4 ms·

> I've not heard a single idea from the Right in the last 20 years that would either 1) reduce pollution, ever, or 2) increase the safety of food and water supp

> I've not heard a single idea from the Right in the last 20 years that would either 1) reduce pollution, ever, or 2) increase the safety of food and water supplies 1) In the USA CO2 emissions are dropping mainly due to natural gas replacing coal. This was possible because of the development of fracking. Democrats are against this, Republicans for. 2) The best carbon-free technology that we currently have, and can deploy at scale, is nuclear power. Republicans for. Democrats against.

whatislovecraft 8y ago
1) There is a lot more to pollution that CO2. Is your example of reducing pollution really fraking and that alone? Fraking, which specifically makes drinking water unsafe? I can't tell if you're just proving my point or not? You just wrote that Republicans are for a technology that makes drinking water unsafe and also has direct consequences for climate change being made worse? It sounds like with #1 you are suggesting that Republicans would prefer to poison the water of local communities and refuse to look at better alternatives. And the reason seems like money, from what I read online. (EDIT: Also, investment in technology like fraking that DO POLLUTE means a longer leadtime before real solutions are offered at the right price. This fraking is done not to reduce climate change effects - it will make things worse - but to make money for oil people.) You are straight-up ignoring Methane leaking from fraking sites directly making short-term climate change much, much worse. Methane is pollution too, and very bad pollution for our atmosphere right now. > 2) The best carbon-free technology that we currently have, and can deploy at scale, is nuclear power. Republicans for. Democrats against. There is a lot more to the world than carbon. I'm in favor of Nuclear energy by the way. I thought most democrats were? Literally 100% of Democrats I know in person are in favor of Nuclear energy. So I'm not sure what you mean here. But anyway, Nuclear power has a long-lead-time and a huge capital investment, while many renewables are lower cost to start up and produce mostly pollution-free power immediately. I'm more in favor of actual renewables but I'll take nuclear power any day. I think most democrats would love large-scale nuclear power, to be honest, and I'm quite surprised that you think otherwise. I'll have to look into this.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  I used to work on frack wells. Drank the water. It wasn't poisoned. People where the fracking is are pro-fracking. People in far away cities that aren't affected are against.
  - whatislovecraft 8y ago
    Your anecdotes are not data. Here's the EPA saying fraking can contaminate water. https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-fracking-water-contamination-2144968213.html https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-fracking-water-contamination-21... > People where the fracking is are pro-fracking. People in far away cities that aren't affected are against. We are all affected. This is one world, one planet. We are all on it together. And anyway, why would it matter if opinions are divided on this topic based on where we live? That speaks more to the education, opportunity, circumstance, political mood, etc, than it does to the issue at hand. It's a logical fallacy to argue that fraking is good for the environment (or good at all?) because people close by support it and people far away don't.
    - travisoneill1 8y ago
      You said: > Republicans would prefer to poison the water of local communities and refuse to look at better alternatives. The report says: > EPA found scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. The report identifies certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe: Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources; Spills during the handling of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water; and Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits resulting in contamination of groundwater resources. Data gaps and uncertainties limited EPA’s ability to fully assess the potential impacts on drinking water resources locally and nationally. Because of these data gaps and uncertainties, it was not possible to fully characterize the severity of impacts, nor was it possible to calculate or estimate the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. I don't disagree with the report. I disagree with you.
LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
The problem is that the right sees another sort of polution- produced by humans - just beeing humans. We consume alot of stuff- and if we dont get that lot of stuff- we blow society up. We are not peacefull. Not never ever. We do not hold back. If we get ten years without economic growth- we go full weimar republic, take me to africa ape-shit. So its having to choose between two evils. Stability or Poison. Stability will kill you now, poison might kill you tomorrow, or might even be solved.

whatislovecraft 8y ago

1) There is a lot more to pollution that CO2. Is your example of reducing pollution really fraking and that alone? Fraking, which specifically makes drinking water unsafe? I can't tell if you're just proving my point or not? You just wrote that Republicans are for a technology that makes drinking water unsafe and also has direct consequences for climate change being made worse? It sounds like with #1 you are suggesting that Republicans would prefer to poison the water of local communities and refuse to look at better alternatives. And the reason seems like money, from what I read online. (EDIT: Also, investment in technology like fraking that DO POLLUTE means a longer leadtime before real solutions are offered at the right price. This fraking is done not to reduce climate change effects - it will make things worse - but to make money for oil people.) You are straight-up ignoring Methane leaking from fraking sites directly making short-term climate change much, much worse. Methane is pollution too, and very bad pollution for our atmosphere right now. > 2) The best carbon-free technology that we currently have, and can deploy at scale, is nuclear power. Republicans for. Democrats against. There is a lot more to the world than carbon. I'm in favor of Nuclear energy by the way. I thought most democrats were? Literally 100% of Democrats I know in person are in favor of Nuclear energy. So I'm not sure what you mean here. But anyway, Nuclear power has a long-lead-time and a huge capital investment, while many renewables are lower cost to start up and produce mostly pollution-free power immediately. I'm more in favor of actual renewables but I'll take nuclear power any day. I think most democrats would love large-scale nuclear power, to be honest, and I'm quite surprised that you think otherwise. I'll have to look into this.

travisoneill1 8y ago
I used to work on frack wells. Drank the water. It wasn't poisoned. People where the fracking is are pro-fracking. People in far away cities that aren't affected are against.
- whatislovecraft 8y ago
  Your anecdotes are not data. Here's the EPA saying fraking can contaminate water. https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-fracking-water-contamination-2144968213.html https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-fracking-water-contamination-21... > People where the fracking is are pro-fracking. People in far away cities that aren't affected are against. We are all affected. This is one world, one planet. We are all on it together. And anyway, why would it matter if opinions are divided on this topic based on where we live? That speaks more to the education, opportunity, circumstance, political mood, etc, than it does to the issue at hand. It's a logical fallacy to argue that fraking is good for the environment (or good at all?) because people close by support it and people far away don't.
  - travisoneill1 8y ago
    You said: > Republicans would prefer to poison the water of local communities and refuse to look at better alternatives. The report says: > EPA found scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. The report identifies certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe: Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources; Spills during the handling of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water; and Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits resulting in contamination of groundwater resources. Data gaps and uncertainties limited EPA’s ability to fully assess the potential impacts on drinking water resources locally and nationally. Because of these data gaps and uncertainties, it was not possible to fully characterize the severity of impacts, nor was it possible to calculate or estimate the national frequency of impacts on drinking water resources from activities in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. I don't disagree with the report. I disagree with you.

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago

The problem is that the right sees another sort of polution- produced by humans - just beeing humans. We consume alot of stuff- and if we dont get that lot of stuff- we blow society up. We are not peacefull. Not never ever. We do not hold back. If we get ten years without economic growth- we go full weimar republic, take me to africa ape-shit. So its having to choose between two evils. Stability or Poison. Stability will kill you now, poison might kill you tomorrow, or might even be solved.