Fracking and the Zombies

We've had to wait for it. It shouldn't be shirked now that fracking has erupted onto the scene. The real debate though should not be simply about fracking but about what national parks are really for and whether exploitation of the land should have any part in it at all. But people get used to bad things and accustom themselves to what should all the time have been unacceptable. Instead too many of us mutter in our beards and say it's nothing to do with me. The recently started debate about fracking in the Peak District should really take us back to re-examine mistakes made in the past, mainly by people who are committee jobsworths.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/columnists/ian-rotherham-calculating-the-real-costs-of-fracking-1-6756694

 Put simply, we should not even be here at all. National Parks in this country have been allowed to prioritise business and the economy when they should have been predominantly a refuge from exploitation. But many conservation postholders and academic commentators are deeply compromised and the link provided is not free from them. National Parks in this country are now officially no different to suburban green belt and green belt is little different to every other piece of land. All must drive the economy - that great excuse for all abuse of the environment and the natural and semi-natural landscape. As with most things to do with nature conservation the question should be about defaults. We've got the defaults entirely the wrong way round. In most of the countryside outside national parks there's an expectation that business – the rural economy – is a priority and only in exceptional circumstances should it be reigned in. Now the national parks are hardly different. Instead of a default situation that nature should come first the decisions are taken by those who are quick to decry anything that's 'anti-business'. The vision does not vary even to define certain areas within the parks as outside the 'business is all' consensus. What is amazing is the main proponents of exploitation are themselves likely to spend their holidays in far distant parts of the world well removed from HGVs and extractive industries. The idea that a new kind of mineral exploitation could be contemplated when quarrying has not been dealt with is astonishing. No self-respecting National Park Board would have allowed the quarrying situation to continue without far more of a fight nor any attempt to impose conditions that prevented roads becoming a horrific mix of HGVs and boy racers. The A625 alongside Blacka now attracts at least twice the number of HGVs as ten years back and the trend continues. Attempts to control speeds are not considered because of timidity, the result being a generation grows up not knowing what tranquility can be. Now the government decrees that when I try to drive calmly on winding country roads at no more than 40 mph (quite fast enough alongside Blacka) I can be harrassed by HGVs whose bored drivers want to do 50 while they're under the wilfully blind idea that they will get where they're going a lot earlier. The PDNPA's management plan holds much of the blame. Two of its four vision statements, however much they try to disguise the intention refer to the importance of economic development, i.e. exploitation. The word you should take note of is 'and'. It combines two elements that can be tough to reconcile.

http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/microsites/npmp/our-vision

"An Enterprising and Sustainable Economy"
" A Diverse, Cherished and Working Landscape."

This allows for no places to be free from work and the economy. Even in our national park everywhere must play its part in the national battle for economic growth which comes before natural growth unless its be growth of crops or livestock that can be counted towards the GDP or growth of jobs and profits. When the ash dieback disaster was first revealed to the public the PDNPA's Head of Environment and Economy, Jane Chapman, said to the Chesterfield Post: "The Peak District National Park is open for business and people should continue to enjoy the area as normal.” This lady has been variously titled Assistant Director for Land Management and Head of Environment, Cultural Heritage and Recreation Strategy in different contexts. She it was who chaired (very badly) a feeble apology for a consultation group session for the Sheffield Moors Partnership and asked us to volunteer ways in which the moors could benefit the economy. I said the best thing for those who worked in the economy, i.e. nearly everyone, was for there to be places like the Sheffield Moors that were kept out of the economy where people could come to rediscover a different side of life. When that insignificant morning was written up in a glossy format later on, vastly distorting and inflating the indifferent and downright poor exchanges as if they had been a debate at the Oxford Union or a major event in parliament my contribution was left out, presumably because it didn't fit her agenda. So were my important points raised in questions at the brief plenary session.

The 'working landscape' as the 'cultural landscape' is one of the themes of Ian Rotherham the writer of the first link above. One of many problems is that those industries may at times have been moderately benign in terms of their impact on the landscape. Now with modern machinery and HGVs the whole character of an area can be changed in a very short time. If you say they can't use these methods you're told that this is anti business and that you don't understand the economy. The zombies are out there and they are employed to quash anything that challenges their view.