I think you mean fracking, not "tracking". If we in Europe are to have any
chance at all to influence the behaviour of rogue states like Russia, then we
must immediately start fracking on a big scale in places where shale oil is
likely to exist, such as the UK or Poland. We must also discard the stupid
antipathy against nuclear power. Otherwise, we will continue to depend on
various nasty regimes for our energy and will need to continue to prostitute
ourselves before the likes of Putin and various two-bit Central Asia dictators.
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> For me it’s because scientists have to guess first to find stuff out, Brian.
> And I don’t want to eat the results of someone’s guesswork, especially when
> there is no good reason so to do. The idea of GM, as I understand it, is to
> reduce the need for pesticides and to improve yields. But I heard some years
> ago that the pesticide argument didn’t work, that farmers merely became
> increasingly dependent on GM grain. And increasing yield does nothing for
> taste or nutrition, again as I understand it.
> I hold no antipathy towards scientist, applied or theoretical, but I continue
> to resent the dominance of commercial interest in many scientific endeavours:
> it pollutes the results or at least reduces our trust in those results.
> It’s a bit of a stretch, I think, to attach people’s resistance to tracking
> to dependence on Russian energy: tracking has only recently been of interest
> to the public (not only the green lobby, but people who are near the
> threatened sites), whereas European dependence on energy has been increasing
> as North Sea oil reserves have dwindled.
> Where I really get irritated about tracking is if politicians start to use
> the cost of energy as an argument for such exploration. It seems to be
> pretty certain that any gas or oil that we find in the UK would merely be fed
> into the whole market. My general objection to tracking is that a) we must
> reduce our dependence on such energy, not grow ever more frantic and
> destructive in our urgency to seek out more; b) that it would grossly
> disfigure our landscape. If some of us worry now about the visual
> deterioration of the countryside because of wind farms, just look at what
> thousands of drilling sites would might do.
> Finally, I accept that my criticism of science, Big Bang, GM or Higgs Boson
> was generally polemical. But I remain seriously sceptical of wondrous
> solutions that hit the press
> On 22 Mar 2014, at 22:12, Brian Gray <bsg017@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> As a retired applied scientist, I have to support Andrew in this argument.
>> bang theory seems a valid attempt to explain what happened although it
>> cannot ex
>> plain the ultimate 'why'. And no one to my knowledge has produced any
>> weighty ar
>> guments against GM foods in principle, however much one may regret some
>> ar versions, and none of Chris' aeroplanes would have flown without pretty
>> forms of aeronautical science. My pet gripe at the moment is the way that
>> 'green' lobby's activities over recent years against first nuclear power
>> and, no
>> w in Europe, fracking have potentially crippled the western response to
>> events i
>> n the Ukraine. Energy independence from Russia for Europe would be more
>> tely useful than the latest Typhoons and F16s.
>> Returning to the original argument, having been brought up in NE England and
>> sequently worked in Denmark for a while, I have always been interested in
>> the wa
>> y Tyneside slang and accents can resemble Danish words.
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/