There is no point protesting about Fracking if a crony council decides.

In the UK the decision to Frack has been passed down to local borough councillors, but these roles are rarely filled with unaffiliated local people looking to serve the community transparently.

If you think Fracking will make the problems facing future generations worse and feel morally obliged to face those problems now, the least we can do is request an upfront commitment.

For a UK local councillor, regarding Fracking their options would seem clear.

1. Vote of no fracking.
2. Ward referendum and vote that way.
3. Borough referendum or, if no borough referendum motion succeeds, vote in line with own ward mini referendum,
4. Cllrs choice alone how to vote if the option comes.

If you are a Wokingham resident voting in the May 2014 borough elections then you can find your candidate name and address here. Google them and bat them or their party locally an e-mail.


You can use www.smart-voter.org to make sure they really do commit.

If they don't respond in a manner fit for a typical local resident like yourself, please consider standing as a councillor. The starting 'allowance' is on average £9k if you wish to take it and you can do less than a day / week.

Click here to see a Cost / Benefits analysis of Fracking.

One last thing.

It would appear that you, and those trying to frack have an international obligation to physically block fracking?

http://kazeconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/does-public-have-legal-international.html

Benefits of Fracking / Hydraulic Fracturing VS Costs

What is the problem with Fracking?

The essence of the debate lies in the possibility of climate change, pollution, tremors and weighing up the benefits verses the costs.

The Costs

Climate Change / Global Warming

It is relatively indisputable that there is such a thing as climate change. We've had climate change for millions of years.

If our current changes are completely caused by or accelerated by the release of carbon into the air then we need to decide if a warmer climate will suit us better or worse.

Some believe that an overall 4% in earth average temperature since 1990 levels will effectively trigger a cascading carbon release that takes the matter out of our own hands as carbon is released all over the world in forest fires, ice cap melts released trapped gasses, and a general ecosystem imbalance.

While those of us nearer a hemisphere may think a little warming will be great, is it fair of us to force it upon people already struggling along the equator? Have we calculated what % of carbon release should be spent relocating those people further north or south if they so please?

One thing few can deny is that carbon levels in the air over the last 25 years have gone up significantly. Then again, for all we know, without man made global warming a natural global cooling has been averted?

Tremors

We are well aware  water is  pumped under ground to facilitate Fracking and displace the gas. The good news is that the increased and expanded water level that global warming is expected to cause will be partially reduced by pumping it back under the ground. The problem with this is that the structure that hold everything in place are changed. The question then begs if a combustible gas below the ground is more or less dangerous than water?

In the presence of abundant oxygen perhaps the gas would be. Thankfully there is not an abundance of oxygen in the fractured rocks.

Those of you interested in energy may know this but, other than wind and hydro power, all generation comes from the expansion of water. Coal, gas and nuclear power plants drive a turbine by heating water, which expands with great force. So for me water is clearly the greater risk of tremors.

Then there are tremors associated with Fracking what is the cost. If your hour shakes occasionally what will be the effect on your brickwork. Will it weaken, wall ties that were already corroded may come away, the weakest cement may come out. Just like being pushed down the stairs, you may get up and not go to the hospital but suffer life ling weakness in your back. This is again an unknown amount and un-claimable

Water Pollution

Theoretically the water is being pumped below the water table where wells are dug down to provide drinking water and irrigate crops. But fracking is not a precise science. There is no special seal between each layer of the earth. There will always be a chance that these chemicals enter the consumed water ecosystem. At the same time our children are allowed to watch a diesel bus pull away and eat blue sweet, so are we over reacting. Most of us choose to poison ourselves.

So none of the costs are concrete, they represent likely changes with perhaps increased mortality and disease on a few people, but a very small percentage. Unless of course our climate change triggers a cascade of release warming resulting in New Venus. But people said that about the Large Hadron Collider.

The Benefits

 
Perhaps 20 years more carbon heavy growth.

What is the benefit of this? It keeps unsustainable consumerism afloat. 

I think we all accept that, at this rate, we do not have another two generations of  relatively painless carbon dependent consumerism.
 
A good Fracking analogy would be to use the last bit of water of to clean your feet, without knowing where the next drink is coming from with your children in tow.
 
So not really a benefit at all when you consider the bigger view. Not one we can enjoy morally at any rate. There is a problem to solve and I'm not comfortable leaving it to my kids. Worse problem to leave them a worse situation than if I start now.
 
So to my mind. The benefit of Fracking, in a meaningful way, does not truly exist.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing#Health_effects

In the UK your local council decides if Fracking will be allowed so there is only one way to stop fracking.

Eastern European migrants are generally harder workers. Get over it.

Eastern European migrants are generally harder workers. Get over it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/05/speaker-john-bercow-eastern-europeans-nigel-farage

The truth is people with nothing moving away from their families to a strange new environment where they have no safety net are going to have to put the hours in to survive.

They will have gone through a considerable effort to relocate here and, like any new venture, will be willing to put in over time to get it all started.

They also have the option of working hard while living in impoverished conditions for a few years and buying land back home. Driving up property prices for those who never left.

So. Yes migrants are hard workers and increase the national GDP.

But national GDP is just a big number that on it's own has no bearing on the quality of life for the average person. 

Quality of life for the average person is our ultimate goal is it not?

What is the effect on the indigenous population who  really can not command a living wage as a result of competition with the desperate people willing to work overly long hours for below a living wage?

What for the quality of life for the migrant while they are here finding their feet, of for their parents and grandparents back home loosing their natural 'Big Society' which family is.

Increasing the Holidays travel exodus that earth does not have another 100 years of energy to support.

I once forgot to feed three Chinese dwarf hamsters who had lived happily sleeping together up till then.

They never stopped fighting after that and slept alone.

This is where we are headed in our hunt for GDP. When QoL is all that maters. 

We are never going to get QoL while lobbyists from energy, banking and war companies have the influence in politics that they do.

28th of August visit www.GoodEgg.org.uk and be part of the solution. Put it in your calendar now.

No one should request that you to vote wearing a blindfold. If they do, give them a piece of your mind, not your vote.

Capitaism drives innovation.. and then nullifies the benefit.

I think everyone agrees that capitalism drives innovation.

How can it not?

The promise of making more money drives some people to risk investment or commit more hours and do so immediately, encouraged by the knowledge that the first through the post will gain the advantage of brand or patent.

So what do we want from our innovation?

To answer that perhaps we should ask what do we want from life?

Presumably the wisest answer will come from those who look back from their death beds and list the things they would have changed.

Do they say 'Made more money', or do they say 'Spent quality time with my loves ones'?

So surely our innovations should allow us to spend more time with our loves ones.

In terms of health I think this does hold true. We are able to cure more diseases and put other ailments on hold. Were we not living such unhealthy lifestyles we would live longer.

But outside health our innovations generally do allow us to work quicker or automate chores. So that's perfect.

No. Both the average mother and the father need to work long hours to support a home?

Why?

Capitalism negates the benefits of innovation.

Supply and demand. Those necessities have become open to private investment and anyone, anywhere with a with a surplus of wealth may and will invest in owning and profiting from necessities. There is no safer investment.

This places the control of supply pricing completely at the hands of the necessity owners.

As more unnecessary money flows into the necessities they go up in price as CEO's seek returns for shareholders that justify their salaries. 

The limit will be that of the endurance of the average person.

There is no 'low cost living' that will allow those who enjoy the simple things in life to do their fair share in ever depreciating hours thanks to innovation.

There are rules in place to protect the public from cartels and monopolies but as we have seen recently with Libor, energy pricing and the EU having to step in where London would not, the wrong people seem have to managed to occupy the positions of scrutiny.

With the welfare state as it was there was a 'Get out of jail free' card. Doing nothing, being a sponge. The rising costs of that went into the pockets of the owners of capitalised necessities, while a hopeless generation was created, used to doing almost nothing, now required to do more than one willing to enjoy the simple things should be required to sacrifice.

The all important 'fair share, low skill' middle ground that can bring fulfillment pride and happiness to the most people has gone.

With globalisation these levels slip further for the exportable skill classes. Two new low standards are bought to the mix.

• The lowest level someone in a suppressed regime who has managed to immigrate will tolerate.
• The salary of someone in a low value country but adjusted for transportation and import duties.

Local businesses must pay their staff these locally low salaries to compete, even to sell locally against importers. Everyone working harder, for less, using the latest innovations just to stay afloat. 

With real wages slipping the necessity owners have reached the price limit and now seek to multiply their wealth in developing countries where the cost of living will again rise faster then wages. The intended benefit of innovation going to waste.

And in the rush, we consume faster. We can ill afford to consume faster.

So it is clear to me that, regardless of our innovation, the living standards of the majority must continue to deteriorate if we maintain a brand of capitalism where the necessities are also capitalised and where those who write the rules are tied to those same profiteers.

Note.

What saddens me is that intelligent people who understand and accept this continue to vote for individuals who make no legally binding commitment to change it.

If politicians can say one thing and do another you have no information.

If spin is intentionally giving you the wrong impression then you have been lied to.

If you are not able to make an informed decision you do not have a democracy.

Please enforce your right to democracy next time you vote.

Give the next generation a foundation they can build on.

Visit www.goodegg.ork.uk 28th of August.

Nick Boles MP receives 'Ministerial Code Toilet Paper Award.

Nick Boles MP is trying to change the law so that farm buildings such as barns, sheds etc can be turned into residential without planning permission. I guess then other barns will get built, and then converted and more built, and then converted etc.

Since the land aspect of a home is typically half the cost, this potential for profit in owning farm land will swell an already fanatical industry of developers and family trusts buying farms with no intention of ever farming, but to profit from a planning application more than the construction margin ever could.

Nick Boles MP family have a 300 acre sheep farm in Devon

http://www.nickbolesmp.com/about-nick/

Getting planning permission is not 'free market' competition. It is about knowing what might get through and buying that, then getting the right people on board to get permission. Well it looks like Boles did it the other way and became the person on board. I wonder how many of his political supporters are also barn owners looking to make an easy £100k on each.

An MP is supposed to stay clear of issues in which they have a vested interest.

  

That is way Nick Boles is receiving today's #MinisterialCodeToiletPaper award.

Like many MPs Nick Boles should be in court for breach or trust.

But will probably end up printing millions for his loved ones and provide nothing towards the infrastructure the new homeowners will use.


Want to make sure you never vote for the likes of Nick again? Help the Good eggs stand out from the bad ones. 28th August visit www.goodegg.org.uk. Put it in your diary now.

Why it is important that the department of education removes climate change from the geography syllabus for under 14s

The department of education can not afford for all parents and all children to be educated on climate change.

If all children were to be educated that there is a high possibility that our level of development, even now, is causing escalating damage to the planets ecosystem, that the damage even to date had caused many people especially in hot countries suffering worse starvation and droughts, then our now educated children may become life long environmentalists. Their voting may be effected for life. 

The education of an 8 year old is very different from that of a 14 year old.

At the age of 14 children are expected to select their nine GCSEs with the core subjects being Maths English and the sciences, the rest are optional. This means that many students man never be actively educated on climate change before being presented the the lure of commerce.

At 14 geography in preparation for GCSEs the children are expected to retain a mountain of information scientific rather than moralistic level of education and two the select few who choose geography the loss of support to our core industries will be reduced and the focus can revert to less more experimental topics as soil types.

Climate change is a very emotive issue and if there is one thing 9 year old are good at is being emotive. Not only that but 9 year olds have not yet turned 13. The golden age where the young adult casts aside their parents and goes it alone on homework.

The 8 year old is still engaging with their parents willingly and their parent still think they are a bit cute, unable to fend for themselves.

Their homework is our homework. Climate change homework will not only serve as a cruel reminder of the suffering not only on children but on the parents who are struggling to support their own helpless nine year old. And in that setting our 9 year old will ask us what we are going to do about it?

By educating the under 14's you no loner educate one third of the voters of the future. You educate everyone with a child, through the eyes of a child.

Though the eyes of a child we are presented with simple right and wrong even if we are only 80% sure. Many will finally accept that that our consumption is unsustainable and that even the great market economy must be made to work within the environments constraints and humanity to do the best it can with that. That the rules of land ownership and it's exploitation need to change.

It is therefore absolutely essential for the industrial gamesters that fund the main party leaders that climate change education is minimized.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/18/climate-change-schools-backlash

Sustainable GDP. The missing metric

We hear a lot about GDP and growth.

GDP is very useful because it provides us with a total figure from which to take percentages and ascertain the overall health of the country.

GDP / Defect
GDP / National debt
Proportional of GDP from banking / farming etc.
GDP / Working hours (Productivity)

The GDP figure on its own  tells us nothing the level of public debt, private debt, how much it is dependent on consumption of finite resources, quality of life or rich poor divide. Yet increasing GDP is how most senior politicians measure growth and success?

Lets pretend that we found 2 billion barrels of crude just off the coast of Brighton.

A new industry is born in the area, much to the displeasure of many, but none can fail to see the prosperity it brings.

Extracting 1.1 million barrels a day for 5 years. Each year £200b of GDP is off the back of this finite resource. We have an immediate 9% increase in our GDP without taking on any financial debt to achieve it. The government, with what might equate to an over all £100b tax take on each of these years does reduce the deficit a bit but mostly spends the money on nice things and quango's.

The party in power are labeled a success.

Year 6. GDP down by 9%. A boom region full of young families who over paid for their homes on debt dies over night. The government spends two yeas getting used to not having its oil allowance and gets into more debt than it was before the boom.

How can we stop this happening?

We need another metric. Whenever we talk about GDP it must not include unsustainable consumption.

When we use a resource that does not regenerate the GDP that can be attributed to it should be calculated.

The same should be done with the use of reserve resources.

The same should be true of the use of resources beyond their regeneration rate, for example wood and fish stocks in our present day.

Using GDP as the master figure encourages the dog like instinct of eat quick or miss out and allows no insight to the sustainable economy which must one day be able to support our governance and provide a good quality of life on its own.

By encouraging a the use of a global economic model around sustainable GDP where debt and industry levels are related to that, we can begin to learn how to live within those constraints gradually so that in 10-20 years time we are able to do so.

This figure will allow us to allocate a monetary debt figure to consumption. And from this we can allow the market economy to fix the addiction.

An example would be year incremental yearly % of consumption on renewable and recycling technology or infrastructure. Year 1 5%. Year 2.10%

This seems pretty obvious but it ignores part of the big picture.We are not one nation. Either we all do it or the selfish leader has an advantage.

But I believe the advantage is over rated. With more investment in renewable, better working practices, better telecoms we have less people travelling long distances to do similar jobs, we can thrive without consuming resources. We must! 

The market economy is a good way to encourage innovation. But a market economy needs rules that keep it working for the good of the public now and in the future. Not for the families of those who have authority over resources.

A macro model that grows sustainable GDP can do that.