Documentary filmmaker and activist Josh Fox has a warning for Washington policymakers: You’ll face “political consequences” if you ignore the anti-fracking movement.
You will not face political consequences if you ignore the anti-fracking movement. The administration had to pick which bone to throw to the deep ecologist religious fanatics: they could either hassle hydraulic fracking, or yjr Keystone pipeline. It wasn’t a hard call: the administration chose Keystone. You see, natural gas is ‘green’ energy in the orthodox liberal canon, so Fox’s band of schismatics are in fact also a bunch of unhelpful heretics who are dangerously close to being formally declared to be obdurate in their error. Should that happen… well, an auto-de-fe would probably be too ironic, all things considered. But certainly loud anti-frackers will be kept from all the good policy groups and parties.
Hey, it’s an improvement from the European Witch Craze.
Via don’t remember, sorry. Might have been an email.
Moe Lane
It’s .. almost funny .. how parochial the greenies can be.
.
The big problem with fracking, of course, isn’t burning tap water .. it’s that people are making *money*.
.
Mew
Why don’t these people concentrate their efforts on proving the economic viability of large scale wind, solar, etc. without subsidy and then bring it to market. I think most people prefer “renewables” in theory, it’s just that the practice leaves a bit to be desired.
Several likely reasons, jbird.
.
….1) They do not believe in the market.
….2) They do not understand the market.
….3) They do not understand maintenance cycles. (they may not believe in them .. my mechanic brother-in-law saw a lot of cars ruined due to lack of maintenance)
.
.
In short, they’re fools, and their carping should not be suffered.
.
Mew
You greatly over estimate these people.
.
Mostly they do not and often cannot have the engineering background to mount a credible attempt at a perpetual motion machine of the first or second sort.
.
To use a more blatant metaphor, they are too innumerate put together something that even looks like a proof for 2+2=5.
.
If you gave them a plausible scam, they would be perfectly able advocates for it, up it until it looked like industry and the market might actually adopt. Then they would start attacking it.
.
a) Thermodynamics
b) If engineering were easy, it wouldn’t have taken so many attempts to get a civilization that could develop it to the current level of practice.
c) Most people want shelter, food, and work. Their desire for that, if you worked it out with them, would probably outweigh their aesthetics. I suspect that they would then prefer a mix of energy solutions that are cheap, provide reliable baseline power (jobs and heated shelter) and keep the farms and transportation chain working (food).
d) Track down the PSA with the ‘Helium emitting car’. If that doesn’t cause you to lose all hope of seeing anything useful from that sort, read a high school or college chemistry text.
.
TLDR What the cat did say.