YP Letters: Way too much hot air in row over fracking

I ENCOURAGE writers to your paper to present their comments/arguments without terms which unreasonably can subconsciously persuade readers of their argument. Persuasion should depend on the strength of their argument. There are two examples (The Yorkshire Post, February 2) which use such terms. I detail these examples below.

The letter from Lorraine Allanson about the fracking planned at Kirby Misperton, includes the sentence “Undeniably, gas is an essential commodity and will be for decades”. I object here to the word “undeniably”. Gas is clearly a major component currently in our energy provision. However, the book The Switch by Chris Goodall shows that the price of solar power is rapidly falling, especially in countries with better sunshine than ours.

For ourselves, the development of long-term batteries is proceeding apace with their prices also rapidly falling. This, coupled with similar advances in other renewables such as wind, means that over this next decade (rather than “several” as Lorraine claims) we will see a major switch in our energy provision to renewables.

The second letter is that from Edward Mitchell under your headline “Let America protect its own”. It includes the sentence “The ordinary, right-thinking people of England love President Trump”. This implies that those Englishmen who do not love Mr Trump, and there are clearly many, are either extraordinary or wrong-thinking”. I do not consider myself extraordinary, but do object to being classed as wrong-thinking!

From: David Cragg-James, Stonegrave, York.

LORRAINE Allanson seems not to understand the anti-fracking case.

The “energy security” argument is nonsense when one considers the role already played by other countries in providing energy for the UK.

Mrs Allanson is, I assume, aware that climate change necessitates the replacement of fossil fuels as soon as possible or faster, and that the financial resources which might facilitate this are being diverted into an industry with no future rather than supporting renewables to a realistic level.

From: Michael Tanner, Nawton, North Yorkshire.

HOW naive does the fracking industry’s solitary enthusiast, Lorraine Allanson, think people are re her letter suggesting councils “bury the hatchet”?

Councils are there to regulate on behalf of the public to balance aggressive industrial development. Does she seriously believe that the proposed fracking well at Kirby Misperton will not be the first of thousands blotting the landscape across the north of England if the industry gets its way?

As people do their own research into the ever growing reports of environmental risks associated with fracking, we are seeing more and more opposition groups forming and rational objectors winning the argument.

From: Jon Mager, Beverley.

ACCORDING to Lorraine Allanson, councillors “need to ensure the companies observe their promises of local jobs and contracts for local businesses in the supply chain”.

While admiring the continued polished PR spin from Lorraine, may I inject a note of caution. If industrial-scale fracking follows the well-test at Kirby Misperton it will be more than hatchets that are buried.

Judging by data on fatalities and accidents in the oil and gas industry of North America, our hospitals and funeral directors will be particularly busy.

Councillors would be better employed investigating the facts before allowing the industrialisation of rural Ryedale.

From: Jordan Brooke, Richmond.

IF the anti-fracking argument is so wrong, why did North Yorkshire County Council back it – and why did Ryedale residents elect the pro-fracking Kevin Hollinrake as

MP for Thirsk and Malton?

Instead of their whinging letters to The Yorkshire Post, why don’t they stand for election – or do I assume most sane people realise that shale gas is essential if we’re to avoid an energy crisis?

Warning fell on deaf ears

From: Elisabeth Baker, Leeds.

I WAS interested to read (The Yorkshire Post, February 3) about Barnsley Council being held liable by the Court of Appeal for the fall of a jogger who had injured himself in a pothole.

The council had taken three days to repair the pothole, the delay having been caused by the weekend, and the court ruled that this delay amounted to negligence.

Several years ago thieves sawed off and stole a metal barrier from the pavement at traffic lights with pedestrian crossing facilities at Moortown Corner in Leeds. Leeds City Council concealed the remnants of the sawn-off uprights with mounds of Tarmac. These wore away and the two metal remnants were left standing proud of the pavement.

On December 4, 2013, I tripped on one of these and fell, cracking ribs and damaging teeth. I reported this danger to the relevant department of Leeds City Council within minutes and the gentleman to whom I spoke said he would arrange for something to be done that afternoon.

Three years and two months later, it is still as it was when I fell. I have telephoned the department several times about this continuing danger, being told each time that something had been done. On one occasion I was informed that a cone had been put over the metal until the repair could be effected. No such cone has ever appeared and nothing has ever been done.

The council, of course, denied liability for my injuries. One day an elderly person will fall there and fracture a hip. I should be happy to be a witness when that person’s bereaved relatives pursue Leeds City Council for damages.