Fracking follow-up

Arguing over whether people actually read stuff before commenting on it (they don’t) is so last week, and thus it’s time to add a couple more thoughts from my fracking post, which was ever so trendy (like Lewis Pugh was last week).

Firstly, there were a couple (literally two) objections to my use of the term “bunnyhugger” to describe those of a green persuasion. Now, I rebuffed these objections by questioning exactly what could be insulting about saying someone cuddles rabbits. But apparently, it’s a derogatory term. Aside from the fact that perhaps I wished to be derogatory, I would point out that “bunnyhugger” is merely a derivative of “treehugger”, which is a common term by which environmentalists refer to each other. See environmental website, for example.

Putting this neatly in perspective: I have called people worse.

Secondly, I found another good (fairly well balanced) article about natural gas and fracking. Since these sort of articles seem to be few and far between, I thought I would share it. It’s from MIT and weighs up the needs, the pros and the cons of natural gas and shale gas extraction.
Give it a read – at least until you get to the first bit where it says natural gas is good, then you can stop and throw rocks at me.

Thirdly, we may all be saved from fossil fuels forever anyway, thanks to the all new, all singing, all dancing (disclaimer: it neither sings, nor dances) artificial photosynthetic leaf:

The artificial leaf uses nickel and cobalt as catalysts to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen by facilitating oxygen-oxygen bonding.
Oxygen and hydrogen molecules are then sent to a fuel cell that can produce electricity. If the device is placed in a one-gallon bucket of water in bright sunlight, it can reportedly produce enough electricity to power a house in a developing nation.

The one immediate flaw I can see in their plan is that many people in developing countries don’t have buckets.

Oh, or water.

Finally, a word of caution from Dilbert on green technologies:

And did you know it’s illegal to have wind turbine in your back garden in Cape Town?
It must be true, because I heard it on Cape Talk last night.

9 Comments | Tagged , , , , , | Posted in annoying people, from your comments, no electricity, positive thoughts, this is south africa

Bad with boomerangs

From xkcd:

That’s what you get when your favourite blogger is trying to write while watching James May chatting about Robotics on the Open University via BBC Knowledge.

I’m actually not too bad with a boomerang, although I’ve only used the modern day equivalent.

1 Comment | Tagged , , | Posted in positive thoughts

Time out

Today was all about family time and stepping away from the hate mail and threats from environMENTALists after the post that none of them read about stuff that none of them read. I’ll reply to the comments there tomorrow. The emails have already been discarded.

Sunset this evening was a nice one. So nice in fact, that I whipped out my X10i and grabbed a quick pic. But while it was lovely, it looks completely and utterly washed out when compared to this beauty I got in the Southern Cape last week.

Bigger here.
Unadultered by Picasa, Photoshop or any other adulterating software, I promise. Not even cropped.

Top class ‘togs will be looking at this and will obviously be in awe of the composition: silhouetted cottages on the left, fishermen and breaking waves on the right. However, while I’m more than happy to take the plaudits – it was I, after all, what pressed the button – I must admit that after looking into the sunset for several minutes (as I had been doing by that time), I was just pointing the camera vaguely in the direction of the big round orangey thing amid the smell of smouldering retinae.

Still, all’s well that ends well and you can see a few more sunset pics from that evening here.

1 Comment | Tagged , , , | Posted in this is south africa

Do some fracking reading

I generally have no issue with people having opinions.

The only issue that I occasionally have is when those opinions are poorly considered. When people have simply chosen one side of an argument to be on simply because they think it’s the cool side to be on or because they have read or been told something, somewhere that suggests that perhaps the other side of the argument is wrong. I’m not necessarily saying that they are not allowed to do that, but when they are unable to back up their stance with some reasonable rational, they lose my respect and with it, my support.

Thou shall think for yourselves

Because the environment is such an emotive issue (you only have to look at the hysterical reactions to a tongue-in-cheek blog post about whales), there tends to be only one side that these poorly-read individuals come down upon. And that’s because it is deeply uncool to not automatically and vehemently oppose anything that may remotely harm the environment.
Yep. Apparently, no matter where you get your “facts” from, if they support “the environment”, then they must be indisputably correct.

I am, therefore, deeply uncool for even considering that the plans to consider starting exploratory work in the Karoo to consider whether there are shale gas reserves there which are worth considering, could be considered, in any way shape or form, to be a good idea.

Not that I am saying that they are a good idea, of course. Because before I began this post, I felt that I probably didn’t actually have enough knowledge or information on the technicalities of the “fracking” process to commit myself. So here I’m really not arguing for Shell et al here; I’m arguing against those who are arguing against Shell et al just because they automatically assume that Shell et al are bad people intent on destroying the Karoo.

I’m not the only one calling for a little forethought though, thank goodness. Moneyweb’s David Carte has stuck his head above the metaphorical parapet and into the direct line of fire of the full-time bunnyhuggers and their kneejerk, bandwagon-jumping associates with a piece emphasising something as radical as er… the need for consideration instead of immediate condemnation of the exploratory plans:

The moral of the story is that the project should be assessed coolly and rationally and we should beware of hot heads, scare mongers and people with vested interests.

Carte cites SA’s need for lower cost, cleaner energy and addresses some of the dichotomies that exist in people’s thoughts of the Karoo as a protected area with reference to the planned SKA project there. He also compares the alleged “vast” water usage in fracking with that of Eskom (6 million litres vs 300 billion litres). Yet because he chooses to quote actual Shell executives rather than biased (and often hysterical) green-leaning or anti-corporate websites, he is accused in the comments of writing “a PR piece for Shell”.
As I said, it’s not nice to be seen to apparently support something that has the possibility of harming the environment, even when you state perfectly logic reason for your statements.

Of course, we all drive cars. We all use petrol and petroleum products. We all use electricity and we all complain bitterly about the price increases that we’ve seen in the past. So there’s a certain amount of NIMBYism and hypocrisy in the complaints of potential environmental damage.
And you can add billionaire Johann Rupert to the hypocritical throng. Quite how a man whose $3.8billion fortune was based on the sales of cigarettes can protest about the potential risk of carcinogen exposure is beyond me.

Those calling (usually in CAPITAL LETTERS and with plenty of punctuation!!!!!!!!!!) for us all to Boycott Shell!!!!!!! are asking a lot of the apathetic South African public. Not everyone would agree with the reasoning behind the boycott nor with the method of protest. And even if, by some twist of fate the remainder were actually to turn away from Shell’s forecourts in SA, it would only be a drop in the ocean for them (perhaps a poor analogy, given BP’s recent trials and tribulations).

Lewis Pugh’s desperately emotional speech at last night’s Cape Town meeting in Newlands, telling us of the dreams of Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Oliver Tambo was pitifully theatrical and contained these lines:

If we damage our limited water supply – and fracking will do just that – we will have conflict again in South Africa.
Fellow South Africans, we have had enough conflict in this land – now is the time for peace.

Wait. What?
Firstly – again – where is your evidence that “fracking will do just that”? Because now having read around the subject fairly widely, I have yet to find objective evidence that this is the case. Certainly, there have been a few instances where fracking has damaged the environment, but then equally, there have been many thousands of cases where it hasn’t. So why the certainty over the damage to the Karoo?
And then the conflict thing: is there really any way that the suggestion that by allowing these exploratory operations we will return to the troubles of the apartheid era can be described as anything more than shameful scare-mongering?

For a man with a law degree from UCT & Cambridge, it’s utterly pathetic. It’s a speech appealing to the very lowest common denominator of the audience. It’s full of wonderful soundbites but has nothing of substance. It would be laughed out of any court of law – institutions based on fact, logic and reason and not on hearsay, misinformation and emotion. However, for the purpose of generating support for his cause – for adding more unthinking sheep to the Karoo flock – it’s perfect.
And of course it will be (and already has been) widely circulated and celebrated by those very people that I am complaining about here.
On twitter, I see “South Africans, you HAVE to read @LewisPugh’s speech about Shell tonight. It’s really important.” and on facebook: “amazing speech by Louis Pugh at antifracking meeting …standing ovation.” (That one evidently didn’t even know where she was this evening. Shame.)

I recognise that I’m unlikely to change the general consensus on this matter. And even if I did, there would be something else tomorrow: dolphins, perhaps or something about rhinos and then we’d have to go through the whole thing again.

All I’m asking is that people to look at both sides of any argument – especially those where emotions run high – before making up their minds.
Read around the issue, check your sources, strain for objectivity.
Maybe you’ll find something that will make you think again; make you change direction instead of simply trotting after the other sheep in the flock.
And if you don’t see things differently when you’ve considered the other viewpoint(s), well just that’s fine as well and you’ll be able to argue your case far more logically and coherently, meaning that you stand more chance of making a difference.

And isn’t that what you want to do?

UPDATE: Please also see my follow-up post on this subject.

53 Comments | Tagged , , , , , | Posted in annoying people, in the news, this is south africa

Z&G: The End of the Road

Music post ahead: meaning, apparently, that my Dad will not be reading any further.

His prerogative of course, but he’s missing out on Zebra & Giraffe’s latest offering, The End of the Road, supplied here in full for the clamouring multitude of overseas 6000 miles… readers who do choose to lap up South African music like hungry kittens around a saucer of double cream.
But aurally.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Decent tune, although I’d prefer a bit more of the Depeche Mode introduction throughout the rest of the song. And a rather original video too: according to my sources, vintage, dusty, circus freakshow, ballet dancer chic is bang on in at the moment.

The eye-shadow is of particular concern though – please Greg – we don’t want you heading to the end of that particular road.

More Zebra & Giraffe tunes on 6000 miles… here and here.
And some spiffing photos of the boys here.

2 Comments | Tagged , , , | Posted in music, this is south africa