2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Do you support fracking, or coal? [View all]Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)You're being extremely simplistic because you're focused on the very short term.
But you're ignoring the deeper reality that if we want to prevent or mitigate catastrophic climate change then we need massive coordinated emergency action right now.
The argument that you are making is the same argument used to delay emergency measures.
Imagine if all the multi billions of dollars that was used to build up the fracking infrastructure for the past 10 years, laying all the pipes, the waste disposal, the drills, the jobs, just imagine if all that money had been invested in wind and solar instead. Or even half of it.
That's where our focus should be. Fracking is a massive investment in a dead end fuel. It isn't the future and it isn't a bridge. It's a distraction and an excuse to avoid facing the emergency.
It is possible to create a green energy future and we're not going to get there by entrenching the methane industry.
This is the type of path we need to be on.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/14/1716851/can-the-empire-state-go-green-new-study-says-new-york-state-can-be-100-renewable-by-2050/
You're saying people who reject methane as a fuel are not acting "adult" but to me you're framing of the issue seems kind of juvenile and naive, like trying to force people to choose between two shitty choices when they are telling you they prefer some third better choice.
The bottom line is when you have a pile of money, like the wealth of the US treasury and the energy companies, and you have to choose where to spend it, that's the real choice we are faced with, we would be better off investing in renewables than we would in building up more entrenched fossil fuel interests. It's a better investment.