|
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 23 2013 02:25 Roe 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. 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. Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
|
On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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).
That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct...
|
On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:
You need to at least asses the risk before making any move, which is not the case right now since there are no consensus.
I'm not living in a fantasy world, 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).
What!?!? We've been fracking for 70 years. Don't you think that we have a pretty good idea what the risk is by now? It's not like we're talking about some new experimental process that we're recklessly employing.
|
On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct...
And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same (which would only cause a general increase in prices) - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors.
On November 23 2013 02:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:
You need to at least asses the risk before making any move, which is not the case right now since there are no consensus.
I'm not living in a fantasy world, 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). What!?!? We've been fracking for 70 years. Don't you think that we have a pretty good idea what the risk is by now? It's not like we're talking about some new experimental process that we're recklessly employing.
With the same process ? Fluids ? At the same rate ? In the same areas ? Please man, please.
|
On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors.
Higher prices would impact more than just the producer.
|
On November 23 2013 02:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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). That's the only difference, and profits would remain lower over the long run as well? Prices wouldn't change at all? I don't think that's correct... And ? If prices change, they would sell less, unless all competitor exactly pollute the same - which doesn't seems reasonnable, since any company who would innovate their production process toward a better environmental efficiency would instantly gain a competitive advantage over their competitors. Higher prices would impact more than just the producer.
No since the consumer would gain more money through the taxation. A circuit, a circuit.
It's all theory anyway.
|
On November 23 2013 02:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:23 Jormundr 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. 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.
And you still haven't read it. The entire thing debunks your 70 years of perfection bullshit. Since you seem to be unable to read the entire thing at once (or you're selectively dyslexic or have attention deficit disorder), I will summarize it for you in four words. Are you ready? This may be difficult but try to hang with me O.K.?
TL;DR: We don't know shit.
One reason there is no such irrefutable evidence is because of a lack of publicly available baseline data for the condition of groundwater prior to any drilling and fracking. That data is collected, often by the gas companies themselves, but not shared due to privacy issues. (For example, it may affect the potential sale value of property found to have existing contamination.) And Pennsylvania also lacks good groundwater monitoring because it is not required by law. "If we forced Pennsylvania to enact that rule, that would be a good outcome," Vidic says.
Not all experts share that interpretation—or the generally rosy outlook of the new Science review. "I don't agree that the levels we found were similar to background levels found by USGS," argues environmental scientist Robert Jackson of Duke University, who lead that study and was not involved with this one. "This review is a mixed bag. Its call for additional monitoring makes perfect sense. Its dismissal of all environmental concerns doesn't."
Ultimately, the question becomes: What will be the long-term legacy of these wells? After all, the now-moribund coal industry left the Keystone State a toxic legacy it is still coping with today. Although some provisions have been put in place to deal with future abandoned wells, there is not enough money set aside to deal with these future liabilities. "Do we leave them or plug them up, and what are the potential impacts?" Vidic asks. "Now's the time to think about who's going to pay for it when the wells have run their course.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-fracking-be-done-without-impacting-water
|
On November 23 2013 02:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:
You need to at least asses the risk before making any move, which is not the case right now since there are no consensus.
I'm not living in a fantasy world, 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). What!?!? We've been fracking for 70 years. Don't you think that we have a pretty good idea what the risk is by now? It's not like we're talking about some new experimental process that we're recklessly employing.
You keep repeating 70 years, but the modern problematic "slickwater fracturing" was invented in 1997. That would make it 16 years old at most.
http://kremesti.com/water/hydraulic_fracturing.htm
|
On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:
With the same process ? Fluids ? At the same rate ? In the same areas ? Please man, please.
The processes have improved from both efficiency and safety standpoints. Same with the fluids. What's your point?
|
On November 23 2013 02:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:
With the same process ? Fluids ? At the same rate ? In the same areas ? Please man, please. The processes have improved from both efficiency and safety standpoints. Same with the fluids. What's your point?
Can you prove that ? Because I thought one of the main problem was that the composition of the fluids were highly protected by the private compagnies to a point where we can't say what's in them.
Also, you didn't respond the "rate" and "area".
|
On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:
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).
our entire political economic system is based on delaying the inevitable just a few more years so we can continue living in our fantasy land. QE, fracking, water use, and all the rest of it... why worry about the future when you can live on borrowed time?
|
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.
70 years is a really long time.
|
On November 23 2013 02:48 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:29 WhiteDog wrote:
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). our entire political economic system is based on delaying the inevitable just a few more years so we can continue living in our fantasy land. QE, fracking, water use, and all the rest of it... why worry about the future when you can live on borrowed time?
Millenarianism is the first step toward utopian socialism 
I'm not sure you're a marxist (yet ?).
|
On November 23 2013 02:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:
With the same process ? Fluids ? At the same rate ? In the same areas ? Please man, please. The processes have improved from both efficiency and safety standpoints. Same with the fluids. What's your point? Can you prove that ? Because I thought one of the main problem was that the composition of the fluids were highly protected by the private compagnies to a point where we can't say what's in them. Also, you didn't respond the "rate" and "area".
I don't know what you mean by "rate." Fracking obviously is occurring more frequently now than it has in the past. By definition, it is also occurring in new areas.
The fracking fluid is a red herring. It's not the potential problem (which is why oil company CEO's chug it at PR events). The problem is if the hydrocarbons escape the well and the casing and leak into the groundwater.
|
On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe 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. 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: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:
[quote]
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. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice.
|
On November 23 2013 02:49 IgnE 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. 70 years is a really long time.
The global warming hippies have no trouble using 70 years as a metric to show the human impact on global climate change.
|
On November 23 2013 02:52 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:25 Roe 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. 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: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:
[quote]
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. Oh, I dunno, motorized transportation, using computers, abundant food, ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE FUCKING INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Only to those who can afford it. On the other hand everyone is affected by things like pollution. Like it was said earlier, the profits made by the private few greatly outweigh the reparations to society at large for their sacrifice.
If you really want to be intellectually honest with yourself, you should get rid of all of your possessions and live at a subsistence level with some indigenous people somewhere. My wife was listening to NPR last night, and they were talking about what sounds like a very nice island in the middle of the tropical pacific that has about 1,500 people who happily live on a communal, subsistence basis. I'm sure that you'd fit right in there -- at least until man made global warming submerges the island.
|
On November 23 2013 02:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:
With the same process ? Fluids ? At the same rate ? In the same areas ? Please man, please. The processes have improved from both efficiency and safety standpoints. Same with the fluids. What's your point? Can you prove that ? Because I thought one of the main problem was that the composition of the fluids were highly protected by the private compagnies to a point where we can't say what's in them. Also, you didn't respond the "rate" and "area". I don't know what you mean by "rate." Fracking obviously is occurring more frequently now than it has in the past. By definition, it is also occurring in new areas. The fracking fluid is a red herring. It's not the potential problem (which is why oil company CEO's chug it at PR events). The problem is if the hydrocarbons escape the well and the casing and leak into the groundwater.
Not when it has returned to the surface, they don't...
|
On November 23 2013 02:57 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:
With the same process ? Fluids ? At the same rate ? In the same areas ? Please man, please. The processes have improved from both efficiency and safety standpoints. Same with the fluids. What's your point? Can you prove that ? Because I thought one of the main problem was that the composition of the fluids were highly protected by the private compagnies to a point where we can't say what's in them. Also, you didn't respond the "rate" and "area". I don't know what you mean by "rate." Fracking obviously is occurring more frequently now than it has in the past. By definition, it is also occurring in new areas. The fracking fluid is a red herring. It's not the potential problem (which is why oil company CEO's chug it at PR events). The problem is if the hydrocarbons escape the well and the casing and leak into the groundwater. Not when it has returned to the surface, they don't...
Which is why I said that the fracking fluid is a red herring. The stuff that the fracking fluid brings up (the hydrocarbons) is the problem.
|
On November 23 2013 02:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2013 02:57 radiatoren wrote:On November 23 2013 02:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:45 WhiteDog wrote:On November 23 2013 02:43 xDaunt wrote:On November 23 2013 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:
With the same process ? Fluids ? At the same rate ? In the same areas ? Please man, please. The processes have improved from both efficiency and safety standpoints. Same with the fluids. What's your point? Can you prove that ? Because I thought one of the main problem was that the composition of the fluids were highly protected by the private compagnies to a point where we can't say what's in them. Also, you didn't respond the "rate" and "area". I don't know what you mean by "rate." Fracking obviously is occurring more frequently now than it has in the past. By definition, it is also occurring in new areas. The fracking fluid is a red herring. It's not the potential problem (which is why oil company CEO's chug it at PR events). The problem is if the hydrocarbons escape the well and the casing and leak into the groundwater. Not when it has returned to the surface, they don't... Which is why I said that the fracking fluid is a red herring. The stuff that the fracking fluid brings up (the hydrocarbons) is the problem.
Then there is a problem ?
Also, I said rate and area, because (to my knowledge) the problem fracking may cause depend on the caracteristics and the composition of the soil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
