4 ms·
The point is that we need to use fracking to extract much of the oil in the United States, as opposed to less destructive techniques that can be used in other o
by brokencode 5y ago
The point is that we need to use fracking to extract much of the oil in the United States, as opposed to less destructive techniques that can be used in other oil fields. It’s not NIMBY if it truly is worse when it happens in your backyard.
- fredophile 5y agoI'm not sure that was the original point. If extracting oil results in $x of long term damage to the local environment, but that cost isn't passed along, it makes economic sense to buy oil from somewhere else so you don't end up footing that bill. Sure it would be better overall if that other place could extract oil without that cost but that doesn't make the decision less rational even if that environmental cost is as much or more than it would be to extract it locally.
- techNoob123 5y agoi think what’s missing is that fracking is used in the U.S. non-fracking methods are used outside the U.S. fracking is worse for the environment than non-fracking methods. i hold my personal opinions on each point but i think this is what OP was trying to convey
- yyyk 5y ago>fracking to extract much of the oil in the United States, as opposed to less destructive techniques that can be used in other oil fields Is fracking really worse overall? One can screw up non-fracking oil methods too, e.g. Nigerian oil delta, BP oil spill, etc.