Fracking

Originally posted by twhitehead
The people who live on the fracking sites often get paid. Certainly those that own the land should.
As with all natural resource exploitation, companies should be made to cover the costs of environmental damage. The fact is however that there are many industries that result in environmental damage and you don't close down a whole industry purely on thos ...[text shortened]... o work on improving laws to do with accountability etc rather than trying to stop it altogether.

Well, fracking is a highly controversial activity. Its future damage isn't well understood yet. If it is safe, then continue. If it is not, the impact is huge of the environment. We just don't know yet. So we should take precaution. As we are leaving the fossil fuel dependent era, then why not start here and now? And ban fracking altogether?

The laws are tooth-less if the company get bankrupt after the damage is discovered. There are no money left that could be used in accountability.

The environment problems usually strike the people who gets nothing in compensation in a disaster and cannot afford taking legal action to the companies leaving the scene.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Well, fracking is a highly controversial activity. Its future damage isn't well understood yet. If it is safe, then continue. If it is not, the impact is huge of the environment.

What if it is in between? There really is no such thing as 'it safe'. There definitely is an impact, its just a question of how much and who pays for it and who suffers and who benefits.

We just don't know yet. So we should take precaution.
Then we should charge 'danger money'. Either tax the frackers directly or force them to buy insurance that will cover any possible future cleanup costs.

As we are leaving the fossil fuel dependent era, then why not start here and now? And ban fracking altogether?
Ban coal mining first, its far worse for the environment and has well known problems with pollution that are not unknown at this point.

The laws are tooth-less if the company get bankrupt after the damage is discovered.
Yes, that's the real problem. If you don't trust the system then you try for an all out ban - usually by irrational argument. We see this a lot in Africa where people do not trust the government. You don't wait for the environmental report because you know it won't be done right and will be ignored anyway.

But why are you focusing on fraking? It is hardly the only industry with such problems. The coal industry and the oil industry are just as bad if not worse. And what about the fertilizer industry and any number of other industries that cause pollution. Ban them all!

Originally posted by twhitehead
What if it is in between? There really is no such thing as 'it safe'. There definitely is an impact, its just a question of how much and who pays for it and who suffers and who benefits.

[b]We just don't know yet. So we should take precaution.
Then we should charge 'danger money'. Either tax the frackers directly or force them to buy insurance tha ...[text shortened]... t the fertilizer industry and any number of other industries that cause pollution. Ban them all![/b]

"Then we should charge 'danger money'."
Good idea. If I'm not mistaken that's what they charge the nuclear industry. For every MWh produced, a tax is taken for future 'mishaps'. I don't know if this is done all over the globe.

"Ban coal mining first"
Well, we are talking about apples and pears here.
Apples: Every kind of fossil fuel produces CO2.
Pears: Some environmental effects of one fossil fuel kind is worse than others.
I say, ban fossil fuel altogether. But we cannot do that, not just yet. But if we reduce fossil fuel production (say) two percent per year, then we will gradually decrease the CO2 emissions in a steady rate. If Mother Nature approves of this, then the problem will eventually be solved and we will be forgiven by Her. But we have to start ***now***!

Fracking is to squeese out the last drop of oil from the sources. Poisoning of the deep water deposits is local, and perhaps USA will have to deal with that themselves. However, CO2-emission has global effects, even for those countries having zero CO2-emissions.

I'm not an expert. I don't have all the solutions. But I am concerned about the global warming, that I am.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"Then we should charge 'danger money'."
Good idea. If I'm not mistaken that's what they charge the nuclear industry. For every MWh produced, a tax is taken for future 'mishaps'. I don't know if this is done all over the globe.

Do they? I thought most nuclear projects were largely government sponsored and that they gave the government all the responsibility - and were actually subsidized rather than insured.
I know that here in SA they are considering new nuclear power and there were rumours that a deal had been struck with the Russians and that all responsibility had been waived.
http://mg.co.za/article/2015-02-12-exposed-scary-details-of-secret-russian-nuke-deal


Apples: Every kind of fossil fuel produces CO2.
Except coal is by far the worst when it comes to CO2 per energy produced. It also produces a number of other very bad pollutants. In terms of emission at the power plant, the natural gas from fracking is much better for the environment than coal.

Pears: Some environmental effects of one fossil fuel kind is worse than others.
And coal is the worst. So ban that first.

Fracking is to squeese out the last drop of oil from the sources.
I actually didn't realize that it is used on oil wells too, but you will find that the vast majority of the controversy has to do with gas, and not 'squeezing out the last drop' but rather new developments in areas that previously had no extraction activity at all. You won't here much complaint about fracking in the parts of Texas that already have oil wells every few hundred meters and have done so for 100 years.

Poisoning of the deep water deposits is local, and perhaps USA will have to deal with that themselves. However, CO2-emission has global effects, even for those countries having zero CO2-emissions.
If it is the CO2 you have a problem with, attack coal first.

But I am concerned about the global warming, that I am
Then it is coal you must go after first.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do they? I thought most nuclear projects were largely government sponsored and that they gave the government all the responsibility - and were actually subsidized rather than insured.
I know that here in SA they are considering new nuclear power and there were rumours that a deal had been struck with the Russians and that all responsibility had been waiv ...[text shortened]... I am concerned about the global warming, that I am
Then it is coal you must go after first.[/b]

As my last thread makes clear, we do not have time to knock off fossil fuels one at a time.

We need to eliminate all of them, now.

Originally posted by googlefudge
As my last thread makes clear, we do not have time to knock off fossil fuels one at a time.

We need to eliminate all of them, now.

All well and good. But then argue that we should stop fossil fuels rather than argue that we should stop fracking which is merely a method of extraction for a particular fossil fuel.
If you want people to change from fossil fuel cars to electric cars, you wouldn't be saying 'lets ban turbo charged 3 cylinder engines'.

Fracking does have its problems, most of them relating to the fact that it has been rolled out quickly without enough government oversight - but when it comes to CO2 emissions, it is not automatically a bad thing. Fracking is mostly used for extracting natural gas. The result has been a reduction in the price of fossil fuels overall which has certainly been bad for renewables, but at the same time has meant some shift from coal to natural gas. It has also made Canadian oil sands less profitable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands#Environmental_impacts

In the case of the US, fracking has resulted in less dependence on foreign oil and thus less need for wars in the Middle East. So politically, fracking may also be a good thing.

I fully agree that we should strive to go all renewables and am not at all pleased that South Africa is trying to go nuclear instead and has just built a coal power station which it is claimed is more expensive than solar:
https://www.terrafirma-academy.com/the-most-expensive-coal-power-station-in-the-world/

And the World Banks justification for lending the money to build it? It will burn cleaner and more efficiently than older coal power plants.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In the case of the US, fracking has resulted in less dependence on foreign oil and thus less need for wars in the Middle East. So politically, fracking may also be a good thing.

This statement makes me so really angry.

You say that "if we (the americans) don't get what we want, then we come and get it anyway'. The wars in middle east is a necessity because how else are we (the americans) to get our oil that we (the americans) need?"

Yes, USA is responsible for the wars in the Middle East, I agree. Many millions of deaths, and all the political instability there, is the result of the fact that they have oil and USA has not.

No wonder that people all over the world nourish a hate towards USA, especially in the middle east. And it is funny that USA doesn't know the reason and thus are unable to remedy this hate.

The world is *not* the Wild West of America! The oil in the world is not for the America to take!

This anger is not toward you twhitehead specifically, but all the Americans who share the same view as that you expressed in your last posting.

USA is one of the worst guys in the world in terms of emissions of CO2 per capita. Far worse than China! When USA come down to a level of China, then we can start to look for a brighter world in respect of global warming. But no. When the oil is running up in Middle East, then it's time to frack some own oil.

So, sorry to say that to you, twhitehead, but if USA behaved as a good world member, there wouldnt be any need for war in the Middle East.

So, there, I said it. Would be better if I posted it in the Political Forum, but this is just a response to the last posting in this Forum.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No wonder that people all over the world nourish a hate towards USA, especially in the middle east. And it is funny that USA doesn't know the reason and thus are unable to remedy this hate.

America does know the reason. Most americans, and most certainly the government are very well aware that:
1. The wars are about oil.
2. The hatred of america is because of the wars.

This anger is not toward you twhitehead specifically, but all the Americans who share the same view as that you expressed in your last posting.
The view I expressed was that cheap local natural gas would reduce wars. Why would you be angry about that?

So, sorry to say that to you, twhitehead, but if USA behaved as a good world member, there wouldnt be any need for war in the Middle East.
No need for apologies as I fully agree with you. I have to say that European countries are no less guilty of exploiting the rest of the world including through the use of wars.

Originally posted by twhitehead
America does know the reason. Most americans, and most certainly the government are very well aware that:
1. The wars are about oil.
2. The hatred of america is because of the wars.

[b]This anger is not toward you twhitehead specifically, but all the Americans who share the same view as that you expressed in your last posting.
The view I express ...[text shortened]... ntries are no less guilty of exploiting the rest of the world including through the use of wars.[/b]

Perhaps I overreacted a bit...

Perhaps 'all' the Americans are aware of it, but too many still think it is the right thing to do.
And, yes, Europe has also a nasty history. But do we still?
I'm glad you don't bring up anything from the Swedish history. Some of what I am ashamed of.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And, yes, Europe has also a nasty history. But do we still?

Yes, you still do. My own country Zambia is being robbed blind by Switzerland in an ongoing basis through tax fraud.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/stealing-africa/
YouTube
YouTube

Tax avoidance by corporations costs poor countries and estimated $160 billion a year, almost double what they receive in international aid. That's enough to save the lives of 350,000 children aged five or under every year.
For every $1 given in aid to a poor country, $10 drains out. Vital money that could help a poor country pay for healthcare, schools, pensions and infrastructure. Money that would make them less reliant on aid.

I'm glad you don't bring up anything from the Swedish history. Some of what I am ashamed of.
I don't know much Swedish history, but I believe Sweden is a major arms manufacturer.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/2/despite_peaceful_reputation_sweden_a_major

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, you still do. My own country Zambia is being robbed blind by Switzerland in an ongoing basis through tax fraud.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/stealing-africa/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNYemuiAOfU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uamzirLswjk

[quote]Tax avoidance by corporations costs poor countries and estimated $160 billion a year, alm ...[text shortened]... manufacturer.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/2/despite_peaceful_reputation_sweden_a_major

Oh, we need to be reminded that not even we are god's best children.
And Sweden's production of weapon systems, yes... Many people has been killed by those. Intended to be used in defence, but too often found in the hands of the bad guys.

There are more black spots in our proud history, but we also have some bright spots too...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Intended to be used in defence......

Whose intentions? Does Sweden have a policy of only selling to those committed to defence only? How do they decide who the good guys are and who the bad guys are?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whose intentions? Does Sweden have a policy of only selling to those committed to defence only? How do they decide who the good guys are and who the bad guys are?

By law, we cannot sell weapon to countries at war or countries with the intent to use the weapons to anything else but defence. And this is decided from case to case.

And every wrong decision in the matter is heavily criticized by those who think it is the wrong decision. So, yes, we do mistakes.

We don't sell JAS Gripen to Russia, but we sell it to Argentina, South Africa, Hungary and others. To defence, only to defence. Never to attack other countries. Because Sweden is a peace-loving nation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All well and good. But then argue that we should stop fossil fuels rather than argue that we should stop fracking which is merely a method of extraction for a particular fossil fuel.
If you want people to change from fossil fuel cars to electric cars, you wouldn't be saying 'lets ban turbo charged 3 cylinder engines'.

Fracking does have its problems, ...[text shortened]... g the money to build it? It will burn cleaner and more efficiently than older coal power plants.

But then argue that we should stop fossil fuels rather than argue that we should stop fracking which is merely a method of extraction for a particular fossil fuel.

I do. Where have you been???

However given that fracking is often touted as being a short term solution to CO2 emissions
it often requires it's own personalised push-back.

"Fracking impact on CO2 cuts in US emissions 'a myth'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33612293

New research suggests that the impact of shale gas on curbing US carbon emissions has been overstated.

Politicians have argued that the US was able to significantly reduce CO2 between 2007 and 2013 because of fracking.

But scientists now believe an 11% cut in emissions in that period was chiefly due to economic recession.

The study suggests that the future impacts of shale as a way of curbing carbon may be limited. .....

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150721/ncomms8714/full/ncomms8714.html

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions in the United States decreased by ~11% between 2007 and 2013, from 6,023 to 5,377 Mt. This decline has been widely attributed to a shift from the use of coal to natural gas in US electricity production. However, the factors driving the decline have not been quantitatively evaluated; the role of natural gas in the decline therefore remains speculative. Here we analyse the factors affecting US emissions from 1997 to 2013. Before 2007, rising emissions were primarily driven by economic growth. After 2007, decreasing emissions were largely a result of economic recession with changes in fuel mix (for example, substitution of natural gas for coal) playing a comparatively minor role. Energy–climate policies may, therefore, be necessary to lock-in the recent emissions reductions and drive further decarbonization of the energy system as the US economy recovers and grows.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I do. Where have you been???

You misunderstood me. I didn't say you didn't. I merely said that attacking fracking as a way to stop fossil fuel usage just won't work. If fracking is stopped for reasons related to the processes of fracking such as ground water contamination, then people will just use coal instead.

However given that fracking is often touted as being a short term solution to CO2 emissions
it often requires it's own personalised push-back.
OK, I didn't know that. But again, the push back should be on those grounds and not related to government inability to deal with ground water contamination.

This decline has been widely attributed to a shift from the use of coal to natural gas in US electricity production. However, the factors driving the decline have not been quantitatively evaluated; the role of natural gas in the decline therefore remains speculative.
It does seem undeniable however that:
1. Significantly more natural gas is being used than in the past.
2. If it replaces coal (I do not know if it does but your quote suggests it does) then lower CO2 emissions will result.
So the question is just how much of a reduction in emission has resulted - and your quote doesn't have an answer instead it seems to simply say it is not known.

I have to say that I personally am not happy about the fact that fracking has made fossil fuels cheaper as that has had a negative impact on green energy technologies - but at least lets have rational reasons for arguing against it.

And most importantly: kill coal first. Coal is worse than fracking both when it comes to extraction, when it come to burning it and when it comes to being so cheap that green energy gets passed over.