In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 04 2014 09:04 IgnE wrote: I find that the really concerning thing is not just the likelihood of earthquakes or polluted drinking water, wherein fracking is subjected to a cost/benefit analysis in dollars. It is the root attitude that views everything in a vulgar utilitarian light, subjecting our environment to desecration, raising the quantitative over the qualitative, and ignoring the precious, sacred, and immediate for a distant end. A mentality that only views the earth in an instrumental way separates and forecloses us from meaningful aspects of subjective human experience. It reveals our great hubris; that we know best and that we can predict and control all of the consequences of our actions.
When logic and rational analysis is used, human concerns don't get thrown out the window in the process. That's how Marxism worked.
up to date view on fracking and earthquakes. basically the reinjection adds very minuscule seismic energy by itself, it's more of a lubricant for existing faults, but only small scale triggers are likely. one may say that these induced quakes might even relieve energy from potential big quakes, but there's a lot of complex interaction between how small quakes can induce larger ones so it's not for sure.
The video is obviously pretty boring, and doesn't really come to any firm conclusions on anything, preferring generalities. In other words, a standard student thesis. The most interesting points that he made were that it was impossible to adequately determine risk before drilling.
well it's not new research on particular injection earthquakes, but i don't think anyone can tell you a precise estimate of particular risk right now. takeaway is that risk depends on the site but is generally low.
Yeah something about gas pipelines and probably inducing earthquakes sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Not sure if they have anything better than 'geofoam' yet but seems like if we didn't at least expect them to prepare for inevitable earthquakes we are intentionally building a huge ecological disaster.
They need to be studied and accounted for, but they've never been something to live in fear of.
Uhh isn't that just what I said? Looks like the article you are citing shows evidence of humans being responsible for quakes above a 6.0 magnitude and 1000's of deaths and billions in damage. Seems like concern about energy companies/building owners taking appropriate precautions without being forced by law is also a reasonable concern.
I don't think people are fearing the quakes themselves(at least I'm not), it's the stupid humans that have to deal with/prepare for it, that makes me so concerned.
Like I said, despite (or because) the science shows there are risks, I'm sure the 'Right'/ Gas Energy states will strongly support adding new rules and regulations to the gas industry to protect citizens from reasonable concerns... /sarcasm
No, you're playing off of the anti-science fear mongering. There's nothing about fracking that you need to shit your pants over. It's reasonably safe, and as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been.
No ones shitting their pants, unless you have something to tell us? Your suggestion that " as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been." really says it all...
I feel like it's pretty obvious why that statement is so problematic for alleviating the types of concerns I was talking about? Think about how well the risks of deep offshore drilling and the BP spill were 'dealt with'
If not I can explain it. I just got some other stuff I'd like to get done and that seems waaaay too obvious to spend time breaking it down just for you.
Otherwise we have already come to the conclusion that we have different ideas of what 'dealt with' or 'punished' does or should mean when it comes to corporate criminals, and I have no interest in discussing that with you.
"OMG BP SPILL!! **shits pants**"
The environment is getting cleaner, not dirtier, and you're shitting your pants as if there's doom on the horizon thanks to corporate ne'er-do-wells and evil Republicans.
The video is obviously pretty boring, and doesn't really come to any firm conclusions on anything, preferring generalities. In other words, a standard student thesis. The most interesting points that he made were that it was impossible to adequately determine risk before drilling.
well it's not new research on particular injection earthquakes, but i don't think anyone can tell you a precise estimate of particular risk right now. takeaway is that risk depends on the site but is generally low.
Yeah something about gas pipelines and probably inducing earthquakes sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Not sure if they have anything better than 'geofoam' yet but seems like if we didn't at least expect them to prepare for inevitable earthquakes we are intentionally building a huge ecological disaster.
They need to be studied and accounted for, but they've never been something to live in fear of.
Uhh isn't that just what I said? Looks like the article you are citing shows evidence of humans being responsible for quakes above a 6.0 magnitude and 1000's of deaths and billions in damage. Seems like concern about energy companies/building owners taking appropriate precautions without being forced by law is also a reasonable concern.
I don't think people are fearing the quakes themselves(at least I'm not), it's the stupid humans that have to deal with/prepare for it, that makes me so concerned.
Like I said, despite (or because) the science shows there are risks, I'm sure the 'Right'/ Gas Energy states will strongly support adding new rules and regulations to the gas industry to protect citizens from reasonable concerns... /sarcasm
No, you're playing off of the anti-science fear mongering. There's nothing about fracking that you need to shit your pants over. It's reasonably safe, and as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been.
No ones shitting their pants, unless you have something to tell us? Your suggestion that " as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been." really says it all...
I feel like it's pretty obvious why that statement is so problematic for alleviating the types of concerns I was talking about? Think about how well the risks of deep offshore drilling and the BP spill were 'dealt with'
If not I can explain it. I just got some other stuff I'd like to get done and that seems waaaay too obvious to spend time breaking it down just for you.
Otherwise we have already come to the conclusion that we have different ideas of what 'dealt with' or 'punished' does or should mean when it comes to corporate criminals, and I have no interest in discussing that with you.
"OMG BP SPILL!! **shits pants**"
The environment is getting cleaner, not dirtier, and you're shitting your pants as if there's doom on the horizon thanks to corporate ne'er-do-wells and evil Republicans.
On July 03 2014 14:56 oneofthem wrote: [quote] well it's not new research on particular injection earthquakes, but i don't think anyone can tell you a precise estimate of particular risk right now. takeaway is that risk depends on the site but is generally low.
Yeah something about gas pipelines and probably inducing earthquakes sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Not sure if they have anything better than 'geofoam' yet but seems like if we didn't at least expect them to prepare for inevitable earthquakes we are intentionally building a huge ecological disaster.
They need to be studied and accounted for, but they've never been something to live in fear of.
Uhh isn't that just what I said? Looks like the article you are citing shows evidence of humans being responsible for quakes above a 6.0 magnitude and 1000's of deaths and billions in damage. Seems like concern about energy companies/building owners taking appropriate precautions without being forced by law is also a reasonable concern.
I don't think people are fearing the quakes themselves(at least I'm not), it's the stupid humans that have to deal with/prepare for it, that makes me so concerned.
Like I said, despite (or because) the science shows there are risks, I'm sure the 'Right'/ Gas Energy states will strongly support adding new rules and regulations to the gas industry to protect citizens from reasonable concerns... /sarcasm
No, you're playing off of the anti-science fear mongering. There's nothing about fracking that you need to shit your pants over. It's reasonably safe, and as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been.
No ones shitting their pants, unless you have something to tell us? Your suggestion that " as new problems and opportunities emerge they will be dealt with as they always have been." really says it all...
I feel like it's pretty obvious why that statement is so problematic for alleviating the types of concerns I was talking about? Think about how well the risks of deep offshore drilling and the BP spill were 'dealt with'
If not I can explain it. I just got some other stuff I'd like to get done and that seems waaaay too obvious to spend time breaking it down just for you.
Otherwise we have already come to the conclusion that we have different ideas of what 'dealt with' or 'punished' does or should mean when it comes to corporate criminals, and I have no interest in discussing that with you.
"OMG BP SPILL!! **shits pants**"
The environment is getting cleaner, not dirtier, and you're shitting your pants as if there's doom on the horizon thanks to corporate ne'er-do-wells and evil Republicans.
Lol? you seem to have problems with the plain meaning of words.
And holding his bowels apparently. Seems like he showed up just to pick a silly fight and is now in a tizzy. Bad stuff happens when we do stuff we don't understand, corporations are not renowned for being ahead of stuff like environmental damage, its a reasonable concern. No need to stress about it.
On July 04 2014 09:34 Mindcrime wrote: Getting dirtier more slowly is not the same thing as getting cleaner.
Aggregate Emissions -67%
Ignoring your seeming inability to understand the difference between getting cleaner, and reduced rate of dirtying, it hardly proves the point. It's US emissions only. American industry went to China and India where it could dirty up the planet with impunity.
And I know you don't think so, jonny, but most other people here should also be worried at your idiotic equivalency between emissions and defiling the planet. Strip mining, deforestation, loss of wetlands, destruction of marine ecosystems et al. wouldn't be classified under "aggregate emissions" would they?
On July 04 2014 09:34 Mindcrime wrote: Getting dirtier more slowly is not the same thing as getting cleaner.
Aggregate Emissions -67%
Ignoring your seeming inability to understand the difference between getting cleaner, and reduced rate of dirtying, it hardly proves the point. It's US emissions only. American industry went to China and India where it could dirty up the planet with impunity.
And I know you don't think so, jonny, but most other people here should also be worried at your idiotic equivalency between emissions and defiling the planet. Strip mining, deforestation, loss of wetlands, destruction of marine ecosystems et al. wouldn't be classified under "aggregate emissions" would they?
The graph shows getting cleaner, not reduced rate of dirtying.
American industry didn't 'go to China,' we manufacture more than ever. Forests have been regrowing back for decades as well:
Yes, poor countries have been industrializing - but that's a good thing. They deserve to be more than poor and just like we did, they'll worry about the environment more once they have decent lives.
During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 19 percent.
Plain meaning, jonny, plain meaning.
Should be easy to replant the rainforest right?
US trade deficit with China has nothing to do with offshoring, of course.
On July 04 2014 09:34 Mindcrime wrote: Getting dirtier more slowly is not the same thing as getting cleaner.
Aggregate Emissions -67%
I'm not going to waste breath on whether we are getting cleaner or not. My point was: just like all the regulations that led to those air improvements you are citing were so desperately needed yet fought against tooth and nail, the same is the case for fracking. I take little comfort in the knowledge that the worst problems will be in the states that are so desperate for jobs they'd volunteer to be the canary for the coal mine.
Relying on companies or bought and paid for politicians to take proper precautions would be ignoring all of what we have learned in America over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...... again.
One thing we can count on is the next republican nominee for president being as gung ho about gutting the EPA as these guys
Just hopefully they remember which agencies they are supposed to cut/gut when they get in the White House (because that's happening any time now /sarcasm)... Seriously this guy wants to cut the education department... I guess he at least makes a good case for wanting a refund...?
Man I can't wait for the Republican primary debates, going to be the best daily shows ever haha.
During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 19 percent.
Plain meaning, jonny, plain meaning.
Should be easy to replant the rainforest right?
US trade deficit with China has nothing to do with offshoring, of course.
IgnE, I don't know what to tell you, I'm posting facts - good data from good sources. Mainly I'm posting about the environment in the US, since this is a US politics thread and the preceding conversation was about fracking in the US.
In recent years CO2 emissions have been declining as well:
During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 19 percent.
Plain meaning, jonny, plain meaning.
Should be easy to replant the rainforest right?
US trade deficit with China has nothing to do with offshoring, of course.
IgnE, I don't know what to tell you, I'm posting facts - good data from good sources. Mainly I'm posting about the environment in the US, since this is a US politics thread and the preceding conversation was about fracking in the US.
In recent years CO2 emissions have been declining as well:
During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 19 percent.
Plain meaning, jonny, plain meaning.
Should be easy to replant the rainforest right?
US trade deficit with China has nothing to do with offshoring, of course.
IgnE, I don't know what to tell you, I'm posting facts - good data from good sources. Mainly I'm posting about the environment in the US, since this is a US politics thread and the preceding conversation was about fracking in the US.
In recent years CO2 emissions have been declining as well:
WASHINGTON -- People are mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore, an extensive new survey of public attitudes toward the government finds.
The study, conducted by EMC Research, relies on three in-depth surveys in late 2013, one by telephone and two on the Internet. When lined up with historical trends on dissatisfaction and alienation, it shows a public that has become increasingly distrustful of the government over the past several decades. Only the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks interrupted that trend, briefly rallying people around their leaders. Within just a few years, that feeling had faded, and faith in government and politicians returned to its steady decline.
The man behind the latest study is Patrick Caddell, who found similar, if less intense, levels of alienation as the pollster for Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern in the early 1970s. McGovern used Caddell's finding to launch an outsider bid to claim the primary, before going on to lose to Richard Nixon. Caddell went on to find deep distrust within the American people in subsequent years, advising President Jimmy Carter to give his famous "malaise" speech less than a decade later. Caddell is now a regular Fox News contributor.
True, neither McGovern's campaign nor Carter's speech was noted for its popular success at the time. But Caddell thinks the dissatisfaction that was building then among Americans may finally demand action.
While today's disaffection is partly due to the economy, Caddell argues that something deeper is going on. Two-thirds of the survey's respondents felt that they have no say in government, with 73 percent believing the government does not rule with the consent of the people.
"People like to say that the country is more divided than ever," Caddell said, "but in fact the country is united about one thing: that the political class does not represent them, that the system is rigged against them. There is a belief that the system is rigged, and that's what we need to understand."
Caddell and a team of allies are using the study as a springboard to launch We Need Smith, a populist version of the No Labels effort that flopped in its campaign to draw a corporate, centrist presidential candidate into the 2012 election with the promise of tens of millions of dollars in backing. Caddell argues that No Labels' approach was wildly out of touch and that popular disaffection with the two parties does not mean that voters crave a bland centrist. What they want, he thinks, is someone in the mold of the Jimmy Stewart character who challenged government corruption in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."
Interesting research. We do need some structural changes, that will tend to improve the quality of elected leaders. The current political parties have been around a bit too long, and have gotten a bit too centralized, which tends to make them further displaced from people in general. Definitely time for some death/rebirth system cleansing.
During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 19 percent.
Plain meaning, jonny, plain meaning.
Should be easy to replant the rainforest right?
US trade deficit with China has nothing to do with offshoring, of course.
IgnE, I don't know what to tell you, I'm posting facts - good data from good sources. Mainly I'm posting about the environment in the US, since this is a US politics thread and the preceding conversation was about fracking in the US.
In recent years CO2 emissions have been declining as well:
the growth into reduced emissions model assumes a well ordered political system in which the people's changing preferences translate into different political outcomes (regulation.)
this is not necessarily true in totalitarian or outright oligarchical states. the precise route of change is also questionable. for instance, does china reduce its cheap energy dependence and become more energy efficient? when the power grid is a state monopoly, that's not a given at all.
During the same time period, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 67 percent. The graph also shows that between 1980 and 2012, CO2 emissions increased by 19 percent.
Plain meaning, jonny, plain meaning.
Should be easy to replant the rainforest right?
US trade deficit with China has nothing to do with offshoring, of course.
IgnE, I don't know what to tell you, I'm posting facts - good data from good sources. Mainly I'm posting about the environment in the US, since this is a US politics thread and the preceding conversation was about fracking in the US.
In recent years CO2 emissions have been declining as well:
And if someone ever asks why they should know maths, let this be a proof to them. The answer is "So you do not get fooled by people with statistics that look shiny".
The Annual emission of CO2, combined with the absorbtion through various means, is the rate of change of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It is the first derivative. If the first derivative gets smaller, this means that the whole thing gets bigger slower. Not that it gets smaller.
If you derive a real world value often enough, you will at some point find a derivative that points in the direction you like. (This is not strictly true mathematically, but good enough for any real values).
The economy is increasing! The rate of growth of the economy is decreasing! The increase of the rate of growth is slowing down! If you look far enough, your statistic is gonna prove whatever you want as long as the other person is bad at maths.
EPT![[image loading]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72070179/Emissions.PNG)
![[image loading]](http://www.wfpa.org/workspace/resource/image/biomass-forest-growth.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.04.05/annualemissions.png)
