Best
88 Comments
Post
  • #5
    !
    What is wrong with oil? Seriously people, we have plenty of it in this country. We could get it and be energy independent if it wasn't for all those goofy environmental wackos. Nooo, we have to squander billions of dollars chasing after phantom green energy and thumbing our nose up at known sources of energy. Want green energy? How about nuclear energy? There's a thought. Bet you didn't think of that. Come on people, our economy is in the toilet and we can't afford another 4 years of obama waging war on the energy sector of this country.
  • #10
    !
    Phantom green energy? really? you mean the solar power system that gives me all my electiricity?

    there should be a 20__ in the first two digits of your calendar, Neo...
  • #18
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix

    Two 20K panels...six used batteries (refurbished from my neighbor who installs solar, and the inverter and voila! power that never goes out.....EVER. even up here on the Canadian border in the depths of sunless November and December...

    i started with an investment of 4 large and totalled out around $6,000

    i have a small house but we all do up here. big house means big heat.

    i have neighbors that have fairly suburban type houses up here and since thereis no alternative, they do just fine with solar. some use just wind. some use both.

    again, time to get with the 21st century, Neo..
  • #25
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix

    Why do you need the nanny state to do it for you? why do you think the gov't must lead the way for you?

    Is there any subject at all that you will not contradict what you say are your core beliefs on, Neo?

    you are too, f for freakin' funny?
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Global warming should be the least of our concerns when it comes to fracking. Drinkable water is where we should be concerned. Life requires water, not gas, coal or oil.
  • #9
    !
    Yeah, I know, as far as liberals are concerned the only good energy source would be humans on stationary bikes turning the generator producing electricity. But we would be exhaling larger than normal amounts of CO2 in the process thereby contributing to global warming, so I guess even that wouldn't be good enough for them.
  • #4
    !
    Agreed....however doing nothing is not sustainable either....I think we need to go for the fracking with profits going to invest in new clean or cleaner technology....invest in inventors....and bonuses could be given to oil companies willing to this that would lead to more jobs....one proviso....that these jobs stay in America....and the energy would be cost efficient....{there may be multiple energy inventions needed}....
  • #8
    !
    @Knightmare

    why sdhould gas or oil companies be charged with developing new energy technologies...seems counterproductive at best and silly at worst. they are oil and gas companies.
  • #12
    !
    @woodtick57 Eventually there is going to be new tech energy and I would think the oil/gas companies would like to be in on the ground floor....
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    !
    I can appreciate Mr McKibben's concern about the environment, but perhaps he protesteth too much. To base an opinion about environmental effects on the study of one well seems a bit premature. I'm also hesitant to accept the idea that fracking will automatically slow down research in renewable fuels. Perhaps he might elaborate on the connection.
  • #88
    !
    It's a fact....fracking is bad for the earth it poisons drinking water and causes earthquakes how is that not harmful??? It's crazy how you idiots can say climate change is fake and not being caused by human activity
  • #87
    !
    Previous estimates for warming were 1 degree per century. I guess that didn't sound scary enough so now it's faster, higher warming. But this globe has had extreme temperature fluctuations long before man had even learned to build a fire, let alone burn coal. Earth is and has been resilient enough to host mankind; indeed I think that is her main function.
  • #83
    !
    So, Politix says they like to give space to 'other voices'. When will you address the very real science that shows there is NO 'climate change' and fracking will not harm the environment?
  • #78
    !
    Take any piece of data, and a scientist or engineer can use it to make any argument you want. I know, because I am one. All you need to do is to leave out a tiny piece of information that you can rationalize as "irrelevant" to my point. He is right that methane is 20 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Putting aside the dubious science involved in the assertion that the atmosphere is actually heating up due to man made effects and not from natural climate variation, the methane from the ground is largely released into the atmosphere anyway. It bubbles from lakes. When we pump oil it escapes freely from the wells, unless burned off (that is the flame you see above many wells and at refineries). Any amount lost from fracking is insignificant compared to the rest of the release. Plus, the methane from those wells can replace some of the oil that would otherwise be pumped, which also would have freely released methane. I won't even go into the fact that extensive use of wind and solar would cause our electricity bills to go up at LEAST 500%. It is simply that much more expensive to produce. Not too many people I know would be happy to pay that electric bill.
  • #70
    !
    The Earth has less energy in it's confines now than it did when all of the plants and animals that formed coal and oil were living, so even if we used 100% of the resources, the world still wouldn't be as warm as it was then. Life will survive and adapt to changing conditions. That is evolution.
  • #62
    !
    Absolutely I am concerned about the effect, however I am more concerned about our dependence on foreign oil and the recovery of our economy as well as the worlds. China isn't ready to give up oil any time soon, neither is India etc.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #59
    !
    Another enviro- weenie who would have us heating our one bedroom government issued apartments with sunshine, as we road to the welfare offices on our one speed Mao inspired bicycles. I'd like to leave my "carbon footprint" on this moron's rear end.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #75
    !
    @FenceSitter - Where that Pacific Time Zone three hour delay I keep asking for on deleting comments? I keep missing the good stuff! ;-)
  • #50
    !
    I would suggest that people see the movie "promised land". I watched it going in with some pretty serious reservations. Felt like it was probably just another left wing propaganda movie and those with closed minds will still see it as such. But it is not and it is quite eye opening as to how the Oil companies do business.
  • #58
    !
    @LGRepublican 1.) I read your link. Steve Forbes declared himself the most conservative man in America when he ran for President. Please do not send me links from Forbes. 2.) I state that the wonder of the movie for me was how Oil companies do business and I stand by my statement. 3.) Chemicals used in Fracking are more dangerous to the environment than the actual oil and gas recovered. 4.) I am against fracking. If you bother to read me at all you know I war with liberals over their extremism and I war with conservatives over their extremism. You have proven nothing other than you support the right regardless of what the issue is.
  • #79
    !
    @jessejaymes Wow. So Forbes Magazine isn't a credible authority despite the sources quoted in the article, but some movie from Matt Damon is "eye opening as to how the oil companies do business"? No bias there. The truth is the jury is still out on whether fracking has adverse effects and I for one don't think it's good policy to create regulations based on nothing more than speculation and "theory". To base opinions on oil companies or fracking based on "Promised Land" is like basing climate change on Day After Tomorrow.
  • #81
    !
    @jessejaymes As a matter of fact I haven't. Why would I waste my money on a film that had reviews that contained words such as awkward, clumsy, contrived, and one sided (several times). Besides, if you've seen one "evil big corporation" movie, you've pretty much seen them all.
  • R Load more replies

  • #48
    !
    Although more potent as a greenhouse gas, methane only has a 9 to 15 year lifespan in our atmosphere and is necessary for life (ie its not a 'worse' greenhouse gas).

    Having cheap energy helps the poor. Any move to increase the cost of energy will increase poverty.

    Wind and solar energies are not cheap. Solar doesn't even rate further research (always makes me laugh when I see solar farms here in PA). Wind is almost there (only twice the cost of nuclear).

    Yes, there is a substitute for "...rapid research and development of new renewable sources" and its called an intelligent, economically sensitive energy policy. An Ozymandius approach to implementing alternative energies will prove impotent.

    "...global warming could run out of control, deserts would take over in southern Africa, Australia and the western US, and sea level rises could engulf small island states." And if we do implement a full, impoverishing,'renewable' energy policy (as suggested), it will do next to nothing to prevent any of these things from happening.

    Love the "I have no financial stake in the outcome of the fracking fight" and "I'm aware that won't make as much money for the fossil fuel industry as fracking..." ad hominems. Looking for free copies of your books...
  • R Load more comments...
Post