Friends of the Earth in screaming, drivelling, idiocy shocker!

This is bad news for household budgets because ever-increasing international demand means the price of gas is likely to keep rising.

Yeah, right.

We\’ve just, as a species, perfected a new method of drilling for gas. One that has dropped the US price to under $3 a unit, some half of what current UK prices are. Which has entirely reversed their LNG plans: they\’re going to use the already planned terminals to export the stuff, not import it.

Using this very same technology we\’ve found enough gas under Blackpool to have the drillers wetting themselves with excitement at how rich they\’re going to be: and some claiming that there\’s a 100 year supply just under the fucking donkey races.

It\’s at precisely this point that you want us all to base energy infrastructure decisions on rising bloody gas prices?

Please people, over there on the naughty step. You\’re just to dim to be taking part in the adults\’ conversation. Or, I\’ll give you this, you\’re too biased or ignorant, one of the three.

14 thoughts on “Friends of the Earth in screaming, drivelling, idiocy shocker!”

  1. I think you missed the fundamental assumption in the FOE piece:

    There will be no shale gas because FOE and WWF will do everything they can to prevent its extraction.

    Therefore there will be a gas shortage and gas prices will rise. QED

  2. Two options

    1) The energy companies are stupid enough to invest billions in a fuel that will inevitably get a lot more expensive than the alternatives
    2) Liberal conspiracy / FofE are wrong

    Difficult choice isn’t it

  3. yes you would have thought there was a much more obvious argument for FoE to make: that the discovery of gajillions of newly accessible gas reserves offers the prospect of cheap energy, if you look at market prices, but once you think about climate externalities offers the prospect of extremely costly energy and is thus a disaster in environmental terms. Just like the discovery of loads more oil would be. Making it even more important to price in those externalities.

    or something like that.

  4. I wonder how many of the extra gas plants they are wibbling about are for wind backup purposes.

    Alternatively, how many of the extra gas plants will be replacing coal power, and thereby reducing CO2 emissions overall? Another dash for gas is a suitable intermediary step between today’s use of coal which in winter produces something close to half our energy, and tomorrow’s utopia of abundant and super efficient clean energy (whatever that turns out to be).

    Do they realise that the EU Large Combustion Plant directive is requiring the phasing out of the coal power we use? The UK’s chosen path to meet the LCP requirements has long ago been picked as ‘more gas’.

    The LCP put a finite limit on the amount of use our relatively inefficient power stations could see. A rash of cold winters has seen them be used more than expected so they need phasing out sooner.

  5. They have to say that. They have no alternative.

    Imagine, for a second, that friends of the Earth came out with the following statement: Shale gas is very bad because it is cleaner, cheaper and more plentiful than the gas we are currently using. This means your energy bills will come down, and we will emit less pollution. Please support us in campaigning for a ban on shale gas.

    Telling the public what they REALLY think isn’t going to give them any power, is it? And it’s going to make normal people very suspicious of their motives.

  6. Are you really surprised at this green fuck-wittery? The greens will twist any arguement in their favour and have no shame in doing it.

    BTW Matt Ridley has a few good posts on Shale Gas vs Wind etc. Worth a read on his blog ‘Rational Optimist’.

  7. The BBC had a lovely article on “fuel poverty” today without coming close to mentioning the effect of green taxes on the price of energy.

  8. DBC Read–yeah–the scum of the state (plus assorted leftist hangers on) fucked them up too.
    Worse luck this time.

  9. And DBC Reed: fusion? What on earth are you on about? No-one – and I mean no-one – is pricing fusion into even very long-term scenarios. Maybe one day a substantial fraction of the world’s energy will be provided by fusion, but currently it looks like it won’t be in my lifetime, and I’m early middle-aged. It’s pie-in-the-sky right now. But shale gas and fission are not. There is no meaningful comparison.

  10. If I might have a shot at this thread’s pendantry award…

    “Maybe one day a substantial fraction of the world’s energy will be provided by fusion, but currently it looks like it won’t be in my lifetime, and I’m early middle-aged.”

    An overwhelming majority of the world’s energy is provided by fusion right now, and has been for approximately 4.6 billion years.

    “It’s pie-in-the-sky right now.”

    Close 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *