then why not read a little more before arriving at a position on the subject?

However, every governmental Agency or Institution in the US is by default heavily influenced by commercial interrests. That might be for better or worse, as in this particular case it could be influenced either by the Oil Lobby or the Environmental Lobby, possibly even both of them. A two line quote from an Agency of any kind does not tell anything, as long as you don't know its bias.

I have no deep knowledge on the subject, but looking at your quote, I can't help but notice that the wording does not indicate a scientific "objective" approach. "statistically zero" and "Name any other industrial process with that kind of record" reveals a) bias, b) a defensive Attitude against someone who is asked tho name said process and c) a certain propagandistical intention. The Argument itself might still be true and the bias might be reasonable - but an objective comment it is not. Also, the Final Report of the EPA for this is projected for the Year 2014, so what they produce today might not yet be conclusive, even if they were unbiased

[amateur51]

No I didn't say learning about music in general is a waste of time, simply that I didn't waste my time on a study of spectral morphology in particular. And there's no implication from me that you've said anything particular about banning, but rather that since you confess to having read very little about fracking (as I have about spectral morphology) that perhaps it ill behoves you to wade in with ad hominem comments against Boris who clearly does know something about the subject.

This is the same Boris who writes a weekly column of the type cited for the Torygraph for a fee of £250k/annum which he described once as "chicken feed". He's supposed to be the full-time Mayor

If I had to choose one word to describe Boris' approach to public office it would be 'cavalier'

[Serial_Apologist]

This is the same Boris who writes a weekly column of the type cited for the Torygraph for a fee of £250k/annum which he described once as "chicken feed". He's supposed to be the full-time Mayor

If I had to choose one word to describe Boris' approach to public office it would be 'cavalier'

I believe he still cycles everywhere. He could just become a victim of his latest failure to do much to improve the lot of London cyclists, leading as it is to a mounting (pun not intended) record of injury and worse.

[ahinton]

This is the same Boris who writes a weekly column of the type cited for the Torygraph for a fee of £250k/annum which he described once as "chicken feed".

He must have some pretty impressive rare breed organically reared free range chickens, then; I wonder if he keeps them in a duck house?...

He's supposed to be the full-time Mayor

I think that even such a position would allow him to write a little journalism and even keep a few chickens, actually.

If I had to choose one word to describe Boris' approach to public office it would be 'cavalier'

Leaving aside whether this is intended to imply that even if he doesn't have a round head there's not much of use inside it, should it also be taken to read that you consider his journalism to he horse-s**t (as distinct, one hopes, from chicken feed)?

[ahinton]

I believe he still cycles everywhere. He could just become a victim of his latest failure to do much to improve the lot of London cyclists, leading as it is to a mounting (pun not intended) record of injury and worse.

Do you mean that you consider him to have put a spoke in his own proposals or that he's put the brakes on them or back-pedallled on them or that he's simply not geared up to the job at all and now wishes that he'd never been saddled with the responsibility of being chained to it? Perhaps Colin Matthews would have made a better job of it.

[teamsaint]

Unless you have a lot of time on your hands, and a good deal of expertise, real certainty on these matters is quite hard to achieve. Most of us, most of the time, are going to come to our judgements on partial information.
Its really important that these matters aren't just left in the hands of professionals (usually on one side or the other).
So we then surely need to make some judgement calls about the risk and benefits.
Fot instance, if we want to keep using the current nuclear technology, its now clear that this will end in another major meltdown somewhere , sometime. 3 already in the last 30 years says so. There may be benefits to nuclear, but the benefits seem largely to be in the minds of those involved in the industry.



Now, I am not in a position to make close technical judgements. But I do know a couple of things. I really don't want fracking going on, while if the risk of poisoned groundwater or earthquakes is small.And fracking still produces green house gases. Accidents DO happen.I really don't want more nuclear accidents built....3 is far too many. And wind turbines, which may well prove to be a triumph of lobbying over practical power generating decisions,can be dismantled.

[Serial_Apologist]

Do you mean that you consider him to have put a spoke in his own proposals or that he's put the brakes on them or back-pedallled on them or that he's simply not geared up to the job at all and now wishes that he'd never been saddled with the responsibility of being chained to it? Perhaps Colin Matthews would have made a better job of it.

I nearly suffered a chain reaction from reading that.

One of his spokespersons should know...

[ahinton]

One of his spokespersons should know...

Possibly, but I'd really rather not ask, having already mentioned a spoke. Incidentally, do you imagine that, with all that hair, a handlebar moustache along Elgarian lines might suit him?

Anyway, how long do you suppose it might be before he introduces congestion charges for bikes?

Sorry; I must stop being so tyresome and pump a little sense into what I'm posting.

[ahinton]

Unless you have a lot of time on your hands, and a good deal of expertise, real certainty on these matters is quite hard to achieve. Most of us, most of the time, are going to come to our judgements on partial information.
Its really important that these matters aren't just left in the hands of professionals (usually on one side or the other).
So we then surely need to make some judgement calls about the risk and benefits.
Fot instance, if we want to keep using the current nuclear technology, its now clear that this will end in another major meltdown somewhere , sometime. 3 already in the last 30 years says so. There may be benefits to nuclear, but the benefits seem largely to be in the minds of those involved in the industry.



Now, I am not in a position to make close technical judgements. But I do know a couple of things. I really don't want fracking going on, while if the risk of poisoned groundwater or earthquakes is small.And fracking still produces green house gases. Accidents DO happen.I really don't want more nuclear accidents built....3 is far too many. And wind turbines, which may well prove to be a triumph of lobbying over practical power generating decisions,can be dismantled.

I'm not in favour of fracking either, but what would you propose instead?

[teamsaint]

I nearly suffered a chain reaction from reading that.

One of his spokespersons should know...

perhaps he's got a handle on it after all.

[teamsaint]

I'm not in favour of fracking either, but what would you propose instead?

I would suggest that the government appoint some people with serious knowledge and expertise, who are as "neutral as possible", to investigate rapidly every existing technology , and invest in the best and cleanest at every level. I would follow this up with large scale government investment in the greenest, most efficient technologies.
FWIW I would like to see our energy needs reduced by a combination of a reduction in unnecessary production (EG laptops that conk out after 18 months), massive investment in reduction in household energy through the available technologies which AIC seems well versed in.
I would also look hard at increasing micro generation, at houshold level. It has to be part of the answer.
And the money can be found at government level. we are paying huge subsidies to all sorts of programmes, including new nuclear. This could be diverted.

[Serial_Apologist]

Possibly, but I'd really rather not ask, having already mentioned a spoke. Incidentally, do you imagine that, with all that hair, a handlebar moustache along Elgarian lines might suit him?

But with a blond moustache he would more resemble a modern Dutch policeman than Sir Edward!

Anyway, how long do you suppose it might be before he introduces congestion charges for bikes?

Good question: there would certainly be loud objections from us lot. While Boris is pumping more money into "improving the road infrastructure" he has earmarked less for cycling. While I was surprised to hear, according to a Tory councillor, that 80% of London transport is by road, I would think that of that a sizeable proportion must comprise bus travel, and a growing proportion, cycling.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

However, every governmental Agency or Institution in the US is by default heavily influenced by commercial interrests. That might be for better or worse, as in this particular case it could be influenced either by the Oil Lobby or the Environmental Lobby, possibly even both of them. A two line quote from an Agency of any kind does not tell anything, as long as you don't know its bias.

I have no deep knowledge on the subject, but looking at your quote, I can't help but notice that the wording does not indicate a scientific "objective" approach. "statistically zero" and "Name any other industrial process with that kind of record" reveals a) bias, b) a defensive Attitude against someone who is asked tho name said process and c) a certain propagandistical intention. The Argument itself might still be true and the bias might be reasonable - but an objective comment it is not. Also, the Final Report of the EPA for this is projected for the Year 2014, so what they produce today might not yet be conclusive, even if they were unbiased

Reading about the EPA gives one every impression that they are not influenced by any political lobby.

I take it the quote you are taking me to task for is

There have been well over 1 million oil and gas wells fracked since the 1940s in the U.S. There have been over 50,000 oil and gas wells horizontally fracked since the early 2000s. If Pavillion is proven to be a case where water has been contaminated by fracking, it would be the only known case—statistically zero. Name any other industrial process with that kind of record.

I completely disagree with your criticism of a lack of objectivity. The important part of the quote argues from very impressive, testable facts which can be checked for any bias. You cannot claim bias in this sentence unless you can objectably demonstrate proven counter facts. As for the final sentence being defensive and aimed at propoganda, I'd rather see it as being somewhat assertive. And I see nothing wrong with this propoganda when the other side of the argument against fracking is issuing counter propoganda largely based on myth.

[teamsaint]

I wonder why, if fracking is so safe, and it will produce energy security with a relatively low CO2 emitting product, there is so much anti fracking propaganda "based largely on myth".

Surely even a heavy duty eco warrior might see it as a useful intermediate step towards 100% renewables?

[french frank]

I would suggest that the government appoint some people with serious knowledge and expertise, who are as "neutral as possible", to investigate rapidly every existing technology , and invest in the best and cleanest at every level. I would follow this up with large scale government investment in the greenest, most efficient technologies.

Yes, I'm not sure that e.g. in the USA, Marcellus Drilling News would be neutral on the issue since they say they provide news for landowners and all those with an interest in shale drilling. They are hostile (by my reading) to the EPA, and whereas I can understand why the one side would be in favour of extensive drilling ($$$$), I can't quite understand why the other would be against it, other than for genuine environmental reasons and caution. Is there any explanation for that?