Why are so-called "progressives" and "liberals" so deferential to religious nonsense by Indians?

[Derec]

Those fighting the Thirty Meter Telescope in Hawaii are supporting the DAPL protesters, and vice versa.

Michael Kyser Jr., who also goes by the name “Kalaemano,” said in a Facebook message Thursday that there are four Hawaii residents at Standing Rock, including one from Oahu who was arrested. Kyser Jr., a Kalapana resident who has provided video updates through social media, said he has been there since Aug. 20.

“It reminded me of our stand for Mauna A Wakea last year,” Kyser wrote, when explaining why he made the long journey. “The same emotions were hitting me, tears were shed as I was looking at all the (social media posts).”

Pua Case of Waimea said she was leaving Thursday with her daughter, Hawane Rios, to travel to Standing Rock.

She said some Native American protesters who are at the reservation supported their efforts to stop TMT construction, and now they are returning the favor.

“They have put out a call for us to come,” said Case, a party in the TMT contested case hearing. “If someone stands for you, you stand for them as well.”

It's all a part of one big anti-science, anti-technology movement that should not be given a millimeter!

These idiots are flying in from Hawaii. Do they not realize how much oil that takes? What hypocrites!
Also, how can they afford to spend weeks on end protesting. Do they all get a stipend from Steyer and Soros?

 

[Derec]

$47 oil has not created any jobs.It has killed jobs.

You are looking at it completely backwards. It is the increased oil production in the US from fracking (which created jobs) that has allowed oil prices to drop. Now, what is true is that low oil prices have dampened some of the initial boom, but there are still many more jobs in oil production that there were before the fracking revolution.
And lower oil prices are beneficial to other sectors of the economy that use oil. Remember oil prices of >$140/bbl in 2008 that triggered the Great Recession?

As to your comment about natives that I do know ,You are a fucking idiot when it comes to native history and culture.

What comment in particular do you have a problem with? And I know plenty about Indians' "history and culture". I also know about their present, about the utter failure of giving them special rights for the last 50 years and also about their incessent oposition to any development anywhere close to where they live, be it a pipeline, oil production site, a mine or even a telescope.

 

[Derec]

I respect “tribal peoples” mythologies more than European/American mythology because they jibe with my own viewpoint best. People will value what they value.

In what way do their superstitions "jibe" with your own viewpoints?

Not just that. But it’s a neat trick picking the thing you thought could rouse atheists into sharing your disdain, by focusing on just that. Very demagogue-like of you to do that.

If atheists on this board were consistent they would view Indian prophecies no different than Harold Camping nonsense. That they don't shows their (and your) politically based deference to Indian beliefs.

Is the black snake prophecy true? Yes, in the “after the fact” way that prophecies sometimes come true.

The prophecy involves destroying their world. That is not going to happen with a pipeline. I think the "black snake" was first invented to fight railroads and you could say that railroads did destroy the Indians' neolithic world for good. But that is hardly a prophecy and applying it to contemporary concerns is just as wrong as using Revelation (which was written about 1st century realities) to claim that there are prophecies of nuclear war with Russia and such in there.

Trampling on treaties threatens these people’s survival as the people they are and who they want to remain.

Treaties have nothing to do with this, even though I have a big problems with how Indian sovereignty is handled right now - if they want to be sovereign they should pay their own way instead of federal and state governments taking care of Indian reservations. But the pipeline is routed outside their area so it does not trample on treaties.

And industrial pollution does actually harm the poorer people around the world the most.

But industrial development can also lift poorer people out of poverty. How did people live before the industrial revolution?

The effects of it are felt first by them. Richer folk get to keep a distance and luxuriate a while longer, which is why they like to postpone changes.

So the solution is what? Ban industrial development? Dismantle all pipelines as vandal Jill Stein wants?

What makes it a double standard?

That similar features of religions are handled differently based on political ideology. I.e. leftist ideology loves Indians (they love everybody fighting against America, from Soviet Russia to Islamists) and thus will not criticize Indian religions for things they they would heavily criticize within Christianity.

Did you imagine that an “all religions suck equally” dogma must necessarily be believed by everyone?

Of course not religions suck equally (Indian religions suck more) but similar features (such as prophecy) should be handled similarly.

Again it’s a values-based choice, there is no logical principle that makes it necessary for every individual to despise all religions, myths, or prophecies equally.

And that way lie double standards and hypocrisy.

There’s always some goof that pulls this asinine criticism out whenever anyone says anything about cutting down use of a technology. It’s wrong because people can use a technology and hate using it too if they suffer more from the non-use of it. Using the tech doesn’t mean you don’t also wish there were a better alternative available to you, but either it isn’t available or you can’t afford it or both, so it's an unfortunate necessity to use the dirty tech.

Wishing that there was a better alternative does not accomplish much. And fighting against an existing technology that is necessary is rather stupid. And if you are using that technology for the purpose of protesting against the technology is not only stupid but incredibly hypocritical.
Again, these people are driving thousands of miles and some are even flying in to be there. You do not see the hypocrisy?

So, no, it’s not hypocrisy and it’s stupid to level the accusation at anyone who isn’t advocating the total and immediate non-use of the technology by everyone.

It is hypocrisy. And it is not only this project they oppose. They oppose all oil development and all pipelines. So the question about whether they think gasoline they put in their cars and trucks comes from unicorn farts is rather legitimate.

 

[Derec]

Once no-one else owned North America, and now the original inhabitants have only a tiny proportion. They were denied equal rights for a very long time and should be compensated.

They have been compensated, many times over.

Are you a Mexican?: stop talking nonsense and pretending native Americans come from the Sub-Continent.

They come from Siberia. So Siberian-Americans? "Natives" is a political term, implying that Indians should have more rights than anybody else.

You clearly think the Nazis should have been allowed to exterminate all those they stole from (why should anyone enjoy equal rights to thieves and bullies?) If you don't keep treaties you should be hugely fined, obviously.

You rarely see such a good Godwin any more.

 

[JonA]

The effects of it are felt first by them. Richer folk get to keep a distance and luxuriate a while longer, which is why they like to postpone changes.

So the solution is what? Ban industrial development? Dismantle all pipelines as vandal Jill Stein wants?

Instead of flowing quietly through a pipe in the middle of nowhere they want it bolting 30-50MPH on a rickety track through a big city just blocks from where my infant daughter sleeps at night.

There have already been numerous derailments and even a few explosions/fires on the tracks running parallel to Highway 10 in just the past couple years. People have actually died.

What these folks are asking for is disgustingly inhumane.

 

[Derec]

I can fathom someone coming to a different conclusion, but I won't change my mind unless I am given evidence that Big Oil operates on something other than a profit motive. I can fathom that you have come to a different conclusion, which is not necessarily motivated by greed, or a profit motive, but a desire to spend less money at the pump. I understand that motivation, I just don't think it stacks up favorably against the destruction caused by fracking.

Not only spending less at the pump (as I said before I'd be in favor of some carbon tax which would offset these savings) but also jobs, economic activity (means more tax revenues for the federal and state governments), and less reliance on politically precarious foreign oil. Also, evil regimes like Russia and KSA are hurting right now. So fracking has been a great benefit on many fronts.

You may not care about motivation, but I do. One side has a profit motive, the other side has not been shown to have any other motive than to preserve the environment, and reduce harm to people who live in the environment. You really should care about that, but I can't force you to do so.

Unlike you I do not believe profit is evil. And while I am in favor of protecting the environment, I think radical environmentalism (to which unqualified opposition to development belongs) is. So Steyer's idealistic motives make me oppose him more, because I oppose his radical views.

Having a basis in reality and mirroring reality are two entirely different things.

Now you are nitpicking. Do you have an actual objection to that quote or are you dismissing him a priori because he writes fiction?

Haven't you been paying attention? Nuclear, wind, and solar.

You are just listing stuff. Please give me a detailed road map in how the transition can be accomplished in a time frame short enough that fracking oil and gas becomes unnecessary. I have already shown that it is impossible, and therefore we need it. Even the Indians need it.

They are fracking for profit, that is the only evidence I need.

That's really not much.

Are they the ones fracking? If not, then they are not the ones who are causing this harm.

Harm would come from stopping the fracking.

No, you haven't. You only shot down a parenthetical comment that was not central to the point being made.

Wrong. I have shown that earthquakes are only a significant problem in Oklahoma, which is just one of many fracking plays. Thus you can't use them to argue against fracking in general, and especially not against Bakken where no earthquakes have been observed.

The only thing you have been able to present in favor of fracking is saving money at the pump, increasing profits for Big Oil, and the possibility of this causing pain to the economies of Russia and Saudi Arabia. None of that has anything to do with environmental responsibility.

I have shot your objections to fracking which is enough.

You did no such thing. Here is the last substantive post I made in response to your objections about the problems with fracking:

The only part of it to which you responded was the bit at the end about Tom Steyer.

I have responded to the chemicals and earthquake claims as well.

Incorrect. I have shown that it is environmentally irresponsible because of the following factors:
-Contamination of wells, aquifers, and ground water with the chemicals used in fracking.

Fracking wells are designed for the boreholes to be sealed from the aquifers.

-Increased seismic activity due to fracking.

Only a significant problem in Oklahoma.

-Diversion of water resources, contributing to droughts.

Bakken is a pretty low population density area. Also, I have not heard of any drought dangers there.
Besides, conventional oil production uses water as well. That is not a fracking specific problem.

-Release of methane from far underground, contributing further to anthropomorphic climate change.

As I have said before, methane is useful as natural gas. But you need pipelines to move it from the production areas. So the opposition to pipelines is contributing to this problem. Ecomentalists, way to shoot Mother Earth in the foot!

An issue which I immediately conceded, but only stemmed from a parenthetical comment that was not central to the point being made, which is contamination of wells, aquifers, and ground water with the chemicals used in fracking.

You have not shown that fracking leads to greater contamination than other comparable oil extraction processes. Just because chemicals (what a boogeyman!) are used, does not mean that there is unconscionable level of contamination. US has rather high environmental standards compared to most of the rest of the world.

I never said it was. Motivation is the key. That is what you are failing to grasp here.

No, I do not "fail to grasp it", I disagree with it. Big difference.

Great, you don't care about the motivation behind why the players in the game spend their money. That is the big divide between the two of us. Motivation matters to me.

Moving on to the question of motivation is very much an acceptance that money is flowing on both sides. Beside that, there is the fact that I have agreed with you that there is money being spent on both sides. Perhaps you should pay more attention to our discussion. There is also a conversation to be had on the disparity between sides on how much money is being spent on lobbying. This may not be the place for that.

Do you have numbers as to how much money is spent on each side? Perhaps the ecomentalists and Indians are spending more.

It is not a red herring. Once we have established that both sides are spending money on lobbying, the remaining issues are how much relative spending there is, and what motivation exists on each side for that spending.

Misguided ideology is not a very good motivation. Also, you are assuming people in the oil business have no motivation other than profit.

These things matter. If one side is spending 100x more than the other, that needs to be factored into the equation. If one side is spending money to make money, and the other side is spending money to preserve the environment, that also needs to factor into the equation of which side is doing harm, and which is doing good. After all, we are ultimately talking about the harm that fracking does.

1. Do you have the numbers?
2. A misguided ideology is not good motivation. I have, in this thread, shown why Steyer's brand of environmentalism is highly problematic and only benefits non-US producers in Russia and OPEC.

 

[Derec]

Then that's a problem with their arguments, not mine.

They are the dominant force in the anti-oil, anti-pipeline camp. Thus if you are also anti-oil and anti-pipeline you have to deal with it.

Yes, they generate electricity, so we can use them to replace coal. We can do that now, as we do so we can build an infrastructure to better support EVs. We can also invest more in the technology that improves the range of EVs, to make them more useful for more people.

All of these things will take time. And in the meantime we will need oil and gas.

Unfortunately I'm not ready for an EV just yet, will probably be two more years, and we need a new car by the end of this year. I will likely go with a low MPG hybrid for now.

I will not need a new car for the next 7 years at least. Plenty of time for technology to improve and prices to come down.

But I am realistic about the time frame. And of course, with our luck we will find a lithium or rare earth deposit close to some Indian tribe or other and it will be "Rezpect our Ludditism while we drive 1000s of miles to protest and demand G4 access in the middle of nowhere to post photos from the protests on Instagram" all over again ...

The above diatribe stems entirely from your imagination.

No, it does not. Indians have protested and fought against mining in the past.
This is just from last year:
Native Americans protest $6bn Arizona copper mine plan in front of US Capitol
This is from last year. Note that it's always the same tactic - whenever a development is proposed (it does not matter if it's a mine, pipeline or a telescope) it happens to conveniently sit on some ground that is declared "sacred". Note that electric cars use substantially more copper than regular cars.
This commodity is going to be a huge beneficiary of the shift to electric cars
So why do you not think they will act the same if a lithium and/or rare earth deposit is discovered close to some reservation?

And as to the made-up quote, I combined their slogan "Rezpect our water", the fact that many of these protesters and driving (or flying) long distances using oil and some protesters complaining they had to get themselves to higher ground to get wireless internet access at the camp site. Note that cell phones use a great deal of mined minerals!

Where did I advocate for nuclear powered cars?

I am just saying, nuclear can't be used directly in cars.

Nuclear doesn't have the same issue, which is why it should be part of the solution.

Don't preach at the choir, go tell that to your fellow environmentalists.

Also not a problem with nuclear, but storage technology is improving. When it becomes cost effective the investment will increase. Among the problems with fracking is that it reduces the cost of fossil fuels, which causes this kind of investment to lag.

But high oil prices with profits going overseas (what we had immediately before the fracking revolution) is very bad for the economy and thus for either private industry or the government to have spare cash to invest in new energy technologies. Thus it's better to have oil production here but have a carbon tax which can be used to both make alternatives more cost-effective by increasing cost of carbon-based fuels (but not as much to damage the economy) and provides more revenues that can be used for investments.

Which is why we need to invest more in EVs, EV support infrastructure, and storage technology, rather than investing in futile and destructive attempts to perpetuate the fossil fuel status quo.

You are completely off base here. Yes, we need to invest in these things, but we need cash to do that, and domestic oil production is a good way to keep that cash in the US rather than giving it to the despots overseas.

No, we can't eliminate it, but we can certainly invest more into meeting the challenges involved, and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. As long as oil stays cheap, however, there is less incentive to do so.

Thus domestic production with carbon tax is better than foreign production where the high cost of oil disappears into Saudi and Russian coffers.

I want oil to be more expensive, to spur investment in alternatives. I want it to be more expensive because we do the right thing for the environment, and the humans that have to live in it. I want it to be more expensive because we ban fracking.

As I said, if you do that it will harm the US economy and you will not really be able to effectively spur alternatives.

 

[KeepTalking]

Not only spending less at the pump (as I said before I'd be in favor of some carbon tax which would offset these savings) but also jobs, economic activity (means more tax revenues for the federal and state governments), and less reliance on politically precarious foreign oil. Also, evil regimes like Russia and KSA are hurting right now. So fracking has been a great benefit on many fronts.

You will get job growth and increased economic activity with nuclear, wind, and solar as well, so those things don't help either side of the argument. Foreign oil is you only other argument, and I still find that both that argument and paying less at the pump combined, do not balance out the damage done to our environment.

Having a basis in reality and mirroring reality are two entirely different things.

Now you are nitpicking. Do you have an actual objection to that quote or are you dismissing him a priori because he writes fiction?

I don't think being a writer of fiction affords him any special recognition in the discussion. I also find that the specific quote you referenced represents a platitude that is not necessarily true in all cases, but even when it is true, it does not matter that people who are doing villainous things don't see themselves as villains. In many cases they very clearly are villains whether they see it or not.

Haven't you been paying attention? Nuclear, wind, and solar.

You are just listing stuff. Please give me a detailed road map in how the transition can be accomplished in a time frame short enough that fracking oil and gas becomes unnecessary.

I see JonA has infected your way of discussing things to the point that you now demand unreasonable tasks from those who are not holding themselves out as experts on the topic, and don't care to become experts on the topic. I won't be providing a detailed roadmap for anything relating to this discussion, it isn't what I do, nor what I care to do. Not in real life, and not on an internet discussion board. Thanks for being polite about it, though.

Fracking is unnecessary because we have many alternative methods of producing the energy we are getting from fracking. It being unnecessary is not the reason I am against it, however. It is a method of extracting fossil fuel from the earth that is very destructive of the environment, and harmful to people, that is why I oppose fracking.

I have already shown that it is impossible, and therefore we need it. Even the Indians need it.

You have shown nothing of the sort. You argument has been that it will make oil more expensive, from which conventional oil producing nations will benefit, and that some of those beneficiaries are undesirable. You haven't really had to show anything in that regard, either, as that is not in dispute. I simply do not agree that these things are more important than the harm we are doing to our environment by fracking.

No, you haven't. You only shot down a parenthetical comment that was not central to the point being made.

Wrong. I have shown that earthquakes are only a significant problem in Oklahoma, which is just one of many fracking plays. Thus you can't use them to argue against fracking in general, and especially not against Bakken where no earthquakes have been observed.

You may have tried to do that, but you failed. I presented evidence of fracking related earthquakes in several states, you were only able to downplay them by pretending that they don't matter. Fracking causes earthquakes that would not have occurred otherwise. This is made more problematic by the fact that we don't know exactly why fracking causes serious seismic activity in some places, and apparently none at all in other places, with most places being somewhere in between. We don't find out until well after the fracking starts, and once it gets started, we can't stop it. Even with the serious seismic issues in Oklahoma, they are still fracking there. They aren't going to stop until the government steps in and tells them to stop. Meanwhile, they fight that government action with every political resource at their disposal. They know they are causing the problem there, but they just have to make their money. Where will the next fracking siesmic clusterfrack happen? Who knows? It's anybody's guess. Step up and spin the fracking wheel!

The only thing you have been able to present in favor of fracking is saving money at the pump, increasing profits for Big Oil, and the possibility of this causing pain to the economies of Russia and Saudi Arabia. None of that has anything to do with environmental responsibility.

I have shot your objections to fracking which is enough.

You did no such thing. Here is the last substantive post I made in response to your objections about the problems with fracking:

The only part of it to which you responded was the bit at the end about Tom Steyer.

I have responded to the chemicals and earthquake claims as well.

Your response about the chemicals supported my argument, with the exception of the parenthetical comment, support of which I have withdrawn. Your response on earthquakes has been wholly inadequate. You first said they only occur in Oklahoma, and when I refuted that notion you just shrugged off the other earthquakes as no matter. Well, they do matter, Derec. They are earthquakes caused by fracking, and they apparently occur everywhere fracking is done, except in North Dakota. That's a big problem for fracking, whether you want to admit it or not.

Incorrect. I have shown that it is environmentally irresponsible because of the following factors:
-Contamination of wells, aquifers, and ground water with the chemicals used in fracking.

Fracking wells are designed for the boreholes to be sealed from the aquifers.

Which would be great if they didn't have a such a tendency to leak:

http://winacc.org.uk/leaks-boreholes-fracking

An Oilfield Review article in Autumn 2003 stated, “Since the earliest gas wells, uncontrolled migration of hydrocarbons to the surface has challenged the oil and gas industry" and this challenge continues today. In 6% of cases the sealing fails immediately and failures increase over time. The Oilfield Review article continued “By the time a well is 15 years old there is a 50% probability that it will have measurable sustained casing pressure in one or more of its casing annuli” i.e. there will be a propensity to leak. Schlumberger estimates that up to 60% of gas wells leak within 30 years.

-Increased seismic activity due to fracking.

Only a significant problem in Oklahoma.

I find your hand waving here to be less than comforting, especially to people living in Oklahoma.

-Diversion of water resources, contributing to droughts.

Bakken is a pretty low population density area. Also, I have not heard of any drought dangers there.
Besides, conventional oil production uses water as well. That is not a fracking specific problem.

We are talking about fracking in general, not just specifically to Bakken. Fracking occurs in California and Texas as well, both of which have had recent sever droughts. And yes, conventional oil uses a lot of water as well, but that just adds to the basic problem of using fossil fuels for energy. Also, fracking seems to be taking off in some drought stricken areas:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150915135827.htm

Vengosh and Ph.D. student Andrew Kondash published their peer-reviewed findings today (Sept. 15) in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters(2015).

"While hydraulic fracturing consumes only a small fraction of the water used in other extraction methods, our analysis highlights the fact that it can still pose serious risks to local water supplies, especially in drought-prone regions such as the Barnett formation in Texas, where exploration and development is rapidly intensifying," Kondash said. "Drilling a single well can require between 3 to 6 million gallons of water, and thousands of wells are fracked each year. Local water shortages could limit future production."

Oh, that's a shame, "shortages could limit future (fracking)". I guess the people who need the drinking water, and those who need water to raise crops can just frack off. Do you really think the oil companies are going to let something like a water shortage slow them down, when they aren't seen to be giving two shits about causing earthquakes?

-Release of methane from far underground, contributing further to anthropomorphic climate change.

As I have said before, methane is useful as natural gas. But you need pipelines to move it from the production areas. So the opposition to pipelines is contributing to this problem. Ecomentalists, way to shoot Mother Earth in the foot!

This is methane that is not being captured because they are fracking for oil. How is a pipeline going to fix that? I also have no problem with natural gas pipelines, they don't cause the same environmental damage as oil pipelines (and I am not necessarily against all oil pipelines, either).

An issue which I immediately conceded, but only stemmed from a parenthetical comment that was not central to the point being made, which is contamination of wells, aquifers, and ground water with the chemicals used in fracking.

You have not shown that fracking leads to greater contamination than other comparable oil extraction processes.

I have shown that fracking recovers considerably less of that contaminated water than conventional oil production. That leaves more in the ground to seep into wells and aquifers.

Just because chemicals (what a boogeyman!) are used, does not mean that there is unconscionable level of contamination.

Industrial chemicals, Derec. Your own link showed that.

US has rather high environmental standards compared to most of the rest of the world.

Just how much unnecessary industrial chemical contamination is acceptable in your drinking water, Derec?

 

[KeepTalking]

They are the dominant force in the anti-oil, anti-pipeline camp. Thus if you are also anti-oil and anti-pipeline you have to deal with it.

No I don't. Nuclear is someone else's boogeyman, not mine.

Yes, they generate electricity, so we can use them to replace coal. We can do that now, as we do so we can build an infrastructure to better support EVs. We can also invest more in the technology that improves the range of EVs, to make them more useful for more people.

All of these things will take time. And in the meantime we will need oil and gas.

Granted. I am, however, advocating that we do our best to take less time to do it. Fracking serves to extend our fossil fuel use, and gives us the perception of having more time to make the conversion. It does this at the expense of destruction to our environment.

But I am realistic about the time frame. And of course, with our luck we will find a lithium or rare earth deposit close to some Indian tribe or other and it will be "Rezpect our Ludditism while we drive 1000s of miles to protest and demand G4 access in the middle of nowhere to post photos from the protests on Instagram" all over again ...

The above diatribe stems entirely from your imagination.

No, it does not. Indians have protested and fought against mining in the past.
This is just from last year:
Native Americans protest $6bn Arizona copper mine plan in front of US Capitol
This is from last year. Note that it's always the same tactic - whenever a development is proposed (it does not matter if it's a mine, pipeline or a telescope) it happens to conveniently sit on some ground that is declared "sacred". Note that electric cars use substantially more copper than regular cars.
This commodity is going to be a huge beneficiary of the shift to electric cars
So why do you not think they will act the same if a lithium and/or rare earth deposit is discovered close to some reservation?

Until lithium is found near a reservation, and they do protest the extraction, this scenario only exists in your imagination.

Nuclear doesn't have the same issue, which is why it should be part of the solution.

Don't preach at the choir, go tell that to your fellow environmentalists.

At least one of those anti-nuclear types has posted to this thread, and I can only assume that he has read my posts. I think that qualifies as telling that to environmentalists. I don't tend to rub elbows with many environmentalists, however, so this is probably the best place for me to do that.

Nuclear FTW! Suck it you anti-nuclear environmentalists!

Also not a problem with nuclear, but storage technology is improving. When it becomes cost effective the investment will increase. Among the problems with fracking is that it reduces the cost of fossil fuels, which causes this kind of investment to lag.

But high oil prices with profits going overseas (what we had immediately before the fracking revolution) is very bad for the economy and thus for either private industry or the government to have spare cash to invest in new energy technologies. Thus it's better to have oil production here but have a carbon tax which can be used to both make alternatives more cost-effective by increasing cost of carbon-based fuels (but not as much to damage the economy) and provides more revenues that can be used for investments.

Which is why we need to invest more in EVs, EV support infrastructure, and storage technology, rather than investing in futile and destructive attempts to perpetuate the fossil fuel status quo.

You are completely off base here. Yes, we need to invest in these things, but we need cash to do that, and domestic oil production is a good way to keep that cash in the US rather than giving it to the despots overseas.

No, we can't eliminate it, but we can certainly invest more into meeting the challenges involved, and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. As long as oil stays cheap, however, there is less incentive to do so.

Thus domestic production with carbon tax is better than foreign production where the high cost of oil disappears into Saudi and Russian coffers.

I want oil to be more expensive, to spur investment in alternatives. I want it to be more expensive because we do the right thing for the environment, and the humans that have to live in it. I want it to be more expensive because we ban fracking.

As I said, if you do that it will harm the US economy and you will not really be able to effectively spur alternatives.

I see it as just the opposite. The longer you keep oil prices low, the less incentive many people have to stop using it. When feeding cash into the pump becomes more painful, more people will complain to their representatives, and perhaps they will do something about it.

 

[ksen]

Guys, none of this can be right. I thought Obama killed all domestic oil production?

 

[bleubird]

History.Own it or ignore it?Did my ancestors own slaves or kill natives?Dad's family was from Germany(1840's).Mum's from 1840's migration to Oregon.Who lived in Oregon before my family came there?Were did they go?Oregon has a nasty racist past.I did not know this until a few years ago. Point is should we own the crap our ancestors did or ignore it?I think the Germans have it right,to teach the children about the Nazis,and own it.We need to own the horrible past and learn from it.We are a festering sore that needs a lance!

 

[iolo]

They have been compensated, many times over.

Are you a Mexican?: stop talking nonsense and pretending native Americans come from the Sub-Continent.

They come from Siberia. So Siberian-Americans? "Natives" is a political term, implying that Indians should have more rights than anybody else.

You clearly think the Nazis should have been allowed to exterminate all those they stole from (why should anyone enjoy equal rights to thieves and bullies?) If you don't keep treaties you should be hugely fined, obviously.

You rarely see such a good Godwin any more.

Have they buggery! Since they don't come from the sub-continent, stop talking out of your arse. Since you are a a racist with clear sympathies with the Nazis, expect it to be pointed out, altkampfer. Heil Trump!

 

[bleubird]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War
Nice.

 

[iolo]

If you have something to say, say it.

 

[untermensche]

If you have something to say, say it.

I think he is pointing to the horrendous crimes in the Philippines perpetrated by US imperialism.

Why was MacArthur so keen on returning to the Philippines?

Because we owned it.

 

[iolo]

If you have something to say, say it.

I think he is pointing to the horrendous crimes in the Philippines perpetrated by US imperialism.

Why was MacArthur so keen on returning to the Philippines?

Because we owned it.

Well, that's clear enough. Thank you.

 

[Derec]

Have they buggery!

They have and still are being given all sorts of money and special rights.
I don't think government issued buggery was part of the deal though.

Since they don't come from the sub-continent, stop talking out of your arse.

That is the traditional, historical name for them.

Since you are a a racist with clear sympathies with the Nazis, expect it to be pointed out, altkampfer. Heil Trump!

Bullshit iolo. You are the same as the rest of the left-wing radicals on this board. As soon as they know they lost the arguments, out come insults and accusations of racism. Weak.

- - - Updated - - -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine–American_War
Nice.

What do Philippines have to do with this thread?

- - - Updated - - -

History.Own it or ignore it?Did my ancestors own slaves or kill natives?Dad's family was from Germany(1840's).Mum's from 1840's migration to Oregon.Who lived in Oregon before my family came there?Were did they go?Oregon has a nasty racist past.I did not know this until a few years ago. Point is should we own the crap our ancestors did or ignore it?I think the Germans have it right,to teach the children about the Nazis,and own it.We need to own the horrible past and learn from it.We are a festering sore that needs a lance!

I think the Germans have definitely went overboard on this issue, and Americans are not far behind.

 

[Derec]

Guys, none of this can be right. I thought Obama killed all domestic oil production?

Nice straw man.
No, Obama has not "killed all domestic oil production". But the fracking boom had nothing to do with Obama or his administration's policies.
And in the last couple of years, he has been very anti-oil. First he killed the Keystone XL pipeline for purely political reasons, now he is threatening to do the same for the Dakota Access Pipeline. However, this last move could be much more costly than one pipeline.
The North Dakota Pipeline Fight Is Not Really About Environmental Risks

In a last-minute move on Friday, the Obama administration halted the project, a proposed 1,200-mile pipeline linking bursting oil fields in North Dakota to refinery hubs in Illinois. Three federal agencies reversed the US Army Corps of Engineers’ July approval of the pipeline, which had sparked fierce protests from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe that led to injuries in a face-off with protesters and guard dogs.
Friday’s statement from the Justice Department called for “nationwide reform” on taking account of tribes’ views on big energy projects that cross their land, and asked for a voluntary 20-mile construction halt around Lake Oahe, a sacred site to the Standing Rock Sioux.
“It is a game changer,” attorney Kevin Lee of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy told BuzzFeed News.
In the past, oil companies and developers who wanted to dig up the West would only need to consult with tribes on traversing sacred lands, and might ignore these concerns on privately owned land. Now they might also need complete agreement from tribes, Lee said. “The geography of the American West is such that you can’t start any kind of big project without crossing Native American land.”

Very scary. It could end oil extraction, but also mining and even large-scale scientific projects like telescopes, as we know it.
Giving Indians a veto power for any development anywhere close to their land would be a disaster for US economy, especially since the tribes are subsidized so much that they feel they can ignore the economic benefits of development.

 

[Derec]

No I don't. Nuclear is someone else's boogeyman, not mine.

Doesn't matter, as these "someone else" are a majority in the eco movement. They are going to protest nuclear just as strongly, if not more, as they are protesting pipelines.

Granted. I am, however, advocating that we do our best to take less time to do it. Fracking serves to extend our fossil fuel use, and gives us the perception of having more time to make the conversion. It does this at the expense of destruction to our environment.

Fracking can be done environmentally soundly. And it does give us the necessary time to make the transition. That's a good thing, not a bad one.

Until lithium is found near a reservation, and they do protest the extraction, this scenario only exists in your imagination.

It's basic inductive reasoning. They protest and fight against mines close to their areas. Why do you think they would make an exception for lithium?
And again, as I said, you use about three times as much copper in EVs as you do in conventional cars.

Nuclear FTW! Suck it you anti-nuclear environmentalists!

I see it as just the opposite.

That's too bad.

The longer you keep oil prices low, the less incentive many people have to stop using it. When feeding cash into the pump becomes more painful, more people will complain to their representatives, and perhaps they will do something about it.

If more people complain to their representatives the easiest and quickest thing for them to do is reverse restrictions/ban on fracking.

My approach still keeps prices reasonably low, although higher than now by means of a carbon tax (introduced in stages to reduce sticker shock). It will also keep the oil revenues in country to a greater extent than we do now. Hell, with a carbon tax and less oil use we might become net exporters or at least not be net importers in 10 years. There will be more jobs, more government revenue (both from production and from carbon tax) and that windfall can be used for things like research or expanding public transit.
Instead with your approach we would have oil prices like mid-2000s, we would import most of our oil again and thus much money which would have stayed in the US under my plan would go to overseas.

 

[Derec]

You will get job growth and increased economic activity with nuclear, wind, and solar as well, so those things don't help either side of the argument.

On the contrary, since these things are not mutually exclusive, we can have both kinds of jobs. Win, win. Even under fastest transition feasible we will still use a lot of oil for decades. You propose these oil jobs be primarily overseas, I want them kept in the US. Keeping oil jobs here does not preclude creating additional green jobs though.

Foreign oil is you only other argument, and I still find that both that argument and paying less at the pump combined, do not balance out the damage done to our environment.

I disagree. It very much outweighs it. Especially that environmental risks are simply moved (and overall actually increased) rather than eliminated by moving to more foreign oil. Countries like Russia or KSA do not have as strict environmental laws as do US or Canada and then you have to move all this oil 1000s of miles by tanker ship, which takes energy and is not without risks either.

In many cases they very clearly are villains whether they see it or not.

No doubt, but I see Steyer, Soros and the Indians as clearly being the villains here. I have enough perspective to realize that they see themselves as the good guys. You do not seem to have such perspective, as you see those in oil industry as mustache-twirling cartoon villains.

I see JonA has infected your way of discussing things to the point that you now demand unreasonable tasks from those who are not holding themselves out as experts on the topic, and don't care to become experts on the topic. I won't be providing a detailed roadmap for anything relating to this discussion, it isn't what I do, nor what I care to do. Not in real life, and not on an internet discussion board. Thanks for being polite about it, though.

I am not asking you to become an expert. But the devil lies in the detail, as they say. You are merely listing things. That will not do.
So, don't give me expert-level of detail, but do give me some level of detail as to how you imagine the transition.

Fracking is unnecessary because we have many alternative methods of producing the energy we are getting from fracking.

Yes, things like deepwater and Arctic drilling or tar sands. All of which have their own risks and are opposed by the same environmentalists.

It being unnecessary is not the reason I am against it, however. It is a method of extracting fossil fuel from the earth that is very destructive of the environment, and harmful to people, that is why I oppose fracking.

The destructiveness of it has been greatly exaggerated.

You have shown nothing of the sort. You argument has been that it will make oil more expensive, from which conventional oil producing nations will benefit, and that some of those beneficiaries are undesirable. You haven't really had to show anything in that regard, either, as that is not in dispute. I simply do not agree that these things are more important than the harm we are doing to our environment by fracking.

It will make oil much more expensive, but more than that it will move money to pay for that very expensive oil out of US. It is the combination of higher prices and lower production (US production would drop to one half of present) that would really harm our balance sheets. That some undesirable regimes (expansionist Russia and Wahabism-spreading Saudis and Shiite radicalism spreading Iranians) would get to benefit is all the more reason why it would be a very stupid move.

You may have tried to do that, but you failed. I presented evidence of fracking related earthquakes in several states, you were only able to downplay them by pretending that they don't matter.

It is you who have failed. You have shown earthquakes happen in several states, but I have shown that in Pennsylvania they were only detectable by sensors and are not perceptible by human beings. Several other states had some perceptible, but minor, quakes. It is only Oklahoma that has had significant induced quakes. And of course, Bakken had no reported induced quakes. So how are earthquakes an argument against fracking? At most it is an argument against fracking in Oklahoma, but even there tehy may be able to change procedures to reduce or eliminate risk of induced quakes.

Fracking causes earthquakes that would not have occurred otherwise. This is made more problematic by the fact that we don't know exactly why fracking causes serious seismic activity in some places, and apparently none at all in other places, with most places being somewhere in between. We don't find out until well after the fracking starts, and once it gets started, we can't stop it. Even with the serious seismic issues in Oklahoma, they are still fracking there.

Again, that is hardly an argument against fracking in Bakken. At the most, you are argument for a moratorium in Oklahoma until and unless the earthquake issue can be resolved.

They aren't going to stop until the government steps in and tells them to stop. Meanwhile, they fight that government action with every political resource at their disposal. They know they are causing the problem there, but they just have to make their money. Where will the next fracking siesmic clusterfrack happen? Who knows? It's anybody's guess. Step up and spin the fracking wheel!

As opposed to giving up on all fracking and going to the great years of the mid- to late 2000s with oil above $100/bbl and hostile regimes reaping the rewards. Canada is friendly enough, but their oil is not acceptable to ecomentalists either.

You did no such thing. Here is the last substantive post I made in response to your objections about the problems with fracking:

I very much have.

Your response about the chemicals supported my argument, with the exception of the parenthetical comment, support of which I have withdrawn. Your response on earthquakes has been wholly inadequate. You first said they only occur in Oklahoma, and when I refuted that notion you just shrugged off the other earthquakes as no matter. Well, they do matter, Derec. They are earthquakes caused by fracking, and they apparently occur everywhere fracking is done, except in North Dakota. That's a big problem for fracking, whether you want to admit it or not.

They are only a significant issue in Oklahoma and not an issue at all in North Dakota, the subject of this thread.

Which would be great if they didn't have a such a tendency to leak:

Nothing is perfect. Pipelines are still much safer than the alternatives.
And note that even if you kill fracking, the expensive oil and product from overseas will still have to get moved all over the country.

I find your hand waving here to be less than comforting, especially to people living in Oklahoma.

If Oklahomans really have such a problem with occasional medium quakes they need to push their elected leaders to issue a moratorium until the issue is resolved. They would have to compare the earthquake risk with all the benefits fracking has brought to their state. And finally and for the 1000,000th time, that would only affect fracking in Oklahoma, not elsewhere.

We are talking about fracking in general, not just specifically to Bakken. Fracking occurs in California and Texas as well, both of which have had recent sever droughts. And yes, conventional oil uses a lot of water as well, but that just adds to the basic problem of using fossil fuels for energy. Also, fracking seems to be taking off in some drought stricken areas:

Again, regional problems have to be addressed regionally. Banning fracking everywhere because of problems somewhere is stupid.

"While hydraulic fracturing consumes only a small fraction of the water used in other extraction methods,

I find this very interesting and telling. Fracking uses much less water than alternative extraction methods.

our analysis highlights the fact that it can still pose serious risks to local water supplies, especially in drought-prone regions such as the Barnett formation in Texas, where exploration and development is rapidly intensifying," Kondash said. "Drilling a single well can require between 3 to 6 million gallons of water, and thousands of wells are fracked each year. Local water shortages could limit future production."

Oh, that's a shame, "shortages could limit future (fracking)". I guess the people who need the drinking water, and those who need water to raise crops can just frack off. Do you really think the oil companies are going to let something like a water shortage slow them down, when they aren't seen to be giving two shits about causing earthquakes?

Do you think they use potable water to frack? Or are they using water that can't be used for drinking anyway?

This is methane that is not being captured because they are fracking for oil.

Many oil fields have associated gas. For example, Ghawar, the largest of Saudi oil fields has several GOSPs (gas and oil separation plants) that produce 57 million m³ per day. But producing gas requires gas infrastructure, such as GOSPs and yes, pipelines. If idiots are protesting this infrastructure, gas production is far less likely to be implemented.

How is a pipeline going to fix that?

It provides a way for gas to be moved away from the field and toward users. Duh!

I also have no problem with natural gas pipelines,

But ecomentalists are.

they don't cause the same environmental damage as oil pipelines (and I am not necessarily against all oil pipelines, either).

You are against them only if they involve fracked oil? And you are against fracked oil because there are some problems with earthquakes and drought in fracking plays different than Bakken which this pipeline serves?

I have shown that fracking recovers considerably less of that contaminated water than conventional oil production. That leaves more in the ground to seep into wells and aquifers.

You have not shown such seepage occurs on any significant scale. The reservoirs in question are separated by impermeable rock from the aquifers.

Industrial chemicals, Derec. Your own link showed that.

Yeah, industrial processes use industrial chemicals. Imagine that. Do you know what else uses industrial chemicals? All sorts of industrial processes, from food production to solar cell manufacture.
You have not shown mere existence of these chemicals poses an undue risk.

Just how much unnecessary industrial chemical contamination is acceptable in your drinking water, Derec?

Depends on the chemical, but I would go by EPA limits here.
One of the major chemicals used to fracture rock is HCl, which is not only active ingredient in stomach acid, it is also used to process food and to lower pH in swimming pools.