Fracking is depleting water supplies in America's driest areas, report shows

  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Feb 07, 2014 1:47 AM GMT
    Fracking is depleting water supplies in America's driest areas, report shows

    From Texas to California, drilling for oil and gas is using billions of gallons of water in the country's most drought-prone areas


    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/fracking-water-america-drought-oil-gas
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2942

    Feb 07, 2014 2:20 AM GMT
    All caused by Obamacare!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2014 6:48 AM GMT
    meh we'll suck Texas dry and sell it to the Mexicans, no great loss
  • PolitiMAC

    Posts: 728

    Feb 07, 2014 7:12 AM GMT
    Of course the Guardian would say that icon_razz.gif Hard left wing crap ALL THE TIME.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2014 12:52 PM GMT
    PolitiNerd saidOf course the Guardian would say that icon_razz.gif Hard left wing crap ALL THE TIME.

    Spin all you like, things like water levels are facts and don't really care whether you like it or not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2014 1:31 PM GMT
    Fracking can't be worse than animal agriculture for water. Feedlots and factory farms are wrecking the water tables across the Midwest, not to mention polluting the soil, air, water with concentrated animal waste.

    As for fracking, it looks like this is the biggest problem with fracking so far, but it seems to have a pretty easy solution. Legislators could just mandate the recycling of the water used for the process, or raise the price on the water access for fracking firms, so as to make it prohibitively expensive not to recycle it. The article states that some producers are already recycling, but just not enough.

    Anyone work for a fracking company or local legislature? I'm curious to hear people's opinions.

    Info for folks who want to start eating less animal food: www.tryveg.com
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2014 3:22 PM GMT
    YourName2000 saidWhaaaat????

    But...but...according to Riddler, fracking is safer than milk and better for you. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Oh if only you were able to reference that - but that's pretty much consistent with your primary school education. Do however drink more - it makes you so much more pleasant. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    Posting this article would be like if I posted an article from Rush Limbaugh that quoted a Glenn Beck study funded by Enron.

    I'm guessing the lefties here didn't even bother reading the article or looking into the references.

    The "prof" quoted is an environmental advocate while the institution that did the "study" doesn't actually attempt to show causation - and is a "charity" that was founded specifically to promote an environmental cause.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Feb 07, 2014 3:36 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWell then, I guess the fracking will stop once the water runs out. "Problem" solved.


    ....and that ladies and gentlemen is the neoliberal answer to every problem. The market will solve the problem after we are in full crisis mode.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2014 4:01 PM GMT
    DCEric said
    southbeach1500 saidWell then, I guess the fracking will stop once the water runs out. "Problem" solved.


    ....and that ladies and gentlemen is the neoliberal answer to every problem. The market will solve the problem after we are in full crisis mode.


    Said a guy who promotes government solutions to government problems. You do realize that almost universally the opposite of "neoliberal answers" has created far greater environmental disasters than any market has?
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Feb 07, 2014 5:21 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    DCEric said
    southbeach1500 saidWell then, I guess the fracking will stop once the water runs out. "Problem" solved.


    ....and that ladies and gentlemen is the neoliberal answer to every problem. The market will solve the problem after we are in full crisis mode.


    Said a guy who promotes government solutions to government problems. You do realize that almost universally the opposite of "neoliberal answers" has created far greater environmental disasters than any market has?


    1) I made no such proclamation of "government solutions"
    2) I didn't realize not using fracking was some kind of "government problem."
    3) I at no point said I wished to use the opposite of neoliberalism.
    4) Both sides are bad so do what I want isn't a solution.
    5) If you want to disagree with me, fine, but actually disagree with me, not the straw man you morph my argument into.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2014 6:49 PM GMT
    DCEric said
    riddler78 said
    DCEric said
    southbeach1500 saidWell then, I guess the fracking will stop once the water runs out. "Problem" solved.


    ....and that ladies and gentlemen is the neoliberal answer to every problem. The market will solve the problem after we are in full crisis mode.


    Said a guy who promotes government solutions to government problems. You do realize that almost universally the opposite of "neoliberal answers" has created far greater environmental disasters than any market has?


    1) I made no such proclamation of "government solutions"
    2) I didn't realize not using fracking was some kind of "government problem."
    3) I at no point said I wished to use the opposite of neoliberalism.
    4) Both sides are bad so do what I want isn't a solution.
    5) If you want to disagree with me, fine, but actually disagree with me, not the straw man you morph my argument into.



    Ah ok - so you decide to attack a sarcastic remark with what turns out to be blather and strawmen arguments that didn't say anything about anything without an actual argument for what could work. Do I have that right?
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Feb 07, 2014 7:01 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Ah ok - so you decide to attack a sarcastic remark with what turns out to be blather and strawmen arguments that didn't say anything about anything without an actual argument for what could work. Do I have that right?


    No, you don't, but it was a nice try.

    Allow me to expand on my initial point. Energy is a complex issue involving corporations (private sector), environment and employment (civil society) and foreign policy (government). Thereby your concept of these forces as a binary system (government and private sector) is flawed, it is actually a trinary system (civil soceity, government and the private sector) all of which influence and affect one another with their actions. Neoliberalism proposes to shift all decision making to the private sector, in a similar way Communism attempts to shift all decision making to the government. Neither are viable, and that includes shifting all decision making to civil society, typically called "People-Center Development" though no one has evolved this into a functional system, as of yet though theocracy is a close attempt.

    So I refer back to my original comment. The only form of economics, society and politics that has ever worked in a way in which all people benefit is one that balances the trinary system that makes up the way people, government and businesses interact.

    Thus, it really irritates me when people (and political parties) suggest repeatedly that the ONLY solution to ALL of our problems is to unleash the free market/statism/churches. There are plenty of times when this is a viable solution, but similar times when government and civil society are the solution. The most common solution is for the three to work together to build a better world.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Feb 07, 2014 7:33 PM GMT
    For multiple reasons, the world must migrate away from using fissile fuels and get about 90% of its power for electricity, transportation, home heating, home cooling, and cooking from non-CO2 emitting sources. For most large prosperous countries, that means using nuclear power.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2014 7:42 PM GMT
    Fracking is set to double in the state of Texas by the next 5 years. It's not like they're saying this expecting much of a solution unless we stop depending on fissile fuels so much, otherwise they'll just keep doing the same damn thing.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Feb 08, 2014 6:03 AM GMT
    BP201 saidFracking is set to double in the state of Texas by the next 5 years. It's not like they're saying this expecting much of a solution unless we stop depending on fissile fuels so much, otherwise they'll just keep doing the same damn thing.


    Probably you meant fossil fuels.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 08, 2014 2:10 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    You do realize that almost universally the opposite of "neoliberal answers" has created far greater environmental disasters than any market has?

    Examples?
  • metta

    Posts: 39169

    Feb 18, 2014 1:32 AM GMT
    Fracking Well Blowout Causes Oil And Chemical Wastewater Spill In North Dakota

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/17/3299221/north-dakota-blowout/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2014 1:48 AM GMT
    Fracking causing earthquakes in Texas

    http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/how-barnett-shale-earthquakes-turned-folks-into-environmentalists
  • toastvenom

    Posts: 1020

    Feb 18, 2014 2:18 AM GMT
    im sorry, what is depleting America's water supply? Oh, FRACKing. I misread for a second
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2014 2:52 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    YourName2000 saidWhaaaat????

    But...but...according to Riddler, fracking is safer than milk and better for you. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Oh if only you were able to reference that - but that's pretty much consistent with your primary school education. Do however drink more - it makes you so much more pleasant. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

    Posting this article would be like if I posted an article from Rush Limbaugh that quoted a Glenn Beck study funded by Enron.

    I'm guessing the lefties here didn't even bother reading the article or looking into the references.

    The "prof" quoted is an environmental advocate while the institution that did the "study" doesn't actually attempt to show causation - and is a "charity" that was founded specifically to promote an environmental cause.


    thank you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2014 2:58 AM GMT
    DCEric said
    riddler78 said
    Ah ok - so you decide to attack a sarcastic remark with what turns out to be blather and strawmen arguments that didn't say anything about anything without an actual argument for what could work. Do I have that right?


    No, you don't, but it was a nice try.

    Allow me to expand on my initial point. Energy is a complex issue involving corporations (private sector), environment and employment (civil society) and foreign policy (government). Thereby your concept of these forces as a binary system (government and private sector) is flawed, it is actually a trinary system (civil soceity, government and the private sector) all of which influence and affect one another with their actions. Neoliberalism proposes to shift all decision making to the private sector, in a similar way Communism attempts to shift all decision making to the government. Neither are viable, and that includes shifting all decision making to civil society, typically called "People-Center Development" though no one has evolved this into a functional system, as of yet though theocracy is a close attempt.

    So I refer back to my original comment. The only form of economics, society and politics that has ever worked in a way in which all people benefit is one that balances the trinary system that makes up the way people, government and businesses interact.

    Thus, it really irritates me when people (and political parties) suggest repeatedly that the ONLY solution to ALL of our problems is to unleash the free market/statism/churches. There are plenty of times when this is a viable solution, but similar times when government and civil society are the solution. The most common solution is for the three to work together to build a better world.


    Thank you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2014 1:43 PM GMT
    DCEric said
    riddler78 said
    Ah ok - so you decide to attack a sarcastic remark with what turns out to be blather and strawmen arguments that didn't say anything about anything without an actual argument for what could work. Do I have that right?


    No, you don't, but it was a nice try.

    Allow me to expand on my initial point. Energy is a complex issue involving corporations (private sector), environment and employment (civil society) and foreign policy (government). Thereby your concept of these forces as a binary system (government and private sector) is flawed, it is actually a trinary system (civil soceity, government and the private sector) all of which influence and affect one another with their actions. Neoliberalism proposes to shift all decision making to the private sector, in a similar way Communism attempts to shift all decision making to the government. Neither are viable, and that includes shifting all decision making to civil society, typically called "People-Center Development" though no one has evolved this into a functional system, as of yet though theocracy is a close attempt.

    So I refer back to my original comment. The only form of economics, society and politics that has ever worked in a way in which all people benefit is one that balances the trinary system that makes up the way people, government and businesses interact.

    Thus, it really irritates me when people (and political parties) suggest repeatedly that the ONLY solution to ALL of our problems is to unleash the free market/statism/churches. There are plenty of times when this is a viable solution, but similar times when government and civil society are the solution. The most common solution is for the three to work together to build a better world.


    I think you confuse anarchy with "neoliberalism". Markets require rule of law and property rights - both of which require government or private structures that function as law in order to work.
  • musclpa

    Posts: 97

    Feb 18, 2014 1:47 PM GMT
    drill baby drill
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2014 1:47 PM GMT
    Meicyn said
    riddler78 said
    You do realize that almost universally the opposite of "neoliberal answers" has created far greater environmental disasters than any market has?

    Examples?


    Chernobyl, heavy industry in China (highly corrupt/autocratic), tragedy of the commons (there are numerous examples - use google), compare socialist countries to their (more) democratic counterparts - e.g. Taiwan vs China, Cuba vs US, HK vs China, North vs South Korea, East vs West Germany.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 18, 2014 2:57 PM GMT
    tazzari saidAll caused by Obamacare!

    This. As far as I can tell, everything bad is caused by Obamacare.