Looking through the letters of the past two issues of the Gazette and Herald (21.9.22 and 28.9.22) , I see that in his pro-fracking letter printed last week Mr Hicks has not covered any of Cllr Potter’s points regarding fracking in the previous issue.

Regardless of the multitude of other issues, it would take at least 10 years before any fracked gas is extracted on a commercial basis – assuming there is any to be extracted.

Any gas found would be sold at a market rate, thus not benefiting anyone living in Ryedale. What’s needed is sources of energy now, not 10 years down the line. And on current figures, electricity generated by renewables is far, far cheaper than that generated from gas.

If we had an even slightly competent government, we would have a large-scale retro-fit insulation scheme for domestic properties by now – if Martin Lewis could see a year last May that energy prices were going to rocket, why didn’t the Government?

And wasn’t it obvious what would happen to gas prices when Putin and co started lining up their forces on the Ukrainian borders?

Chris Lindley, Pickering A wild thought John Hicks states that Putin has a monopoly on gas. As the UK is currently buying about 3% of its gas from Russia he is clearly wrong. For his information, the USA, Canada, Iran and Qatar are all very significant gas suppliers and Europe is becoming less reliant on Russia as a supplier much faster than originally anticipated.

Saying that he “does not know” if Putin is funding anti-fracking groups is just a cowardly way of slurring many local people.

At its worst, fracking could cause earth tremors and poison local water courses.

At best, it could supply a nominal amount of gas in a few years for a very limited amount of time, too late to help fix the current supply crisis while causing extra pollution and disrupting local communities.

The only part of his letter worthy of consideration concerns the high price of electric vehicles and solar panels, even if the latter pay for themselves.

Instead of borrowing money to help out needy millionaires, perhaps the Government could invest in insulating homes properly, insist on solar panels and heat pumps for all new builds and introduce meaningful subsidies for alternative transport. Just a wild thought.

Peter Winter, Kirby Misperton A flat earther?

After reading the letter in the Gazette & Herald 28/09/2022 from John Hicks of Cawton. I would like to ask him – does he live on a ‘flat earth’?

Keith Wright, Kirkbymoorside No answers As a regular contributor to the Gazette opinion page, John Hicks (letters, September 28) had clearly read my questions about fracking (letters, September 14), but was presumably unable to answer them with anything other than unevidenced right-wing media headlines.

His claim that constant pressure by activists stopped fracking is completely wrong – the Government did, due to Cuadrilla causing several small earthquakes. Prior to that, PM David Cameron announced he was ‘going all out for shale’, so significant amounts of taxpayer and private investor money was ploughed into fracking a decade ago.

How much gas did that investment produce (with the exception of methane leakage) and how much did that gas contribute to the country’s energy security? The answers are zero and zero. Given the same questions, what is likely to be the result, and when, following the latest u-turn on fracking from Liz Truss’ government? What would have been the contribution to our energy security and costs if all that money had been invested in renewables and energy efficiency for a decade?

Only pro-fracking Tories claim anti-fracking groups are funded by Putin’s regime.

They are yet to provide a shred of evidence. How do those alleged sums compare to the documented donations to Tory party funds from Russian oligarchs? Oligarchs are the fabulously wealthy (from oil and gas) staunch upholders and beneficiaries of Putin’s regime. Well informed people across all political divides that recognise the existential threat of climate change logically oppose fracking, as it’s a new source of greenhouse gases, instead promoting renewables and energy efficiency.

As Putin’s regime and warmongering is almost solely reliant on the proceeds of oil and gas, I wonder why he would fund people that aim to remove his money, and by extension, his power? Any answers Mr Hicks?

Mike Potter, Pickering My dilemma As a supporter of the anti-fracking cause, John Hicks’ letter praising our new PM has left me with a dilemma.

I cannot work out whether it is better to accept my Russian bribery money for holding my views (could I receive it in dollars – certainly not in roubles or sterling).

Balanced against that is William Rees-Mogg’s kind offer of bribery money if I change my mind about fracking in my immediate neighbourhood. It’s a win/win situation, who needs principles?

Alan Vowles, Hovingham