Lorraine Allanson maintains that it is activists who corrupted the term hydraulic fracturing to ‘fracking’.

This is not the case. An article shared by CBS news in 2012 stated “The spelling of ‘fracking’ began appearing in the media and in oil and gas company materials long before the process became controversial. It was first used in an Associated Press story in 1981.

That same year, an oil and gas company called Velvet Exploration, based in British Columbia, issued a press release that detailed its plans to complete ‘fracking’ a well.”

The word obviously calls to mind less socially acceptable terms so no wonder activists latched on to it. However, proponents of the industry, including Liz Truss also continue to use the term – Let’s get fracking! Unfortunately for the industry, Battlestar Galactica and other TV series also used it as a substitute for the unacceptable curse!

Both Ms Allanson and John Baxter seem to think that people are against fracking solely because of induced seismicity and therefore cannot understand why there is no opposition to enhanced geothermal. I support geothermal in principle because it could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. However, because there is no seismic building code in the UK, I would welcome greater monitoring of the industry to reduce risks. The seismic readings in Cornwall reached 1.6 on the Richter scale while the trailing event after fracking operations had stopped at Preston New Road reached 2.9, a notable difference considering the scale is logarithmic.

Mr Baxter seems surprised that those against fracking locally are in favour of geothermal using the same wells. Enhanced geothermal is not being proposed here because the temperature of even the deepest well is insufficient to produce steam to drive a turbine and provide electricity. The proposals are all for closed loop systems in existing wells (so no drilling) which use the heat for local projects such as glasshouses or village residential heating schemes. As a resident of Kirby Misperton, I cannot fault Third Energy’s community liaison regarding these projects and fail to understand Mr Baxter’s criticism of a lack of consultation.

I do agree that the Government should be insulating homes as a priority – surely this must be the quickest and most effective way of helping to keep people warm?

Hazel Winter, Kirby Misperton Careful researcher As someone who long ago carefully researched fracking, before concluding that the risks were very real, significant and hugely negative in global warming terms, I never cease to be astounded at what pro-frackers tell everyone that I, and others believe, without a shred of evidence.

I support any credible and sustainable energy source if it can be proved to be safe, well regulated, effectively enforced and compatible with climate change mitigation. I couldn’t find sufficient (if any) evidence of fossil fuel companies embracing those conditions, as opposed to the mercenary exploitation of their oil and gas at any environmental or social cost, for maximum profit.

Hence why they knowingly denied the existence of man-made climate change for over 40 years, but are now masters of ‘greenwash’.

Jacob Rees-Mogg accuses those opposing fracking of being Luddites. I was educated in the Colne Valley, heartland of the Luddites.

They destroyed new textile industry machinery, as it threatened their old ways of hand-loom weaving.

Clean, cheap, affordable, sustainable, home-grown, cost-effective renewables and energy storage are the new technologies, while fossil fuels are the old technology that should have been transitioned into history once we knew the reality of global warming from greenhouse gases over 100 years ago, and certainly within the last circa 40 years. Transition means to change, not to expand and continue. Who are today’s Luddites Mr Rees-Mogg?

Mike Potter, Pickering