2 ms·
I think it's rather that there is another totally reasonable and historically accurate assumption that catastrophic environmental costs need not factor into the
by bluedanieru 14y ago
I think it's rather that there is another totally reasonable and historically accurate assumption that catastrophic environmental costs need not factor into the projection.
- vannevar 14y agoIt is not reasonable to assume that because a phenomenon is not observed in a small sample size, that it will also be absent in a much larger sample size. The volume of fracking fluid being pumped into the ground today is orders of magnitude larger than has been used historically.
- vannevar 14y agoIf our anonymous downvoter has information to the contrary, it would be helpful if they would post it.
- DuskStar 14y agoI think he means that the companies have a history of not being stuck with environmental cleanup costs or other secondary costs- and thus even if there will be enormous damages, it won't impact their profits.
- vannevar 14y agoAh yes, under that interpretation I would agree wholeheartedly.
- bluedanieru 14y agoEh, yeah and that's the correct one. In the interests of brevity I guess I left some ambiguity there in what I meant.