2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAs Democrats do you support Fracking? Coal Shale Oil? The Keystone Pipeline?
I'm curious when Democrats became supporters of environmentally unsound practices.
Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)Coal Shale Oil...as a last resort
Baobab
(4,667 posts)it can sometimes contain radium which is really radioactive, not just a little bit.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)They have an exemption from the rules regarding disclosuree of what they are pumping into the ground
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)I think the OP meant "Coal? Shale oil?"
immoderate
(20,885 posts)What do the rulers think?
--imm
tularetom
(23,664 posts)I can't support any of that crap.
Like you I'm not sure what being a "Democrat" has to do with it.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)it's not that Hillary and some of us are fans of it, but we realize that right now it allows us to cheaply fulfill our energy needs while we invest in cleaner technologies for the future. Banning it would mean we would have to burn more coal or oil, which isn't any better for the environment, and sends more of our money offshore. It's a matter of, *gasp*, a lesser evil.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)also, methane is 80 times more of a greenhouse gas tha CO2, so its really bad for the environment. It likely is just as bad or worse than coal.
Also, the 'reserves' of natural gas that exist are not as large as was originally hyped, and the cost of getting it out is very high, considering
We really are being pushed towards renewable energy sources because almost all of the fossil fuels have major issues.
People can live well on a fraction of the energy Americans use though, we really use QUITE a bit more than most others.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Probably because they never tore up their public transit systems to force people to buy cars, like we did!
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)The US doesn't reduce usage because there are no viable alternatives for most people. As you say, public transit is limited and expensive, and that doesn't get into how people heat their houses, cook their food, and wash their clothes.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)We can reduce usage a lot. Hell, we will have to soon when the price of natural gas triples, wont we guys.
! Hillary
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Cheap gasoline and cheap electricity. With big sprawling space between towns and services. With miles between one house and the next.
I have a friend who lives in rural New Mexico. She commutes 50 miles in each direction to work. There is no work closer. She can't afford to move. She's got kids to feed. What do you suggest?
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Fracking does not "allow" us " to cheaply fulfill our energy needs". Fracking poisons our water, undermines geological structures, causes earthquakes and destroys the livability of entire communities.
Banning fracking "would mean we would have to" show a little respect for our environment and the people being subjected to the economic terrorism of fossil fuel companies .
Baobab
(4,667 posts)because they are highly inelastic markets, that holy grail of capitalism.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)snip/
In May 2013, Brown called fracking a fabulous economic opportunity that he had to balance against his commitment to climate protection.He has resisted calls to sign an executive order imposing a moratorium or ban on fracking, which as governor he has the authority to do at any time. Instead, last September he signed California Senate Bill 4, which allows fracking to continue but requires drillers to notify regulators and nearby residents in advance; SB 4 also requires the state to monitor water quality near fracking sites, and to complete a study of frackings environmental and other implications by 2015. (In 2005, George W. Bush signed a law that largely exempts fracking from the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and other major federal oversight.) In case anyone still wondered, Mark Nechodom, the director of the Conservation Department, told a public panel last October in no uncertain terms: Governor Brown supports hydraulic fracturing.
Environmentalists have also voiced suspicions about the $500,000 that Occidental Petroleum, long one of Californias top oil companies, contributed to Browns campaign in 2012 to pass Proposition 30, which raised taxes on wealthy Californians to fund increased spending on public educationgenerally not the kind of initiative that big corporations favor. Occidentals contributions came a few months after Brown fired the previous director and deputy director of the Conservation Department, following complaints from the oil industry that DOGGR was too slow in granting drilling permits. When a Los Angeles Times article linked the two firings to industry complaints, the governors office pointedly did not issue a denial.
That was a clear signal to the industryboth the firings and the nondenial, said a former administration official familiar with the decision.
But by far the biggest development in the fracking debate is one Brown had nothing to do with: on May 20, the bottom dropped out of the economic case for fracking in California when federal officials slashedby a whopping 96 percenttheir estimate of how much recoverable oil is contained in the Monterey Shale. So much for the initially projected 13.7 billion barrels of oil that had oil companies salivating. The Energy Information Agencys new estimate is that the Monterey Shale contains a mere 600 million barrels of oil. This report hammers the final nail in the coffin for oil companies ludicrous claims that fracking is the key to Californias prosperity, said Zack Malitz, a campaigner with CREDO, an activist group coordinating opposition to fracking in the state.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Things where the seller can say "buy or die"
that is an ideal - an inelastic market with no competition.
http://www.pharmamyths.net/_market_spiral_pricing_of_cancer_drugs__120860.htm
Fracking, we should leave it in the ground. We're likely to need it someday. I think fracking should be illegal.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)its not, its insanity.
DFab420
(2,466 posts)angrychair
(8,686 posts)It's the "we are almost there...maybe 10 more years" then it becomes "20", then "30" and then back to "10" rinse and repeat.
Despite always being "almost there" funding is almost never there. We always have billions in tax subsidies for oil, gas and coal but always empty pockets when it comes to alternative energy R&D. Reshaping our economy is expensive, with little to no profit but there is still lots of money to squeeze out of the Earth before we destroy ourselves.
It's easy to compromise when you are not the one being compromised.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)No, solar won't provide enough power for many locations. No, wind is unreliable in many locations. Until this country can fix our grid situation and we can come up with reliable cost-effective energy storage, we will need to utilize all the available resources to provide pour thirst for energy that we have. The Keystone won't benefit anybody except TransCanada, some US refinery workers and the people working to load the ships at the Gulf of Mexico. It will be loaded onto ships and sold to the highest bidder. Oh, Hillary is opposed to Keystone. It really isn't as simple as shutting off the oil wells. Natural gas production has been the biggest beneficiary of fracking - and no, I'm not a supporter of fracking, just a realist.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Fracking is not essential meeting our energy requirements. An immediate ban is essential to preserve our global ecology and our environment.
Ban fracking now!
DFab420
(2,466 posts)I'm pretty sure the sun rising is pretty reliable...
angrychair
(8,686 posts)Derp.
DFab420
(2,466 posts)Response to DFab420 (Reply #18)
Dem2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
qdouble
(891 posts)energy? Yes.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)because then wind dies down and sun is blotted out/dimmed for as long as several years and it can get very cold. We could have another "year without a summer".
Benjamin Franklin warned us about that.
Without our natural gas, we will all freeze. Similarly with solar storms which could wipe out the grid and cause multiple nuclear meltdowns at the same time UNLESS we can keep the water pumps circulating water. You wouldnt want the whole world to be rendered uninhabitable because we had sold off ALL our natural gas to Asia, would you?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I also think that there is an important role for nuclear power in helping combat climate change.
DFab420
(2,466 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)will be destructive to the environment.
it's very easy to be against oil drilling, and coal mining, and big hydro dam projects, and fracking, and nuclear power.
but there isn't enough solar infrastructure to pick up the slack
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Fossil fuels destroy the planet. Keep it in the ground!
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I mean, tomorrow, and for the next ten years until we can get solar and hydro to the 300 million people who live in the US? How do I heat my home in the meantime? How do I cook my food? Clean my clothes?
(These are rhetorical questions as I live in the UK and haven't owned a car in 8 years. But most people in the US have the above questions.)
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Thanks for answering your own question. We all adapt to a smaller carbon footprint. E.F.Schumacher explained how we do it in 1973:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)Taking the London Underground would work for my friend who lives in rural New Mexico and commutes 50 miles in each direction to work. You'll be unsurprised to hear there's no public transit option for her. She can't afford to move closer to work - the housing is too expensive. There is no work closer to where she lives. What do you suggest?
Baobab
(4,667 posts)nt
Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)doc03
(35,324 posts)Pipeline.
basselope
(2,565 posts)an informed opinion.
Further, to say you don't support Keystone, but don't know what coal shale oil is, REALLY means you haven't studied these issues.
doc03
(35,324 posts)little problems. I see lots of very high paying well needed jobs. Even with the oil and gas industry the unemployment rate in some counties is higher than at the bottom of the recession because of the loss of coal jobs. Why don't you come here and tell a pipeline welder we don't need fracking.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Destabilizing the tectonic plates probably isn't that big a deal either.
Totally worth!
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)it becomes a point of contention. Evidently a lot of former self-proclaimed DU "progressives" have seen the light radiating from Her Highness telling them "It's OK! Trust me, it's OK!". A peace comes over them as they now know these things are not destructive and counter to everything we know about Climate Change, instead they are legitimate technologies that we can support. Saying anything against this is a right wing smear. It's all OK!
basselope
(2,565 posts)As PROGRESSIVES do you support fracking... which, of course, the answer is no.
Democrats haven't been progressives for many many years. (Started in 1992)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)In terms of "the Keystone Pipeline" I think the proposed XL shortcut was better than the existing pipeline because it cut the distance the oil actually travels by 1/3rd.
I'm curious when Democrats became supporters of environmentally unsound practices.
I'm curious when Democrats let facile bandwagoning replace actually looking at the policies in question. Fracking means we burn less coal, and ultimately the air is more important than the groundwater. The XL shortcut means the oil spends less time in transit and so has a lower total risk of leaking. But for that matter very few people I met at XL protests even knew that the XL pipeline already existed and we were talking about cutting two legs off of it; they thought this was a completely new pipeline that was being built. That disappointed me.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)
"Fracking means we burn less coal, and ultimately the air is more important than the groundwater."
False dichotomy. We don't have to poison our water to keep our air breathable. Keeping it in the ground is a win/win for clean air and clean water.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, yeah, of those 3 options, fracking is the least bad.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Who says we would have to cut consumption by 2/3?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)and renewables are maxed out until we spend five to ten years building out their capacity.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Which "fact" are you referring to? "The" fact is a figment of your imagination.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)👎🏻 N O ! 👎🏻
lmbradford
(517 posts)We have other sources of energy now. Solar and wind can easily take up the slack of doing away with the others. A lot of other countries have done it entirely. Plus, there are a lot of really good jobs in the wind and solar sectors. We don't have to compromise our air or our water. Do the right thing for heavens sake.