Latest from UKIP Daily

To Frack Or Not To Frack, That Is The Question:

Whether ’tis noble in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous ridicule
And to take Arms against a Sea of Environmentalists,
And by opposing, end them: to frack! To prosper!

 Well, maybe that’s how Shakespeare would have expressed his views on how the UK is self-debilitating in its aversion to fracking. Then again, maybe not.

Fracking, put simply, is the name given for the process of retrieving hydrocarbons (predominantly methane) from the earth’s crust.  It is a technique that provides fuel.

Why frack? In short, cheap fuel. And without cheap fuel any promises of a manufacturing renaissance, a ‘Northern Powerhouse’ are empty and will come to nought.  Fracking gives another string to the bow of our energy resources, would reduce or eliminate reliance on imports (predominantly Russian) and would as a natural economic consequence, improve our nation’s wealth. Fracking is a technique that has been used for over 50 years and needs to be executed professionally, safely and in a manner which avoids corporate control and benefits the national purse.

Energy policy in the UK could be fairly described as shambolic. Driven by political ideology, EU Directives, The Climate Change Act 2008 and the pseudo religion of ‘Climate Change’, the UK offers electricity to its domestic and commercial customers at much higher rates than other countries – those in competition with the UK. The demise in the UK’s energy intensive industries steadily over the duration of our membership of the EU is not coincidental.

The provision of plentiful cheap electricity is a must in the 21stCentury globalised economy if the UK is to prove a competitive location for manufacturers to base their operations. To give cities like Stoke, Sheffield,  Bradford, Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool (the list goes on) the opportunity to attract businesses that make things again – and the jobs that follow – a comprehensive energy policy needs to be implemented to address the current handicap of high electricity prices.

Time is not on the side of the UK; yet leaving the EU represents an opportunity that the UK cannot afford to miss. The ‘Trump effect’ is registering all over the world, but the ramifications of Trump’s election victory are not being understood. Ramifications in respect of energy supply, production and price as well as the topic of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), or #fakescience as it will soon be known.

A most interesting press conference was held on 30th January 2017 jointly by the Foreign Press Association (FPA) and the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). A presentation was given to assembled journalists by Myron Ebell. Mr Ebell had just completed a period of employment in the Trump transition team for the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and briefed those present on the job he had been doing. His job brief was to design policies to implement the promises that Donald Trump had made to the people during his election campaign. Simple really. Mr Ebell was not at liberty to discuss the detail of the policies, but was at liberty to advise what Donald Trump had promised the American people. Here is what he promised:

  • Withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement
  • Defund UN Climate Programs
  • Repeal all Obama rules at the EPA including those relating to greenhouse gas emissions
  • Undo Obama’s Climate Action Plan
  • Unleash American energy production
  • Make the US the world’s largest energy provider
  • Achieve a position of global dominance as an energy provider

The presentation by Mr Ebell gave very good clues to politicians with any nous.  It would be wise to be on good terms with the US, yes, but also, standing still with high electricity prices in the UK will mean falling further behind in international competitiveness.

There is much political capital invested in the ‘belief’ that mankind needs to limit the production of carbon dioxide, the gas of life. This politicisation of a theory (global warming of a catastrophic nature being driven by CO2 concentration which needs global governmental control of hydrocarbon use), which is now demonstrably debunked by evidence, has been taught as fact to generations of children and is akin to a supplicant religious crutch.  Whether you buy into the Climate Change narrative or not, and I don’t, the facts remain – if the UK does not abandon its obsession with limiting carbon dioxide production, if it does not embrace hydrocarbon use as the key source of our nation’s wealth and future prosperity, then the UK will continue to fail to provide its people with the competitive edge, and energy, needed to provide the prosperity which would benefit us all.

Our excellent MEP and Spokesman for Energy and Industry Roger Helmer would agree with me – Frack for Britain!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About James Dalton (29 Articles)
James Dalton stood as PPC for Barnsley East in the GE 2017

7 Comments on To Frack Or Not To Frack, That Is The Question:

  1. Schrödinger's cat // April 22, 2017 at 2:39 pm // Reply

    Good article, James.

    Those promises, turning into action and then repeated by Britain and other more enlightened countries, should set a snowball off down the mountain side, which will become an avalanche.

    Perhaps, an appropriate metaphor to kill the global warming brigade for good!

  2. Well said James, we need our own version of Trump’s policies; I would go further on the UN though, just defund it in all its guises.

    • Thanks Jack,

      I agree that the UN certainly does need starving of the money our so called government gives them.

  3. James thank you for a very interesting, well-written article. I found the video particularly instructive. The logic behind those in Great Britain who think they’re ‘saving the planet’ by abandoning fossil derived energy and then buying all the things they need from countries like China, things which used to be made here when our energy was cheap, escapes me. This has not reduced ‘carbon emissions’ but simply moved them and as you correctly point out, also effectively moved much of our industry and with it many jobs. The net effect has been to make us poorer and dependant on others.

    Ironically it was that doyen of conservatism Margaret Thatcher who set the global warming ball rolling back in 1989.

    With global cooling, due to reduced solar activity, now well-established it is becoming clear that it is natural variability and not carbon dioxide that drives the climate.

    So now we can, with a clear conscience, keep on fracking!

    • Thank you Michael for your kind comments.

      There is much heat and little light on this subject, but hopefully the light is starting to cut through.

    No more imports from the Gulf esp Saudi Arabia
    We need a protected energy policy that safeguards our future.
    Increase coal production and for green energy dam the Severn.
    Level playing field and no subsidies for wind power.
    If we have to start from scratch again with our own nuclear power industry then so be it – some of the wated overseas aid money can kick start a new Calder Hall etc

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.