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

[KeepTalking]

While interesting, that account is not technical enough. We need the numbers behind the incident if we want to assess its applicability to larger society.

Not technical enough, eh? Where is the technical treatise you have written on how the world cannot possibly continue to exist unless we frack the shit out of everything?

 

[untermensche]

While interesting, that account is not technical enough. We need the numbers behind the incident if we want to assess its applicability to larger society.

Not technical enough, eh? Where is the technical treatise you have written on how the world cannot possibly continue to exist unless we frack the shit out of everything?

It's called ever moving goalposts.

No matter what detail you give (on a message board) you will always be asked for greater detail.

The goal is diversion and evasion, not to find solutions.

 

[JonA]

You broke it 'cause you code like a toddler.

You call what we do here coding? Spoken like a true script-kiddie.

Yes. It is very basic and rudimentary code. And you suck at it.

But I saw enough: you're response makes clear you're not interested in actually supporting the claim you made.

It's too bad.

My response makes it clear that I am not going to dance to your tune, but I am perfectly willing to support the claim I made. I have already provided much of that support in this thread. Derec tried to rebut it, but was unable to do anything other than pick nits, and ultimately bolstered my argument with at least one of the links he provided. Feel free to try to do better if you think you can. Please note, this is not an academic journal, it is a discussion board. I am a programmer, not a geologist, nor am I a climatologist. If you want to provide a multi page technical treatise for each and every point you want to make in discussing this issue, knock yourself out, but don't expect it from me. I will more likely provide a short and concise opinion, backed up by links from sources with more expertise than I in the relevant fields of study.

You don't need to be an expert to google and put together numbers that, say, determine the number of solar panels required to generate the same amount of electricity generated from a given amount of coal.

The research is very basic. And anyone with the background in coding you claim to have should be able to make easy work of it.

It makes me wonder how you can be so sure of the veracity of your claim if you haven't done that most basic research. Are you just trusting others?



- - - Updated - - -

While interesting, that account is not technical enough. We need the numbers behind the incident if we want to assess its applicability to larger society.

Not technical enough, eh? Where is the technical treatise you have written on how the world cannot possibly continue to exist unless we frack the shit out of everything?

Well, that's not a claim I've made.

 

[KeepTalking]

You call what we do here coding? Spoken like a true script-kiddie.

Yes. It is very basic and rudimentary code. And you suck at it.

Whatever. You obviously have no idea of the difference between coding and scripting, so I am more than comfortable in disregarding your pathetic attempt to insult me. But please, given the expertise you seem to have in "coding", go ahead and review my "code", and let me know where I can make improvements. This should be rich.

But I saw enough: you're response makes clear you're not interested in actually supporting the claim you made.

It's too bad.

My response makes it clear that I am not going to dance to your tune, but I am perfectly willing to support the claim I made. I have already provided much of that support in this thread. Derec tried to rebut it, but was unable to do anything other than pick nits, and ultimately bolstered my argument with at least one of the links he provided. Feel free to try to do better if you think you can. Please note, this is not an academic journal, it is a discussion board. I am a programmer, not a geologist, nor am I a climatologist. If you want to provide a multi page technical treatise for each and every point you want to make in discussing this issue, knock yourself out, but don't expect it from me. I will more likely provide a short and concise opinion, backed up by links from sources with more expertise than I in the relevant fields of study.

You don't need to be an expert to google and put together numbers that, say, determine the number of solar panels required to generate the same amount of electricity generated from a given amount of coal.

And I also don't need to be an expert to realize that replacing coal plants with nuclear, wind and solar power generation will reduce the need for burning fossil fuels for energy, or to realize that not fracking is less destructive to the environment than fracking.


- - - Updated - - -

While interesting, that account is not technical enough. We need the numbers behind the incident if we want to assess its applicability to larger society.

Not technical enough, eh? Where is the technical treatise you have written on how the world cannot possibly continue to exist unless we frack the shit out of everything?

Well, that's not a claim I've made.

Then what is the claim you would like to make with regard to fracking? Go ahead and make that claim, then support it with the level of detail that you are asking from me. Set the example, if you want me to do the same. You won't do any of that, though, will you? The only level of effort you want to bring to this discussion is in shifting the goal posts for me, just like untermensche noted above.

 

[Derec]

And the fact is that we dont need it. Today here are all sorts of viable alternatives. Its only a question of priorities,

The fact is that, yes we do have "all sorts of viable alternatives".
But it is just as much the fact that it will take decades to develop and implement them. In the meantime we need oil. And there isn't enough conventional oil to power the world's economy until then.

 

[JonA]

You don't need to be an expert to google and put together numbers that, say, determine the number of solar panels required to generate the same amount of electricity generated from a given amount of coal.

And I also don't need to be an expert to realize that replacing coal plants with nuclear, wind and solar power generation will reduce the need for burning fossil fuels for energy, or to realize that not fracking is less destructive to the environment than fracking.

Where do you get the energy?

How m much can you get?

What is the environmental or human cost of getting it that way?

If you haven't examined these things, how can you claim using your proposed alternatives will actually have the effects you mention?

The only level of effort you want to bring to this discussion is in shifting the goal posts for me, ...

Cute coming from the person who continues derailing and making excuses for not backing the claim they outright promised they would provide evidence for.

And I think the record by now is clear enough: you don't actually have the evidence to back up your claim. When given the chance to back your statement, you run away, try to divert attention from your lacking position by asking me to support nonsense I never said, and everything else besides make the effort to actually support the claim - a request that is the same now as when first made.

Hell, it's obvious you haven't even thought of some of the most basic issues underlying your claim let alone have access to that information to post it here.

And it's obvious you never will.

 

[Derec]

It has everything to do with the problems associated with fracking.

Problems need to be addressed on a case by case basis. You can't say fracking in general is bad based on a regional problem. Let's say it is necessary to put a moratorium on wastewater injection in Oklahoma due to earthquakes. How does that affect Bakken or the need for this pipeline? If anything, it would make Bakken pump more to make up for the shortfall which would make DAPL even more important.

If there was a way to frack oil that didn't contaminate groundwater, or dispose of water used in fracking that didn't pollute aquifers or cause earthquakes, or build pipelines that didn't leak, you might possibly allay the objections of the Lakota protesting this particular pipeline.

1. You are asking for perfection and that simply does not exist.
2. Indians are not protesting "this particular pipeline", they are protesting all pipelines - Keystone XL, Sandpiper, Nothern Gateway and many more. One could take their claims more seriously if they didn't make the same claims every time there is development anywhere close to their areas (and not only oil and pipelines, but also mining and even telescopes). It's like boy who cried wolf.

But there's still the issue of burning fossil fuels contributing to climate change, so the objection to fracking in general still stands. It's a dirty business that pollutes essential resources and significantly contributes to a worldwide problem whose costs already outweigh any benefits it produces.

I am all for getting off fossil fuels. It will take decades though. And in the meantime it is better to frack domestically than to make Saudis/Gulf Arabs and Russians rich. Why do you think Al Jazeera and Russia Today are reporting favorably about these protests? They stand to profit from lower US production.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.kare11.com/news/oil-pipeline-protest-turns-violent-in-southern-north-dakota/313475585

Unfortunately they still had to retreat after being attacked by "peaceful" protesters. I think ND national guard should be called to protect the construction site.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean a world that magically transformed to another energy source?

That's what it would take to make fracking not needed.

Or a world devoted to using as little oil as possible and looking as hard as possible for workable alternatives?
Are you saying the latter is impossible?

Not impossible, but it will take time. As in, several decades.

 

[untermensche]

You mean a world that magically transformed to another energy source?

That's what it would take to make fracking not needed.

Please provide detailed evidence of this absurdity.

We can eliminate a huge need for energy tomorrow.

Stop intruding into other people's affairs all over the world.

Close our overseas bases and have a policy of defense, not aggressive war.

 

[Derec]

You realize gas costs a lot more in most parts of the world than it does in the US?

Mostly due to taxes. Of course, if gas cost as much here as it does in Europe we'd be much worse off because our cities are much more car dependent. Also there are, geographically, much greater distances between cities than in more densely populated Europe.

All the gas will be bought up by the rich if we raised the price by 1 dollar a gallon?

I would be in favor of such a tax actually. What we are discussing in this thread though is shutting down a pipeline. I am very much opposed to that.

 

[untermensche]

Mostly due to taxes. Of course, if gas cost as much here as it does in Europe we'd be much worse off because our cities are much more car dependent. Also there are, geographically, much greater distances between cities than in more densely populated Europe.

It's like a broken record.

Another person who wants a solution that causes no pain to anyone.

Another childish dreamer.

 

[KeepTalking]

And I also don't need to be an expert to realize that replacing coal plants with nuclear, wind and solar power generation will reduce the need for burning fossil fuels for energy, or to realize that not fracking is less destructive to the environment than fracking.

Where do you get the energy?

I already told you, nuclear, wind, and solar. In case you need it broken down for you...

Nuclear: Hot rocks make water go 'whoosh', make spinny-thingy spin, power comes out the other end (this is actually how my son, the nuclear engineer, told me that one Navy instructor explained nuclear power generation to them on their first day of class).

Wind: Wind makes the propeller spin, power comes out the other end.

Solar: There are actually various ways in which energy can be extracted using solar power, but it ultimately come from The Sun.

How m much can you get?

Approximately 1 metric shitload, give or take.

What is the environmental or human cost of getting it that way?

Less than fracking, or coal. Less than conventional oil environmentally, and likely from a human cost as well, though I will note that there is some danger in installing wind turbines (given the height), and rooftop solar.

If you haven't examined these things, how can you claim using your proposed alternatives will actually have the effects you mention?

If you haven't examined these things, how can you say that my claim is incorrect. If you have examined them, why haven't you posted your exhaustive technological review yet? You know, so you can set a good example for me.

The only level of effort you want to bring to this discussion is in shifting the goal posts for me, ...

Cute coming from the person who continues derailing and making excuses for not backing the claim they outright promised they would provide evidence for.

Look back through this thread. I have provided information backing up my claim. It's not my fault that you chose to ignore that, and would rather require me to jump through hoops of your own devising.

And I think the record by now is clear enough: you don't actually have the evidence to back up your claim.

The evidence has been provided in this thread. It is not, nor should you expect it to be, academic journal quality, or public policy level information. It is Discussion Board quality evidence, which will typically take the form of links to what experts are saying, or what journalists are uncovering.

When given the chance to back your statement, you run away,

I did not run away. I am still here, as should be readily apparent.

try to divert attention from your lacking position by asking me to support nonsense I never said, and everything else besides make the effort to actually support the claim - a request that is the same now as when first made.

Well, perhaps you should say something of substance, so I don't have to imagine what your position is in this discussion. Then you can set a good example for me by providing the level of evidence backing up your claim that you would have me provide for mine. In lieu of that, I will continue to provide information in the manner that is expected on an internet discussion board, or point to the information I have already provided, which you have chosen not to reply to.

Hell, it's obvious you haven't even thought of some of the most basic issues underlying your claim let alone have access to that information to post it here.

It's obvious to me that you want to call the shots, and have me dance to your tune. That's not going to happen. Critique the information that I provided in my back and forth with Derec, and maybe we will have a jumping off point for further discussion, but the flow of that discussion will not be dictated by you, it will grow organically from the point at which it starts.

 

[Derec]

It's like a broken record.

You omitted part of my response where I agreed that a carbon tax would be a good thing. But making gas as expensive as in the Europe won't work as Americans have to drive longer distances than Europeans and have access to more public transit.

I also like electric cars and expanding transit but both will take time and the latter requires a great deal of political will.
As to EVs: currently less than 1% of new car sales. It will probably take around 20 years to make EVs majority of all new cars and another 10 to make EVs majority of all cars on the road. And that doesn't even address air travel.

Another person who wants a solution that causes no pain to anyone.

If it causes too much economic pain it will plain not get done.

Another childish dreamer.

No, it is your side which is "childish dreamer" side. Reality based people know that it will take time and that in the meantime we need oil and gas. Including fracked oil and gas.

 

[Derec]

I already told you, nuclear, wind, and solar. In case you need it broken down for you...

All good options. But ecomenatlists (as well as Indians for some reason) really hate nuclear.
And these methods will need time to develop enough to replace existing fossil fuel electricity generation capacity. And they generate electricity, so in order to use them with vehicles you need EVs. And they are still <1% of all new car sales.
Now, I do like EVs. I have defended EVs previously from unfair attacks on this very forum. My next car will most likely be an EV. 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 ...

Nuclear: Hot rocks make water go 'whoosh', make spinny-thingy spin, power comes out the other end (this is actually how my son, the nuclear engineer, told me that one Navy instructor explained nuclear power generation to them on their first day of class).

You can put "hot rocks" in a large navy ship or submarine but it is not really realistic for cars, concept cars from the 1950s notwithstanding.

Wind: Wind makes the propeller spin, power comes out the other end.

Can't really put one of these on the roof of your car due to drag and danger of tipping.

Solar: There are actually various ways in which energy can be extracted using solar power, but it ultimately come from The Sun.

You can actually put these on the roof of your car, but the power density is very low. After a workday parked in the sun the panels might generate enough juice for a few more miles, not more.

Less than fracking, or coal. Less than conventional oil environmentally, and likely from a human cost as well, though I will note that there is some danger in installing wind turbines (given the height), and rooftop solar.

Power density is a major issue with renewables. The other is their indeterminacy so you have to invest in storage as well. Third, relevant to vehicular traffic is that they generate electricity, not liquid fuels.
None of these issues are insurmountable, but they are all challenges. My point is not that we can't get rid of oil, but that we can't do it overnight, or even in a decade.

If we ban fracking what will happen is that we will have more expensive oil that we have to again import more of. The only beneficiaries would be oil exporters, OPEC and Russia mostly.

 

[untermensche]

You omitted part of my response where I agreed that a carbon tax would be a good thing. But making gas as expensive as in the Europe won't work as Americans have to drive longer distances than Europeans and have access to more public transit.

I also like electric cars and expanding transit but both will take time and the latter requires a great deal of political will.
As to EVs: currently less than 1% of new car sales. It will probably take around 20 years to make EVs majority of all new cars and another 10 to make EVs majority of all cars on the road. And that doesn't even address air travel.

Another person who wants a solution that causes no pain to anyone.

If it causes too much economic pain it will plain not get done.

Another childish dreamer.

No, it is your side which is "childish dreamer" side. Reality based people know that it will take time and that in the meantime we need oil and gas. Including fracked oil and gas.

What is my side?

My side are the detailed and specific plans groups like the Green Party have been working on for decades.

 

[Derec]

My side are the detailed and specific plans groups like the Green Party have been working on for decades.

Plans like spray painting bulldozers.

Jill Stein, US Green Party candidate, 'defaced bulldozer'
Yeah, that'll do it. Green Party == tactics worthy of a teenage delinquent

 

[Arctish]

No, it is your side which is "childish dreamer" side. Reality based people know that it will take time and that in the meantime we need oil and gas. Including fracked oil and gas.

Yes, we need oil and gas. No, we do not need fracked oil and gas, at least at this point in time.

All methods of fossil fuel extraction have an environmental cost, but the cost of fracking is much higher than conventional on-shore oil well drilling. We aren't so desperate that fracking is needed to stave off economic collapse.

We'll know we're reaching that point when even the Koch suckers will be calling for the government to do something about the idiots rolling coal and spewing all that precious dwindling resource out their exhaust pipes. Until then, fracking will simply support current wasteful practices and pollute our aquifers.

 

[Derec]

What they have convinced themselves to believe is not the point. The point is that their greed is as apparent as is their disregard for people and the environment.

You can't fathom somebody coming to a different conclusion on these matters and assign any dissent as "greed".

Why the "If", Derec? He's your boogeyman, you should know a bit about him. If he stood to profit, I can guarantee that the dirty frackers would not have failed to inform you of that fact. On the other hand, we know exactly about the motives of Big Oil, which is profit above all else. Show that Steyer stands to profit monetarily from his advocacy, and then we can discuss whether or not that impacts his motivation.

Again, I do not care if he stands to profit or not. I mentioned him as an example of big money being spent against oil and gas development.
Why he spends that money is irrelevant to my claim that he does.

No. Fiction is quite literally making shit up. It doesn't have to mirror anything about reality.

Quite the contrary! If it had no basis in reality (even when it deals with fantastic things) it would be pointless.

We can reduce our reliance on coal and foreign oil without harming people and destroying the environment in the way that fracking does. It would cost a bit more, but that is the price you pay for being a responsible steward of our natural resources.

How do you propose to do that?

Yes, I think that is quite accurate. Too bad that one group only believes in profit.

You have yet to provide any evidence for that assertion.

As ridiculous as their beliefs may seem to an atheist, like myself, at least their beliefs are not causing further harm to people and the environment. Quite the opposite of the other group that only believes in profit, people and the environment be damned.

On the contrary, if they carry the day, they will cause quite a bit of harm to people of the United States and probably the environment as well if Bakken oil is forced to be moved by trains and/or older pipelines.

Perhaps we can, but the way to do it certainly is not fracking. In this thread you have been unable to mount any defense of fracking as being environmentally responsible.

I have shot down every one of your points except for earthquakes which are a limited problem that is only significant in Oklahoma.

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. The burden of proof is on you to show fracking fundamentally environmentally irresponsible. You have failed to do so. You have even used conspiracy theories by Russia Today, even though Russia stands to profit from fracking being shut down.

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.

Well, I think you have failed miserably in tying that educational activity to something that supports your argument.

I mentioned him when you stated that Big Oil spends a lot of money on lobbying. I merely retorted that others like Steyer spend a lot of money lobbying against oil. Instead of accepting that big money flows on both sides, you are trying to weasel out by basically claiming that big money does not count if the motives are pure enough.

So? You haven't shown he stood to profit from his activism. It seems to me that he spent that money out of concern for the environment. Show that I am wrong if you think mentioning Steyer supports your argument.

My argument was that he spends big money on lobbying. I never claimed he did it because he stands to profit from it. That is your red herring.

I think they have opinions on things. I think those opinions are informed by unbridled greed, providing the motivation to avoid entertaining any opinion that does not involve additional profit. You have not provided any reason for me to believe otherwise.

And if they had mustaches they'd surely twirl them. And stroke hairless cats.

 

[Derec]

Yes, we need oil and gas. No, we do not need fracked oil and gas, at least at this point in time.

Facts disagree with you? Remember the 2008 big oil price spike? Fracking basically took off shortly after that.

All methods of fossil fuel extraction have an environmental cost, but the cost of fracking is much higher than conventional on-shore oil well drilling. We aren't so desperate that fracking is needed to stave off economic collapse.

Yes we do need that oil and no, I have seen no evidence that "the cost of fracking is much higher than conventional on-shore oil well drilling". Not to mention that "conventional on-shore oil well drilling" is not nearly enough to satisfy global demand. Note that you excluded off-shore drilling.

We'll know we're reaching that point when even the Koch suckers will be calling for the government to do something about the idiots rolling coal and spewing all that precious dwindling resource out their exhaust pipes. Until then, fracking will simply support current wasteful practices and pollute our aquifers.

Coal rollers are idiots, no question about it. But that has nothing to do with sensibility of fracking.

 

[Derec]

Because Derec has chosen to loudmouth us all with his hate language and he has gotten carried away in his rants we have failed to answer the question asked in the OP.

What hate language? Be specific.

I think there is something here us ultra modern dip shits have forgotten. It is the concept of respecting nature and recognizing we are a product of nature and not the other way around.

I am all for protecting nature. Pipelines should be built and maintained properly, and the same goes for oil wells.

Native Americans seem to have a pretty good handle on that.

No they do not. That is mostly "noble savage" romanticism.
They are also hypocrites. They use oil but are against any oil developments. They are against mining but complain when they can't get signal at the protest camp.
Take this photo of the protest camp.

Look at all these oil-burning cars and trucks! How many of them don't even get 20 mpg? Many of the protesters came from 1000s of miles away, from places like Maine, Washington, or California. How much gas did they burn in the process?

We do not and we are continually ruining ecosystems by a variety of industrial means and answering those who are concerned with abject unapologetic disrespect. In fact, for this madness to continue, a cottage industry has grown up around the denial of pollution and indeed any of its feedbacks to our society. We have whole catechisms of untruthful information thrown at us from industry think tanks and it pervades our entire society with lies and derision of those not accepting those lies. Derek seems to identify with these liars and cheats. That is his place in this.

Nonsense. I am not with climate denialists. But I am also not with apocalypticists. I am certainly not with hypocrites who are against oil development but then drive 2000 miles form Maine to chain themselves to a digger.

Nobody has all the answers, but enough of us have enough answers we are able at times to recognize unsustainable activities. Some real good examples are to be found in the destructive activities of the petroleum industry and mining industry and today, in industrial farming as well. Native Americans have a lot of allegorical tales to help them understand we are part of and a product of our environment...regardless of whether Derec understands it or not. Many of these tales advise us to have some respect for our environment and also for others.

It is unsustainable to want to drive a car yet be opposed to every oil development and every oil pipeline. Indians and ecomentalists oppose these project in a knee-jerk fashion without a honest discussion of pros and cons.

I have been around quite awhile now (73 years) and have been in a lot of environmental fights in my life. One of the things that helps you know you are right is that your opponent dehumanizes you and accuses you of being not quite sane. Even if these things are true (and they are not), it would be at least be case of a pot calling the kettle black. The disrespect for natural systems and for fellow human beings seems to be the hallmark of the industrial age. So how can anyone get upset with an Indian who beats his drum and cries because he sees you destroying his world and his way of staying alive. Oil and Coal are ON THE WAY OUT! They both are too polluting. We can transform our energy system if we do it in an intelligent and timely manner. The trouble with the oil and coal people is that they will only have it one way...the oil and coal way. That aspect of their competition will in the end destroy those industries and possibly us along with them.

But the Indian who beats his drum does it for the show. He hunts with a rifle and a pickup truck or snowmobile. He fishes with a fiberglass boat with an outboard engine. It's utter hypocrisy.
Yes, oil is on the way out. But it will take a while. And don't be surprised if Indians oppose what comes next.

True Progressives are HUMANISTS and they extend to others a sound understanding of the meaning of HUMAN RIGHTS. There is no right to frack or to bomb Iraq or pollute the air or water or land. These acts are crimes against humanity and the environment. There is no magical enlightenment that makes these crimes less criminal and those who support these crimes are always finding their jobs become insulting and demeaning and destroying the environment and its people.

Damaging property of others is not a human right. Chaining yourself to a property of others is not a human right.

 

[Jarhyn]

What hate language? Be specific.

I think there is something here us ultra modern dip shits have forgotten. It is the concept of respecting nature and recognizing we are a product of nature and not the other way around.

I am all for protecting nature. Pipelines should be built and maintained properly, and the same goes for oil wells.

Native Americans seem to have a pretty good handle on that.

No they do not. That is mostly "noble savage" romanticism.
They are also hypocrites. They use oil but are against any oil developments. They are against mining but complain when they can't get signal at the protest camp.
Take this photo of the protest camp.

Look at all these oil-burning cars and trucks! How many of them don't even get 20 mpg? Many of the protesters came from 1000s of miles away, from places like Maine, Washington, or California. How much gas did they burn in the process?

We do not and we are continually ruining ecosystems by a variety of industrial means and answering those who are concerned with abject unapologetic disrespect. In fact, for this madness to continue, a cottage industry has grown up around the denial of pollution and indeed any of its feedbacks to our society. We have whole catechisms of untruthful information thrown at us from industry think tanks and it pervades our entire society with lies and derision of those not accepting those lies. Derek seems to identify with these liars and cheats. That is his place in this.

Nonsense. I am not with climate denialists. But I am also not with apocalypticists. I am certainly not with hypocrites who are against oil development but then drive 2000 miles form Maine to chain themselves to a digger.

Nobody has all the answers, but enough of us have enough answers we are able at times to recognize unsustainable activities. Some real good examples are to be found in the destructive activities of the petroleum industry and mining industry and today, in industrial farming as well. Native Americans have a lot of allegorical tales to help them understand we are part of and a product of our environment...regardless of whether Derec understands it or not. Many of these tales advise us to have some respect for our environment and also for others.

It is unsustainable to want to drive a car yet be opposed to every oil development and every oil pipeline. Indians and ecomentalists oppose these project in a knee-jerk fashion without a honest discussion of pros and cons.

I have been around quite awhile now (73 years) and have been in a lot of environmental fights in my life. One of the things that helps you know you are right is that your opponent dehumanizes you and accuses you of being not quite sane. Even if these things are true (and they are not), it would be at least be case of a pot calling the kettle black. The disrespect for natural systems and for fellow human beings seems to be the hallmark of the industrial age. So how can anyone get upset with an Indian who beats his drum and cries because he sees you destroying his world and his way of staying alive. Oil and Coal are ON THE WAY OUT! They both are too polluting. We can transform our energy system if we do it in an intelligent and timely manner. The trouble with the oil and coal people is that they will only have it one way...the oil and coal way. That aspect of their competition will in the end destroy those industries and possibly us along with them.

But the Indian who beats his drum does it for the show. He hunts with a rifle and a pickup truck or snowmobile. He fishes with a fiberglass boat with an outboard engine. It's utter hypocrisy.
Yes, oil is on the way out. But it will take a while. And don't be surprised if Indians oppose what comes next.

True Progressives are HUMANISTS and they extend to others a sound understanding of the meaning of HUMAN RIGHTS. There is no right to frack or to bomb Iraq or pollute the air or water or land. These acts are crimes against humanity and the environment. There is no magical enlightenment that makes these crimes less criminal and those who support these crimes are always finding their jobs become insulting and demeaning and destroying the environment and its people.

Damaging property of others is not a human right. Chaining yourself to a property of others is not a human right.

Don't you understand that exposing the entire planet to increased environmental carbon is damaging the property of others? That wrecking g ground water sources is damaging the property of others? That creating widespread ground instability is damaging the property of others? We can get power without doing those things. It only requires more people to do more work, which we can absolutely support immediately.