Yes, I've been waiting to use that title for some time now. From the BBC Website -

 

MPs have overwhelmingly rejected a bid to suspend fracking for shale gas.

 

But the government agreed to Labour proposals for 13 new conditions to be met before shale gas extraction can take place.

 

During a Commons debate, ministers also pledged an "outright ban" on fracking in national parks.

 

Earlier, a committee of MPs called for a moratorium on the practice on the grounds that it could derail efforts to tackle climate change.

 

The Environmental Audit Committee also warned that there were "huge uncertainties" about the environmental impact of fracking.

 

Protests took place in Westminster as MPs gathered for a final Commons debate on fracking legislation in the government's Infrastructure Bill.

 

In the Commons, committee chair Joan Walley backed an amendment tabled by a cross-party group of MPs calling for fracking to be suspended for up to 30 months while an assessment is carried out.

 

But the measure did not attract front-bench support and was defeated by 308 votes to 52.

 

A Labour amendment was added to the bill, to loud cheers from opposition benches, which would impose 13 tests to be met before fracking.

 

These include the completion of an environmental assessment and the need to consult residents on an individual basis.

 

A ban on drilling in national parks was another of the suggestions in the Environmental Audit Committee's report.

 

After Labour and other MPs tabled amendments to allow the change to be made, Energy Minister Amber Rudd told the House that the government would remove the provision that shale gas exploration would be allowed in such areas in "exceptional circumstances".

 

She later said there would be an outright ban in "national parks, sites of special interest and areas of national beauty".

 

I am generally supportive of fracking, as long as it is carried out in a sensible way and doesn't cause too much damage to the environment and sights of natural beauty, so I'm generally supportive of the ammendmends proposed by Labour. But where do you all stand on what is likely to be one of the most controversial environmental stories of the upcoming few years?

It's all about using fossil fuels. Therefore, by definition, it is damaging as it contributes to climate change. It doesn't matter to me whether some of the scare stories are right or wrong, the main issue is that it will increase carbon emissions.

I'm on the fence about gas in general as it's by far the cleanest of the fossil fuels and so could work as a transition from coal and oil, but there's sustainables which aren't being used to anywhere near their full potential and would be far preferable.

 

Fracking as a process needs more scrutiny, so the final version of the bill is a lot better than it could have been.

the "need to consult residents on an individual basis" is pretty much the same as making it dead in the water.

 

Everyone opposes change on anything that might (and frequently might not) affect them or the value of their property, it's one of the frustating things about resident-based policies in local-government, as NIMBY-ism halts all.

 

That said, I'm also not in favour of adding even more greenhouses gases, though I have enjoyed all of the rich gas and oil-monopoly countries sitting in their little rich ivory towers getting a sudden kicking from it. Short-lived though if every country suddenly turns to fracking and starts churning out more cheaply - goodbye to more expensive wind and tidal schemes......

NIMBYism is really frustrating with wind power. I heard one suggestion which works well abroad is that you have community groups actually owning the wind farms themselves. My solution would just be to build them and see if people are still complaining when their electricity prices fall.

I'm against fracking because in Scotland we have more than sufficient natural resources to be entirely powered by renewables so we have no need to pull more fossil fuels out the ground

It requires more energy in than is extracted, is at a time of low oil prices hopelessly expensive and a backwards step in terms of providing long term energy solutions. We need to spend this money investing in long term future renewables and forget fossil fuels which belong in the 20th Century.