Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)
43. Supporters would have a lot more credibility if they would ever demand the "easy" answers
Sun Feb 9, 2014, 04:34 PM
Feb 2014

that would make disasters between impossible and rare be put in place before rolling the dice or at the very least as the price of future rolls but no, never always just beating the drums for the fracking or the deep water drilling or the nukes or mining practices with all you can eat sides of "ifs and buts" without a tooth to be found and lots of "who could have ever guessed?" phony hand wringing when and if the "magical" fixes that are reluctantly implemented predictably fail as well the goalposts are reset to some new and improved fix.

I also think there is at times a very human factor of shading to the side our bread is buttered on on these issues, not many will take a side that puts a serious dent in the viability of their own career path and/or income streams.

Tony Hayward is patently unlikely to put himself in competition for geology teaching gigs no matter what the evidence really says and even if he does, he will be a rare bird.

Extraction is probably one of the poorer natural fits with stewardship anyway, there is little in the way of tomorrow because once exploited the site has served it's purpose and is depleted forever, mixing this with the profit motive is automatically dicey and exploitation will inevitably become standard operating procedure as we see now.

Big picture consideration is logically excluded, strangled by the weeds of feeding the bottom line.

Then on another side, it seems that questions on the sustainability of the water usage go into a universal ignore folder, which leads me to think it is a disaster all by its self since there seems to be little in the way of soma like responses nor is it much better when someone happens to wonder what happens to all the sludge that comes from the various extraction techniques, some of the mining shit being really nasty and I suspect the truth is probably further from benefiting the seventh generation out than most would be comfortable with in the true light of day.

For profit extraction is theft from the commons to start with but socializing the downsides to the people and nature is wickedly shortsighted systemically, by definition and bound by charter such vision is beyond the scope of industry. Government is hypothetically supposed to play beat cop in the paradigm but is severely handcuffed in resources, expertise, technology, scope, and via corporate influence and capture to independently and realistically any such thing.

Then if by chance audits of submitted reporting or obvious debacle something is found, we see token (compared to the take and/or damages) fines.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Because he is a corporatist nt LiberalEsto Feb 2014 #1
He loves the money folk. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #15
Because he is a corporatist. Oh, did you say that? Well, then I agree. nm rhett o rick Feb 2014 #28
Always has been BlueJac Feb 2014 #45
But his former Interior Secretary says it has not “created an environmental problem for anyone” jsr Feb 2014 #2
so do quite a few DUers. cali Feb 2014 #4
Good luck getting a straight answer to your question. Laelth Feb 2014 #3
Because he's sooo bi-partisany Wilms Feb 2014 #5
I think the EPA and their shenanigans is connected to the President's support cali Feb 2014 #6
There is nothing quite so dreamy as cooperating with Republicans. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #59
return on investment? joshcryer Feb 2014 #7
Interesting. If you'd like to expand, I'm genuinely interested. n/t Laelth Feb 2014 #21
on my phone right now joshcryer Feb 2014 #31
Only he knows. malthaussen Feb 2014 #8
But many experts in the field- as demonstrated in my OP- are quite clear about the dangers cali Feb 2014 #9
Well, some experts have paid good money in the form of campaign contributions Maedhros Feb 2014 #40
Only a know it all can afford to go through life without ever "trusting" the experts treestar Feb 2014 #11
When there is disagreement, shouldn't there at least be recognition of that? cali Feb 2014 #17
Who is it that does not recognize disagreement? treestar Feb 2014 #20
No, I'm stating that there is significant evidence that fracking is cali Feb 2014 #23
Maybe if we were seeing some money devoted to phasing out these horrible sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #32
Yep. Show me the money. malthaussen Feb 2014 #35
Because one again, he does not accept your conclusions wholesale? treestar Feb 2014 #10
want to post something that counters the facts that I posted? cali Feb 2014 #13
Good luck with that. It will never happen. Rex Feb 2014 #77
Yep. Why would any fracking company or politician do things out of "ill-will"? Wilms Feb 2014 #14
you really think they are doing it to harm you or others? treestar Feb 2014 #19
You done putting words in my mouth? Wilms Feb 2014 #22
No, I said nothing whatsoever about President Obama being evil. cali Feb 2014 #24
Only if Pres Obama says so. You are wasting your time trying to get any rhett o rick Feb 2014 #66
The people making money off of fracking don't care who it harms. Laelth Feb 2014 #26
Well until you explain how the "more complex" is helping the masses then rhett o rick Feb 2014 #29
Well said. Me too. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #61
Do you know anything about the science of fracking, about the actual harm sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #39
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it Enthusiast Feb 2014 #63
Here's an article that addresses earthquakes and fracking: sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #69
Thank you, Sabrina. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #73
everyone lives downstream--but some can buy houses upstream MisterP Feb 2014 #12
Or as Bernadotte, who owned the upstream house, said of Napoleon, malthaussen Feb 2014 #16
Anyone who has ever worked in the oil fields knows the main issue with fracking is Chinese steel. Drahthaardogs Feb 2014 #18
What about the facts about fracking water usage and drought? cali Feb 2014 #25
Have you ever been in a gas field? Drahthaardogs Feb 2014 #41
Supporters would have a lot more credibility if they would ever demand the "easy" answers TheKentuckian Feb 2014 #43
Federal Royalties are 12% on new gas leases. Drahthaardogs Feb 2014 #50
Chinese Steel isn't the only issue and Harmony Blue Feb 2014 #51
No its not. Drahthaardogs Feb 2014 #55
what about the problems associated with fracking and drought? cali Feb 2014 #56
Who do you choose to believe Drahthaardogs Feb 2014 #68
scientists and researchers. I certainily don't believe the completely ANECDOTAL cali Feb 2014 #75
Except you do... Drahthaardogs Feb 2014 #79
The west is in a 14-year drought. Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #64
we need a better STRAW! pansypoo53219 Feb 2014 #27
For the same reasons he supports mandating everyone to buy corporate insurance solarhydrocan Feb 2014 #30
Just out of curiosity, truebluegreen Feb 2014 #44
That's a great question solarhydrocan Feb 2014 #54
Fair enough truebluegreen Feb 2014 #72
because hypocricy knows no bounds on DU... dionysus Feb 2014 #57
well, sure. it's hardly exclusive to DU cali Feb 2014 #58
'Cause that's what reagan democrats do. Jakes Progress Feb 2014 #33
Another disturbing thing about fracking is how much is done on public lands cali Feb 2014 #34
On the hopeful side, malthaussen Feb 2014 #36
Because... Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #37
I'll let the President tell you himself: DeSwiss Feb 2014 #38
All of what oil goes to Europe? Spider Jerusalem Feb 2014 #42
Probably meant the Keystone XL oil dreamnightwind Feb 2014 #76
Great question. Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #46
I think it is too. I'm much more concerned about the explosive growth of fracking that Keystone cali Feb 2014 #47
As am I. Vashta Nerada Feb 2014 #48
not just allowed, but encouraged, expedited and subsidized cali Feb 2014 #49
I wonder though sadoldgirl Feb 2014 #52
that's not pertinent. cali Feb 2014 #53
May be,but sadoldgirl Feb 2014 #62
because he supports republican ideas and policies frwrfpos Feb 2014 #60
Becuase... bvar22 Feb 2014 #65
what rankles so, is that President Obama says the right things (frequently) about environmental cali Feb 2014 #67
He supports it because big money wants it and so what they want is what he does. nt arthritisR_US Feb 2014 #70
He believes it is the solution for climate change. reusrename Feb 2014 #71
yep. that's deeply cynical, or deeply ignorant or denial cali Feb 2014 #74
It's that third way thing rearing its ugly head AgingAmerican Feb 2014 #78
kick cali Feb 2014 #80
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Fracking is a huge enviro...»Reply #43