Skip to main content

View Diary: Fracking in California must not be regulated. (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is why few/no serious poloticans (0+ / 0-)

    align themselves with environmentalism.

    Natural gas usage is one of the few practical/potential ways to have major reductions in carbon equivalent emissions.

    Someone will counter with a random non-peer reviewed article about how OMG fracking causes more emissions than "omgz".

    I would  poke around and find an article stating that the net replacement of coal caused by natural gas from fracking has a net positive environmental impact.

    To use a concept I think Obama once did. If you stand against this regulation you absolutely are "letting the perfect become the enemy of the good"

    The crackpotery/extremism/holy war of the environmental movement has done more damage than the ambivalence of the masses.

    The way the crusades against fracking and nuclear power have been waged has made a mockery of the idea of environmentalism.

    People believe in global warming. People want to do something about it. But the comical and stereotypical extremism from the movement has been incredibly off putting.

    The idea and popularity of "hippy bashing" is so powerful that people literally would rather watch the world burn than work with you or your ideas.  

    The SOLUTION. Push for hard regulation. Push for fixing damaging and immediate environmental issues.  DO NOT push for crazy ideas that have zero chance like complete banning of fracking.

    The best examples for both these are the keystone XL pipeline.

    The first round environmentalists won. There were a clear set of potential direct problems IE the poisoning of a regions water supplies.

    The second round environmentalists LOST and LOST CREDIBILITY and LOST INFLUENCE. The argument was made "OMGZ OILS BAD OMGZ"

    If you act calmly and with purpose, you can try for big dreams like a cap and trade system or a carbon tax.

    When you make a joke out of the concept of environmentalism all you do is push those big wins further and further away.

    •  Debunked (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul

      The scientist who debunks the benefit of natural gas in Gasland 2 is very believable.  Most who want fracking seem to have never seen the movie, believe industry hype and lack common sense especially for CA with our water shortages and fault fractures.  There are better renewables but no fat cats paying to support it because it is not going to make them billions like exporting natural gas to the rest of the world.  Another part of Gasland 2.

      •  Such an informed movie "gasland" is lol (0+ / 0-)

        Here is a good exchange illustrating the credibility of your source.

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        It left the op revved up and raring to go with little to no reason understanding.

        " There are better renewables but no fat cats paying to support it because it is not going to make them billions like exporting natural gas to the rest of the world. "

        Ps thats just nonsense.

        If somone had a key to cost effective renewables they would be laughing at your joke of billions..

        cost effective renewables would be worth TRILLIONS.

        A failure to recognize that basic fact is proof of a complete failure of your paradigm to grasp the way the energy industry works.

      •  "believability" is irrelevant (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        6412093

        EPA and Department of Energy have rejected the findings of the Howarth/Ingraffea paper.

        The paper was also torn apart in peer review both before and after it was issued.

        It does not represent any scientific consensus at all about methane emissions from gas well completion because it made erroneous assumptions about gas collection, flaring and emission control typical for industry operations that every other party to this has rejected.

    •  Yes, use reason and logic .. and the Repubs scream (0+ / 0-)

      about God and Freedumbz and lies and misdirection and half-truths that are SO MUCH  easier to comprehend by the generally dim voters and ...
      well, yeah, our side was reasoned and factual, but hey, the  wild screamers won with the hysterical voters SO WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU  ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH?????????????????
      Go drink your fracked water with the knowledge that "humph, we lost but we had the FACTS".
      What planet do you live on?

      Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizzam!

      by fourthcornerman on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:31:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is the NOAA "believable"? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RLMiller, caul, Senor Unoball

      Just saying, their measurements of fugitive natural gas from  fracking make it 2, 3, or maybe even 4 times worse than coal as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned.

    •  again, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, Senor Unoball, 6412093

      California's reserves are mostly of oil, not natural gas.

      Whether one agrees with Gasland or not, it's pretty irrelevant to the question of whether California's massive carbon-intensive oil reserves should be exploited.

      And yes, your hippy-bashing comments about Keystone are noted.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (59)
  • Elections (39)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Law (27)
  • Economy (26)
  • Texas (26)
  • Baltimore (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Bernie Sanders (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Health Care (18)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • International (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site