Scottish Parliament votes to ban fracking. 

Written By: - Date published: 3:14 pm, June 11th, 2016 - 60 comments
Categories: climate change, Conservation, peak oil, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: , , , ,

Imagine a country where the political divide is over whether to ban fracking outright or to be opposed to fracking but have a moratorium first in order to gather more evidence.

The SNP brought in a moratorium on fracking in January 2015. The vote last week was for an outright ban.

This parliament recognizes that, to meet Scotland’s climate change goals and protect the environment, there must be an outright ban on fracking in Scotland.

The SNP abstained, allowing Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats to outvote the Tories in favour of the ban. While not binding, it does signal to the SNP what the rest of parliament wants, and is also a significant win for the anti-fracking movement locally and internationally.

Bonus:

Andy Wightman, Land Reform spokesperson for the Scottish Greens and MSP for Lothian, also put forward a successful amendment calling for “radical and ongoing reform to democratise land”.

The SNP, Labour and the Greens pledge to work together on land reform.

Meanwhile, in Godzone,

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment published a report on oil and gas drilling and fracking in 2014.

The scope of this report was widened following feedback on the interim report, based on which the PCE concluded that concern was not about fracking per se, but about the spread of the industry that fracking enabled. The PCE found no evidence of major environment problems and that risks of a major problem are low, if best practices are followed. However, the PCE also found that New Zealand’s oversight and regulation was not adequate for managing the environmental risks. The 2014 report sets out recommendations to address regulatory shortcomings and concludes that the ultimate threat is climate change. The government is considering the PCE recommendations to improve regulatory oversight.

Even if we forego the precautionary principle and ignore the issues of land and water pollution, inadequate regulation, land grabs and sovereignty rights, earthquake risk, and indigenous rights,  fracking is twice as bad for climate as coal. Fracking is incompatible with the Paris Agreement and preventing catastrophic climate change.

The Greens propose a NZ moratorium on fracking.

Labour support tighter regulation. As does the Māori Party.

NZF propose using the existing RMA to manage fracking risk.

National supports more fracking.

 

[Usual rules apply: no climate change denial, or ‘we’re all going to die anyway/there is nothing we can do’ comments.]

60 comments on “Scottish Parliament votes to ban fracking.  ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    11 June 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Was there any actual fracking underway in Scotland? Or any serious proposal to start fracking?

    If not, this isn’t anything more than empty symbolism.

    • Bill 1.1
      11 June 2016 at 3:38 pm

      Yes.

      Dart Energy (recently bought out by IGas) applied for permission for commercial coalbed methane extraction at Airth, near Falkirk in autumn 2012, in PEDL 133. With over 16 wells already drilled and a pilot test having taken place, the project is the most advanced unconventional gas development in the UK. The proposals have attracted huge local opposition, and have been subject to significant delay. The planning application heard by a Public Inquiry in spring 2014, was called in by Scottish Ministers in October 2014 and is now caught up in the moratorium.

      Grangemouth operators INEOS have recently aquired a full working interest in PEDL 133, inheriting the Airth project as well as shale deposits.

      Dart Energy / IGas also hold a licence in Dumfries and Galloway (PEDL 159), and has planning permission for coalbed methane extraction at 19 sites in and around Canonbie. The way in which these applications were handled is currently the subject of an investigation by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. A number of test wells were drilled at 2 sites by Dart’s predecessor, which are being plugged and abandoned. Dart’s plans for Canonbie appears to be on hold at present, pending the outcome of the Airth inquiry.

      REACH coal seam gas hold PEDL 162 which covers are large area within North Lanarkshire. The company has planning permission for one exploratory coalbed methane borehole, but have not started drilling yet. The company refuse to rule out the use of fracking.

      Grangemouth operators INEOS, having secured £230 million in UK Government loan guarantees to build a storage tank that would enable it to import shale gas from the USA, has made its intention to frack for shale gas in the central belt clear. In 2014 INEOS bought a 51% share in a key shale deposit in Dart’s PEDL 133 and an 80% share in REACH’s PEDL 162, both for an undisclosed sum. The latter deal will underwrite planned exploration in the area. Subsequently, INEOS have acquired a full working interest in PEDL 133 along with shares in other IGas owned licenses in Northern England.

      Cluff Natural Resources and Five Quarter Energy hold conditional Coal Authority licenses in the Firth of Forth and the Solway Firth for underground coal gasification, but have not yet applied for specific planning and environmental permissions as yet. Both Cluff and Five Quarter plan to use directional drilling techniques from an onshore base to access coal seams under the Firths. This technique has not been tried anywhere else in the world. Even more experimental is Cluff’s plan to use the UCG site to store carbon produced during the process.

      http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/fracking#What is happening in Scotland?

      • dukeofurl 1.2.1
        12 June 2016 at 9:26 am

        “Energy minister Fergus Ewing told MSPs the government was taking a “cautious, evidence-led” approach, saying it would look at the evidence first and decide its position on hydraulic fracturing thereafter.”

        http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35716662

        • weka 1.2.1.1
          12 June 2016 at 9:37 am

          You can soundbite anything you like from the internet to support any argument.

          From your link,

          Ms Sturgeon repeated her comments about the moratorium, saying this means “it ain’t allowed to happen”, but would not be drawn on whether she supports an outright ban.

          Her spokesman later said the first minister was “highly sceptical” about the technique, but said that “unlike Kezia Dugdale, we will continue to be led by the evidence”.

          If you want to understand what’s really going on you’ll have to look deeper. The point of the post was that to compare Scotland arguing over outright ban or moratorium, when NZ can barely even get the word moratorium on the table.

          • dukeofurl 1.2.1.1.1
            12 June 2016 at 11:40 am

            Well, every labour, green and LD MSP voted for the ban, every tory voted against, every SNP stuck their fingers and their ears and said dont hear anything.

            Yes Weka you are right. getting to moratorium is one step forward ( which is Greens NZ policy) and the next step is a ban.
            That could be why the Greens dont have a private members bill to ban fracking, or even have a moratorium in spite of your good links to the harm caused.

            the Chinese have a word for it WU WEI- which means doing nothing or non doing.

            • Bill 1.2.1.1.1.1
              12 June 2016 at 4:02 pm

              If a company contested a ban in the UK courts and won, then the Scottish parliament would be unable to prevent fracking operations from going ahead. With a moratorium in place, there is no possibility of a legal challenge …and no fracking.

              For the life of the moratorium*, the government is consulting and gathering evidence. If following the moratorium, they ban fracking and it’s challenged in the courts, then they have the body of evidence they need to defend their decision already to hand.

              If they allow fracking after they decide that the moratorium has run it’s course, the SNP are probably toast. And they just aren’t as stupid as you’d like them to be DoF. 😉

              * The government decides when the body of evidence has accrued and when the consultation process has been completed. That could take decades if the government drags its feet – theoretically.

              • dukeofurl …
                12 June 2016 at 4:42 pm

                This is what Scots Greens say to that problem about a’ legal challenge’

                Section 46 of the Scotland Act (2016) grants Scotland the power to issue licences for companies to search and bore for on-shore petroleum. When this power is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, we can simply refuse to grant licences for fracking.

                But until that power is fully devolved, we can put in place interim measures now. In order to drill for and produce oil and gas onshore, planning permission and environmental licences are also required. These are already devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and can be used to effectively ban fracking today.
                https://greens.scot/blog/how-scotland-can-ban-fracking

                Just saying there could be a legal challenge is a common buck passing argument used by Key
                – plain cigarette packages
                -Saudi sheep deal
                This site downplays any problems with a ban
                http://autonomyscotland.org/scottish-fracking-ban-can-companies-take-legal-action/

                • Bill …
                  12 June 2016 at 4:55 pm

                  Nothing at all like Key.

                  The Scottish government, unlike the NZ government, is acting against the preferences of sections of the business community.

                  And then you miss another point. If a license is refused, and that’s able to be challenged in court, then the court may well find against the government, meaning that the fracking or whatever goes ahead.

                  Absently wondering how much money could be bled from the public purse by companies with deep pockets challenging licence consents?

                  Seems to me that the SNP are boxing clever on this one.

                  edit – You’re last link would appear to echo that sentiment (that they’re boxing clever). Do you actually ever read the links you provide?

                  • dukeofurl …
                    14 June 2016 at 11:41 am

                    I have read it. have you ?

                    This is the relevant part
                    “However, there is only one example of a person taking the government to court over something that was in the National Planning Framework that the Greens want to alter. The court found in the government’s favour.”

                    One court case around the ‘process’ the greens support and the government won.
                    A 2nd opinion in the article says this
                    “He also confirmed not doing so could lead to legal action but that legal action would be unlikely to work out in the favour of the energy companies.”
                    It truly is a SNP snow job to hide the fact they are split.

  2. adam 2
    11 June 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Well done Scotland. Can’t see it happening here anytime soon.

    Looking at NZ1st and labours position, business as usual then, with only a small change to appear to be doing something.

    I’m so over the politics of doing bugger all, then crowing about it.

    • weka 2.1
      11 June 2016 at 4:02 pm

      NZF look pretty status quo, although to be fair it’s not a very developped policy so maybe when they do more work on it it will be more nuanced. Labour seem more likely to shift, wanting at least tighter regulations. I took that to mean that they read the bit from the PCE report about how fracking is probably safe as long as there is proper regulation which we don’t have. I don’t agree that it is probably safe, but if Labour want to tighten up hard on that so there is less fracking, that’s a good thing.

    • dukeofurl 2.2
      12 June 2016 at 9:08 am

      Its an empty gesture.
      The SNP government at their party conference didnt support a fracking ban.

      “I’m so over the politics of doing bugger all, then crowing about it.”

      So its you who are crowing about something that isnt any policy change at all.

      • adam 2.2.1
        12 June 2016 at 10:16 am

        So who actually did the vote?

        Did you read that part dukeofurl?

        Any other misguide judgements with out looking at the issues you want to make?

        Or have you got to go and kick some poor people.

        People like you…

      • weka 2.2.2
        12 June 2016 at 10:45 am

        “Its an empty gesture.”

        Apart from signalling to the SNP where all their left wing allies are at with fracking. And the support this gives to activists. And how it keeps the huge issues with fracking in regards to CC in the public eye. And how it progresses the move away from fossil fuels.

        etc.

  3. Bill 3
    11 June 2016 at 4:17 pm

    One word comes immediately to mind in relation to fracking.

    Methane.

    edit – google searched and…”Harvard study shows 30% rise (in methane) across the country since 2002 with peaks coinciding with shale oil and gas boom, reports Climate Central”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/17/us-likely-culprit-of-global-spike-in-methane-emissions-over-last-decade

  4. Colonial Viper 4
    11 June 2016 at 4:31 pm

    Need an international carbon fee to make the use of fossil fuels increasingly unattractive, price-wise.

    The move in Scotland is a good move, albeit largely symbolic. It reminds the World that we cannot afford to keep accessing unconventional stores of fossil fuels.

    Having said that we already have over 3 deg C of warming baked into the cake for this century so this is only a fraction of what needs to be done.

    • weka 4.1
      11 June 2016 at 5:30 pm

      Symbolic yes (although I’m sure the locals who will not have fracking in their backyard see it as more than that). But also the leading edge of where other countries will have to follow.

      • Lanthanide 4.1.1
        11 June 2016 at 5:46 pm

        “(although I’m sure the locals who will not have fracking in their backyard see it as more than that)”

        Will those same locals reflect on the increasing prices for energy, brought about by their deliberate constraint on supply?

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1
          11 June 2016 at 7:10 pm

          Fossil fuel prices have to rise significantly if we are to move off it economically.

        • weka 4.1.1.2
          11 June 2016 at 10:38 pm

          “Will those same locals reflect on the increasing prices for energy, brought about by their deliberate constraint on supply?”

          I would guess that the people that have thought that far are wanting their government to do other things as well as banning fracking, like transitioning to renewables sooner rather than later.

  5. Pat 5
    11 June 2016 at 5:45 pm

    A question……why are any of the signatories to COP21 pursuing fracking when by signing the agreement they accept we cannot burn the already known available crude/gas reserves which are cheaper and easier to access?

    I have my own thoughts but am curious to hear others opinions.

    • Lanthanide 5.1
      11 June 2016 at 5:48 pm

      Because any quick and fast change such as you’re suggesting would have massive shockwaves through the (already fragile) world economy, most likely leading to a severe recession.

      • Pat 5.1.1
        11 June 2016 at 6:33 pm

        I havnt suggested anything, let alone “any quick and fast change”…..why would ignoring fracking (there is only really one country with an established fracking industry) when as said there are more than adequate supplies of oil/gas that cannot be burned?

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.2
        11 June 2016 at 7:11 pm

        Recession is good for lowering GHG emissions. Do you want to see more economic growth or something?

        • Lanthanide 5.1.2.1
          11 June 2016 at 7:28 pm

          I answered Pat’s question:
          “why are any of the signatories to COP21 pursuing fracking”

          Because the world would be in recession if it were banned.

          *I* make no value judgement either way.

          • Pat 5.1.2.1.1
            11 June 2016 at 7:53 pm

            how would a fracking moratorium cause a worldwide recession?

            • Lanthanide 5.1.2.1.1.1
              11 June 2016 at 8:53 pm

              If every country currently allowing fracking were to ban it, the price of oil and gas would go up over $100 pretty quickly, leading to recession.

              All of the companies that were set up for fracking would go out of business more or less overnight, leading to big financial losses and job losses.

              • Colonial Viper …
                11 June 2016 at 9:11 pm

                If every country currently allowing fracking were to ban it

                Is there a reason that you posit the most unlikely of hypothetical situations to make your points with?

                • Lanthanide …
                  11 June 2016 at 9:52 pm

                  My reply at 5.1 assumed that Pat was suggesting all the signatories to COP21 should ban fracking.

              • Pat …
                11 June 2016 at 9:13 pm

                the only countries with fracking industries other than exploratory are the US and Canada….it is already banned in many countries.

                as for bankrupt fracking companies…..”several other companies are in a similar fix. At least five frackers have filed for bankruptcy, stopped fracking, or shut their doors altogether, according to consulting firm IHS Energy. Other analysts say that number may be higher, and they expect many more companies to follow suit or consolidate in a merger frenzy.

                Energy analysts at Wells Fargo & Co. say as much as half of the available fracking capacity in the U.S. is sitting idle.”
                WSJ

                As said, there is no shortage and fracking is one of the most expensive extraction methods….oil may increase (it has already) it is a commodity that rises and falls so there is no specific threat to the economy if the energy is sourced from one source or another.

                • Lanthanide …
                  11 June 2016 at 9:55 pm

                  it is a commodity that rises and falls so there is no specific threat to the economy if the energy is sourced from one source or another.

                  Yes, if being the key word.

                  Conventional crude extraction peaked in 2005. Total worldwide production of all oil products has increased since then – mainly on the back of fracking, both gas and oil.

                  Banning fracking would likely see the current glut of oil dry up pretty quickly, and potentially reverse into a shortage scenario, driving the world into recession.

                  • Pat …
                    11 June 2016 at 10:06 pm

                    “Banning fracking would likely see the current glut of oil dry up pretty quickly, and potentially reverse into a shortage scenario, driving the world into recession.”

                    are you serious?

                    “The world has 53.3 years of oil left at the current rate of production, according to BP’s annual statistical review of world energy. Just 53 years! From the report: Total world proved oil reserves reached 1687.9 billion barrels at the end of 2013, sufficient to meet 53.3 years of global production.”

                    but…

                    “So far so good, but McKibben’s article has been so influential that the very specific numbers it contains are now often cited as a kind of unchanging gospel truth. Those numbers are as follows. Limiting global warming to the agreed global target of 2C means staying within a ‘carbon budget’ of 565 GT (gigatonnes or billion tonnes). That is a fifth of the 2,795 GT that would be released if all the world’s proven oil, coal and gas reserves were burned. Therefore four-fifths of the fossil fuel must stay in the ground.”

                    so I say again why the desperate desire to frack?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      11 June 2016 at 10:22 pm

                      The current proved reserves have nothing to do with peak oil, which means the production in future years will always be less than in past years. Such a situation can exist for centuries.

                      In practice what it means is shortages and price rises. I suggest you do some research on peak oil. You should also research the 1970 oil crises as well, caused by production shortfalls (in that case though it was political limits, not geological limits that caused the shortages – although banning fracking would induce another political shortage).

                      There’s a lot of misunderstanding about peak oil. It’s not about “running out of oil”. It’s about “running out of AFFORDABLE oil”.

                      so I say again why the desperate desire to frack?

                      Because without fracking, oil would be unaffordable and the world would be in recession.

                      Also, that figure of 2,795 GT specifically includes coal. Burning coal produces more CO2 per energy unit recovered, than burning natural gas does. So fracking, to produce natural gas, is cleaner than digging up coal, which is the alternative. If you ban fracking, all else being equal, coal production will ramp back up, resulting in more CO2 being released than would have been if you continued to allow fracking.

                    • Pat …
                      12 June 2016 at 10:07 am

                      “Now, have I done enough to convince you that stopping fracking will likely lead to oil shortages, price rises and a recession, and that by itself is sufficient reason for those that are in charge to not ban fracking?”

                      No, you have provided no evidence of a supply shortage whatsoever…..consequently I can’t consider economic recession as a driver for some governments desire to encourage fracking.

                      Your scenario assumes unfettered demand on a constrained supply….if the COP21 signatories are to be believed that scenario does not exist.

                  • Pat …
                    11 June 2016 at 10:31 pm

                    you completely miss the point….peak oil has nothing to do with it.

                    It would appear you may need to do some research.

                    “If every country currently allowing fracking were to ban it, the price of oil and gas would go up over $100 pretty quickly, leading to recession” Lanthanide

                    “From 1999 til mid 2008, the price of oil rose significantly. It was explained by the rising oil demand in countries like China and India.[6] In the middle of the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the price of oil underwent a significant decrease after the record peak of US$147.27 it reached on July 11th, 2008. On December 23, 2008, WTI crude oil spot price fell to US$30.28 a barrel, the lowest since the financial crisis of 2007–2010 began. The price sharply rebounded after the crisis and rose to US$82 a barrel in 2009.[7] In July 2008 oil reached a record peak of US$147.27 but by February 2009 it sank beneath $40 a barrel.[8] On 31 January 2011, the Brent price hit $100 a barrel for the first time since October 2008, on concerns about the political unrest in Egypt.[9] For about three and half years the price largely remained in the $90–$120 range. In the middle of 2014, price started declining due to a significant increase in oil production in USA, and declining demand in the emerging countries.[10] The oil glut—caused by multiple factors—spurred a sharp downward spiral in the price of oil that continued through February 2016.[11] By February 3, 2016 oil was below $30—[12] a drop of “almost 75 percent since mid-2014 as competing producers pumped 1-2 million barrels of crude daily exceeding demand, just as China’s economy hit lowest growth in a generation.”[13] Some analysts speculate that it may continue to drop further, perhaps as low as $18[14]

                    According to a report released on February 15, 2016 by Deloitte LLP—the audit and consulting firm—with global crude oil at near ten-year low prices, 35% of listed E&P oil and gas companies are at a high risk of bankruptcy worldwide.[15][16] Indeed, bankruptcies “in the oil and gas industry could surpass levels seen in the Great Recession.”[15][17]”

                    • Lanthanide …
                      11 June 2016 at 10:48 pm

                      In the middle of 2014, price started declining due to a significant increase in oil production in USA

                      On the back of fracking.

                      Ban fracking, and all of that excess production will go away, leading to shortages and price rises, which is what I said above, and you replied with an irrelevant statistic that at current production rates (which includes fracking) there are 53.3 years of proven reserves (including proven fracking reserves).

                    • Pat …
                      11 June 2016 at 10:57 pm

                      ” (including proven fracking reserves).”

                      wrong….2013 data for P! reserves
                      You really don’t grasp it do you…there are 53 years P1 reserves available at current (2013) production rates…..COP21 requires signatories to decrease carbon emissions from 2020….4 years away

                      http://fortune.com/2015/12/17/energy-companies-feel-the-burn-from-paris-climate-deal/

                      Back to ….why the desire to frack?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      12 June 2016 at 9:56 am

                      Right, one last attempt to answer your question, since you seem to be deliberately refusing to understand what I am saying.

                      Firstly:

                      wrong….2013 data for P! reserves
                      You really don’t grasp it do you…there are 53 years P1 reserves available at current (2013) production rates

                      This was a minor aside. Looking at long-term production rates is, once again, irrelevant to peak oil. Secondly, there was already significant production of oil from fracking in 2013 – 3.22 million barrels a day, so presumably those figures you are looking at are including the fracked production:
                      http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15571

                      But once again, that is irrelevant. Saying that we have 100% reserves today, and in 53.3 years we will have 0% reserves, doesn’t reflect how oil is actually produced – from each individual well it is almost always a bell curve, and cumulative production across all fields approximates a bell curve, not a linear straight line like your statistic suggests. ie, we will be producing oil for many many more years than 53.3 before we deplete all current proven reserves, because we won’t be producing oil at current rates non-stop for 53.3 years, the rate of production will fall over time. Basic peak oil theory, which once again you don’t seem to understand.

                      Secondly, have a look at pages 44 and 45 of this report: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/pdf/0383er(2016).pdf

                      You will see that the US is currently producing about 4.2 million barrels a day of ‘tight oil’ (fracked oil), on page 44. On page 45 it shows that the US is now importing drastically less oil from other countries than it used to, thanks to this increased production.

                      If you look at this page, reading through all of the various paragraphs, you will eventually see that world production exceeds consumption by 200k barrels per day at present:
                      https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/

                      The net result of our changes to demand and supply data is that we expect to see global oil stocks increase by 1.3 mb/d in 1H16 followed by a dramatic reduction in 2H16 to 0.2 mb/d.

                      That is, in the 2nd half of 2016, they expect a stockpiling of supply of only 200,000 barrels per day (supply exceeding demand), compared to the stockpiling of 1,300,000 barrels per day that occurred in the 1st half of 2016.

                      So now, do you see, that if we were to stop 4,200,000 barrels per day of production in the US from fracked oil, we we go from a 200,000 barrel/day surplus to a 4,000,000 barrel/day shortage.

                      If you want to know what happens when supply fails to keep up with demand and what happens to prices, have a look at the Auckland housing market for a pretty basic example.

                      So, once again:
                      1. Countries are allowing fracking, because to do otherwise would immediately increase the price of oil, likely leading to global recession.
                      2. Stopping fracking of natural gas would force America to return to it’s dirty coal power plants for power production – leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions compared to fracking for natural gas. This seems to be the opposite of your aim to reduce greenhouse gasses.
                      3. Politicians tend to get voted out of office if their countries go into recession, hence why they want to avoid #1. Similarly, the US being able to say they are (increasingly) energy independent from the rest of the world is a message that plays well domestically for them.

                      Now, have I done enough to convince you that stopping fracking will likely lead to oil shortages, price rises and a recession, and that by itself is sufficient reason for those that are in charge to not ban fracking?

                      Incidentally Bernie Sanders was promising to ban fracking. There’s enough evidence in the links above to show you that if he actually won the presidency, he wouldn’t be able to follow through on that promise.

                  • Pat …
                    12 June 2016 at 10:03 am

                    will try an outline thus…..

                    there are 10 suppliers of widgets in the market…

                    the supply costs vary by supplier but one has markedly higher fixed cost than the others….

                    supply capacity is double the known demand….

                    the market is time constrained (i.e. there is a limited time to sell the widgets)…..

                    Two questions…
                    1) what will happen to the price of the widgets?

                    2) who would you expect to fill the demand?

                    • Lanthanide …
                      12 June 2016 at 10:10 am

                      supply capacity is double the known demand….

                      This doesn’t apply to the oil market, so your analogy is irrelevant.

                      Anyway, I’m not going to debate with you any more because you have a lack of understanding of the actual fundamentals of the market, despite my best efforts.

                  • Pat …
                    12 June 2016 at 10:29 am

                    “Anyway, I’m not going to debate with you any more because you have a lack of understanding of the actual fundamentals of the market, despite my best efforts.”

                    Oh dear….supply and demand applies to all markets Lanth….it is the basis of economics.

            • LXXI years too old 5.1.2.1.1.2
              12 June 2016 at 8:24 am

              Pat’s right. It’ll be the Banksters who choose to crash the economic system (when the time is right for them) – not the presence or absence of fracking in the oil industry. Get real, Lanth.

    • weka 5.2
      11 June 2016 at 10:51 pm

      “I have my own thoughts but am curious to hear others opinions.”

      I assume that there is a huge disconnect between what needs to be done and willingness to do it (because of politics, economics, ideology etc).

      What were your thoughts?

      • Pat 5.2.1
        11 June 2016 at 11:10 pm

        “assume that there is a huge disconnect between what needs to be done and willingness to do it (because of politics, economics, ideology etc).”

        well there probably is that but i had something more specific in mind…but will wait and see if there are other possibilities proposed.

  6. dukeofurl 6
    11 June 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Has anyone know the reason why the SNP GOVERNMENT HAS ABSTAINED ? How unusual to let the minor parties to make policy.

    • weka 6.1
      11 June 2016 at 9:26 pm

      The SNP already had a moratorium in place. The ban isn’t binding without the SNP vote. I’m guessing they abstained so as not send a confusing message of voting against the ban when they probably largely agree with it and are headed in that direction anyway.

      • dukeofurl 6.1.1
        12 June 2016 at 8:57 am

        Weird politics. They are a minority government but seems they have majority support for this measure.
        Must really be some internal dissent over this as Im not buying ‘we are against it but not voting against it’ line.

        • weka 6.1.1.1
          12 June 2016 at 9:03 am

          It’s not that weird. You have to look at the reasons for the moratorium and then look at whether the ban helps that or not.

          I don’t think the dissent is internal, there’s plenty of discussion online. Did you read any of the links.

          I didn’t want to get into the party politics in the post. Ask Bill, he’ll probaby know.

        • dukeofurl 6.1.1.2
          12 June 2016 at 9:05 am

          Yes its as I thought, the party is split. The moratorium is a face saving device to please the pro frackers in the party.

          A bid to persuade the SNP to support an all-out ban on fracking was narrowly defeated at the party conference.
          http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/snp-narrowly-votes-against-all-out-fracking-ban-1-3919046

          Thats was Oct 2015.

          Thats amazing spin you have made Weka. the SNP government doesnt have a policy of banning fracking, contrary to your headline.

          The SNP is in real difficulty over this and the abstain just shows they want it both ways.

          • dukeofurl 6.1.1.2.1
            12 June 2016 at 9:19 am

            Yet more real information over why the SNP is ‘waiting for the science to be settled on fracking’

            “SNP accused of misleading voters over anti-fracking claims
            THE SNP has been accused of misrepresenting its position over fracking in a bid to win votes at the General Election after ministers refused to spell out how far-reaching a temporary ban on the controversial technique is.”
            http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13211611.SNP_accused_of_misleading_voters_over_anti_fracking_claims/

            Energy minister Fergus Ewing told MSPs the government was taking a “cautious, evidence-led” approach, saying it would look at the evidence first and decide its position on hydraulic fracturing thereafter.
            Delegates at the SNP’s 2015 autumn conference narrowly voted down calls for the party to strengthen its position on fracking towards an outright ban.

            Ms Dugdale quoted Ineos boss Jim Ratcliffe, who reportedly said he was told in private that the SNP is “not opposed” to fracking.
            http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35716662

            • One Two 6.1.1.2.1.1
              12 June 2016 at 9:45 am

              ‘Anti fracking’

              These lables seem to rev your engine, Duke

              ‘Science’ will not be keeping this industry from total collapse either

              • dukeofurl …
                12 June 2016 at 10:32 am

                Hypocrisy revs my engine, 12, hypocrisy thats says one thing but does the opposite.

          • weka 6.1.1.2.2
            12 June 2016 at 9:40 am

            I’ve already said that the post wasn’t about the party politics in Scotland.

            “Thats amazing spin you have made Weka. the SNP government doesnt have a policy of banning fracking, contrary to your headline.”

            Just as well that’s not what the headlines claims then isn’t it. I suggest you reread the post and see if you can figure out what it is about. I’ve already explained enough.

            • dukeofurl 6.1.1.2.2.1
              12 June 2016 at 10:00 am

              Yes Weka, I know all about carefully wording something so it ignore the elephant in the room- SNP government not opposed to fracking.

              Dint you see the irony of listing NZ parties position, but NOt mention the SNP position
              “The Greens propose a NZ moratorium on fracking.
              Labour support tighter regulation. As does the Māori Party.
              NZF propose using the existing RMA to manage fracking risk.
              National supports more fracking.”

              All it would take was these words – SNP spilt over support for Fracking.

              Instead it was ‘ask bill for the internal politics’- but Bill is very quiet on this – I have to be careful over what I say here as he likes to blow the referees whistle.

              • weka …
                12 June 2016 at 10:07 am

                Well it’s a start that you’re not telling outright lies like you have in the past. Well done.

                “All it would take was these words – SNP spilt over support for Fracking.”

                If I was writing a post about the SNP policy and internal politics, sure, I would have researched the background to the party stuff. Well done on digging that out. I think you are still missing the point of the post.

        • Bill 6.1.1.3
          12 June 2016 at 4:10 pm

          Disagreement on tactics, perhaps. Refer here.

  7. Robert Guyton 7
    11 June 2016 at 9:40 pm

    [Usual rules apply: no climate change denial, or ‘we’re all going to die anyway/there is nothing we can do’ comments.]

    Good strategy, weka.

  8. esoteric pineapples 8
    13 June 2016 at 11:51 am

    Thanks for banning climate denialists from making comments.