Would Kerry support a military coup like that in Egypt in the US, against Obama, where millions of birthers, racists and Tea Party-ers would support it?

US Secretary of State John Kerry claims the military coup against elected President Mohammed Morsi was “restoring democracy” because it was supported by millions of people (‘Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood 'disappointed' by John Kerry's remarks’ Guardian 1st August)  (1).

While there were many naïve liberals and socialists who backed the coup, there were also large numbers of former members and even MPs from Mubarak’s NDP party (2) – (4).

The Tamarod movement which ran the petition against Morsi didn’t even realise it’s main funders were businessmen who supported Mubarak’s regime (5).

Some of Tamarod’s members left the movement shortly before Morsi’s overthrow, saying it had been infiltrated by Mubarak supporters and secret police (6).

Morsi was accused of “mismanaging the economy” resulting in petrol shortages and electricity black outs. Yet these crises miraculously disappeared as soon as Morsi was overthrown – because they too were organised by pro-Mubarak businessmen and probably the military, which owns much of the Egyptian economy, including many petrol stations (7) – (8).

There are millions of birthers, tea-party-ers and racists in the US who would support a military coup against President Obama, who they also continually claim is acting unconstitutionally and undemocratically. Would that make it legitimate?

Kerry also claims “the military did not take over”.

General Sissi has made himself Commander in Chief of the military, Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister (9).

Sissi appointed the interim President, Adly Mansour, originally made a judge by Mubarak, who lifted the ban on members of Mubarak’s dictatorship standing in elections (10).

The Chief Prosecutor sacked by Morsi for acquitting Mubarak’s security officials of ordering protesters killed is back (11) – (13).

Secret police units disbanded after Mubarak was overthrown are back too (14).

So the military and officials from the old dictatorship are back in power.

Some of the supposedly liberal and democratic opposition also seem more personally ambitious than concerned with democracy. For instance the head of the Tamarod movement told General Sisi that holding a referendum on whether Morsi could stay on as elected President was unacceptable – he had to be “recalled” or overthrown. This leader has also said he has an ambition to be President of Egypt himself (15).

Having some civilians, some of them dupes from among the secular protesters, who naively believe they are in charge, the rest former dictatorship members, as a fig leaf for military rule is something any impartial observer should be able to see through.

The coup government has killed more protesters in a month than died in a year under Morsi – and unlike under Morsi, when each side’s protesters were killing the other, with as many pro as anti Morsi protesters killed, this time almost all the dead are anti-coup protesters and Morsi supporters.

As long as the Obama administration continue supporting the military coup and bloody counter-revolution by the military and old regime any claims Obama makes of supporting democracy or human rights are empty.

 

(1) = Guardian 03 Aug 2013 ‘Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood 'disappointed' by John Kerry's remarks’,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/egypt-muslim-brother-john-kerry-remarks

(2) = Wall Street Journal 05 Jul 2013 ‘Egyptians Open Door to Mubarak's Allies’,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324260204578587872719316196.html ; see 4^th, 17^th, 19^th , 20^th paragraphs ‘Mohammed Abul Ghar, the head of Egypt's secular-leaning Social Democratic Party and a leader in the National Salvation Front, the leading opposition group to Mr. Morsi…After Mr. Morsi claimed authority over Egypt's judiciary in November, many of the young secular activists behind the revolution against Mr. Mubarak made common cause with Mr. Shafiq's supporters and other NDP loyalists… The party decided to accept former NDP members who weren't close to Mr. Mubarak and whose records were clean of corruption allegations… Gamal al Zini, a former NDP parliamentarian from the Nile Delta city of Damiet, said he has had regular meetings with local youth activists, Tamarod leaders and members of Mr. ElBaradei's Constitution Party since May..’

(3) = Egypt Independent 20 Feb 2013 ‘Former NDP members to form new party’,
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/former-ndp-members-form-new-party

(4) = Ahram Online 11 Feb 2011 ‘NDP Offshoots’,
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/33/104/26897/Elections-/Political-Parties/NDP-Offshoots.aspx

(5) = NYT 10 Jul 2013 ‘Sudden Improvements in Egypt Suggest a Campaign to Undermine Morsi’, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/world/middleeast/improvements-in-egypt-suggest-a-campaign-that-undermined-morsi.html?_r=2&

(6) = Reuters 08 Jul 2013 ‘The Egyptian rebel who "owns" Tahrir Square’, http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/egypt-protests-tamarud-idINDEE96702M20130708 ; ‘One Tamarud activist who spoke to Reuters said she resigned three days before the giant protest because she was concerned that the secret police and former Mubarak supporters were infiltrating the movement. …"Many of the people I'd worked with left, and some of the new faces I knew were felul (remnants), nostalgic for Mubarak, or justifying the work of state security."’

(7) = (5) above

(8) = Al Jazeera 15 Feb 2012 ‘Egypt military's economic empire’,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/2012215195912519142.html

(9) = Independent 24 Jul 2013 ‘Showdown in Cairo: Egyptian general demands permission to take on the ‘terrorists’’, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/showdown-in-cairo-egyptian-general-demands-permission-to-take-on-the-terrorists-8729903.html

(10) = BBC News 04 Jul 2013 ‘Profile: Interim Egyptian President Adly Mansour’,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23176293

(11) = Al Ahram Online 04 Jul 2013 ‘Prosecutor-general sacked by Morsi reinstated’,
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/75698/Egypt/Politics-/Prosecutorgeneral-sacked-by-Morsi-reinstated.aspx

(12) = Amnesty International 02 Jun 2013 ‘Egypt: Mubarak verdict fails to deliver full justice’,  http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/egypt-mubarak-2012-06-02 ; ‘However, the acquittal of all the other defendants, including senior security officials, leaves many still waiting for full justice…Six senior security officials, including former head of the now-disbanded State Security Investigations service (SSI), were acquitted…Corruption charges against two of Mubarak’s sons, Gamal and Alaa, and his business associate Hussein Salem, who was tried in absentia, were dropped.’

(13) = VOA News 08 Jun 2013 ‘Anger Erupts in Egypt Over Mubarak Retrial’, http://www.voanews.com/content/anger-erupts-in-egypt-over-mubarak-trial/1677958.html ‘Anger erupted Saturday in the Egyptian court retrying ousted president Hosni Mubarak for complicity in the killings of hundreds of protesters, after a judge barred the participation of lawyers representing families of those killed.’

(14) = Guardian 29 Jul 2013 ‘Egypt restores feared secret police units’,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/29/egypt-restores-secret-police-units

(15) = Reuters 08 Jul 2013 ‘The Egyptian rebel who "owns" Tahrir Square’,
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/08/egypt-protests-tamarud-idINDEE96702M20130708

Clegg and Cameron and their parties are the ones who are too dependent on state hand-outs - not Scotland, Wales, Northern-Ireland and the North of England ; and their austerity policies (welfare for rich party donors at everyone else's expense) are preventing us getting out of debt

Could someone tell the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, that they are patronising hypocrites when they try to tell the people of this country - apparently including the whole of Scotland, the North of England, Northern Ireland and Wales according to Nick Clegg - that they can't afford to fund our supposed dependency on welfare any more ; and liars or delusional when they tell us their policies are reducing our debts and our deficit.

At their public relations press conference at a tractor factory in Essex the other day, Cameron and Clegg helpfully explained that they had no choice but to cut the deficit by any means necessary to get us out of debt.

Never mind that their so-called austerity policies - welfare for the richest, cuts for the the majority, (including those who need it most - the disabled, unemployed, poor and pensioners) have pushed us back into recession, unemployment over 2.6 million (with the short term fall of 35,000 soon to be wiped out again by a longer term rise to an estimated 2.85 million by the end of the year). Just to top it off they've actually actually increased the trade deficit (value of exports, minus value of imports) by almost £1 billion between January and February this year alone , by making the vicious circle of falling demand and rising unemployment that happens in a recession worse by sacking so many teachers, doctors, nurses and lecturers and by denying benefit to or cutting benefits for the disabled, unemployed, pensioners and working people on low incomes. Given all that any fall in the budget deficit will be short term and soon reversed without a change in policy (1) - (4).

(For instance the abolition of almost all tax credits has more than cancelled out any benefits to those working on low incomes from raising the starting rate for paying income tax to £8,000. While the 50p tax rate for the richest was cut, the starting rate for the 40% tax rate was lowered, so hitting middle and upper middle earners harder too. ) (5) - (7) (I have to admit here to having been wrong in supporting replacing tax credits with a higher starting rate for income tax)

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also explained (at the tractor factory) that Scotland, the North of England, Wales and Northern Ireland had all become too dependent on state hand-outs and that this "gravy train" was fine during the boom times but that we couldn't afford it any more.

(Watched this live on the BBC's News 24 , but can't find a complete transcript of it nor a complete video online)

Cameron and Clegg are paid with taxpayer money and dependent on throwing public money and lives to banks, arms companies (including as they sell arms to dictatorships killing Arab Spring democracy protesters), the PFI and PPP contractors, privatised rail operators and the pointless Afghanistan war and the Olympic circus like there's no tomorrow ; while allowing the recipients of taxpayers' money to avoid taxes themselves through tax havens. This gets them donations to their election campaigns from the recipients of these subsidies and tax breaks - big banks, firms and billionaires donating to party funds (8) - (10).

What have Cameron or Clegg ever done for the people of Scotland, Wales, the North of England, Northern Ireland, or the UK as a whole, in return for their £130,000 plus state funded annual salaries - five times the median wage - other than rob us to pay donors to party funds, while pretending that we simply don't understand that whatever's best for them and their donors must be what's best for everyone? (which is a pathetic fallacy based on a false assumption of identity of interests.) (11)

That's apart from the fact that London gets immensely higher levels of public spending on the infrastructure required for a strong economy (particularly transport) than any other part of the UK - and that the heads of the City of London's financial sector are the ones who caused the crisis and recession and who are paying themselves obscene bonuses with taxpayers' money. We are all now paying for the City of London's financial sector - and the Channel Island, Man , Belize and Cayman Island tax havens which caused the financial crisis and will cause another unless they're shut down (12).

Even the banks that didn't get bailed out were only saved from falling like dominoes as banks did in the 1929 Great Crash in the US by the majority of taxpayers paying for the bail-outs. The Conservative party's funding from banks, hedge funds and the rest of the financial sector has increased to at least 50% of all donations to their party's funds (13).

That explains why they cap benefits for people who desperately need the money but not bankers' bonuses for people who already have hundreds of times more than they could possibly need - and why the government hasn't made any serious attempt to close down the tax havens (just some window dressing) or re-regulate the financial sector. It also suggests that when the Conservatives say "we're all in it together" they really mean that they and their billionaire, banker and oil and arms company pals are all working together to rob everyone else.

Come the next general election this pair of public welfare recipient, dependent, hypocrites' days of living off the state and off of people who actually do work that benefits others, while contributing nothing themselves, will be coming to an abrupt end.

Sources

(1) = BBC News 25 Apr 2012 'UK economy in double-dip recession', , 'The UK economy has returned to recession, after shrinking by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012.A sharp fall in construction output was behind the surprise contraction, the Office for National Statistics said.A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. The economy shrank by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of 2011.'

(2) = ONS Press Release 16 April 2012 'Labour Market Statistics, April.', http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/april-2012/index.html , 'The unemployment rate was 8.3 per cent of the economically active population, down 0.1 on the quarter. There were 2.65 million unemployed people, down 35,000 on the quarter. This is the first quarterly fall in unemployment since the three months to May 2011.

(3) = BBC News 04 May 2012 'High unemployment to do 'permanent damage' to UK', http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17942814 ; 'The UK unemployment rate will rise from its current 8.3% to almost 9% by the end of this year, doing "permanent damage to the UK's productive capacity", a think tank has said.The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said that the persistent weakness in the economy was "unprecedented".'

(4) = ONS Press Release 12 Apr 2012 'UK Trade, February 2012',
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/uktrade/uk-trade/february-2012/index.html , 'The deficit on seasonally adjusted trade in goods was £8.8 billion in February, compared with the deficit of £7.9 billion in January.'

(5) = Independent 27 Dec 2011 'Britain's poorest hit by £2.5bn 'stealth tax' , http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britains-poorest-hit-by-25bn-stealth-tax-6281832.html , 'Tax cuts for low and middle-income families in April will be dwarfed by hidden reductions in tax credits, according to a study for The Independent.

The analysis found that the £1bn of tax cuts in April will be outweighed by reductions of more than £2.5bn in the complex tax-credit scheme.'

(6) = Independent on Sunday 18 Mar 2012 'Working poor left out in the cold as benefit U-turn targets better-off ', http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/working-poor-left-out-in-the-cold-as-benefit-uturn-targets-betteroff-7576431.html

(7) = DirectGov Budget 2011 Tax Changes, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/nl1/newsroom/budget/budget2011/dg_wp195609

(8) = Campaign Against the Arams Trade - Export Credits,
http://www.caat.org.uk/issues/ecgd.php

9) = guardian.co.uk 09 Jul 2011 '300 schools to be built with £2bn PFI scheme', http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/19/300-schools-built-private-finance-scheme

(10) = Guardian 09 Mar 2012 'Olympic Games risk going over budget as cost hits £11bn, say MPs', http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/mar/09/olympic-games-budget-cost

(11) = www.parliament.uk 'Frequently Asked Questions: MPs ',
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/

(12) = BBC News 18 Dec 2011 'Transport spending 'skewed towards London', http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349

(13) = Bureau of Investigative Journalism 08 Feb 2011 'Tory Party funding from City doubles under Cameron', http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/02/08/city-financing-of-the-conservative-party-doubles-under-cameron/

Texas study actually shows fracking industry does contaminate water - and Institute which conducted it is funded by fracking company

Much of the media are reporting that a new study has supposedly shown that there is no evidence of fracking contaminating water. If you read the full study it says ‘no direct evidence’ (implying there is indirect evidence) and is also playing with words by pretending that drilling the well for fracking, lining it and transporting chemicals used in fracking above ground are not fracking – as they are separate stages of the process. This is like arguing that the BP / Halliburton DeepWater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico was nothing to do with the oil drilling industry because it was the result of the casing of the well being done imperfectly. It’s just playing with words. The reality is the fracking industry does contaminate water (and also air through flaring).

You can even find out half of this from the press release from the University, never mind the original study (1).

On top of that the people quoting this study are ignoring the fact that it was done by the Energy Institute of the University of Texas, which is funded by ConocoPhillips with at least $1.5million, ConocoPhillips being an oil and gas company currently facing law suits relating to it's fracking activities. That’s only the money we know about, because many American universities are refusing to say whether particular studies were funded by private companies or not, let alone which companies or by how much (2) – (3).

Even leaving aside the bias and conflict of interest in the study due to it's funding by a company involved in fracking (which means it has no credibility anyway), if you actually read the whole study, it's full findings are very different to the carefully misleading wording used in claiming that there's "no evidence that fracking contaminates water"

Time magazine reports that the study found that "Instead, researchers concluded that the problems associated with fracking tend to be due to mistakes made in other parts of the drilling process, like casing failures that allow drilling fluids and gas to escape from a well, poor cement jobs and spills on the surface. “These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” Charles Groat, an Energy Institute associate director and the lead author of the study, said in a statement." (4) So in other words fracking does cause these problems – but so does drilling for oil on land (something everyone knows already, so redundant).

It found that fracking does contaminate water in practice, because mistakes are made and short-cuts taken, leading to breaches in the casing during fracking and spilling of fracking chemicals above ground just as with drilling for oil, except that fracking pollutes ground water on land and so our drinking water.

Additionally the study admits that methane and various toxic materials present in the earth before fracturing begins may be released into wells and ground water due to fracturing, contaminating it - which shows how dishonest the summary claiming 'no evidence of contamination due to fracking' is.

See page 19 of the original study on this, which says "It appears that many of the water quality changes observed in water wells in a similar time frame as shale gas operations may be due to mobilization of constituents that were already present in the wells by energy (vibrations and pressure pulses) put into the ground during drilling and other operations rather than by hydraulic fracturing fluids or leakage from the well casing. As the vibrations and pressure changes disturb the wells, accumulated particles of iron and manganese oxides, as well as other materials on the casing wall and well bottom, may become agitated into suspension causing changes in color (red, orange or gold), increasing turbidity, and release of odors." (5)

Also note the ‘may’ – not very definite language.

So saying fracking doesn't cause it is misleading if the drilling to prepare for fracking the transportation of chemicals for fracking and the lining of the drilled wells does.

When this study and other proponents of fracking claim that water or air contamination is “not caused by fracking” it’s like claiming that the BP / Halliburton DeepWater Horizon oil spill was not due to drilling for oil because it was due to faulty capping of the well with concrete – it’s playing with words. In fact the fracking industry’s activities do cause water and air pollution just as oil drilling does cause oil spills and water and air pollution. The difference with fracking is that it's on land where spills can pollute water supplies and gas from flaring is likely to have dispersed less than gas flared on oil rigs by the time it reaches land, meaning it will affect more people breathing it in.

(1) = Energy Institute of the University of Texas press release 23 Mar 2012 'Study Shows No Evidence of Groundwater Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing', http://energy.utexas.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154:study-shows-no-evidence-of-groundwater-contamination-from-hydraulic-fracturing&catid=34:press-releases&Itemid=54

(2) = University of Texas ‘ConocoPhillips Gives $1.5 Million to Fund Cutting-Edge Energy Research’, http://giving.utexas.edu/2010/11/01/conocophillips-energy-research/

(3) = BreakingLawSuitNews.com 23 Jan 2012 ‘Lawsuit Filed Against ConocoPhillips for Alleged Fracking-Related Water Contamination’ http://breakinglawsuitnews.com/lawsuit-filed-against-conocophillips-for-alleged-fracking-related-water-contamination/

(4) = Time 17 Feb 2012 ‘Shale Gas: It’s Not the Fracking That Might Be the Problem. It’s Everything Else’, http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2012/02/17/shale-gas-its-not-the-fracking-that-might-be-the-problem-its-everything-else/#ixzz1pKQpiwwM

(5) = Groat, Charles G. & Grimshaw, Thomas W. ( 2012) ‘Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development’,  Energy Institute of the University of Texas, February 2012, http://www.velaw.com/UploadedFiles/VEsite/Resources/ei_shale_gas_reg_summary1202[1].pdf (seems to download ok after a couple of refreshes on Internet Explorer, but won’t download on Firefox)

Fracking Insane - scientific evidence shows fracking causes illness by contaminating water and air with methane gas and toxic chemicals

The only reports saying it doesn’t are funded by the companies involved in fracking

Fracking or ‘hydraulic fracturing’ for shale gas has been being carried out for decades in the US and has now been approved by the British Coalition government (including Lib Dem minister Chris Hune) in Lancashire, including near Blackpool and by the Scottish SNP government in Scotland near Dumfries – with plans for more elsewhere (1) – (2).

 This is either a major mistake due to governments being taken in by propaganda and supposedly objective scientific studies funded by the companies involved; or else they are selling out the people they're meant to represent.

Oil companies who want to carry out ‘fracking’ (hydraulic fracturing) for gas are constantly claiming that there is ‘no evidence’ that fracking causes pollution of ground water or drinking water and no evidence it causes illnesses due to chemical and methane gas poisoning.

That claim is completely false. There’s lots of evidence of methane gas pollution of drinking water and ground water caused by fracking, found over decades, right up to the present ; and some recent evidence of chemicals used in fracking polluting water supplies.

The Evidence that Fracking causes air and water pollution with methane gas and fracking chemicals and serious illness

There’s a 1987 US environmental Protection Agency report on methane pollution of water supplies due to fracking in the mid-1980s in the US (3).

Those details of that report were not publicised by the EPA at the time for the same reason that most investigations of the effects of fracking are withheld for decades in the US - because big companies involved in fracking threatened people with law suits and legal bills they couldn’t afford if they continued to mention it ; and offered massive pay outs for ‘sealed court’ settlements on the other hand.

There are also recent scientific studies of dozens of fracking operations which found that ‘In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction.’ (4)

There are also studies from 1999 to the present showing levels of methane in well water in areas where fracking has taken place being vastly greater than in other areas – often high enough to cause explosions (5) – (7).

The US EPA has also recently found evidence of pollution of water in Wyoming with chemicals used in fracking there (8).

The documentary film ‘gasland’, which showed people made seriously ill by air and water pollution and tapwater which could be set on fire as a result of fracking, is constantly attacked as ‘propaganda’ and ‘unscientific’ by the oil and gas companies and their lawyers. In fact it is supported by all of the above scientific evidence; and the main critics of Gasland have been revealed as industry front groups – especially Energy in Depth, whose funders are all companies involved in fracking (9) – (10).

BBC reports from Pennsylvania show the same problem – tapwater so full of methane and other chemicals that it can be set on fire – as the Gasland documentary did , as well as the same serious illnesses among residents within days of fracking beginning, including barium poisoning (11).

Many of the supposedly objective scientific studies of fracking which claim there’s no evidence it pollutes water supplies are directly or indirectly funded by the oil and gas companies involved in fracking.

Even one of these studies (by the Swanson School of Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh) admits that ‘Air pollution is another factor that must be taken into consideration. Near the end of the well development, there is a practice called flaring that is used to get rid of the waste gas that is not able to be used. The excess gas is essentially set ablaze, leaving flames spewing far into the sky, burning for days on end, and emitting a significant amount of noxious gases.’ (12)

The Swanson study quotes it’s ‘additional resources’ as including  another supposedly objective academic study ‘The Economic Impacts of the Marcellus Shale: Implications for New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia’ which was a study funded by the ‘Marcellus Shale Coalition’, which factcheck.org found is in fact a trade association of companies involved in fracking for gas in the US (13) – (15).

A look at the full members of the Marcellus Shale Coalition and the funders of Energy in Depth shows they are the same companies (16) – (17).

Reports by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette found the Universities of Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania are among those who refuse to provide details on what departments and studies were funded by private companies, let alone which private companies; and that campus associations and other proxy groups of these universities are taking money from the oil and gas companies for fracking operations on land owned by the universities, giving their studies of fracking another source of bias and conflict of interest (18) – (19).

Unsurprisingly the Swanson report  ends with the standard (and false) industry line that ‘It is important to note that not one case of pollution due to hydraulic fracturing has ever been recorded, though there have been occurrences due to other stages of the drilling process’ (my emphasis) (20)

The second part of the sentence seems to be making a distinction which in practice reveals how dishonest the first part of the sentence is. It’s just a semantic trick - playing with words by pretending that the stage of the fracking process which causes methane gas or chemical pollution of water supplies makes any difference.

The costs of fracking vastly outweigh the benefits

What will the costs be in terms of polluting farmland and drinking water supplies if fracking is allowed to continue? What will the cost be to the NHS and in lives of making large numbers of people ill , requiring treatment and unable to work, from methane and chemical pollution of drinking water and air due to fracking? What will be the cost in lives as people start dying due to fracking pollution of air and water supplies? How can jobs for some justify illness and death for far more people?

Is the plan perhaps that the number of people who die will reduce the unemployment statistics in the long run and that any who become too ill to work in the meantime will be classed as disabled rather than unemployed?

Any local council or national government giving permission for fracking is failing to protect the health and lives of it’s own people and is opening itself up to legal action and massive costs in the future, plus the responsibility for allowing the illness and death of large numbers of people and pollution that may last long after any jobs provided by fracking are gone. We have other industries we can create jobs and provide energy with – wind power, wave power and tidal power.

The economic benefit of the jobs created will be cancelled out by the bill in illness, death and increased food costs as polluting ground water will also reduce food production by killing crops and animals.

With climate change increasing droughts and the spread of desert and water use draining acquifers and rivers to the point they can’t recover across the world from California to the Middle East, water may be the ‘blue gold’ of the twenty first century (21) – (23). Permanently polluting it for gas supplies that may last only a few decades is not wise either.

What You Can Do

In Scotland:

Email First Minister Alec Salmond on this address -  Alex.Salmond.msp@scottish.parliament.uk and the Scottish cabinet scottish.ministers@scotland.gsi.gov.uk citing the scientific evidence from the US that fracking causes air and water pollution and serious illnesses and asking them to ban fracking in Scotlandon those grounds .

Please also forward this email,  or send an email with a link to this blog post to everyone you know who might sign.

In Wales:

Email the First Minister carwyn.jones@wales.gsi.gov.uk

Please also forward this email,  or send an email with a link to this blog post to everyone you know who might sign.

In England or anywhere in the UK

Sign the  UK government e-peitition calling for total ban on fracking in the UK, and/or the petition for a moratorium until further study .

You can email Prime Minister David Cameron on this link or write to him by post on the address on this link.

You can email UK Energy Minister Chris Huhne at this address ps.chris.huhne@decc.gsi.gov.uk.

To contact your local councillor, MP, MSP or member of the London, Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies go to this link.

Support the campaign to get 38 degrees to start a campaign against fracking in Scotland, England and Wales – add a comment and give 3 votes to the suggestion (this is not vote rigging – 38 degrees allows people 7 votes on what campaign suggestions it should take up at any time).

Please also forward this email, or send an email with a link to this blog post, to everyone you know who might sign.

In the US

You can contact your elected representatives at any level of government through the contact details on this website , refer them to the studies showing fracking causes air and water pollution and serious illnesses and ask them to call for a ban on it.

There are also petitions you can sign up to including Save the Water Table’s petition to ban fracking.

Please also forward this email, or send an email with a link to this blog post, to everyone you know who might sign.

Sources

(1) = Guardian.co.uk 02 Nov 2011 ‘Fracking 'probable' cause of Lancashire quakes’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/02/fracking-cause-lancashire-quakes

(2) = Scotland on Sunday 05 Nov 2011 ‘Fracking’ for gas given the green light’,  http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/fracking_for_gas_given_the_green_light_1_1950654

(3) = US Environmental Protection Agency 1987 ‘Report to Congress – Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas and Geothermal Energy – Volume 1 of 3 – Oil and Gas’,http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/drilling-down-documents-7.html

(4) = Osborn, Stephen G et al (2011) ‘Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing’in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 17, 2011 vol. 108 no. 20 8172-8176http://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.short

(5) = Holzman, DC (2011) ‘Methane Found in Well Water Near Fracking Sites’ in Environ Health Perspectives 119 (01 Jul 1999),http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.119-a289

(6) = AP 5/9/2011 ‘Methane in water near gas drilling sites, study finds’,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42964307/ns/us_news-environment/t/methane-water-near-gas-drilling-sites-study-finds/#.TuPXPHpU2uI

(7) = CNN money 10 May 2011 ‘Tainted drinking water found near gas wells’, http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/09/news/economy/natural_gas_fracking_duke/index.htm

(8) = Bloomberg 12 Dec 2011 ‘Wyoming’s Tainted Water Puts Pressure on EPA to Act on Gas Fracking’,http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-12/wyoming-s-tainted-water-pressures-epa-on-to-act-on-gas-fracking.html

(9) = http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/

(10) = The Independent Petroleum Association of America 05 Jun 2009 ‘Hydraulic Fracturing under attack’,http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/HFUnderFire.pdf , ‘The "Energy In Depth" project would not be possible without the early financial commitments of: El Paso Corporation, XTO Energy, Occidental Petroleum, BP, Anadarko, Marathon, EnCana, Chevron, Talisman, Shell, API, IPAA, Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.’

(11) = BBC news 28 Nov 2011 ‘How fracking affects a community in Pennsylvania’,  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15919248

(12) = Korey A. Kirker & Ryan N. Burger (2011) ‘JUST THE FRACKING FACTS’, Swanson School of Engineering 9 April 20011, University of Pittsburgh , Eleventh Annual Freshman Conference, http://region8water.colostate.edu/PDFs/1267.pdf

(13) = see (10) above)

(14) = Condisine, Timothy J et al (2011) ‘The Pennsylvania Marcellus Natural Gas Industry: Status, Economic Impacts, and Future Potential’, Pennsylvania State University College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering http://marcelluscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Final-2011-PA-Marcellus-Economic-Impacts.pdf , p ii ‘Acknowledgements The authors of this study acknowledge that the Marcellus Shale Coalition provided the funding for this study.’

(15) = Factcheck.org 14 Oct 2011 ‘Just the Fracking Facts’, http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/just-the-fracking-facts/

(16) = Marcellus Shale Coalition – Full Members, http://marcelluscoalition.org/about/full-members/

(17) = See (10) above

(18) = Pittsburgh Post Gazette 07 Nov 2011 ‘Corporate funding of Marcellus Shale studies at universities raises alarms’http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11311/1188150-503.stm#ixzz1gApAdRyG  (details companies involved in fracking funding studies of fracking at American universities, some of whom refuse to provide details of who funds research – including Pennsylvania State University and the University of Pittsburgh)

(19) = Pittsburg Post Gazette 06 Nov 2011 ‘Drilling on Campus: Marcellus Shale boom puts colleges at crossroads’, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11310/1187594-113.stm#ixzz1gB2BK1jO (details how students associations and campus groups in Pennsylvania university are selling drilling rights for fracking operations to companies on campus)

(20) = See (12) above

(21) = Reuters 14 Dec 2009 ‘California aquifers seen rapidly losing water’, http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/15/us-water-california-idUSTRE5BE0FP20091215

(22) = US geological survey ‘Groundwater depletion’, http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html

(23) = BBC News 06 Oct 2009 ‘Jordan faces up to water crisis’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8292228.stm

The NO2AV campaign lies about AV and is a front for the Conservative Party and big business

There is not one true claim about AV on the NO2AV website – see below for their four biggest lies about AV and to find out how AV works. While we know 95% of the ‘Yes to Fairer Votes’ campaign funding comes from the Electoral Reform Society and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, the NO2AV campaign refuse to say who funds them.

There are some pretty obvious clues though. The head of the NO2AV campaign Matthew Elliot, doubled as founder of the ‘Taxpayers’ Alliance (which he’ll probably return to after the AV referendum is over). The Taxpayers’ Alliance is funded by the same wealthy business-people who fund the Conservative party and has a director who doesn’t pay any tax in the UK. Just like the NO2AV Campaign, the Taxpayers’ Alliance ‘refuses to publish details of its income or a list of donors’. Liberal Conspiracy were told by a NO2AV press officer that the person who appointed Elliot was Baron Rodney Leach, a Conservative peer on the board of two large companies. No wonder NO2AV won’t say who funds them – it’ll be Conservative party donors just like the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

Electoral Reform : The Existing System, AV or PR?

I’ve been in two minds about AV, because I’d have preferred Proportional representation (in which everyone’s vote counts equally, whoever they vote for – and no votes ending up “wasted”) or AV plus (AV for constituency votes, with a minority of MPs elected on regional lists by PR). However the only choices we’re being given by the government for the moment are AV or the existing First Past the Post system, which allows some parties to get big majorities on a third to 40% of the votes. AV would be an improvement on the outdated and unfair First Past the Post. The constant lies told by the No2AV campaign have made my mind up for me – I’ll definitely vote for AV.

No2AV Lie One: AV will cost £250 million (and enough of the UK’s annual budget that schools or hospitals’ funding will have to be cut to fund it)

The No2AV campaign get their made up £250 million figure by taking the cost of holding the referendum on whether to switch to AV and publicising it (which is the same whether you vote yes, or no, or don’t vote in it at all) and adding the cost of electronic voting machines, which are not needed for AV and are a completely separate issue. Australia has had AV for elections for decades and doesn’t use electronic voting machines. The real figure is £26 million – one off (i.e not every year) to educate voters about it before the next election. This is out of a UK annual public spending budget of about £700 billion (700 thousand million), making the cost less than one hundredth of one per cent of the annual budget – for one year only. Yet the NO2AV campaigns claim we can’t afford this.

NO2AV Lie Two : AV is complicated and unfair (and how AV really works)

They claim that AV is complex and unfair. In fact it’s as simple as 1,2,3. You put a 1 beside the candidate you’d like most to win, 2 beside your second choice, 2 beside your third – instead of an X beside just your first preference in the existing First Past the Post System.

Under First Past the Past a candidate can be elected with less than half the votes – and in fact only a third of the winning candidates in most British elections get more than 50% of the votes in the constituency. The rest are usually elected on 30 to 40% of the vote. The votes for all the other candidates effectively go straight in the bin – they don’t count at all. So the majority of voters get no say under first-past-the-post – their votes are ignored - resulting in governments being elected with huge majorities of seats on a third of the total votes cast. For instance in the last election in 2010 the Conservatives got 307 seats (47% of the MPs) on just 36.1% of the vote, while in 2005 Labour got 356 of the 650 seats (more than 50% of the MPs) on just 37% of the votes. How exactly is either of these results fair, or even democratic?

Under AV, if one candidate has more than half the votes after all the first preference votes are counted, they’re elected. If no candidate has more than half the votes the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and the second preference votes of those who voted for them as their first preference are given to their second preference candidates. If this gives one candidate more than 50% of the votes, they’re elected. If not the candidate with the next fewest first preference votes is eliminated and their voters’ second preferences are given their votes – and so on, until a candidate has more than half the votes. This ensures that far more peoples’ votes count – and that no candidate can be elected without having the majority of votes in their constituency (i.e more than half, not just the biggest minority). So AV is simple, but much fairer.

By giving voters more than one preference when voting it means people can also vote for the smaller parties or independent candidates they may really want to vote for as their first preference, without having to worry that their vote will be wasted or let the party they dislike most in, because they can vote for a larger party with their second or third preference.

NO2AV Lie Three – AV ‘gives some people more votes than others’ and voters for fringe parties get more votes than voters for big parties do / only Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems will benefit from AV

The NO2AV campaign make up the ridiculous lie that “Under AV, the great majority of voters (those who vote for either of the leading two candidates in a constituency) get only one vote, while those who back minority or fringe parties get several.”

See Lie Two above for how AV really works. Everyone’s gets only one vote under AV. Everyone can vote for one candidate as their first preference, one as their second, one as their third. If their first preference candidate is eliminated during counting due to having been one of the candidates with the fewest votes, their vote will be transferred to their second preference – and so on until one candidate has more than half the votes.

So they only have one vote, just as under the existing system, but, unlike in the existing system, there’s a good chance their vote won’t go in the bin if they’re first choice isn’t elected. It may be redistributed to their second or third preference.

AV is fairer and will give any candidate, of any party, who can get the votes of half or more of the voters in a constituency, the chance of being elected. This will help ensure racists like the BNP don’t get elected due to ‘coming through the middle’ with the largest minority of the vote if e.g the votes in a constituency are split three ways between them and two larger parties, because they’d need more than half the vote under AV to be elected.

I despise Nick Clegg for breaking key election pledges he made. I’ve never voted Lib Dem – and I probably never will. AV won’t only benefit the Lib Dems though – because it you have three preferences when you vote you can vote for a small party or independent as your first preference without worrying that it might be a “wasted vote”, as even if your first preference isn’t elected, you can vote for a larger party with your second or third preference. Minority parties still won’t be able to get elected unless they get more than 50% of the votes in a constituency though – under first past the post they can get elected on the largest minority of the vote.

The NO2AV campaign won’t tell you who funds them – because it’ll be the same Conservative donors who fund the Taxpayers’ Alliance

The Yes to fairer votes campaign campaigning for AV are open about who funds them – 95% of their funds come from the Electoral Reform Society and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.

The NO2AV campaign won’t say who funds them – but their new head is Matthew Elliot, founder member of the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

The Guardian reported that TPA donors include ‘Sir Anthony Bamford, the owner of the JCB digger company, and Tony Gallagher, the owner of Gallagher Estates, both Conservative donors, who with 32 other businessmen have donated about £80,000 to the group through the Midlands Industrial Council.’ along with ‘Malcolm McAlpine, the chief executive of contractor Sir Robert McAlpine, said he had also funded the group.’ and ‘David Alberto, a property developer supplies office space to the group near Westminster worth an estimated £100,000 a year.’ All of these people also donate large amounts of money to the Conservative party

One of theTaxpayers’ Alliance’s directors – Alexander Heath – lives in France and pays not a penny in taxes in Britain.

You can find out more about AV and the campaign for a 'yes' vote in the referendum on it at the 'Yes to Fairer Votes' campaign site at www.yestofairervotes.org