Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 688

SilverWook said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, impeding things that will turn our country’s environment into a shithole (hey, I thought Trump was against shithole countries!) is a really horrible thing to do.

CatBus said that Obama aided various pipeline initiatives (in part at least) to combat Russia. I don’t know how true that is but it’s arguably a worthwhile trade. But in any event, we have pipelines crisscrossing this country. It’s crazy to say one particular one is one too many or that stopping it will change our consumption. Fracking is vilified too and yet we all enjoy the benefits of it. I know very few people who restrict themselves and avoid conveniences in order to help the environment. For all the complaining about fossil fuels I don’t see many people doing anything about it in their own lives.

What would you call the benefits of earthquakes in places that normally didn’t have any before fracking began?

I can’t think of any way to continue our society with economic growth and comfort without using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Whatever we try, there are tradeoffs. We started using more ethanol but that actually takes a tremendous amount of energy to produce, hurts engines/fuel efficiency, and increases food costs. We buy fossil fuels from the Middle East and we prop up horrible governments. It seems to me that fracking yields great benefits with relatively minor costs compared to the alternatives.

Mrebo said:

SilverWook said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, impeding things that will turn our country’s environment into a shithole (hey, I thought Trump was against shithole countries!) is a really horrible thing to do.

CatBus said that Obama aided various pipeline initiatives (in part at least) to combat Russia. I don’t know how true that is but it’s arguably a worthwhile trade. But in any event, we have pipelines crisscrossing this country. It’s crazy to say one particular one is one too many or that stopping it will change our consumption. Fracking is vilified too and yet we all enjoy the benefits of it. I know very few people who restrict themselves and avoid conveniences in order to help the environment. For all the complaining about fossil fuels I don’t see many people doing anything about it in their own lives.

What would you call the benefits of earthquakes in places that normally didn’t have any before fracking began?

I can’t think of any way to continue our society with economic growth and comfort without using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Whatever we try, there are tradeoffs. We started using more ethanol but that actually takes a tremendous amount of energy to produce, hurts engines/fuel efficiency, and increases food costs. We buy fossil fuels from the Middle East and we prop up horrible governments. It seems to me that fracking yields great benefits with relatively minor costs compared to the alternatives.

This is completely short-sighted. It’s the mindset of “the world won’t be destroyed within our lifetimes, so who cares?” The dependence on oil is in part enforced by the oil companies and the politicians that they’ve bought and paid for.

I’ve only experienced very minor earthquakes.

moviefreakedmind said:

This is completely short-sighted. It’s the mindset of “the world won’t be destroyed within our lifetimes, so who cares?”

moviefreakedmind said:

People don’t do anything about it in their own lives because making little sacrifices like riding the bus won’t make any real difference.

Like you, I am merely making observations. Our demand dictates the use of fossil fuels. Electric cars reduce our reliance a little, but not that much. I am fully convinced we will use most of the fossil fuels on this planet because we want to continue as we have been and other sources of energy are more expensive and less convenient. Nuclear power is obviously one major way of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. But people are more afraid of that than any minor earthquakes that may result from fracking. The idea of nuclear plants all over the place make me nervous.

Unless we (and the rest of the world) are willing to dramatically alter our way of life, I don’t see an alternative to using our fossil fuels. We can slow down that use but I don’t see it ending.

There’s no way to alter our ways of life because there are no alternatives presented to us, and a handful of people choosing to not drive cars isn’t going to make any difference. Government needs to force big business to stop destroying the environment and create alternatives. It’s the only way. Nuclear power is also important.

moviefreakedmind said:

There’s no way to alter our ways of life because there are no alternatives presented to us, and a handful of people choosing to not drive cars isn’t going to make any difference. Government needs to force big business to stop destroying the environment and create alternatives. It’s the only way. Nuclear power is also important.

There are many alternatives and changes we could make. A substantial portion of our population say they believe in climate change caused by humans. If all of those people were to walk and bike whenever possible, put their heat a couple degrees lower, go to bed earlier to reduce electricity usage, and make similar modifications, the reduction would be tremendous.

The idea that an individual or a handful of individuals can’t make a difference underlies a lot of our thinking in politics. It’s why a lot of people don’t vote. There is a real feeling of powerlessness. And I think part of it is really an excuse for not wanting to suffer inconvenience.

We do make certain righteous choices when others see that we’re doing it or relate to our own morals. Ethical vegans aren’t going to stop the slaughter of animals by not eating meat but that is what they would like to see happen. They can avoid partaking in the immoral practice and collectively reduce demand which results in fewer animals killed. People buy an electric car because it is tangible and gives the sense of moral practice. Simply making the choice to drive less could yield the same benefits of having an electric car but driving the same amount.

Turning your lights off and heat down don’t yield those same benefits. For all the complaints about the environment and global warming, it isn’t seen as a matter or morality or ethics. On Earth Day some corporate buildings go dark for an hour and then back to business as usual. But that is the kind of thing meant to impress and show real care.

Nuclear power is one promising source of energy but inspires fears greater than earthquakes for anyone living near one.

Aside from his desire to bomb all the countries, okay. My hope is that he won’t be taken seriously.

Mrebo said:

Aside from his desire to bomb all the countries, okay. My hope is that he won’t be taken seriously.

Warbler said:

and speaking Fukushima, I think fracking(if it causes earthquakes) and nuclear power plants are not a good combination.

^ Lots of things are bad combinations but nobody is suggesting those two will be combined.

I’m in favour of Nuclear as a stop-gap at least but not Fracking. If Fracking companies are prepared to pay for any and all damages incurred then fine but (in the UK at least) they have arranged it so they are immune from prosecution. Drill under my house. House falls in hole. Tough sh*t. Not the behaviour of a safe industry that is confident in it’s technology IMO.

Latest report from Channel4 News, now spinning the CA scandal off into illegal shenanigans in the Brexit campaign involving the Prime Minister’s Political Secretary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ0bFAgTGwk

A Brexit campaigner has told Channel 4 News that Vote Leave cheated in the 2016 referendum by over-spending. But the prime minister’s political secretary says the allegations are “factually incorrect and misleading”, and outs the accuser as gay.

Warbler said:

TM2YC said:

Warbler said:

and speaking Fukushima, I think fracking(if it causes earthquakes) and nuclear power plants are not a good combination.

^ Lots of things are bad combinations but nobody is suggesting those two will be combined.

I’m in favour of Nuclear as a stop-gap at least but not Fracking. If Fracking companies are prepared to pay for any and all damages incurred then fine

How do you pay for loss of life in earthquakes caused by fracking?

I don’t think we are talking that level of Earthquake. The kind that could do damage to the foundations of your property, or pollute your water supply, nothing on a Hollywood blockbuster scale.

Warbler said:

TM2YC said:

but (in the UK at least) they have arranged it so they are immune from prosecution. Drill under my house. House falls in hole. Tough sh*t.

If that is so, that is absolutely ridiculous.

Ridiculous but true. I found a post from an Agricultural Solicitor discussing the relevant UK laws:

https://www.michelmores.com/news-views/news/fracking-landowner-rights

The key points:

The general rule at common law, with regards to land ownership, is that the person who owns the surface of a piece of land also owns the strata that exists beneath the surface. This is unless the rights have been sold separately from the land. However, by virtue of the Petroleum Act 1998, petroleum rights, including deposits of natural gas belong to the Crown. Operators are required to obtain a licence from the Government to search for and produce oil and gas. This is in contrast to the US, where landowners own sub-surface mineral rights.

prior to the enactment of the Infrastructure Act 2015, the law required a fracking operator to acquire the landowner’s permission to drill under their land and was required to compensate the landowner accordingly. This mirrored the position in the US.

Section 43 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 provides that there is now a right to drill for oil or gas at a depth of at least 300m below the surface. This effectively removes the need to gain consent from the landowner to access land at a depth below 300 metres.

As it stands there is no automatic right to compensation for an individual landowner.

So in short they rewrote the law in 2015 to allow fracking under your land without your permission and without needing to compensate you. As I said already, it doesn’t seem like the attitude of an industry that has faith in the safety of what it does.

As I understand it, in the US they would be required to gain your permission and to compensate you for access. Which as I also said above would be fine. If I’m financially compensated for drilling under my house then I’m fine with it.

Not to downplay racism, but social mobility seems like a myth to me regardless. I know it’s anecdotal but I can count on one hand the number of people in the places I lived (most of them white) that have significantly bettered their financial situation, and at least one of those did so by marrying well. Even though the article says that 2 out of 3 white kids will escape the poverty of their youth, and I’ll trust their statistics, it’s hard to take any of that seriously when you’ve never actually seen such a thing.