The inquiry’s reference to Silent Spring is an abhorrent and …

Comment on Inquiry into fracking: Giving it the green light? by Defiant.

The inquiry’s reference to Silent Spring is an abhorrent and perverted tactic to legitimise an industry that offers nothing but greed, contamination and conflict.
Carson would be turning in her grave if she knew her ideas were being used in this way.
Fracking of shale gas in the US has lead to a contamination legacy comparably only to the days of DDT and other pesticides. It is an environmental catastrophe and we know this.
That fundamental flaw in this inquiry is the consistent use of subjective terms in an objective way. What is meant when they conclude risk can be mitigated to an acceptable level?
Is that one contaminated aquifer? Is that a 1% increase in premature births? Is it .1% increase in warming? Is it a 2% increase in road fatalities?
They don’t decide what risk is acceptable, that is not a question for science or law.
That is one for the people of the NT to decide and they have decided. No risk is worth the financial gain that is made by a few select corporate individuals.

Recent Comments by Defiant

Classroom cops back – but only in one Alice school
How about acting on the rest of the recommendations and closing Don Dale, lifting the age of criminal responsibility and holding the criminal guards responsible?
Another concerning move towards an ever growing police state.


National Account figures: Territory last
“These figures illustrate the urgent need for the Territory government to abolish its hybrid mining tax…”, such a tax will increase revenue.
Your arguments about the economic issues with the NT are completely hollow considering you are anti one key policy that will increase revenue from the mining industry.
Your party is irrelevant and hardly deserving of the title of Opposition.


New energy for anti fracking campaign
It may just be time to start considering a genuine green voice in Parliament for the NT.


Gas lobby silent on some fracking recommendations
The report has in no way debunked public concerns or “myths” as the industry would have us believe. On the contrary, it has comprehensively outlined a huge range of risks of significant consequence and probability.
This includes climate change risks, groundwater contamination and ecosystems.
The fact that the industry is already pushing back confirms again what the report acknowledged, which is that there is no confidence in the current regulatory system.
If there is money to be made, shortcuts will be sought, at the expense of the environment and people.


New abattoir for Alice? Some cattle men pushing for it.
The pastoral estate will need to prove it can become truly sustainable or it will not transition into an industry that caters to the modern demands of the consumer.
There is growing awareness of the ecological impact of beef production that is already influencing consumer choices.
Obviously it would be best for all involved if the industry committed to reducing its significant carbon emissions and ecological footprint.
Meat and Livestock Australia is aspiring to move to carbon neutrality by 2030. So it is possible to aim higher.
The land clearing application mentioned above on the Maryfield station has hardly moved through a rigorous assessment process.
It is the largest land clearing application in the history of the NT but it was not actually formally assessed through an environmental impact statement and the Pastoral Land board ignored the recommendations of the EPA.
The Pastoral Land Board should diversify their representation so that they can make decisions that maintain the ecological integrity of pastoral lands rather than striving to push productivity that degrades country.


Be Sociable, Share!