5 ms·

Texas drilling and fracking regulations are on the chopping block. Soon we'll have little to no leverage to limit drilling or demand environmental studies to be

by zabcik 10y ago

Texas drilling and fracking regulations are on the chopping block. Soon we'll have little to no leverage to limit drilling or demand environmental studies to be done, so get ready for even more indigenous lands to get violated, even more earthquakes caused from wastewater injection, and even more greenhouse gasses released into our atmosphere exacerbating the already terrifying effects of climate change. No matter how good the profit in the near future might be, we're jeopardizing our ability to live on this planet by allowing this to happen.

BurningFrog 10y ago
> even more indigenous lands to get violated Or some real jobs and money in these dirt poor areas. > even more greenhouse gasses released into our atmosphere Any working solution to that has to be global and reduce demand. Refusing to drill American oil mostly means more oil money to Saudis, Putin, Venezuela and other of the worst butchers and oppressors of the world.
- vkou 10y ago
  Having a pipeline built through your lands usually doesn't bring you any jobs, or money. The people building it come from out of town, the people who will be making money from the pipeline are its owners, and the people who will be picking up the bill if things go pear-shaped will be the people who live there. If you have any doubts about that, check out how the Exxon Valdez spill was handled. The oil company makes the profits, and can find all sorts of ways to get out of paying for the damages.
  - chronic6l 10y ago
    So you would rather us directly fund oppressionist governments around the world, just so you can feel better for the 50 people living in the town next door to the oil fields? Ok.
    - xapata 10y ago
      Perhaps we could invest in other energy sources?
    - BuckRogers 10y ago
      Every single time. Yes. Nothing will crush the source of power for oppressive governments faster than if we conserve our resources and drain theirs. But you fail to mention that we have an oppressive government gearing up in the US too. So perhaps it's best if they help us drain ours.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        How draining Saudi Arabia resources have worked so far?
        beedogs 10y ago
        Not bad, considering they're having to pump seawater down their wells just to get any oil back up. They're running out and they'll be broke within a decade.
        mertd 10y ago
        And quality of life, democracy and individual freedoms work out wonderfully broke states.
        beedogs 10y ago
        As if the quality of life for the average Saudi isn't already garbage.
      - reddytowns 10y ago
        By giving them, money?
    - Stanish 10y ago
      Our government already does support oppressive oil regimes (the saudis). You see those other governments as substantially worse because the only thing you read is american propaganda.
  - BurningFrog 10y ago
    > Having a pipeline built through your lands usually doesn't bring you any jobs, or money. Are you saying the land owners don't get paid? Besides, this is primarily about oil wells, not pipelines. I know having oil wells on your land can be very lucrative. > If you have any doubts about that, check out how the Exxon Valdez spill was handled That was a one of a kind, history changing event in the arctic ocean decades ago. It's hard to think it's typical of rural Texas in the 2020s. "The rich bastards will always screw you" is a fine sentiment over a beer in a country bar, but not a great analysis to to base trillion dollar decisions on.
coolsunglasses 10y ago
There are no Indian reservations around San Angelo that I'm aware of. There are three that I can find, one is in east Texas, one is in Maverick County on the Rio Grande, the third and last one I could find is in El Paso. None of these are co-extensive with the find that borders San Angelo and Lubbock. >No matter how good the profit in the near future might be Absolutes won't further your goals. Excess capital is what funds companies like Tesla.
byuu 10y ago
All headed by 70 year old rich men and politicians who won't be around to suffer the long-term environmental consequences. And look at the age demographics where most of their votes come from. Yet everyone acts like it's a monstrous proposition when I state that voting power should be weighted based on age rather than location like it is today. Not that it matters, it's never going to change.
- smsm42 10y ago
  You mean, like less you know, less real life experience you have - more voting weight you get? Brilliant idea, that's what is missing in our politics - more immaturity, childishness and inexperience!
  - XJOKOLAT 10y ago
    If you disliked the logic or content of what OP said, you essentially said the same thing from the other side of the spectrum.
    - wott 10y ago
      He did not. He did not propose to reduce young people voting weight.
  - byuu 10y ago
    I said it wouldn't be a popular sentiment. But as they say, democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Some rise above it, but human nature is inherently selfish. These 70 year olds have grandchildren too, and they're smart enough to play the politics game so I am sure they understand the overwhelming science on this issue, yet they clearly just don't care. And this election makes clear that we can't rely on the voting base to be well informed. It's a valid concern that one voter only has to worry about their decisions for the next five years, but the rest have to for the next sixty years. Yet we have no problem with prioritizing based on life expectancy when it comes to organ donor recipients, charging more for life insurance based on age, etc. Further, voting is already inherently unfair and weighted based on where you live thanks to the electoral college and every state getting two EC votes automatically. Some states result in voters having four times the voting power of people in other states. That and all the people living in guaranteed blue (California) or red (Texas) states effectively have no vote in practice. The same is even more true of senate representation, with two senators for every state, regardless of population. You look at something like marriage equality, and per Pew research, 71% of millenials approve yet only 38% of the silent generation do. Yet the issue has a serious chance of being reversed due to Trump's inevitable Supreme Court picks. And our generation will be stuck with the fallout of that (and every other social issue that's bound to come up in the future) for likely 40+ years. Look, I'm aging too. I'll be old soon. What I'm saying will already affect me as well. But this is just a matter of basic fairness. This administration is going to push us well over the edge on carbon emissions. Our grandchildren and beyond will pay dearly for the harm that's going to be done. Those responsible will be long gone by then. That is not fair.
briandear 10y ago
How much indigenous land is in West Texas? Not much at all.
barney54 10y ago
What do you mean, "indigenous lands"? Texas, especially west Texas, doesn't have these conflicts.

by zabcik 10y ago

BurningFrog 10y ago

> even more indigenous lands to get violated Or some real jobs and money in these dirt poor areas. > even more greenhouse gasses released into our atmosphere Any working solution to that has to be global and reduce demand. Refusing to drill American oil mostly means more oil money to Saudis, Putin, Venezuela and other of the worst butchers and oppressors of the world.

vkou 10y ago
Having a pipeline built through your lands usually doesn't bring you any jobs, or money. The people building it come from out of town, the people who will be making money from the pipeline are its owners, and the people who will be picking up the bill if things go pear-shaped will be the people who live there. If you have any doubts about that, check out how the Exxon Valdez spill was handled. The oil company makes the profits, and can find all sorts of ways to get out of paying for the damages.
- chronic6l 10y ago
  So you would rather us directly fund oppressionist governments around the world, just so you can feel better for the 50 people living in the town next door to the oil fields? Ok.
  - xapata 10y ago
    Perhaps we could invest in other energy sources?
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    Every single time. Yes. Nothing will crush the source of power for oppressive governments faster than if we conserve our resources and drain theirs. But you fail to mention that we have an oppressive government gearing up in the US too. So perhaps it's best if they help us drain ours.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      How draining Saudi Arabia resources have worked so far?
      - beedogs 10y ago
        Not bad, considering they're having to pump seawater down their wells just to get any oil back up. They're running out and they'll be broke within a decade.
        mertd 10y ago
        And quality of life, democracy and individual freedoms work out wonderfully broke states.
        beedogs 10y ago
        As if the quality of life for the average Saudi isn't already garbage.
    - reddytowns 10y ago
      By giving them, money?
  - Stanish 10y ago
    Our government already does support oppressive oil regimes (the saudis). You see those other governments as substantially worse because the only thing you read is american propaganda.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  > Having a pipeline built through your lands usually doesn't bring you any jobs, or money. Are you saying the land owners don't get paid? Besides, this is primarily about oil wells, not pipelines. I know having oil wells on your land can be very lucrative. > If you have any doubts about that, check out how the Exxon Valdez spill was handled That was a one of a kind, history changing event in the arctic ocean decades ago. It's hard to think it's typical of rural Texas in the 2020s. "The rich bastards will always screw you" is a fine sentiment over a beer in a country bar, but not a great analysis to to base trillion dollar decisions on.

coolsunglasses 10y ago

There are no Indian reservations around San Angelo that I'm aware of. There are three that I can find, one is in east Texas, one is in Maverick County on the Rio Grande, the third and last one I could find is in El Paso. None of these are co-extensive with the find that borders San Angelo and Lubbock. >No matter how good the profit in the near future might be Absolutes won't further your goals. Excess capital is what funds companies like Tesla.

byuu 10y ago

All headed by 70 year old rich men and politicians who won't be around to suffer the long-term environmental consequences. And look at the age demographics where most of their votes come from. Yet everyone acts like it's a monstrous proposition when I state that voting power should be weighted based on age rather than location like it is today. Not that it matters, it's never going to change.

smsm42 10y ago
You mean, like less you know, less real life experience you have - more voting weight you get? Brilliant idea, that's what is missing in our politics - more immaturity, childishness and inexperience!
- XJOKOLAT 10y ago
  If you disliked the logic or content of what OP said, you essentially said the same thing from the other side of the spectrum.
  - wott 10y ago
    He did not. He did not propose to reduce young people voting weight.
- byuu 10y ago
  I said it wouldn't be a popular sentiment. But as they say, democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Some rise above it, but human nature is inherently selfish. These 70 year olds have grandchildren too, and they're smart enough to play the politics game so I am sure they understand the overwhelming science on this issue, yet they clearly just don't care. And this election makes clear that we can't rely on the voting base to be well informed. It's a valid concern that one voter only has to worry about their decisions for the next five years, but the rest have to for the next sixty years. Yet we have no problem with prioritizing based on life expectancy when it comes to organ donor recipients, charging more for life insurance based on age, etc. Further, voting is already inherently unfair and weighted based on where you live thanks to the electoral college and every state getting two EC votes automatically. Some states result in voters having four times the voting power of people in other states. That and all the people living in guaranteed blue (California) or red (Texas) states effectively have no vote in practice. The same is even more true of senate representation, with two senators for every state, regardless of population. You look at something like marriage equality, and per Pew research, 71% of millenials approve yet only 38% of the silent generation do. Yet the issue has a serious chance of being reversed due to Trump's inevitable Supreme Court picks. And our generation will be stuck with the fallout of that (and every other social issue that's bound to come up in the future) for likely 40+ years. Look, I'm aging too. I'll be old soon. What I'm saying will already affect me as well. But this is just a matter of basic fairness. This administration is going to push us well over the edge on carbon emissions. Our grandchildren and beyond will pay dearly for the harm that's going to be done. Those responsible will be long gone by then. That is not fair.

briandear 10y ago

How much indigenous land is in West Texas? Not much at all.

barney54 10y ago

What do you mean, "indigenous lands"? Texas, especially west Texas, doesn't have these conflicts.