Fracking Version 2.0

I have previously written about my views and thoughts on fracking, not only in general, but specifically to the United Kingdom.  The post can be found here.

Now I return to this issue, due to a recent revival in the topic.

This week, Greenpeace released information that David Cameron was seeking not only to fast-track the laws on fracking, but also to amend them.  The amendment he wanted to impose?  The right of fracking companies to drill under people's homes without their permission.  

Political parties and politicians seek power in order to, supposedly, represent the interests and voices of the country's citizens.  Over 74% of the British Public are against Cameron's proposal to allow hydraulic fracturing beneath their homes.  Yet our Prime Minister is not taking our voices into consideration.  Rather, he is fast-tracking his proposal in an attempt to avoid confrontation by interest groups and environmental lobbyists.  

More than 45,000 people up and down the country have joined organisations and groups to protest this latest development in the controversy that is hydraulic fracturing.  This therefore demonstrates the toxicity of the subject, thus reflecting a shift in value systems for the mass populous.  Consequently, this may be problematic for Cameron and the Conservative Party in the upcoming May 2015 General Elections.  

Such disregard for the outrage the public are expressing and the suggestion of trespassing for oil essentially flouts democratic rights.  As Naomi Klein expressed at a Guardian event, “What is animating the anti-fracking movement? Yes, it’s water. It’s also a defence of democracy. The fact the government is colluding with energy companies to force the right to frack underneath people’s homes without their permission flies in the face of the most common-sense definition of democracy and self-definition."

But most outrageous, is the government’s defence of their actions.  The government claims that the current ability for individuals to prevent and stop the development of shale gas beneath their property would lead to significant delays and that the legal process by which companies can influence fracking plans was costly, a consumption of time and disproportionate to the reality of the nature of fracking.  In short, the government does not want people to question their authority because any reaction or response is viewed as an overreaction.

As Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said, “The decision to deny people the right to say no to fracking under their own homes is outrageous. It shows that ministers are putting the greed of oil and gas companies above the public interest in tackling climate change.”

Since writing my original article and suggesting more people take an interest in environmental protection rather than taking it for granted, the public have engaged with environmental politics.  They are exercising their rights, but are being silenced.  Still, the capitalist economic system continues to view nature as an infinite input of assets, but this greed has now extended to the disrespect of citizens whereby we are viewed as nothing more than an obstacle to overcome in order for greater financial reward to be reaped.  Therefore, I stand by my primary conclusion.  Only by addressing global capitalism and continuing to stand-up and speak-out against the bourgeoisie of finance can we hope to avert further catastrophe.