IN voicing the fears of those opposed to “fracking”, the Gazette & Herald does no more than its duty and is far from “scaremongering among the Ryedale residents” (Mr Smith, Gazette & Herald, December 3).

Mr Smith has been given a voice, as has Mr Randon, as have others who wish to defend the practice.

Mr Randon disparagingly refers to “the type of campaign which can be expected against the exploitation of unconventional natural gas reserves” and to “emotive assumptions voiced by opponents”.

At the start of this debate, it might be as well if both sides to the arguments were to start in the belief that the other party acts in good faith, has real local as well as national, and indeed much wider environmental interests at heart, and has acquainted itself as fully as possible with the facts and with counter arguments offered.

Those who are in favour of fracking must not simply ignore the experiences of countries which have tried it; nor should they automatically accept the assurances of those with vested interests that such things could not happen here where adequate checks and balances are said to be available. They should not dismiss the activities of the “anti-fracking campaign” or the “anti-fracking brigade” as somehow self-interested, not worthy of respect.

Those opposed to fracking (myself included) should be aware of the urgent need for the development of new sources of energy, should avoid the “emotive” where possible, adducing facts in favour of their arguments, should not assume that earlier experiences of fracking abroad will necessarily be experienced here, and should be aware of the antipathy provoked in an area such as ours by pressure groups of any persuasion.

Both sides should studiously avoid disparaging references to the other.

At the end of the day, all parties to the discussion seem to be calling for the same thing: “a considered multi-party approach... to find solutions” (Sir Charles Legard), “an objective assessment... of the need, environmental effects and additional controls required” (David Randon), “an open and transparent debate” (Monica Gripaios), preferably informed by “expert geologists, engineers, hydrologists, seismologists” (Mike Potter), but also by the oil industry. The call for public debate could scarcely be stronger. Our political representatives also call for this; democracy requires local and national government to respond by enabling such informed debate.

It is a tribute to our interpretation of “democracy” that the press is able and willing to highlight such calls, such concerns and such counter arguments. If the reporting of the Gazette & Herald appears to have been weighted on the side of the anti-fracking campaign, could this be because the arguments on this side are more numerous and persuasive?

David Cragg-James, Stonegrave

 

•  THERE is no doubt in my mind that the abject failure of successive governments has failed to address the future energy needs of the UK. The first choice must always be to “switch it off” and we can all contribute to reducing the country’s energy needs – for those of us blessed with good health I am sure we could all turn the thermostat down a couple of degrees.

But that only goes so far and with a rising population overall a rise in demand is certain. Renewables are also highly desirable, but look at the passion that erupts every time a new wind turbine is proposed. Tidal maybe, but sites are limited and there will almost certainly be a negative impact on coastal environments. Nuclear has to be part of the mix, but lead times are long and issues remain over funding.

Carbon fuels sadly are relatively easy to bring on line and gas is probably the easiest of the lot. So I suspect that fracking for it is a necessary evil.

But we do need an informed debate on the subject, with proper evidence. Not hysteria, not newspaper headlines, not large photos of masked protesters, but proper evidence.

I hear that my property may fall in value by 70 per cent. Where is the evidence for this? I hear of the terrible catastrophes that will befall our water supplies. Much of the “evidence” for that appears to come from Google searches and highly questionable YouTube videos. There have been problems with the lining of wells but that can happen with natural gas as well as fracking. We need the evidence to show us how the drillers will manage these risks.

If the Gazette & Herald wishes to help local people understand what the evidence is, I challenge both sides of this to put forward, through your pages, their evidence for their position, properly sourced and referenced, so that we can make a rational decision based on fact not hysteria.

Jerry Swift, Great Barugh

 

•  THIS year has been the hottest year on record. Fourteen out of the 15 hottest years recorded have all been this century. The last report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not have given a starker warning on man-made climate change. So, why on earth is Britain, well-endowed with renewable energy sources, preparing to frack for shale gas?

It is imperative to reduce the burning of gas and other fossil fuels to meet our climate targets and avoid catastrophic climate change bringing extreme weather and flooding.

There is a way we can meet our emissions reduction targets while increasing our energy security, keeping energy affordable and keeping the lights on. A well-worked out scenario uses a mix of renewable and low-carbon technologies and reduces demand through efficiencies and newer technologies.

Furthermore, 71,000 new jobs would be created by an energy efficiency programme and by 2020 renewable energy could be supporting 400,000 jobs.

The scenario, however, would exclude the burning of wood from American forests at Drax power station which is not sustainable.

Jobs, warm homes, affordable energy, increased energy security, and a stable climate are within our grasp.

The need for action is urgent and there is no room for shale gas.

Josephine Downs, York and Ryedale Friends of the Earth