4 ms·
I think it's more in line with foreign policy goals. I don't love that we're doing this either, but I like Russia and SA not having money to fuel their escapad
by murph-almighty 8y ago
I think it's more in line with foreign policy goals.
I don't love that we're doing this either, but I like Russia and SA not having money to fuel their escapades.
- patagonia 8y agoI don’t know that it is necessarily in line with foreign policy goals on balance. Yes it is serving the US well in the short term in our dealing with said countries. However, the argument has been made that runaway climate change will have very bad economic and security implications for the US. We’re once again borrowing from the future with the hopes that 1) we can find a fix and 2) it’ll be worse for “them” than it will be for us.
- murph-almighty 8y agoThis is also true! I was thinking on a very short term scale. We could also invest in green energy to the point where the means of capture and storage are isolated to our borders, though I'm doubtful that we can do the same for the manufacture of the products that get us there (batteries, solar panels).
- athenot 8y agoOn the other hand, we're internalizing the pollution associated with that form of energy production. CO₂ is one issue; but pollution of aquifers seems to be overlooked until it will be too late, contaminating many fresh water supplies.
- zjaffee 8y agoMost of the fracking that is happening for this oil is in West Texas, nowhere near any substantial water table as is the case when looking at the fracking done in North Dakota, and also in one of the least populated parts of the country.