10 ms·

Ohio gas well blowout leaked more than many countries do in a year

208 points by erentz 7y ago

minikites 7y ago
Incidents like this is why we're not going to save the planet with individual actions. I could spend my entire life eating vegan, recycling, and bicycling everywhere and that entire gain is dwarfed by one incident like this. The only thing that will save us is decisive and collective action. Think about that when you think about your vote in the next election in your area. I particularly like the suggestion in one of the comments on the original article: >I wonder if it would have taken 20 days to stop if they were being fined by the pound.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Yes, but without you doing all that it would be even worse.
  - minikites 7y ago
    Absolutely, I don't want my comment to be taken as an endorsement of "Well, there's nothing I can do so I might as well roll coal and dump my motor oil on the lawn." It's important to do both, but saving the planet will only be accomplished through collective action.
    - tstrimple 7y ago
      > only be accomplished through collective action I'd agree if you said enforced collective action. We cannot rely on companies to self-regulate. There needs to be severe consequences for companies that damage the environment like this. As long as profits far exceed penalties, companies will continue to take the easy path.
      - pc86 7y ago
        I think it's pretty clear from the context he's not talking about corporate action, but citizens' action.
        jachee 7y ago
        Corporations also have civic responsibility. Any collective, corrective action must include corporate action, or it is futile.
        inimino 7y ago
        I believe the point was collective action of citizens leading to governmental action to enforce corporate action.
      - briandear 7y ago
        Perhaps stop buying the offending company's products?
        tstrimple 7y ago
        You're making the perfectly informed consumer argument? They don't exactly put warning labels on the packaging. "The company which produces this product does disproportional damage to the environment."
  - jellicle 7y ago
    No, it wouldn't. The commenter's actions make no difference at all on a global scale. Zero. That's the point: understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing. Only collective actions count. At all. Understanding orders of magnitude is not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      The commenters actions make a difference to them and in turn may influence people around them. Collective actions start out as individual actions and like that they set the stage for change that is real and measurable. By your reading Rosa Parks should have just shut up and sat in the back of the bus because 'individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing'. Understanding orders of magnitude is indeed not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems, right alongside understanding how social change is engendered.
      - inimino 7y ago
        There is a difference between individual action leading to social change (such as political activism or civil disobedience) and individual action that makes the individual feel better and satisfies the need to "do something" while having no measurable effect. If you take one less flight this year, you've considerably lowered your carbon footprint. Congrats. If every single person that flies reduced their carbon footprint by one flight this year like you did... it would make absolutely no meaningful difference with respect to climate change. You might as well whistle in the wind. On the other hand, if all of those people had actually taken political action, meaningful change would be practically inevitable. The narrative that encourages recycling, buying green brands, and generally expressing how much you care about the earth by how you choose to shop (making your environmentalism part of your identity as a consumer rather than as a citizen) serves only the status quo, and dissipates energy that might otherwise be channelled into making an actual difference.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      > understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing One is forced to wonder why people who think this way bother to get out of bed in the morning. On a global scale you are insignificant approaching nonexistent, so by your own reasoning nothing you do matters and therefor you shouldn't bother doing anything.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    On a global scale the difference would be marginal. Nothing but a mere rounding error.
    - rconti 7y ago
      Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. In fact, even literally throwing up your hands is a waste of energy.
      - hanniabu 7y ago
        That's not at all the same comparison. An equal comparison would be where the president's vote counts at 1 trillion votes. In that case I wouldn't bother voting because even if everybody in the country votes for candidate A it'll mean nothing if the president votes for president B. The president's vote will always overpower everyone else's vote.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - claudiawerner 7y ago
        > Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. Quite a few philosophers of politics and radicals would agree with that statement; from SEP[0]: >There is some debate among economists and political scientists over the precise way to calculate the probability that a vote will be decisive. Nevertheless, they generally agree that the probability that the modal individual voter in a typical election will break a tie is small, so small that the expected benefit (i.e., p[V(D)−V(R)]) of the modal vote for a good candidate is worth far less than a millionth of a penny (G. Brennan and Lomasky 1993: 56–7, 119). The most optimistic estimate in the literature claims that in a presidential election, an American voter could have as high as a 1 in 10 million chance of breaking a tie, but only if that voter lives in one of three or four “swing states,” and only if she votes for a major-party candidate (Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan 2007). Chances are, you can use the time to do other things, things that gain you more benefit than "a millionth of a penny" (if we must use the economism of time = money). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1
- allan_s 7y ago
  I save you the whole quote but : > Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world. it's easier to have this kind of thing voted in a "climate-change-aware" nation, which is easier to have if all your local government are climate-change-ware, which is easier to have if all your neighborhood are climate-change-aware, which is easier if all the familly in it are climate-change-aware which is easier if you are climate change aware. and once your country, regardless of how small it is, is climate change aware, it's easier to make bigger, more polluting country, to change, as they can't hide anymore behind a "your first" but yes I agree with you that you can't stop at your individual level, but it has to start there
  - cjdaly 7y ago
    there are certain, specific individuals who could stop and it would make a huge difference. someone decided to punch this hole in the ground. someone directed the engineering. I’m glad this new Sentinel-5P sat is up. it’s hard to manage what’s not being measured.
- briandear 7y ago
  I'd rather have the climate change than have to fear "decisive and collective action." The Bolsheviks, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and a series of other groups and people engaged in "decisive and collective action" and it didn't turn out very well. We don't need drastic change; we need incremental improvements. The coming "catastrophe" is overblown -- every 12 years or so people warn us about the end of the world in 12 years -- long enough for people to forget, but urgent enough to scare people into advocating for "decisive and collective action." For example, the pollution generated in the United States has been significantly declining without resorting to mob-rule collective action. There are more trees in the United States today than there was 100 years ago. The air is much than it was 40 years ago as well. Few people remember what Los Angeles air looked like in the 1970s. People don't remember Pittsburgh air either. If people were serious about pollution, they'd boycott China and India. However, those calling for "collective action" are more interested in the anti-capitalist part than they are the pollution part. Otherwise, why isn't Greta Thunberg and other activists calling for worldwide boycotts of China? Why is it the United States that is in the crosshairs of every environmental group? It's because the United States is an easy target. Let's see some protestors go to China and try to shut down their industry and economy. Let's see Thunberg "How dare you" to Xi Jinping in Beijing.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    "The United State is a better country than China because you are free to speak about how you would like it to be run!" "Very well, I'd like to complain about carbon emissions" "Fuck off to China, commie!"
  - lm28469 7y ago
    > I'd rather have the climate change than have to fear And here is the crux of the problem, you'll be long dead before Life gets impacted by climate change. That's why a lot of people simply don't care. > every 12 years or so people warn us about the end of the world in 12 years You have to make a distinction between Nostradamus&co and science though, everything isn't equal. It might be blown out of proportion but we don't know how far we fucked up yet because earth climate is complex, duh, and composed of an infinite amount of codependent variables. You might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_... > If people were serious about pollution, they'd boycott China and India. You can't do that since the 70s, virtually everything you touch was manufactured or altered abroad. You can't have a globalized capitalist world AND tell people to boycott products from the so called "factory of the world". Reminds me of all these people posting "eh look, all the most polluting rivers are outside of the US, it's not my problem, fuck them" from a made in china iphone, while sipping an Ecuadorian coffee from a made in china starbucks cup, wearing a made in Thailand shirt and a Vietnamese pair of jeans. > more interested in the anti-capitalist part than they are the pollution part. It might be hard to swallow but hear me out: what if these two things are correlated ? capitalism/globalism put economical profit above all else with little to no regards for long term side effects. It's an endless and boundless quest for "progress", consumption and growth, there is no notion of limit, the long term plans are for the next 15 years, not the next 1500 years, &c. > For example, the pollution generated in the United States has been significantly declining without resorting to mob-rule collective action. What about the pollution generated to produce what Americans consume ? It's easy to delocalize everything to Asia and point the finger. Remember: capitalism -> global economy-> global problems > Why is it the United States that is in the crosshairs of every environmental group? I think you're projecting, as far as I know most environmental parties are protesting locally in their home country. If you're and American living in the US I would encourage you to check international news. It really is the same thing in every developed countries. Also, when will we stop with the "everything I disagree with must be fascism ?" I love how the current quasi-forced consumerism is accepted, and even loved, but being "forced" to better the planet for _ourselves_ is Mao level fascism.
- noobermin 7y ago
  While this accident is terrible, it pales in comparison to the US output of GHG's per year. The collective action that is needed will also call for individual action. You're right though that individual action alone is not enough.
Keverw 7y ago
I guess this is related to fracking? I seen something before that Pennsylvania doesn't allow certain waste, so the companies put it in trucks and pay to put it in injection wells in Ohio by the barrel. Pretty sad Ohio accepts money to dump other states waste. Looked it up to confirm about how waste from Pennsylvania gets dumped in Ohio: https://environmentohiocenter.org/programs/ohc/ohio-fracking-waste-dumping-ground https://environmentohiocenter.org/programs/ohc/ohio-fracking... Even caused a earthquake in Youngstown, which isn't where you'd typically expect earthquakes. https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/10/12/fracking-wastewater-from-pa-usually-ends-up-in-ohio-some-residents-say-theyve-had-enough/ https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/10/12/fracking... Then it gets into the water supply too. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/ohio-communities-are-becoming-dumping-ground-fracking-industry https://www.nrdc.org/stories/ohio-communities-are-becoming-d... Remember seeing a video once where someone could light the water coming out of their kitchen sink facet on fire. https://youtu.be/4LBjSXWQRV8 https://youtu.be/4LBjSXWQRV8 I don't know why state leadership allow this stuff to happen. Then you have the brain drain problem, Ohio is losing highly educated residents to other states with more opportunities, especially when it comes to tech. I feel like Ohio is moving backwards and not innovating. Maybe in Columbus or Cincinnati, things are better but still probably dwarfs in comparison to opportunities in Silicon Valley or Austin.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  That "confirmation" link in no way confirms that this leak was related in any way to fracking or dumping. If I were to bet, it is unrelated. Methane and natural gas are not the waste products you would be pumping into an old well.
  - Keverw 7y ago
    Was talking in general about allowing dumping, but clarified my post.
- ufmace 7y ago
  > Remember seeing a video once where someone could light the water coming out of their kitchen sink facet on fire. Note that this happens more often completely naturally than as a result of any drilling operations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep for more info. Oil and gas in economically useful amounts is generally deeper underground below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprock that prevents it from flowing upward. If that caprock was not there, then the oil would not have accumulated in that location in the first place. Oil wells generally have multiple layers of steel casing and cement between the wellbore and the shallow water table at the time. This is necessary to protect the integrity of the wellbore throughout the drilling process and to ensure that any produced oil goes to the surface collector, where it can be used, instead of leaking all over the place. It is also mandated by regulations in most jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the same natural processes that cause oil and gas to be produced and migrate upwards happen in many locations. In some, there is caprock deep underground that causes them to accumulate in volumes that make sense to drill wells into. In other locations, they may naturally flow all the way to the surface, or flow into shallower underground water tables and end up in residential water supplies.
krupan 7y ago
Yet we don't use nuclear energy because of its "risks"
- tstrimple 7y ago
  I believe that we don't use nuclear energy because it's not economically feasible in a private energy market. Startup costs and operation costs are very high compared to natural gas, solar and wind. We saw how energy companies plowed right through public outcry and resistance in the Dakota Access Pipeline. I think it's silly to assume they wouldn't do the same with nuclear power if they saw a profit in it. Even with federal subsidies and loan guarantees energy companies aren't biting.
  - Super_Jambo 7y ago
    Would've been feasable if the CO2 industries actually had to pay for the externality of ruining the atmosphere though right?
    - jessant 7y ago
      I doubt anyone could accurately price CO2 emissions.
  - api 7y ago
    This is a point that needs to be made more often. People think nuclear isn't big because of greens, but greens almost always get beaten into the ground politically when they go up against the fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuels are much more profitable than nuclear power.
    - khrbrt 7y ago
      Fossil fuels are much more subsidized than nuclear power.
      - tstrimple 7y ago
imroot 7y ago
I grew up in Noble County, Ohio (next to Belmont County) and still get the weekly newspaper delivered to me via mail. There were exactly zero write-ups of this in the local papers. The Radio stations in the area are generally owned by one entity (AVC Communications), and there really isn't a lot on their website about it: not really surprising, because 25+ years ago they went Satellite Only and only someone in the news room from 6A-4P. My biggest complaints about the Oil and Gas industry taking the SE Ohio area and turning it into a cash cow are two-fold: 1.) We're basically treating nature like a resource and stripping it all back to nothing (like AEP did in the 60's and 70's), and 2.) this has basically zero benefit to the locals: most of the jobs in the Oil and Gas industry are specialized and workers imported (leading to stories of welders making $140/hour in Ohio: just simply not true). I could go on and on about growing up in the second poorest county in Ohio, but, I'll just leave it at this: not surprised that it happened but very surprised that nobody has really reported on this until now.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pstuart 7y ago
  But to even question this in today's political world makes you a liberal agitator. I wish I knew how we could reframe these issues as "proper stewardship of our commons" vs. "but we need the jobs now!"
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    > I wish I knew how we could reframe these issues as "proper stewardship of our commons" vs. "but we need the jobs now!" You can't, because it's purposely framed that way. You think the ones starting that think they're actually bringing jobs back? Hell no, they just say it b/c I'm sure they're getting benefits and contributions from the oil/gas companies, and unfortunately much of the less educated people in these areas aren't the wiser. I'm sure this is another reason for systemic neglect of the education system. Less educated people are easier to control and brainwash.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
manfredo 7y ago
"Leaked more than many countries do in a year" is an interesting way of expressing the scale. Many countries have little to no petroleum industry. > Or, for another kind of context, the researchers point out that this Ohio well released more methane in 20 days than the oil and gas activities in most nations around Europe do in an entire year—save only the UK, Germany, and Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g... Most European countries other than Norway have orders of magnitude smaller petroleum industries than the US, and many have near zero production. While leaking oil and gas is bad, this kind of journalistic sleight of hand is neither necessary nor productive. To better put this leak in perspective, the US alone apparently leaks 13 million tons of natural gas yearly [1], and 440 million tons are annually leaked world wide from both human and natural sources [2]. So this leak accounted for 0.5% of nation-wide gas leaking in a given year and 0.014% of global methane emissions in a given year. 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-and-gas-facilities-leak-more-methane-than-previously-thought/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-and-gas-facil... 2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-siberia-climate-change/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-siberia-c...
- take_a_breath 7y ago
  ==Most European countries other than Norway have orders of magnitude smaller petroleum industries than the US, and many have near zero production. While leaking oil and gas is bad, this kind of journalistic sleight of hand is neither necessary nor productive.== Isn't your comment an equal slight of hand? The article isn't about total leaks in the US compared to other countries. This is about one specific gas leak in Ohio, which they compare to other countries.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    The point is, leaking any amount of oil is sufficient to exceed the petroleum leaks of many countries that have no petroleum production whatsoever. > Isn't your comment an equal slight of hand? The article isn't about total leaks in the US compared to other countries. This is about one specific gas leak in Ohio, which they compare to other countries The comparison to other countries, many of which have little to no petroleum industry, is the sleight of hand I'm addressing. Putting this leak in respect to the total amount of natural gas leakage in the country and the world is a straightforward was of representing the contribution of this leak to total natural gas leakage.
british_india 7y ago
Now that enough CO2 has been released to melt Arctic sea ice plus Canadian & Siberian permafrost, Methane is the greatest climate threat we face. Our CO2 emissions have now released the Kraken that is Methane emissions. Methane is 30-times more damaging to the climate as is CO2. The danger is this: human extinction by 2030. The warming we feel today was caused by CO2 released 10 years ago. This is serious danger.
british_india 7y ago
Now that enough CO2 has been released to melt Arctic sea ice plus Canadian & Siberian permafrost, Methane is the greatest climate threat we face. Our CO2 emissions have now released the Kraken that is Methane emissions. Methane is 30-times more damaging to the climate as is CO2.
alhajidmx 7y ago
Wow
RandomBacon 7y ago
Sensationalist title, as Ohio is larger than many countries.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  I think the leak is bad, but we should be fair, even with things we don't like, right?

208 points by erentz 7y ago

Incidents like this is why we're not going to save the planet with individual actions. I could spend my entire life eating vegan, recycling, and bicycling everywhere and that entire gain is dwarfed by one incident like this. The only thing that will save us is decisive and collective action. Think about that when you think about your vote in the next election in your area. I particularly like the suggestion in one of the comments on the original article: >I wonder if it would have taken 20 days to stop if they were being fined by the pound.

jacquesm 7y ago
Yes, but without you doing all that it would be even worse.
- minikites 7y ago
  Absolutely, I don't want my comment to be taken as an endorsement of "Well, there's nothing I can do so I might as well roll coal and dump my motor oil on the lawn." It's important to do both, but saving the planet will only be accomplished through collective action.
  - tstrimple 7y ago
    > only be accomplished through collective action I'd agree if you said enforced collective action. We cannot rely on companies to self-regulate. There needs to be severe consequences for companies that damage the environment like this. As long as profits far exceed penalties, companies will continue to take the easy path.
    - pc86 7y ago
      I think it's pretty clear from the context he's not talking about corporate action, but citizens' action.
      - jachee 7y ago
        Corporations also have civic responsibility. Any collective, corrective action must include corporate action, or it is futile.
        inimino 7y ago
        I believe the point was collective action of citizens leading to governmental action to enforce corporate action.
    - briandear 7y ago
      Perhaps stop buying the offending company's products?
      - tstrimple 7y ago
        You're making the perfectly informed consumer argument? They don't exactly put warning labels on the packaging. "The company which produces this product does disproportional damage to the environment."
- jellicle 7y ago
  No, it wouldn't. The commenter's actions make no difference at all on a global scale. Zero. That's the point: understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing. Only collective actions count. At all. Understanding orders of magnitude is not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    The commenters actions make a difference to them and in turn may influence people around them. Collective actions start out as individual actions and like that they set the stage for change that is real and measurable. By your reading Rosa Parks should have just shut up and sat in the back of the bus because 'individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing'. Understanding orders of magnitude is indeed not something that comes easily to humans but it must be understood to work on large problems, right alongside understanding how social change is engendered.
    - inimino 7y ago
      There is a difference between individual action leading to social change (such as political activism or civil disobedience) and individual action that makes the individual feel better and satisfies the need to "do something" while having no measurable effect. If you take one less flight this year, you've considerably lowered your carbon footprint. Congrats. If every single person that flies reduced their carbon footprint by one flight this year like you did... it would make absolutely no meaningful difference with respect to climate change. You might as well whistle in the wind. On the other hand, if all of those people had actually taken political action, meaningful change would be practically inevitable. The narrative that encourages recycling, buying green brands, and generally expressing how much you care about the earth by how you choose to shop (making your environmentalism part of your identity as a consumer rather than as a citizen) serves only the status quo, and dissipates energy that might otherwise be channelled into making an actual difference.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > understanding that individual virtue does absolutely, totally, precisely nothing One is forced to wonder why people who think this way bother to get out of bed in the morning. On a global scale you are insignificant approaching nonexistent, so by your own reasoning nothing you do matters and therefor you shouldn't bother doing anything.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  On a global scale the difference would be marginal. Nothing but a mere rounding error.
  - rconti 7y ago
    Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. In fact, even literally throwing up your hands is a waste of energy.
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      That's not at all the same comparison. An equal comparison would be where the president's vote counts at 1 trillion votes. In that case I wouldn't bother voting because even if everybody in the country votes for candidate A it'll mean nothing if the president votes for president B. The president's vote will always overpower everyone else's vote.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      > Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. Quite a few philosophers of politics and radicals would agree with that statement; from SEP[0]: >There is some debate among economists and political scientists over the precise way to calculate the probability that a vote will be decisive. Nevertheless, they generally agree that the probability that the modal individual voter in a typical election will break a tie is small, so small that the expected benefit (i.e., p[V(D)−V(R)]) of the modal vote for a good candidate is worth far less than a millionth of a penny (G. Brennan and Lomasky 1993: 56–7, 119). The most optimistic estimate in the literature claims that in a presidential election, an American voter could have as high as a 1 in 10 million chance of breaking a tie, but only if that voter lives in one of three or four “swing states,” and only if she votes for a major-party candidate (Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan 2007). Chances are, you can use the time to do other things, things that gain you more benefit than "a millionth of a penny" (if we must use the economism of time = money). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1
allan_s 7y ago
I save you the whole quote but : > Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world. it's easier to have this kind of thing voted in a "climate-change-aware" nation, which is easier to have if all your local government are climate-change-ware, which is easier to have if all your neighborhood are climate-change-aware, which is easier if all the familly in it are climate-change-aware which is easier if you are climate change aware. and once your country, regardless of how small it is, is climate change aware, it's easier to make bigger, more polluting country, to change, as they can't hide anymore behind a "your first" but yes I agree with you that you can't stop at your individual level, but it has to start there
- cjdaly 7y ago
  there are certain, specific individuals who could stop and it would make a huge difference. someone decided to punch this hole in the ground. someone directed the engineering. I’m glad this new Sentinel-5P sat is up. it’s hard to manage what’s not being measured.
briandear 7y ago
I'd rather have the climate change than have to fear "decisive and collective action." The Bolsheviks, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and a series of other groups and people engaged in "decisive and collective action" and it didn't turn out very well. We don't need drastic change; we need incremental improvements. The coming "catastrophe" is overblown -- every 12 years or so people warn us about the end of the world in 12 years -- long enough for people to forget, but urgent enough to scare people into advocating for "decisive and collective action." For example, the pollution generated in the United States has been significantly declining without resorting to mob-rule collective action. There are more trees in the United States today than there was 100 years ago. The air is much than it was 40 years ago as well. Few people remember what Los Angeles air looked like in the 1970s. People don't remember Pittsburgh air either. If people were serious about pollution, they'd boycott China and India. However, those calling for "collective action" are more interested in the anti-capitalist part than they are the pollution part. Otherwise, why isn't Greta Thunberg and other activists calling for worldwide boycotts of China? Why is it the United States that is in the crosshairs of every environmental group? It's because the United States is an easy target. Let's see some protestors go to China and try to shut down their industry and economy. Let's see Thunberg "How dare you" to Xi Jinping in Beijing.
- pjc50 7y ago
  "The United State is a better country than China because you are free to speak about how you would like it to be run!" "Very well, I'd like to complain about carbon emissions" "Fuck off to China, commie!"
- lm28469 7y ago
  > I'd rather have the climate change than have to fear And here is the crux of the problem, you'll be long dead before Life gets impacted by climate change. That's why a lot of people simply don't care. > every 12 years or so people warn us about the end of the world in 12 years You have to make a distinction between Nostradamus&co and science though, everything isn't equal. It might be blown out of proportion but we don't know how far we fucked up yet because earth climate is complex, duh, and composed of an infinite amount of codependent variables. You might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_... > If people were serious about pollution, they'd boycott China and India. You can't do that since the 70s, virtually everything you touch was manufactured or altered abroad. You can't have a globalized capitalist world AND tell people to boycott products from the so called "factory of the world". Reminds me of all these people posting "eh look, all the most polluting rivers are outside of the US, it's not my problem, fuck them" from a made in china iphone, while sipping an Ecuadorian coffee from a made in china starbucks cup, wearing a made in Thailand shirt and a Vietnamese pair of jeans. > more interested in the anti-capitalist part than they are the pollution part. It might be hard to swallow but hear me out: what if these two things are correlated ? capitalism/globalism put economical profit above all else with little to no regards for long term side effects. It's an endless and boundless quest for "progress", consumption and growth, there is no notion of limit, the long term plans are for the next 15 years, not the next 1500 years, &c. > For example, the pollution generated in the United States has been significantly declining without resorting to mob-rule collective action. What about the pollution generated to produce what Americans consume ? It's easy to delocalize everything to Asia and point the finger. Remember: capitalism -> global economy-> global problems > Why is it the United States that is in the crosshairs of every environmental group? I think you're projecting, as far as I know most environmental parties are protesting locally in their home country. If you're and American living in the US I would encourage you to check international news. It really is the same thing in every developed countries. Also, when will we stop with the "everything I disagree with must be fascism ?" I love how the current quasi-forced consumerism is accepted, and even loved, but being "forced" to better the planet for _ourselves_ is Mao level fascism.
noobermin 7y ago
While this accident is terrible, it pales in comparison to the US output of GHG's per year. The collective action that is needed will also call for individual action. You're right though that individual action alone is not enough.

Keverw 7y ago

I guess this is related to fracking? I seen something before that Pennsylvania doesn't allow certain waste, so the companies put it in trucks and pay to put it in injection wells in Ohio by the barrel. Pretty sad Ohio accepts money to dump other states waste. Looked it up to confirm about how waste from Pennsylvania gets dumped in Ohio: https://environmentohiocenter.org/programs/ohc/ohio-fracking-waste-dumping-ground https://environmentohiocenter.org/programs/ohc/ohio-fracking... Even caused a earthquake in Youngstown, which isn't where you'd typically expect earthquakes. https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/10/12/fracking-wastewater-from-pa-usually-ends-up-in-ohio-some-residents-say-theyve-had-enough/ https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/10/12/fracking... Then it gets into the water supply too. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/ohio-communities-are-becoming-dumping-ground-fracking-industry https://www.nrdc.org/stories/ohio-communities-are-becoming-d... Remember seeing a video once where someone could light the water coming out of their kitchen sink facet on fire. https://youtu.be/4LBjSXWQRV8 https://youtu.be/4LBjSXWQRV8 I don't know why state leadership allow this stuff to happen. Then you have the brain drain problem, Ohio is losing highly educated residents to other states with more opportunities, especially when it comes to tech. I feel like Ohio is moving backwards and not innovating. Maybe in Columbus or Cincinnati, things are better but still probably dwarfs in comparison to opportunities in Silicon Valley or Austin.

jtbayly 7y ago
That "confirmation" link in no way confirms that this leak was related in any way to fracking or dumping. If I were to bet, it is unrelated. Methane and natural gas are not the waste products you would be pumping into an old well.
- Keverw 7y ago
  Was talking in general about allowing dumping, but clarified my post.
ufmace 7y ago
> Remember seeing a video once where someone could light the water coming out of their kitchen sink facet on fire. Note that this happens more often completely naturally than as a result of any drilling operations. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_seep for more info. Oil and gas in economically useful amounts is generally deeper underground below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprock that prevents it from flowing upward. If that caprock was not there, then the oil would not have accumulated in that location in the first place. Oil wells generally have multiple layers of steel casing and cement between the wellbore and the shallow water table at the time. This is necessary to protect the integrity of the wellbore throughout the drilling process and to ensure that any produced oil goes to the surface collector, where it can be used, instead of leaking all over the place. It is also mandated by regulations in most jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the same natural processes that cause oil and gas to be produced and migrate upwards happen in many locations. In some, there is caprock deep underground that causes them to accumulate in volumes that make sense to drill wells into. In other locations, they may naturally flow all the way to the surface, or flow into shallower underground water tables and end up in residential water supplies.

krupan 7y ago

Yet we don't use nuclear energy because of its "risks"

tstrimple 7y ago
I believe that we don't use nuclear energy because it's not economically feasible in a private energy market. Startup costs and operation costs are very high compared to natural gas, solar and wind. We saw how energy companies plowed right through public outcry and resistance in the Dakota Access Pipeline. I think it's silly to assume they wouldn't do the same with nuclear power if they saw a profit in it. Even with federal subsidies and loan guarantees energy companies aren't biting.
- Super_Jambo 7y ago
  Would've been feasable if the CO2 industries actually had to pay for the externality of ruining the atmosphere though right?
  - jessant 7y ago
    I doubt anyone could accurately price CO2 emissions.
- api 7y ago
  This is a point that needs to be made more often. People think nuclear isn't big because of greens, but greens almost always get beaten into the ground politically when they go up against the fossil fuel industry. Fossil fuels are much more profitable than nuclear power.
  - khrbrt 7y ago
    Fossil fuels are much more subsidized than nuclear power.
    - tstrimple 7y ago

imroot 7y ago

I grew up in Noble County, Ohio (next to Belmont County) and still get the weekly newspaper delivered to me via mail. There were exactly zero write-ups of this in the local papers. The Radio stations in the area are generally owned by one entity (AVC Communications), and there really isn't a lot on their website about it: not really surprising, because 25+ years ago they went Satellite Only and only someone in the news room from 6A-4P. My biggest complaints about the Oil and Gas industry taking the SE Ohio area and turning it into a cash cow are two-fold: 1.) We're basically treating nature like a resource and stripping it all back to nothing (like AEP did in the 60's and 70's), and 2.) this has basically zero benefit to the locals: most of the jobs in the Oil and Gas industry are specialized and workers imported (leading to stories of welders making $140/hour in Ohio: just simply not true). I could go on and on about growing up in the second poorest county in Ohio, but, I'll just leave it at this: not surprised that it happened but very surprised that nobody has really reported on this until now.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pstuart 7y ago
But to even question this in today's political world makes you a liberal agitator. I wish I knew how we could reframe these issues as "proper stewardship of our commons" vs. "but we need the jobs now!"
- hanniabu 7y ago
  > I wish I knew how we could reframe these issues as "proper stewardship of our commons" vs. "but we need the jobs now!" You can't, because it's purposely framed that way. You think the ones starting that think they're actually bringing jobs back? Hell no, they just say it b/c I'm sure they're getting benefits and contributions from the oil/gas companies, and unfortunately much of the less educated people in these areas aren't the wiser. I'm sure this is another reason for systemic neglect of the education system. Less educated people are easier to control and brainwash.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

manfredo 7y ago

"Leaked more than many countries do in a year" is an interesting way of expressing the scale. Many countries have little to no petroleum industry. > Or, for another kind of context, the researchers point out that this Ohio well released more methane in 20 days than the oil and gas activities in most nations around Europe do in an entire year—save only the UK, Germany, and Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_produ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_g... Most European countries other than Norway have orders of magnitude smaller petroleum industries than the US, and many have near zero production. While leaking oil and gas is bad, this kind of journalistic sleight of hand is neither necessary nor productive. To better put this leak in perspective, the US alone apparently leaks 13 million tons of natural gas yearly [1], and 440 million tons are annually leaked world wide from both human and natural sources [2]. So this leak accounted for 0.5% of nation-wide gas leaking in a given year and 0.014% of global methane emissions in a given year. 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-and-gas-facilities-leak-more-methane-than-previously-thought/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-and-gas-facil... 2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-siberia-climate-change/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-siberia-c...

take_a_breath 7y ago
==Most European countries other than Norway have orders of magnitude smaller petroleum industries than the US, and many have near zero production. While leaking oil and gas is bad, this kind of journalistic sleight of hand is neither necessary nor productive.== Isn't your comment an equal slight of hand? The article isn't about total leaks in the US compared to other countries. This is about one specific gas leak in Ohio, which they compare to other countries.
- manfredo 7y ago
  The point is, leaking any amount of oil is sufficient to exceed the petroleum leaks of many countries that have no petroleum production whatsoever. > Isn't your comment an equal slight of hand? The article isn't about total leaks in the US compared to other countries. This is about one specific gas leak in Ohio, which they compare to other countries The comparison to other countries, many of which have little to no petroleum industry, is the sleight of hand I'm addressing. Putting this leak in respect to the total amount of natural gas leakage in the country and the world is a straightforward was of representing the contribution of this leak to total natural gas leakage.

british_india 7y ago

Now that enough CO2 has been released to melt Arctic sea ice plus Canadian & Siberian permafrost, Methane is the greatest climate threat we face. Our CO2 emissions have now released the Kraken that is Methane emissions. Methane is 30-times more damaging to the climate as is CO2. The danger is this: human extinction by 2030. The warming we feel today was caused by CO2 released 10 years ago. This is serious danger.

british_india 7y ago

alhajidmx 7y ago

Wow

RandomBacon 7y ago

Sensationalist title, as Ohio is larger than many countries.

RandomBacon 7y ago
I think the leak is bad, but we should be fair, even with things we don't like, right?