|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 November 22 2013 16:05 Mysticesper wrote:
Fusion might never happen, but LFTRs should.
Exactly this. Overcome the popular opinion against nuclear and we'll finally have green energy that delivers on promises. MSR's still have no popular champion. If green energy was more about the performances and not the politics and causes, we'd be operating dozens of those today.
|
On November 23 2013 00:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 00:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:46 zlefin wrote:
there's a large difference between not proven unsafe and proven safe, as you well know. This is bullshit insofar as it's applied to fracking. Fracking has been proven safe. There have been hundreds of thousands wells drilled without contaminating the water table. I'll acknowledge that there's a theoretical risk of problems, just as there's a theoretical risk of getting a concussion from playing golf. that's a sophistry and you know it. you need to go read the black swan "it hasn't happened yet so that's proof it can't happen." you're not that stupid xdaunt. by that logic our nuclear arsenal is completely safe also. but then you should go read the new schlosser book and see how true THAT is have some humility in the face of induction and some appreciation of the vast consequences of improbable events. golf is not analogous because golf is not a black swan situation - fracking and nuclear bombs are. or you can just go doubletalking yourself into claims you know are ridiculous to justify your own complicity with something dangerous. you wouldn't be the only one
I didn't say that it can't happen. I very explicitly acknowledged that it could. I simply fall very firmly on the side of the very minimal risks associated with fracking are greatly outweighed by the benefits.
|
On November 23 2013 01:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 00:55 sam!zdat wrote:On November 23 2013 00:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:46 zlefin wrote:
there's a large difference between not proven unsafe and proven safe, as you well know. This is bullshit insofar as it's applied to fracking. Fracking has been proven safe. There have been hundreds of thousands wells drilled without contaminating the water table. I'll acknowledge that there's a theoretical risk of problems, just as there's a theoretical risk of getting a concussion from playing golf. that's a sophistry and you know it. you need to go read the black swan "it hasn't happened yet so that's proof it can't happen." you're not that stupid xdaunt. by that logic our nuclear arsenal is completely safe also. but then you should go read the new schlosser book and see how true THAT is have some humility in the face of induction and some appreciation of the vast consequences of improbable events. golf is not analogous because golf is not a black swan situation - fracking and nuclear bombs are. or you can just go doubletalking yourself into claims you know are ridiculous to justify your own complicity with something dangerous. you wouldn't be the only one I didn't say that it can't happen. I very explicitly acknowledged that it could. I simply fall very firmly on the side of the very minimal risks associated with fracking are greatly outweighed by the benefits.
it's not minimal risks
and c'mon, you said "fracking has been proven safe" which is obvious bullshit
just say the truth, which is "I don't care about environmental damage as long as we can continue to make a profit supporting profligate and wasteful energy consumption, because I don't care about the future"
|
On November 23 2013 01:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 00:55 sam!zdat wrote:On November 23 2013 00:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:46 zlefin wrote:
there's a large difference between not proven unsafe and proven safe, as you well know. This is bullshit insofar as it's applied to fracking. Fracking has been proven safe. There have been hundreds of thousands wells drilled without contaminating the water table. I'll acknowledge that there's a theoretical risk of problems, just as there's a theoretical risk of getting a concussion from playing golf. that's a sophistry and you know it. you need to go read the black swan "it hasn't happened yet so that's proof it can't happen." you're not that stupid xdaunt. by that logic our nuclear arsenal is completely safe also. but then you should go read the new schlosser book and see how true THAT is have some humility in the face of induction and some appreciation of the vast consequences of improbable events. golf is not analogous because golf is not a black swan situation - fracking and nuclear bombs are. or you can just go doubletalking yourself into claims you know are ridiculous to justify your own complicity with something dangerous. you wouldn't be the only one I didn't say that it can't happen. I very explicitly acknowledged that it could. I simply fall very firmly on the side of the very minimal risks associated with fracking are greatly outweighed by the benefits.
What research are you basing this on? Insofar as I know the statistics don't paint nearly so clear a picture that fracking is safe, so post your sources. The SciAm articles I linked give a fair assessment, imho, and fracking is not without some serious risks.
Note: I am not opposed to fracking. I just think industry is rushing ahead of themselves before the risks have been mapped out properly.
|
On November 23 2013 01:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 00:55 sam!zdat wrote:On November 23 2013 00:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:46 zlefin wrote:
there's a large difference between not proven unsafe and proven safe, as you well know. This is bullshit insofar as it's applied to fracking. Fracking has been proven safe. There have been hundreds of thousands wells drilled without contaminating the water table. I'll acknowledge that there's a theoretical risk of problems, just as there's a theoretical risk of getting a concussion from playing golf. that's a sophistry and you know it. you need to go read the black swan "it hasn't happened yet so that's proof it can't happen." you're not that stupid xdaunt. by that logic our nuclear arsenal is completely safe also. but then you should go read the new schlosser book and see how true THAT is have some humility in the face of induction and some appreciation of the vast consequences of improbable events. golf is not analogous because golf is not a black swan situation - fracking and nuclear bombs are. or you can just go doubletalking yourself into claims you know are ridiculous to justify your own complicity with something dangerous. you wouldn't be the only one I didn't say that it can't happen. I very explicitly acknowledged that it could. I simply fall very firmly on the side of the very minimal risks associated with fracking are greatly outweighed by the benefits. What research are you basing this on? Insofar as I know the statistics don't paint nearly so clear a picture that fracking is safe, so post your sources. The SciAm articles I linked give a fair assessment, imho, and fracking is not without some serious risks. Note: I am not opposed to fracking. I just think industry is rushing ahead of themselves before the risks have been mapped out properly.
Fracking has been going on for 70 years and over a million wells have been drilled. Don't you think that we'd have noticed a problem by now if there was one?
On November 23 2013 01:31 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 00:55 sam!zdat wrote:On November 23 2013 00:09 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:46 zlefin wrote:
there's a large difference between not proven unsafe and proven safe, as you well know. This is bullshit insofar as it's applied to fracking. Fracking has been proven safe. There have been hundreds of thousands wells drilled without contaminating the water table. I'll acknowledge that there's a theoretical risk of problems, just as there's a theoretical risk of getting a concussion from playing golf. that's a sophistry and you know it. you need to go read the black swan "it hasn't happened yet so that's proof it can't happen." you're not that stupid xdaunt. by that logic our nuclear arsenal is completely safe also. but then you should go read the new schlosser book and see how true THAT is have some humility in the face of induction and some appreciation of the vast consequences of improbable events. golf is not analogous because golf is not a black swan situation - fracking and nuclear bombs are. or you can just go doubletalking yourself into claims you know are ridiculous to justify your own complicity with something dangerous. you wouldn't be the only one I didn't say that it can't happen. I very explicitly acknowledged that it could. I simply fall very firmly on the side of the very minimal risks associated with fracking are greatly outweighed by the benefits. it's not minimal risks and c'mon, you said "fracking has been proven safe" which is obvious bullshit just say the truth, which is "I don't care about environmental damage as long as we can continue to make a profit supporting profligate and wasteful energy consumption, because I don't care about the future"
Why not call it minimal risk? Risk is a function of probability and magnitude of harm. The probability is obviously very low. The magnitude harm is more indeterminate because it hasn't happened yet, but how much worse than an oil spill could it be?
As for your last line, let's just say that I'm a strong proponent of cheap energy for all mankind so as to improve everyone's standard of living.
|
On November 23 2013 01:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2013 16:05 Mysticesper wrote:
Fusion might never happen, but LFTRs should. Exactly this. Overcome the popular opinion against nuclear and we'll finally have green energy that delivers on promises. MSR's still have no popular champion. If green energy was more about the performances and not the politics and causes, we'd be operating dozens of those today.
Nuclear power is not politicized in a vacuum. One should wonder how that came to be...
|
On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning.
Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means.
All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like asthma) and how it impact on social security costs.
Considering you can't yet measure the "risk" nor the environmental problem a badly done fracking might do on our environment, you can't call it a risk but more like an uncertainty. And don't give me authoritarian arguments please, there are no scientific consensus on fracking.
And this was my 4 000 th posts, I love you all.
|
On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like asthma) and how it impact on social security costs. Considering you can't yet measure the "risk" nor the environmental problem a badly done fracking might do on our environment, you can't call it a risk but more like an uncertainty. And don't give me authoritarian arguments please, there are no scientific consensus on fracking.
You're missing the point, too. If you're going to throw bullshit like that out, you better damn well describe what the "losses" are.
|
On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs.
There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well.
|
now i remember why i unsubscribed from this thread. you guys are infuriating
|
On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well.
Most of them are privatized these days, most of the losses are socialized. Especially in the case of pollution, it's the masses that pay - but what money did they make from their loss of health?
On November 23 2013 01:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like asthma) and how it impact on social security costs. Considering you can't yet measure the "risk" nor the environmental problem a badly done fracking might do on our environment, you can't call it a risk but more like an uncertainty. And don't give me authoritarian arguments please, there are no scientific consensus on fracking. You're missing the point, too. If you're going to throw bullshit like that out, you better damn well describe what the "losses" are.
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point.
|
On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well.
Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ?
On November 23 2013 01:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like asthma) and how it impact on social security costs. Considering you can't yet measure the "risk" nor the environmental problem a badly done fracking might do on our environment, you can't call it a risk but more like an uncertainty. And don't give me authoritarian arguments please, there are no scientific consensus on fracking. You're missing the point, too. If you're going to throw bullshit like that out, you better damn well describe what the "losses" are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States
I'd say there might be some impact, but sadly I'm no specialist on the case, but maybe you are one ?
|
On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point.
See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality.
|
On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality.
That was obviously the case 70 years ago, now in some part of the world it's just a no no.
There is no need to be a eco hippies to understands that natural goods are under evaluated by the economy as a whole, and thus that private gain are abnormally high in some cases. If, as a "perfect" economy would suggest, the impact of the pollution on the health passed through the market (something that would never actually happen), it is just perfectly logic to think that a certain number of productions would have changed toward a more "reasonnable" process.
|
On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality.
Do not worry comrade. The toxic waste in your backyard will pave the way for a new generation of soviet exceptionalism!
Filthy commie.
But seriously, you haven't spent the two and a half minutes it takes to read a 1 page scientific american article. Thank god we have your prolific research into the subject to inform us that nothing bad has happened through fracking in the past 70 years. We're lucky that you're the only one who seems to have such conclusive data (or any at all)!
|
On November 23 2013 02:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. That was obviously the case 70 years ago, now in some part of the world it's just a no no. There is no need to be a eco hippies to understands that natural goods are under evaluated by the economy as a whole, and thus that private gain are abnormally high in some cases. If, as a "perfect" economy would suggest, the impact of the pollution on the health passed through the market (something that would never actually happen), it is just perfectly logic to think that a certain number of productions would have changed toward a more "reasonnable" process.
So what are you really advocating? The elimination of fracking or the elimination of fossil fuels? If it's the former, there really isn't a rational basis for distinguishing between fracking and other types of extraction. If it's the latter, you're living in fantasy land until another equally cheap and efficient source of energy emerges.
|
On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ?
Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution.
Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon.
|
On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality.
Were we really talking about policies on pollution, or the truth? I mean do you care about the truth, or just your allegiance to the status quo? You admit that pollution is bad, so that's progress of a kind.
Small note but weren't hippies weren't already eco-friendly? I'm not even sure where the going off the rails is, can you point that out in my post?
I still need to see your evidence that the masses have made gains from being diseased and harmed by pollution.
And have you yet to read the scientific articles linked? Seems like you're the only one spewing BS.
On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon.
I don't think you can put a price tag on human life. Call me old fashioned. Call me pro-life even.
|
On November 23 2013 02:23 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. Do not worry comrade. The toxic waste in your backyard will pave the way for a new generation of soviet exceptionalism! Filthy commie. But seriously, you haven't spent the two and a half minutes it takes to read a 1 page scientific american article. Thank god we have your prolific research into the subject to inform us that nothing bad has happened through fracking in the past 70 years. We're lucky that you're the only one who seems to have such conclusive data (or any at all)!
I'm guessing you didn't read the article, because you'd realize just how stupid this post is if you did.
|
On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:03 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 01:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 01:52 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2013 16:35 Danglars wrote:On November 22 2013 15:23 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 15:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2013 15:15 Livelovedie wrote:On November 22 2013 15:08 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2013 14:53 zlefin wrote:
you overstate the case xdaunt, not that more is expected of you. The safety of fracking done properly, and in proper places, seems fine; but there are too many places where they shouldn't be doing it and are doing so. What exactly am I overstating? The incidence of mishap with fracking is incredibly low. Not that you'd know it looking at looking at eco-hippy websites, but there still hasn't been one case where it's been proven that fracking has contaminated ground water. Shit happens in every industry. The fact remains that oil and gas companies have done a pretty good job when it comes to fracking. Don't they call this privatizing the gains, socializing the losses? I don't see why you would call it that. Because it's hip to say shit that you don't understand. I've found that I am a much happier poster in this thread when I ignore the one-liner trolls. Gotta include enough buzzwords to give all your friends the idea that they know what it is and agree with you, and all your enemies no idea of what you're actually meaning. Or maybe you're all just a little too limited in your views to understands what he means. All environmental effect of economic activities are case of "privatizing the gains, socializing the losses", just think about the effect of industrial pollutions on health (like athma) and how it impact on social security costs. There are external costs associated with pollution, but I don't think that phrase works. Some of the gains are privatized, but some are socialized as well. Prove it. Ho yeah, trickle down right ? Prove that a polluting power plant receives excess profit directly related to the social cost of its pollution. Let's reverse the issue. Let's internalize the external cost of carbon by instituting a carbon tax. That tax would be borne by the producers and consumers of carbon.
Pretty easy, if the market were perfects, their profit would be less since they would be forced to pay the polluted to pollute them (if the externality was internalized in the market, which is exactly the goal of a carbon tax).
On November 23 2013 02:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:20 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:02 Roe wrote:
Your Pyrrhonic ignorance isn't endearing. The connection between industrial pollution and health should be fairly obvious by this point. See, this is where the eco-hippies go off the rails. Pollution obviously is a bad thing. However, it is absolutely pointless and idiotic from a policy perspective to look at it as a bad thing without considering the good things that come from activities that cause pollution. You have to look at both sides of the ledger. As it comes to fracking, my point is that the positive side of the ledger GREATLY outweighs the negative side. All that I am seeing in response to that point is a bunch of hypothetical bullshit that does nothing to rebut 70 years of historical reality. That was obviously the case 70 years ago, now in some part of the world it's just a no no. There is no need to be a eco hippies to understands that natural goods are under evaluated by the economy as a whole, and thus that private gain are abnormally high in some cases. If, as a "perfect" economy would suggest, the impact of the pollution on the health passed through the market (something that would never actually happen), it is just perfectly logic to think that a certain number of productions would have changed toward a more "reasonnable" process. So what are you really advocating? The elimination of fracking or the elimination of fossil fuels? If it's the former, there really isn't a rational basis for distinguishing between fracking and other types of extraction. If it's the latter, you're living in fantasy land until another equally cheap and efficient source of energy emerges.
You need to at least assess the risks before making any move, which is not the case right now since there are no scientific consensus.
I'm not really living in a fantasy world, but you are if you think you can continue with this economy and not feel the consequences in the few 10 to 50 years (not to mention some countries are already feeling them).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
