Though KeepTalking's repeated wasting of my time landed him/her on my ignore list, I'm going to reply to this specific post since RayJ went through the trouble of fixing the tortured coding on it.
So, JonA put me on ignore because I am "wasting his time", but he still has to get his dig in. Very nice. I would just like to note that no one here needs to have their their time wasted by any other poster. You can simply not read posts, and indeed, entire threads.
Also, adding tags to text is not coding. The generally accepted definition of coding, with regard to programming languages, is that coding requires a compilation step, scripting does not. Scripting can be complicated, and most compilation these days is done so quickly that it is barely noticeable. Using simple tags on a web page, however, is neither complicated, nor does it require compilation. It is not coding, no matter how much JonA wants to think he is an accomplished programmer due to his use of list tags in a bulletin board post.
Wait, wut? I'm not making a proposal. If you want a proposal, check out the Green Party link that untermensche posted.
Quibbling over my use of the word 'proposed' is not an answer to the question of what amount of reduction KT is talking about when making the claim "We could reduce our reliance on coal and foreign oil..."
Quibble or not, I am not going to provide the exhaustive level of detail regarding levels of reduction that JonA seems to expect, as my claim does not require it. My claim only requires that fracking can be shown to be more harmful to the people and the environment than alternative methods.
How much could we reduce it?
We could reduce burning fossil fuels for their energy to nothing, eventually. That doesn't mean that petroleum will cease to be useful entirely, as there are many products made form petroleum that might be difficult to produce otherwise. The problem is that if we keep using petroleum as an energy source as we are now, not only do we substantially harm our environment, but we also have less of it to use for other petroleum products, which may not be quite as harmful to our environment.
An answer that measures the fuel itself or the energy derived from it will be acceptable.
How cute of you to tell me what will be acceptable.
Not an answer.
It wasn't meant to be an answer. It was meant to show that I will not be treating this discussion as a formal debate, technical paper, or policy proposal.
-- How will the reductions be achieved? For example, will it be through use of alternative sources of energy?
Nuclear, wind, and various forms of solar derived energy should do it to help get us off coal.
Also; not an answer.
Quite to the contrary, it is an answer.
How much nuclear? How many windmills or solar panels?
Significantly more than we are using now, in all three cases.
While we are working on that, we invest more in hybrids (in the short term), and EVs as well as the infrastructure to support them. As more and more of our vehicles start to derive their energy from the grid, we will have less and less use for oil.
What are the numbers? KT promised evidence yet offers here only vague speculation.
I did not promise any specific quality of evidence, I didn't even actually promise any evidence at all. I only said that I would back up my claim, and I am doing that. My claim does not require that I provide any numbers for EVs or their supporting infrastructure. My claim only requires that fracking can be shown to be more harmful to the people and the environment than alternative methods of producing energy.
... without harming people ... the way that fracking does -- How are we measuring the harm?
Observation.
Another non-answer.
No, this is an answer. Measuring something requires observation. It may be a very short and pedantic answer, but it is an answer nonetheless. The answer also expands beyond that single word, in the next paragraph I typed. Why look, it's right here:
Burning fossil fuels is pumping toxins into the air we breathe, and is causing climate change that may have catastrophic consequences. Measuring this harm is nearly impossible to do, be we can certainly observe that it is happening. Fracking is a particularly destructive method of harvesting fossil fuels, but it suffers from the same basic problem of air pollution that all other oil, as well as coal, suffers from
Building, installing, operating, and maintaining nuclear facilities and solar/wind farms also has environmental and human costs.
In that case, I suppose JonA is willing to do what he asked of me, and provide hard numbers as well as a scientifically rigorous comparison on the harm caused by all of these energy sources. I am guessing this is coming in a later post, as it isn't presented in this one.
How can KT honestly claim his/her reduction to be better for people or the environment when s/he isn't willing to accurately measure the costs of any of these things to compare them?
Because I find that fracking contaminating water supplies, causing earthquakes, contributing to droughts, and releasing excess methane into the air to be less harmful to the environment than whatever JonA imagines to be the environmental cost of alternative methods. I don't care to speculate what JonA imagines those costs are, as he doesn't seem to want to even mention what they might be, much less provide any of the measures that he wants to require from me.
Scenario 1:
Reduce reliance on fossil fuels = less harm to people and the environment from fossil fuels (I don't think this is in dispute).
It is in dispute until KT can actually show what the harm is in both scenarios. Fossil fuels also help people and if KT's proposed alternatives aren't fully making up the difference, then s/he has to include that missing help as harm in his/her calculation.
I have shown the harm that fracking does, most of that was provided in the thread that spawned this one. JonA did not care to even respond to those points, much less provide any information on the harm that he alludes to from alternative methods.
Reducing fossil fuels reduces their costs.
But it also reduces their benefits.
It also reduces their harm.
And that's why it's important to have the numbers - it's the only way we can actually evaluate the overall bad done in comparison with the overall good to see if KT's claim "without harming people" is true.
My claim was not simply "without harming people", it was specifically "without harming people and destroying the environment in the way that fracking does". I have shown how fracking causes this harm, if JonA wants to make a comparison, it is incumbent upon him to show the harm done by the alternative methods I mention. Then we can have a discussion as to which is more harmful. Numbers might be thrown around at that point.
Scenario 2:
Let the dirty frackers continue to frack the shit out of fracking everything they fracking want = more harm to people and the environment because we are using more fossil fuels, and because fracking is particularly destructive as a method of harvesting fossil fuel.
More vague speculation. Without concrete evidence we really can't evaluate the amount of harm done and determine whether it's 'worth it' or not.
Only vague speculation if you ignore the discussion that prompted this one, which JonA did. He chose not to engage in that discussion in the other thread when Derec and I were hashing it out (I will note that my discussion with Derec on this topic has continued in that thread since this one was posted).
... destroying the environment in the way that fracking does -- What specifically is being destroyed? -- What destruction, if any, occurs under the 'reduce reliance' scenario? -- Can we demonstrate that the destruction is less under one or the other?
-Contamination of wells, aquifers, and ground water with the chemicals used in fracking.
-Increased seismic activity due to fracking.
-Diversion of water resources, contributing to droughts.
-Release of methane from far underground, contributing further to anthropomorphic climate change.
KT will need to bring the information here. Copy-paste works just fine.
No, KT will not. Feel free to copy and paste if you like, JonA, but the discussion which contains that information was spread over several pages of posts in that other thread, and I don't care to copy and pate it here, especially now that JonA has informed everyone that he has me on ignore.
Or whatever your working hypothesis might be. Maybe that will help me to come around to your way of doing things.
My 'working hypothesis' is that the way we are doing things now is possible. As proof that it is possible I present the fact that we are currently doing it.
My claim is not about the possibility of fracking producing a lot of oil, which it is currently doing. My claim is about the harm that fracking is doing. It has all of the harmful effects of conventional oil production, combined with several other harmful effects that make it considerably worse than conventional oil.
KT is, in essence, proposing an alternate reality. It is on him/her, entirely and solely, to demonstrate the feasibility of that reality. And until s/he does, until that evidence is brought forward, his/her claims - whether true or not - can be dismissed outright as unsubstantiated speculation.
Once again, I did provide evidence for the claims I have made with regard to fracking in my discussion with Derec in the other thread. JonA chose not to engage in discussion with me on that evidence in that thread. He chose rather to start a new thread, cutting and pasting only the claim, not the evidence, and setting a rather high bar for acceptance of the new evidence he requires. A bar that he is not willing to meet himself in his counter claim.
... why don't you set a good example for me ...
If what KT wants is an example of how to support claims with evidence, I can link to a discussion I had on another forum. It is not about his/her claim directly (though it does deal with energy, the environment, etc.) and I really don't expect responses to this as it's not directly on topic here and is being offered as an example only.
The fact that JonA once provided a reply with actual numbers in it to another forum has no bearing on this discussion. The fact that he thinks it contributes anything at all to his position only goes to show how bankrupt that position is.
Notice the many sources cited. Notice the calculations done. Notice that after reading that there can be no doubt that the other member's claim has been totally refuted.
That's great, what is keeping JonA from doing that here?
And that post didn't take me very long. The information on this stuff is readily available and anyone wishing to investigate a claim like KT's could do so easily - including KT.
Including JonA.
