Jump to content

The Climate thread

Laxtonto

By Laxtonto
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

bolverk
bolverk

Now apply that way of thinking to other topics: You want me to stop treating minorities like shit when people in other countries can treat their minorities like shit? You want me to pay

CooterBrown
CooterBrown
mop
mop

what a thread.   the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012

Posted Images

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104,465

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Zavala said:

https://www.amazon.com/kikoukagakushanokokuhaku-chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu-Japanese-Nakamura-Mototaka-ebook/dp/B07FKHF7T2/ref=sr_1_1?Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.x=34&Adv-Srch-Books-Submit.y=12&qid=1569422108&refinements=p_27%3AMototaka+Nakamura&s=books&sr=1-1&unfiltered=1

Arigato.

Have you read it, Zavala-san?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
On 9/25/2019 at 10:46 AM, bolverk said:

No one considers her a policy maker. She is, however, a messenger and she's right about the ongoing mass extinction event. Just look up the term "Holocene extinction."

The IPBES [Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services] Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is the most comprehensive ever completed. It is the first intergovernmental Report of its kind and builds on the landmark Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005, introducing innovative ways of evaluating evidence.

Compiled by 145 expert authors from 50 countries over the past three years, with inputs from another 310 contributing authors, the Report assesses changes over the past five decades, providing a comprehensive picture of the relationship between economic development pathways and their impacts on nature. It also offers a range of possible scenarios for the coming decades.

Based on the systematic review of about 15,000 scientific and government sources, the Report also draws (for the first time ever at this scale) on indigenous and local knowledge, particularly addressing issues relevant to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

“Biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people are our common heritage and humanity’s most important life-supporting ‘safety net’. But our safety net is stretched almost to breaking point,” said Prof. Sandra Díaz (Argentina), who co-chaired the Assessment with Prof. Josef Settele (Germany) and Prof. Eduardo S. Brondízio (Brazil and USA). “The diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems, as well as many fundamental contributions we derive from nature, are declining fast, although we still have the means to ensure a sustainable future for people and the planet.”

The Report finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.

The average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20%, mostly since 1900. More than 40% of amphibian species, almost 33% of reef forming corals and more than a third of all marine mammals are threatened. The picture is less clear for insect species, but available evidence supports a tentative estimate of 10% being threatened. At least 680 vertebrate species had been driven to extinction since the 16th century and more than 9% of all domesticated breeds of mammals used for food and agriculture had become extinct by 2016, with at least 1,000 more breeds still threatened.

“Ecosystems, species, wild populations, local varieties and breeds of domesticated plants and animals are shrinking, deteriorating or vanishing. The essential, interconnected web of life on Earth is getting smaller and increasingly frayed,” said Prof. Settele. “This loss is a direct result of human activity and constitutes a direct threat to human well-being in all regions of the world.”

To increase the policy-relevance of the Report, the assessment’s authors have ranked, for the first time at this scale and based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are, in descending order: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species.

The Report notes that, since 1980, greenhouse gas emissions have doubled, raising average global temperatures by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius – with climate change already impacting nature from the level of ecosystems to that of genetics – impacts expected to increase over the coming decades, in some cases surpassing the impact of land and sea use change and other drivers.

https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment

You're the hysterical fool with fingers in your ears shouting "La la la la la, I'm not listening!"

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize we were talking about Barton Creek Salamanders etc. Yes other species have become more endangered since our species became more advanced, starting initially with other giant mammals.

Is it catastrophic? It hasn’t been yet and any assertions that it will be soon are merely projections. I’m most concerned with our species.

“Fairytales of eternal economic growth” are very real to people all over the globe. Good thing Greta is here to tell poor people what’s best for them.

https://mises.org/wire/greta-thunberg-poor-countries-drop-dead

Spoiler

Greta Thunberg To Poor Countries: Drop Dead

TAGS The EnvironmentGlobal Economy

09/26/2019Ryan McMaken

On Monday, celebrity climate activist Greta Thunberg delivered a speech to the UN Climate Action summit in New York. Thunberg demanded drastic cuts in carbon emissions of more than 50 percent over the next ten years.

It is unclear to whom exactly she was directing her comments, although she also filed a legal complaint with the UN on Monday, demanding five countries (Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey) more swiftly adopt larger cuts in carbon emissions. The complaint is legally based on a 1989 agreement, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which Thunberg claims the human rights of children are being violated by too-high carbon emissions.

Thunberg seems unaware, however, that in poor and developing countries, carbon emissions are more a lifeline to children than they are a threat.

Rich Countries and Poor

It's one thing to criticize France and Germany for their carbon emissions. Those are relatively wealthy countries where few families are reduced to third-world-style grinding poverty when their governments make energy production — and thus most consumer goods and services — more expensive through carbon-reduction mandates and regulations. But even in the rich world, a drastic cut like that demanded by Thunberg would relegate many households now living on the margins to a life of greatly increased hardship.

That's a price Thunberg is clearly willing to have first-world poor people pay.

But her inclusion of countries like Brazil and Turkey on this list is bizarre and borders on the sadistic — assuming she actually knows about the situation in those places.

While some areas of Brazil and Turkey contain some areas that approach first-world conditions, both countries are still characterized by large populations living in the sorts of poverty that European schoolgirls could scarcely comprehend.

Winning the War on Poverty with Fossil Fuels

But thanks to industrialization and economic globalization —  countries can, and do, climb  out of poverty.

In recent decades, countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, Thailand and Mexico — once poverty-stricken third-world countries — are now middle-income countries. Moreover, in these countries most of the population will in coming decades will likely achieve what we considered to be first-world standards of living in the twentieth century.

At least, that's what will happen if people like Greta Thunberg don't get their way.

The challenge here arises from the fact that for a middle-income or poor country, cheap energy consumption — made possibly overwhelmingly by fossil fuels — is often a proxy for economic growth.

After all, if a country wants to get richer, it has to create things of value for other countries. At the lower- and middle- income level, that usually means making things such as vehicles, computers, or other types of machinery. This has certainly been the case in Mexico, Malaysia, and Turkey.

But for countries like these, to only economical way to produce these things is by using fossil fuels.

Thus it is not a coincidence that carbon emissions growth and economic growth track together. We see this relationship in Brazil, for example:

brazil_0.PNG

And in Malaysia:

malaysia.PNG

And also in Turkey:

turkey.PNG

Source1

We no longer see this close a relationship between the two factors in wealthy countries. This is due to the fact many first-world (and post-Soviet) countries make broader use of nuclear power, and because high income countries have more heavily abandoned coal in favor of less-carbon intensive fuels like natural gas.2

It is thanks to this fossil-fuel powered industrialization over the past thirty years that extreme poverty and other symptoms of economic under-development have been so reduced.

For example, according to the World Bank, worldwide extreme poverty was reduced from 35 percent to 11 percent, from 1990 to 2013. We also find that access to clean water has increased, literacy has increased , and life expectancy has increased — especially in lower-income areas that have been most rapidly industrializing in recent decades.

Just as carbon emissions track with economic growth in middle income countries, child mortality tends to fall as carbon emissions increase.

We see this throughout the developing world, including in India,

ndia_mortality.PNG

And in China:

emissions_mortality_china.PNG

Source3

Industrialization isn't the only factor behind reducing child mortality, of course. But it is certainly a major factor. Industrialization sustains modern health care amenities such as climate controlled hospitals, and it increases access to clean water and sanitation systems.

Greta Thunberg, ignores all of this, mocking the idea of economic growth as a "fairytale." But for people in the developing world, money and economic growth — two things Greta Thunberg thinks are contemptible — translates into a longer and better life. In other words, economic development means happiness, since, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out, "Most mothers feel happier if their children survive, and most people feel happier without tuberculosis than with it."

Thunberg's blithe disregard for the benefits of economic growth is not uncommon for people from wealthy countries who are already living in an industrialized world built by the fossil fuels of yesteryear. For them, they associate additional economic growth with access to high fashion and luxury cars. But for the billions of human beings living outside these places, fossil-fuel-driven industrialization can be the difference between life and death.

And yet, Greta Thunberg has seen fit to attack countries like Brazil and Turkey for not more enthusiastically cutting off their primary means to quickly deliver a more sanitary, more well-fed, and less deadly way of life for ordinary people.

The Chinese know the benefits of economic growth especially well. A country that was literally starving to death during the 1970s, China rapidly industrialized after abandoning Mao's communism for a system of limited and regulated market capitalism. But even this small market-based lifeline — sustained by fossil fuels — quickly and substantially pulled a billion people out of a tenuous existence previously threatened regularly by famine and economic deprivation.

Today, China is the world's largest carbon emitter — by far — with total carbon emissions double that of the United States. And while the US and the EU has been cutting emissions, China won't even pledge to cap its emissions any time before 2030. (And a pledge doesn't mean it will actually happen.) India meanwhile, more than doubled its carbon emissions between 2000 and 2014, and its prime minister refuses to pledge to cut its coal-fired power generation.

totalemissions.PNG

Source 4

And who can blame these countries? First-world school children may think it's fine to lecture Chinese factory workers about the need to cut back their standard of living, but such comments are likely to fall on deaf ears if climate policy means destroying the so-called "fairytale" of economic growth.5

As one Chinese resident put it on China's social media platform Weibo: “If the economy doesn’t grow, what do us people living in developing countries eat?”

Measuring Net Costs of Global Warming

Advocates for drastic cuts in emissions might retort: "even if our policies do make people poorer, they'd be a lot worse off with global warming!"

Would they though?

At the UN, Thunberg thundered, "People are suffering. People are dying [because of climate change.]" But that isolated assertion doesn't tell us what we need to know when it comes to climate-change policy.

The question that does matter is his: if the world implements drastic Thunbergian climate change policies will the policies themselves do more harm than good?

The answer may very well not be in the climate activists' favor. After all, the costs of climate change must be measured compared to the costs of climate change policy. If economic growth is stifled by climate policy — and a hundred million people lose out on clean water and safe housing as a result — that's a pretty big cost.

After all, the benefits of cheap energy — most of provided by fossil fuels — are already apparent. Life expectancy continues to go up — and is expected to keep making the biggest gains in the developing world. Child mortality continues to go down. For the first time in history, the average Chinese peasant isn't forced to scratch out a subsistence-level existence on a rice paddy. Thanks to cheap electricity, women in middle income countries don't have to spend their days cleaning clothes by hand without washing machines. Children don't have to drink cholera-tainted water.

It's easy to sit before a group of wealthy politicians and say "how dare you" for not implementing one's desired climate policy. It might be slightly harder to tell a Bangladeshi tee-shirt factory worker that she's had it too good, and we need to put the brakes on economic growth. For her own good, of course.

And this has been the problem with climate-change policy all along. Although the burden of proof is on them for wanting to coerce billions into their global economic-management scheme, the climate-change activists have never convincingly made the case that the downside of climate change is worse than the downside of crippling industrializing economies.

This is why the activists so commonly rely on over-the-top claims of total global destruction. One need not waste any time on weighing the options if the only choices presented are "do what we want" or "face total global extinction."

But even climate change activists can't agree the armaggedon approach is accurate.  Last year, for example, Scientific American published "Should We Chill Out About Global Warming?" by John Horgan which explores the idea "that continued progress in science and other realms will help us overcome environmental problems." 

Specifically, Horgan looks at two recent writers on the topic, Steven Pinker and Will Boisvert. Neither Pinker nor Boisvert could be said to have libertarian credentials, and neither take the position that there is no climate change. Both assume that climate change will lead to difficulties. 

Both, however, also conclude that the challenges posed by climate change do not require the presence of a global climate dictatorship. Moreover, human societies are already motivated to do the sorts of things that will be essential in overcoming climate-change challenges that may arise. 

That is, pursuing higher standards of living through technological innovation is the key to dealing with climate change.

But that innovation isn't fostered when children shake their fingers at Brazilian laborers and tell them to forget about a family car or household appliances or travel at vacation time. 

That isn't likely to be a winning strategy outside the world of self-hating first-world suburbanites. It appears many Indians and Brazilians and Chinese are willing to risk the global warming for a chance at experiencing even a small piece of what wealthy first-world climate activists have been enjoying all their lives

Maybe some of y’all should read this.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/should-we-chill-out-about-global-warming/

Spoiler

I work hard to maintain my optimistic outlook. Wishful thinking works. The first step toward building a more healthy, peaceful, just world is to believe we can do it. So how do I deal with all the bad news about climate change? U.S. officials are rolling back regulations designed to curb global warming even as reports flood in about its scale and potential consequences.

I have thus found solace in two new essays that offer upbeat takes on our environmental future. Both reflect the outlook of ecomodernism, a movement I have written about here and here. One essay, published in the ecomodernist Breakthrough Journal, is by mega-pundit Steven Pinker. I have knocked Pinker for his views on the roots of war and other matters, but in general I appreciate his empirically-based optimism.

His Breakthrough essay, “Enlightenment Environmentalism,” is adapted from his new bestseller Enlightenment Now. The book, which been praised and attacked, argues that we’ve achieved lots of progress, material and moral, and we should achieve lots more as long as we don’t succumb to fatalism.

ADVERTISEMENT

In his Breakthrough essay, Pinker spells out a key assumption of ecomodernism. Industrialization “has been good for humanity. It has fed billions, doubled lifespans, slashed extreme poverty, and, by replacing muscle with machinery, made it easier to end slavery, emancipate women, and educate children. It has allowed people to read at night, live where they want, stay warm in winter, see the world, and multiply human contact. Any costs in pollution and habitat loss have to be weighed against these gifts.”

Pinker contrasts the can-do ecomodernist spirit with “the lugubrious conventional wisdom offered by the mainstream environmental movement, and the radicalism and fatalism it encourages.” We can solve problems related to climate change, Pinker argues, “if we sustain the benevolent forces of modernity that have allowed us to solve problems so far, including societal prosperity, wisely regulated markets, international governance, and investments in science and technology.”

The bulk of Pinker’s essay consists of documentation of how we've handled environmental threats. We have reduced our rate of population growth; made agriculture, transportation and other key industries more energy-efficient; and increased the acreage of marine and terrestrial preserves. Here is a typical passage:

“Since 1970, when the Environmental Protection Agency was established, the United States has slashed its emissions of five air pollutants by almost two-thirds. Over the same period, the population grew by more than 40 percent, and those people drove twice as many miles and became two and a half times richer. Energy use has leveled off, and even carbon dioxide emissions have turned a corner. These diverging curves refute both the left-wing claim that only de-growth can curb pollution and the right-wing claim that environmental protection must sabotage economic growth and standard of living.”

My mood got an even bigger boost from “The Conquest of Climate” by Will Boisvert, a journalist I met at an ecomodernist powwow a few years ago. My first exposure to Boivert’s dry, iconoclastic sensibility was a 2013 Breakthrough Journal article, “A Locavore’s Dilemma,” which asserts that “the linkage of local farming to efficiency and sustainability is dubious.” Boisvert’s new essay, which he posted on his blog “Progress and Peril,” deserves to be widely read. It is even broader in scope than Pinker’s essay, and I found its analysis strikingly original. Boisvert begins:

ADVERTISEMENT

“How bad will climate change be? Not very. No, this isn’t a denialist screed. Human greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our progress in the effort to raise living standards.”

Boisvert examines four consequences of climate change: water shortages, food shortages, rising air temperatures and rising seas. He contends that the negative effects of climate change will be offset by continued progress in technology and other realms. As an example, he examines a 2016 Lancet study that predicted that by 2050 climate change will cause food shortages that result in 529,000 deaths each year.

The food shortages, Boisvert points out, “are relative to a 2050 baseline when food will be more abundant than now thanks to advances in agricultural productivity that will dwarf the effects of climate change.” Even factoring in climate change, the Lancet study calculates that per capita food consumption will be higher in 2050 than in 2010. Newsweek’s story on the Lancet study was nonetheless headlined, “Climate change could cause half a million deaths in 2050 due to reduced food availability.”

newsletter promo

Sign up for Scientific American’s free newsletters.

Sign Up

Boisvert comments: “A headline like ‘Despite climate change, rising food production will save millions of lives’ isn’t great click-bait, but it would give a truer picture of a future under global warming.” He adds: “Global warming won’t wipe us out or even stall our progress, it will just marginally slow ordinary economic development that will still outpace the negative effects of warming and make life steadily better in the future, under every climate scenario.”

I also like Boisvert’s discussion of water shortages. Claiming that a drought sparked Syria’s terrible civil war, greens warn that global warming could provoke “water wars.” Boisvert points out that the drought that struck Syria also affected Israel. He continues:

ADVERTISEMENT

“Shortages forced Israel to tighten its already stringent water conservation and recycling standards. More importantly, they prompted breakthroughs in reverse-osmosis desalination technology, cutting by half the energy needed to extract fresh water from the sea and dramatically lowering the cost to just 58 cents per cubic meter (1,000 liters) of drinkable water… The implications of cheap desalination are profound. By tapping limitless sea-water resources it could drought-proof agriculture and thus eliminate the greatest threat posed by climate change.”

Boisvert notes that “when we think harder about the specific problems global warming poses—problems of water management, agricultural productivity, cooling and construction—the threat becomes less daunting. Our logistic and technical capacities are burgeoning, and they give us ample means of addressing these problems.”

Greens fear that optimism will foster complacency and hence undermine activism. But I find the essays of Pinker and Boisvert inspiring, not enervating. I plan to assign the essays to my students, who have become quite gloomy lately. These days, despair is a bigger problem than optimism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27,593

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here's the first one in the thread. 

She isn't trying to set policy. She doesn't want your applause. 

When asked what or why, she points at the research. 

It's the same got dam lesson we learned as little kids.

Pick up your own trash. Clean up your mess.

Only the fat assholes, or skinny pricks, don't wanna because that's going to cut into their profits. 

Fuck off. 

Edited by cactusflinthead
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dirk X West

Dirk X West 772

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize we were talking about Barton Creek Salamanders etc. Yes other species have become more endangered since our species became more advanced, starting initially with other giant mammals.

Is it catastrophic? It hasn’t been yet and any assertions that it will be soon are merely projections. I’m most concerned with our species.

“Fairytales of eternal economic growth” are very real to people all over the globe. Good thing Greta is here to tell poor people what’s best for them.

Believe it or not, there's a relationship between other species' survival and ours.  

Also, to your second point: A. it'll be expensive to change our energy infrastructure, but it'll be more expensive longer we wait; and B. yes, the elites will do everything they can to make the middle and lower classes pay for the transition to green energy  - that's how they do, and what fundamentally needs to change.  We got to this point to this point by allowing them to profit off of exploiting and damaging the environment without making them pay for that damage.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BNB

BNB 100

Posted
Posted

If anything it's a great tool to use against your kids to stop watching tv, playing video games, wanting the newest fashions and electronics and having their own car.

 

Maybe, but not likely, this will help end our materialism.

 

That would be something. Kids shaming other kids for playing video games, and having the coolest new things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
huge

huge 3,788

Posted
Posted (edited)

Has the Texas Monthly article been posted?  I don't wade in here often.

 

Nevermind I went to look and it was published in 2016.  I suspect it has been hashed and rehashed.

 

Unfriendly Climate was the title.

Edited by huge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YChang

YChang 3,430

Posted
Posted
Just now, huge said:

Has the Texas Monthly article been posted?  I don't wade in here often.

I put it up in the current events forum. 

The part of that article that get me... is if this state get its act together, it'll be THE clean energy capital of the US. And recognizing that we're not weaning off fossil fuels any time soon... the jobs and other innovations that could happen by having a healthy mix of both... sigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Post Oak

Post Oak 20,182

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, zork said:

The solution is more cows, livestock, and managing them in herds to heal the land:

Very interesting talk if it is to be believed.  The part about the elephants was shocking, sad.

I've been aware of this talk for a few years now.  It makes sense to me and it also manages to follow along with some permaculture principles that work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
On 8/28/2019 at 4:38 PM, ChickenSandwich said:

Can’t wait for AOC to tell us this is evil, right after she goes after Hollywood and their salaries. 

She needs to lead the crusade of being sure all government buildings are never heated above 65 degrees nor cooled below 80 degrees to save the environment and reduce the usage of electricity or fuel to waste energy changing the climate inside where people work beyond the new energy star recommendations from the government.  Practice what you preach and all that.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1,062

Posted
Posted
On 10/1/2019 at 5:10 PM, elfenix said:

here's the actual endenhofer interview instead of the propagandized hatchet job:

https://www.nzz.ch/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu-1.8373227

Here's the quote. Care to explain how it was mischaracterized?

Quote

First of all, we industrialized countries have virtually expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one has to say clearly: we are effectively redistributing world wealth through climate policy. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic, is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as forest dying or ozone hole.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34,168

Posted
Posted (edited)

it's about how we'll have to figure out how to grow without emitting carbon.  it's talking in context of oil suddenly becoming worthless and atmospheric rights suddenly becoming valuable.   it's not redistribution in the way american conservatives usually think of redistribution

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1,062

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/2/2019 at 10:02 PM, elfenix said:

it's about how we'll have to figure out how to grow without emitting carbon.  it's talking in context of oil suddenly becoming worthless and atmospheric rights suddenly becoming valuable.   it's not redistribution in the way american conservatives usually think of redistribution

So every word in the video was true. And meant exactly what he said. Redistribution. 

I'll be convinced that AGW is true when its proponents can provide factual support for their claims. As of today, they haven't come close to doing so without engaging in fraud like the one you are trying to perpetrate.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38,127

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lurch said:

Is there a non selfish reason for being against her stance?

Fracking has not been scientifically proven to be bad for the environment. If her stance was to ban all drilling, at least it would make logical sense. 

I also don’t want the economy to crash 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5,562

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Fracking has not been scientifically proven to be bad for the environment. If her stance was to ban all drilling, at least it would make logical sense. 

I also don’t want the economy to crash 

You mean other than the earthquakes and tainted water systems? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5,919

Posted
Posted

Remember when smoking hadn’t been proven to cause cancer? When offshore drilling was no concern? When lead water pipes were cool? When vaping was a great alternative to aforementioned smoking...like a month ago?

Be honest, do you really think there’s a low likelihood that within 50 years we’ll be suffering from fracking consequences? Who are you counting on to tell you there is a problem? The same people trying to eliminate the EPA? Those quakes couldn’t possibly be a risk and/or a harbinger either, right?

I get it. It’s created a nice economic boom. It’s also a convenient excuse to not focus more attention on clean, sustainable solutions.

Addressing climate change is going to SUCK. It’s also our responsibility to deal with that pain, and just kicking the can is why we’re here in the first place.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17,420

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Fracking has not been proven to cause earthquakes or tainted water systems. 

Well... pretty sure about the tainted water, but that is largely about bad practices and not necessarily caused by every fracker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...