lightenup
A fan of Boobery
http://news.yahoo.com/strong-earthquake-rattles-central-oklahoma-142109871.html#
Your water supply is safe(maybe), but.......
Your water supply is safe(maybe), but.......
Semantics......
Doesn't California need water?but it isn't...if there is another, better way to deal with wastewater.
but it isn't...if there is another, better way to deal with wastewater.
But is there? I hear we have some evaporation ponds in NJ, but then you are left with
dried up pollution in the bottom of the dried pond.....which is better? Fracking sucks, but its cheap energy....My bleeding heart is against it and my conservative conscience is for it.....if there were only a better way to make energy....hmmmm, if only there were no politics and greedy assholes...if only, if only.....semantics I say!
. So I remain highly skeptical that politicians actually believe what they say when they try to tell us that man made global warming is our biggest threat.
Yes, we need to move away from fossil fuels, but it's pretty much impossible to find alternate means of filling 66% of the US's energy needs overnight. We obviously have to find a solution that will gradually, though relatively quickly, move away from fossil fuels. And do so in a way that minimizes the impact on people relying on these sectors for jobs. IMO this means fading out fossil fuel plants (and workers) as workers retire, while implementing new jobs (and job training) for more environmentally friendly alternatives as we do it. On the other hand, I'm definitely NOT a specialist here, so who knows if this is the correct approach. Really, this is what we should be looking to politicians to figure out, rather than wasting out time debating over whether climate change is real or not.
We basically agree. My point is that we already have nuclear power and it does not add to global warming, so why not take even one tiny baby step towards using more of it? Seven years by the current administration and not a word of adding nuclear power to the arsenal, but lots of talk about solar and wind (and natural gas as a bridge to reduce coal and home heating oil usage).
But is there? I hear we have some evaporation ponds in NJ, but then you are left with
dried up pollution in the bottom of the dried pond.....which is better?
I have not researched in depth, but understand that there are treatment technologies out there that can handle the volumes and constituents. The driving component is most likely price. Environmental regulations often require the best available technology be used even when strict pollution limits or prohibitions are not incorporated; if doing that for waste disposal prices gas fracking out of competition, then so be it. And if you want fracking regulated based on greenhouse considerations, i'm fine with that too. But, as far as anybody can tell, fracking did not cause these earthquakes. That's not arguing semantics. The activities are separate and distinct enough to be regulated independently. I don't see too many people protesting oil drilling simply because of the plastic particles filling the oceans, for example.
Ed,
We have opposing views on environmental concerns pertaining to green house gasses , I am ok with that. Let suppose that the green movement get its way. The big four that they want eliminated are (Crude Oil, Natural gas, Coal and Nuclear). Poof no longer available. The G10 countries all agree. Yea ok we did it!! Let the party begin the world is saved. The Members of G10 with their wealth can weather the storm and are able to transition to more desirable forms of energy. They will have no problem doing this. It could be done today. The G10 nations will have wind and solar farms and possibly Fusion reactors to provide all necessary energy requirements for their population. The wild card is the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] world. The poorest of the poor in other words 75% of population of the world. What will they do without the cheep Coal, Gas and Oil that is no longer available? What will they fuel their power plants with? Heat their houses with? Tires, Wood, Animal excrement, Dead bodies, Plastic, Chemical waste… the list would go on and on. What other choices will the have? They do not have the means to afford the new technologies. It would come down to survival. It would be an environmental disaster of epic proportions if the environmentalists achieve their goals and win. Show me the green movements plan for the poor countries that depend on cheep energy. I can tell you that plan does not exist.
WTF are you even talking about? I thought we were talking fracking and earthquakes? Scalable, economical "green" power technologies exist and efficiencies continue to increase. Climate change will be a bigger problem for most poor people than power production to begin with. Island nations are already losing land area. Deserts are expanding. Weather patterns are shifting. The poorest dont have power plants to fuel...they have a hard enough time keeping themselves fed and hydrated, and it's getting worse. And wtf does this have to do with G10 anyway?
I have not researched in depth, but understand that there are treatment technologies out there that can handle the volumes and constituents. The driving component is most likely price. Environmental regulations often require the best available technology be used even when strict pollution limits or prohibitions are not incorporated; if doing that for waste disposal prices gas fracking out of competition, then so be it. And if you want fracking regulated based on greenhouse considerations, i'm fine with that too. But, as far as anybody can tell, fracking did not cause these earthquakes. That's not arguing semantics. The activities are separate and distinct enough to be regulated independently. I don't see too many people protesting oil drilling simply because of the plastic particles filling the oceans, for example.
WTF are you even talking about? I thought we were talking fracking and earthquakes? Scalable, economical "green" power technologies exist and efficiencies continue to increase. Climate change will be a bigger problem for most poor people than power production to begin with. Island nations are already losing land area. Deserts are expanding. Weather patterns are shifting. The poorest dont have power plants to fuel...they have a hard enough time keeping themselves fed and hydrated, and it's getting worse. And wtf does this have to do with G10 anyway?
You make a lot of sense.
Only point I would disagree with is your willingness to cleave waste disposal from the whole fracturing process, I.e., to say that the known hazards of the process are not actually part of the process...
I agree with LU, its semantics. And a bit Orwellian if you ask me.
Making the distinction confuses the issue. Frankly, I think the whole business is a corrupt mess, like the tobacco industry, spreading disinformation about climate change... As to cigarettes - I am not sure I'd distinguish the safe part - the filter - from the cigarette as a whole.
Let me try to tighten up the analogy...
Would you say that the problem with smoking isn't the tobacco, its the defective filters that fail to keep us safe?
Similarly, would you say the problem isn't fracking, per se, but the disposal wells that fail to keep us safe from the fracking process?
IF you ask me...
None of it is safe, not of it is good.
Ed since you have a penchant for being blunt (which I appreciate) I'll do the same. You are completely full of shit when you say there is scalable and economical green alternative power sources available. While we are still a ways away from fusion there are far more efficient reactor designs that could be built today but the same environmentalist wackos that don't want fossil fuels don't want nuclear either. I don't think the 3rd world countries will suffer too much if the UN policies are actually adopted. They will get plenty of cash from the west in the name of climate change. That's the real goal here anyway.
no. i wouldnt say any of that. you can regulate the waste stream because there are multiple methods of treatment and/or disposal, and there are multiple potential sources. fracking isnt the only source of dirty water. your tobacco analogy is not analogous. prohibiting the growing of corn because you dont think people should be drinking soda is more appropriate comparison. corn is used for things other than soda, and soda can be produced with other sources of sugar or non-sugar sweetener. if you don't want people to drink soda, regulate soda, not corn.
Disagree. The oil and gas industry is just like the tobacco industry.
Fossil fuels are not like corn.
http://news.yahoo.com/europes-winter-warmth-puts-nature-tailspin-133609501.html
EdWTF are you even talking about? I thought we were talking fracking and earthquakes? Scalable, economical "green" power technologies exist and efficiencies continue to increase. Climate change will be a bigger problem for most poor people than power production to begin with. Island nations are already losing land area. Deserts are expanding. Weather patterns are shifting. The poorest dont have power plants to fuel...they have a hard enough time keeping themselves fed and hydrated, and it's getting worse. And wtf does this have to do with G10 anyway?
Ed since you have a penchant for being blunt (which I appreciate) I'll do the same. You are completely full of shit when you say there is scalable and economical green alternative power sources available.
This is your best point, whether true or not...
Ed
You stated if fracking was halted because of green emissions you are on board
I don't know what you read or watch but The G10 the 10 wealthiest nations in the world hold all the gold.The golden rule; He who has the gold makes the rules.
I did not come up with this. I had the attitude that I could careless what the 3rd World does . Watching this documentary opened my eyes.
This exact scenario was discussed in detail on what would happen if carbon based fuels were no longer available. A panel of PHDs of different disciplines all with your views on carbon based fuels. They said the 3rd World would have no options. FYI ; The 3rd World countries in Africa , South America and Asia all have Coal burning power plants. They also said,The deforestation that would ensue due to the increased demand for wood as a fuel would accelerate the warming. A ton of Wood has 50% BTUs of Coal and 34% more CO2. So 68% more CO2 per BTU. They also stated that countries “China” would provide alternative fuel options to them Tires, plastic, chemical sludge an easy way to remove their environmental waste for a profit . The panel said that at this point in time and into the near future there is no viable solution to replace carbon based fuels without further destabilizing world governments.
I disagree with Mac that you are full of shit. In fact I think you are one of the smartest guys on the site. I believe that you are arrogant and it clouds you from the big picture. You suck in the negative aspects of fossil fuels and spit out the positive.
Here are some question I ask you.
If you are so against carbon based fuels and their long term consequences. Those massive combines in the mid west the trucks, trains, and ships that transport the food all run on Diesel. Tell me how the carbon taxes that the UN proposes would not have a negative impact on the 3rd world countries that depend on cheep mid west grains?
Are you ok with mass starvation?
Are you ok with further destabilization and more conflict in the world?
That poor bastard living in mud hut in Honduras is not going to see a dime of the carbon tax. His corrupt government will . He still has to feed his family. What are his options? Revolution?
Of course it's true otherwise you would have had a valid counterpoint you boob.