A thought experiment.
Imagine we discovered a magical fuel, some kind of fungus buried deep underground that didn’t just provide power but sucked up CO2 in the atmosphere. The only problem was you had to suck it up through giant vacuum cleaners and in doing so was impractical without the consent of those who exercised subterranean minerals rights under their homes and farms, which in effect blocked it.
In those circumstances those who rightly cared about climate change would rightly lobby for changes to the law in trespass and mineral rights to mitigate climate change. The argument being that the benefits outweighed the loss of personal property rights.
The arguments about the carbon benefits or harm of fracking are complex, and it is far from the friendliest of fuels, but lets not pretend that the blocking amendments in the commons are about protecting personal property rights, this is a pretext to block and obstruct fracking in any way possible. If fracking is to be blocked and obstructed yes just ban it, but please lets not get hypocritical about property rights. After all this argument could come back to haunt you if for example technological breakthroughs were made in ground source heat pumps and geothermal power.
So I find the tactics of FOE and Caroline Lucas rather annoying. Awkward squad rather than simply and squarly opposing what is wrong and promoting what is right.