Caught up in fracking-phobia, environmentalists miss air pollution of oil boom

the left's objective is to stop the development of fossil fuels, full stop

going after fracking is simply a means to that end

My guess is Obama will wait till after the mid-terms, then instruct the EPA to ban hydraulic fracking everywhere (or achieve the same effect by smothering it with enough regulations to make it unprofitable to carry out).

 

I doubt that. Also, that would suck ass as it would likely put me out of a job.

 

In all honesty, do you dream this stuff up, or simply cut and paste from whatever right wing internet source floats your boat? I'm curious, because there is an undeniable tendency by you and others of your ilk here to blame "the Left" for just about anything that you perceive to be against the agenda of "the Right." Just what is this "Left" that you speak of? To you, apparently, it is a group so broad that I doubt that a broad brush does it for you. My guess is that you use a roller. Just to be clear, in case you aren't "getting me," that monolithic group on "the Left" doesn't exist. There is NO monolithic group on the Left. Opinions about energy, where to get it, what kind to use, are all over the map among liberals. And we argue with each other about damned near everything. Take me, for example. I support the Keystone XL Pipeline. I just didn't support the initially proposed route. I have friends entirely against it, friends that aren't interested, and friends that feel like I do. That we could use both the jobs and the energy, as long as the pipeline is built to the highest environmental standards, and uses a route that conforms to that, which means not putting it over major aquifers, where an accident would have the worst possible consequences. So I don't support stopping the development of fossil fuels. I do support weaning ourselves off of them and developing alternatives as quickly as we can. That's vastly different than your absurd statement. To simply halt their development would destroy not only the American economy, but the world's.

Really, Commodore, could you broaden your mind just a little? With all due respect.

 

any generalization has exceptions

It's not a stretch to posit Obama wants to curtail fossil fuel development. The only reason he hasn't been able to is because of the rapid increase in shale gas extraction.

Fracking has been around for decades, why the sudden concern with it? Because it's becoming a primary means of extracting fossil fuels, namely shale gas.

 

So why generalize? As for Obama, why not show some proof that he wants to "curtail fossil fuel development?" People I know think he hasn't done anything close to curtailing fossil fuel development, and are disappointed with him when it comes to that issue. Obama has supported alternative energy sources, but how is that "curtailing" fossil fuel development? Heck, Rick Perry supports wind power and other alternative energy sources. So are you going to lump him in with the President? Somehow, I doubt it.

 

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/a-wCC0Szx4g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

This thread reminds me of my favorite song by sting --- stuck in a moment, I can't get out of. Caught up in the chance, to make it happen. Caught up in the moment, yeah.

 

Energy issues are about balancing the long term, multi-generational interests that will effect our children with the shorter term exploitation to maximize profits and promote our present day lifestyle. You want to make smart decisions. You need to recognize the profiteers that promote unsound courses of action that benefit them.

Water scarcity is a more compelling issue than oil scarcity.

I oppose the XL pipeline because it's the dirtiest oil on Earth. I don't think the US should facilitate Canada's exploiting it as competition against domestic production and renewable resource development. We should save the worst oil until we absolutely have to have it. (it's probably more valuable as a chemical base for plastics 50 years from now) Also, I believe XL privatizes profits to foreign corporations, avoids contributing to the US tax base and socializes the risks of leakage and of CO2 proliferation.

 

Young man, fracking as it is today is quite new. The power of the explosions and usage of horizontal drilling are new elements used which make fracking so successful.

 

Interestingly, so do Nebraskan landowners. People forget that the original opposition to this pipeline was conservative: it was opposition to the Nebraska governor's office having power of eminent domain to take land from landowners to promote a private company. And just last week, the Nebraska landowners won their lawsuit - meaning that even if the Obama admin approved it, the thing can't be built as of now because there's no land to build it through. It's funny to see conservatives ardently oppose private property rights and support expansion of the power of government.

 

Right... The same Obama Admin. that has opened up vast tracts for drilling including many along the Eastern Seaboard is going to end fossil fuels..

 

And it isn't just in Nebraska either. Many landowners along the route oppose the pipeline and these are red states.

 

and you didn't respond to my factual comment that the Right attacked Nuclear Power in the '70s, 80s, 90s and now (via Exxon and the oil industry) and not the Left. The Oil industry has a vested interest in not supporting renewable energy sources.

Well done. When you know someone else's fact beat yours...ignore it like the Tea Party does.

 

I'll never forget when my grandfsather had a new well drilled on his ranch outside of Quitman, in East Texas. He'd had 2 or 3 in the back of his place as long as I could remember, but the new well was smack dab in the middle of a beautiful pasture that filled with blooming clover every year. I still have pictures of Gandpa and my significant other sitting in the middle of the flowers, grins on their faces, some Herefords in the background. The pasture was ruined. Hell, asthetically, I hate oil and gas wells. I hate the whole business. It pollutes getting it out of the ground, pollutes refining it, pollutes when there are accidents transporting the damn stuff. I could go on, yet I drive two vehicles that run on gasoline.

As long as we depend on the crap, we have to get it from somewhere. The key is to do that as carefully, safely, and as environmentally friendly as possible, while spending whatever it takes to wean this country off petroleum products. I know that my grandchildren, if my kids ever have any, will look at how wastefully we drained the world of oil and gas, and think we were mad, and they will be right.

 

Game. Set. Match.

 

NIMBY.

 

I'm by no means an expert on the subject but I was led to believe the water used in the process is extremely difficult to return it to a safe condition, And that no natural process does this. If so, then all the water used would eventually end up in aquafers. I don't think that it is a valid argument when there are simply undeniable facts involved. Also, the OP should probably refrain from name calling in his opening statements, it indicates that he is already defensive and therefore isn't sure he can back his strong opinions up.

 

A wise man once said "Once you start name calling ... you have lost the argument. Shameful."