Glo-Bull Warming and Science
- Thread starter signals
- Start date
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
I cannot understand why people are fighting for the right to destroy our planet. Global warming aside, the air in many cities is thick enough to chew. Ground water is being contaminated. Our oceans are being polluted. Our soil is being contaminated. But who cares. People are arguing for the the right to keep polluting.
That's what tree said....
Fighting for the right to pollute...
Stewardship, in some alternate reality, I suppose...
" Fracking is inherently unsafe and we cannot rely on regulation to protect communities’ water, air and public health.
The industry enjoys exemptions from key federal legislation protecting our air and water, thanks to aggressive lobbying and cozy relationships with our federal decisionmakers (the exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is often referred to as the Cheney or Halliburton Loophole, because it was negotiated by then-Vice President Dick Cheney with Congress in 2005.)"
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,299
- Reaction score
- 421
How Progressive of you! Data from 2009? Is that all you got?
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,299
- Reaction score
- 421
Life is inherently unsafe! The LA Transit Authority switched from diesel to LNG and cut emissions 80%! Guess where that LNG came from .... wait for it .... unsafe fracking!
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,299
- Reaction score
- 421
Air, clean air is pretty much an essential. I live in an area where fracking is growing and common place. There were a few people that complained their water was polluted. In fact, their water WAS polluted . . with agricultural waste. They had been drinking it for years!
Yup, air too
Tree's statement was that there are those amongst us fighting for the " right" to pollute.
I agreed, there are, and cited one special exemption.
Sure, life is inherently dangerous. No one gets out alive, all that.
That is hardly justification for not trying. Carried to its extreme, that argument would justify total anarchy and rule by might and force alone. Do what you want, to whomever you want... until someone bigger or meaner comes along and does what they want to/with you.
Society has somewhat decided to live by a different sort of rules. Our society has decided that we should make a reasonable effort to protect Our, and our progeny's, environment.
Sure.... We need(want... ) cheap energy. Sure, there are tradeoffs. NTL, we do have technology now to produce energy in a cleaner manner, and can continue to improve that.
Others, are still fighting for the right to pollute, at our expense, for their own personal profit. Or, most likely, increased profit.
BTW, agricultural waste is an issue too, but not one that somehow magically causes other threats to disappear, or to suddenly become acceptable.
One wrong still does not justify another.
Tree's statement was that there are those amongst us fighting for the " right" to pollute.
I agreed, there are, and cited one special exemption.
Sure, life is inherently dangerous. No one gets out alive, all that.
That is hardly justification for not trying. Carried to its extreme, that argument would justify total anarchy and rule by might and force alone. Do what you want, to whomever you want... until someone bigger or meaner comes along and does what they want to/with you.
Society has somewhat decided to live by a different sort of rules. Our society has decided that we should make a reasonable effort to protect Our, and our progeny's, environment.
Sure.... We need(want... ) cheap energy. Sure, there are tradeoffs. NTL, we do have technology now to produce energy in a cleaner manner, and can continue to improve that.
Others, are still fighting for the right to pollute, at our expense, for their own personal profit. Or, most likely, increased profit.
BTW, agricultural waste is an issue too, but not one that somehow magically causes other threats to disappear, or to suddenly become acceptable.
One wrong still does not justify another.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
So lets make it even less safe. Streets are dangerous so why bother slowing down in a school zone...
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,299
- Reaction score
- 421
Really! How childish can you be?
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,731
- Reaction score
- 9,009
So long as you behave like a sanctimonious pompous ass I'll respond to your drivel in any way I see fit.
You said life was inherently unsafe. Just because something is dangerous (driving a car) does not mean you should drive with out a seat belt.
You said life was inherently unsafe. Just because something is dangerous (driving a car) does not mean you should drive with out a seat belt.
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,299
- Reaction score
- 421
Now that really hurt my feeling Dave!
The only reason fracking is bad ju ju is because it jives with the green windmills, solar panels and Chevy Volts are our future.... mantra.
Greenies were real cool until the fracking boom......
And the only reason fracking is cool is because it jives with the "greenies are all nuts and flakes and what's good for big oil, big business, and Cheney/haliburton is good for America" mantra...
The process is inherently incredibly destructive, dangerous, and environmentally unsound. The product is all of that multiplied.
NTL, It will be part of the energy landscape for the near/medium term future.
There would not be such fierce opposition if it were done as safely and cleanly as possible.
It won't be.
It will be done as cheaply as possible.
Eventually, the taxpayers will pay to clean up the mess that is left behind, and everyone will deal with, and pay for, the resulting health issues.
Saying there aren't any is just more flat-earther style denial.
A comprehensive energy strategy is at least a national security issue, an environmental issue, a health issue, a climate change issue, (flat-earthers, go for it... You are still wrong... ) and an economic issue.
Petroleum does have its natural place, because of it's "bang for the buck, btu's per unit characteristics.
Other energy sources have their place too. A growing one, as the technology improves and costs come down.
Remember, you do not pay the fully accounted cost of gas at the pump. Your taxes also pay for the world's most expensive military presence to keep the oil flowing, and you subsidize secure transport of that oil for the entire world.
It has been forty years since the wake up call
There will be no "plan", as we do not live in a centrally planned economy. Not saying we should. It will he haphazard and there will be failures.
There will be successes.
There will be change.
This ain't Mayberry anymore.
Hopefully we stumble upon the right, or at least a sustainable, mix.
Off the climate change topic, xcpt as gas and oil use is concerned, but for both sides of the oil industry subsidy/tax break/expensing argument, ck this out...
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/10/should-oil-and-naturalgas-tax.php
The process is inherently incredibly destructive, dangerous, and environmentally unsound. The product is all of that multiplied.
NTL, It will be part of the energy landscape for the near/medium term future.
There would not be such fierce opposition if it were done as safely and cleanly as possible.
It won't be.
It will be done as cheaply as possible.
Eventually, the taxpayers will pay to clean up the mess that is left behind, and everyone will deal with, and pay for, the resulting health issues.
Saying there aren't any is just more flat-earther style denial.
A comprehensive energy strategy is at least a national security issue, an environmental issue, a health issue, a climate change issue, (flat-earthers, go for it... You are still wrong... ) and an economic issue.
Petroleum does have its natural place, because of it's "bang for the buck, btu's per unit characteristics.
Other energy sources have their place too. A growing one, as the technology improves and costs come down.
Remember, you do not pay the fully accounted cost of gas at the pump. Your taxes also pay for the world's most expensive military presence to keep the oil flowing, and you subsidize secure transport of that oil for the entire world.
It has been forty years since the wake up call
There will be no "plan", as we do not live in a centrally planned economy. Not saying we should. It will he haphazard and there will be failures.
There will be successes.
There will be change.
This ain't Mayberry anymore.
Hopefully we stumble upon the right, or at least a sustainable, mix.
Off the climate change topic, xcpt as gas and oil use is concerned, but for both sides of the oil industry subsidy/tax break/expensing argument, ck this out...
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/10/should-oil-and-naturalgas-tax.php
