Do you agree? Is now the time to frack? Let us know by casting your vote below.
Is it now time to frack? Let us know by casting your vote below
Fracking enjoys widespread support in Britain, according to a new survey.
Research carried out by the research group Populus for UK Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) found that 57 per cent were in favour of the controversial tachnique which extracts shale gas from the ground.
The poll quizzed 4,000 people and found that 16 per cent were opposed, with just over a quarter (27 per cent) undecided.
The poll shows that the public would like to see the government use both shale gas and renewables to meet the country’s energy requirements.
Do you agree? Is now the time to frack? Let us know by casting your vote below.
Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey , the world’s leading questionnaire tool.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
117 Responses to “POLL: Is it time for Britain to frack?”
MrJonathanHornby
You are touchingly naive over the extent of regulation for Unconventional Oil and Gas (UCG) in the UK and the structure of the companies doing the exploation. Ytrying to extrapolate using existing conventional fields cant be done.
So for example proposal for a clean up indemnification have been rejected by HMG.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/11/taxpayers-fracking-pollution-companies
So far all sites in the UK have been undertaken by shell companies to limit liabilities of the explorers at each site.
Conventional wells may have been relatively bengin but to pretend that UCG is the same is first rate wishful thinking. Not only have there been problems (leading to themoratorium) the behaviour of the companies and police have been pewter rather than the “gold standard” supposedly promised.
HD2
It depends on which edition of The Origin of Species one looks at – successive editions varied considerably from the original.
And ‘Darwinism’ is more a concept and state of looking at how the world runs and how we can best promote evolution (of things, and so the betterment of life on Earth – admittedly, largely from a human perspective), rather than a literal application of Darwin’s text.
HD2
Oh – and Darwin knew nothing of genes – he referred to ‘natural selection’ as competition between differing individuals, each with unique characteristics, which led to ‘survival of the fittest’ (2nd Ed) and ‘Nature red in tooth and claw’ (2nd ed too, IIRC)
HD2
Fracking’s a technology the better part of 80yrs old – see countless examples in the USA.
True, it’s APPLICATION to coal seams (etc) is a modern development, but the fundamental principle is an old one.
HD2
No – of course not!
The rise in temperature in the 1990’s was caused largely by the decrease in SO2 emissions from Eastern Europe and the cooling/stabilisation this century by the massive increase in SO2 from China and India.
All down to badly-designed, run and maintained coal-fired power stations.
Now, once the c.75% of the planet’s population that rely on coal burning for power (and cement/steel making) have moved to nuclear power, we’ll probably see another sharp rise in temperatures before they, once again, plateau.
All of which assumes the Sun’s output remains 100% constant – which, of course, it doesn’t and we’re now at the start of what appears to be a new Maunder Minimum, in which case the next 30-50 years are going to be particularly COLD.
[Just as the medieval Little Ice Age was]