Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LizKat, Dec 17, 2014.
Here's a link NY Times
I guess even a corrupt Governor occasionally does some good. I predict the superfund sites of the 70s will be dwarfed by the ones that fracking will create.
Right. Plus he can always either thank or blame his health commissioner for the decision depending on his future political requirements.
The drilling consortiums already knew it was going to be one big hassle anyway once so many townships started passing bans. That plus shorter longevity for fracked wells and the lowered price of fuels at present will also serve to deflect some of whatever political backlash may be coming his way in the near term.
I'm pleased and relieved by the decision. Even the possibility of messing up deep water supply is horrific, never mind all the nearer-to-surface contaminations of wells, the dust and air pollution spinoffs from fracking and its tranport of materials, the waste ponds.... what a nightmare is being faced by some of the states already enduring this extractive process.
Hydrocarbon production sites rarely end up on the EPA Superfund list as far as I can tell (the Deepwater Horizon being an obvious exception where a production site went horribly awry). Lots of waste sites though.
So will New York State forgo using petroleum products pumped from the ground by fracking?
To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
I assume you are against slavery. Are you going to forego using your electronic products? At some point an enslaved child forced to work in a Chinese government-sanctioned factory inevitably contributed to the process of making those items.
To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
NY has banned the recovery process of fracking due to concerns of contaminating the air and public water supply. They haven't banned the use of petroleum products derived from fracking. There is little hypocrisy here.
Please substantiate that claim.
Maybe the governor will have to put up solar panels on his roof, if he doesn't already have some!
The issue of fracking has been very contentious in the shale areas of the state, not least because it's entirely unsure the state's residents (or US residents!) would benefit from fracking at all. The stuff is headed to offshore markets, basically. More coastal storage and transmission facilities are in the works, as are laws tweaking what can be exported. So I don't know that it's hypocritical to have been against fracking while owning an oil or gas furnace (and lobbying for more focus on solar, geothermal and etc. alternatives).
Around here more people are using some solar power as the costs continue to decline. In the mountains we get fair amount of cloud cover so it's hard to go completely solar unless you have a pretty fancy system, even though storage and transmission tech is improving. In the rural areas many people burn wood, others use oil or gas. Standard utility-provided electric heating is pretty pricey for heating an older home in the mountains, so I feel badly for anyone stuck with that as their only option. A few people I know are off the grid and use windmills but I believe they heat their places with wood.
If New Yorkers want to miss out on the fracking revolution, that is their prerogative. It means more profits will flow to North Dakota and the other 30+ state where fracking is occurring.
And we--as Americans--will continue to benefit from lower energy prices with or without New York.
Fracking banned in New York State
Hypocrisy be damned. This isn't some philosophical exercise. Energy capture is complicated and expensive. If we wait until all the steps are in place before taking the first step to improve, there won't be a first improvement or a second. Every advantage to improve must be taken as must every advantage not to regress.
Fracking itself is a messy business. If the companies doing it had to ensure coverage to pay for the damage, it would be too expensive to even bother. Only the inevitable externalization of cleanup onto tax payers, makes it viable.
BTW, top of the list of stated benefits for new energy exploration is job growth. Jobs extracting and lower cost of production for local factories. But when we export that energy, competitors also get to lower their cost of production, wiping out the advantage the new environmental allowance was supposed to provide.
You are being deliberately dense in order to avoid the point at hand, that there is no hypocrisy in what NY has done.
It doesn't take very long to find news to confirm the claims in my post. Anybody who isn't completely isolated from the world knows that China employs the use of child labour akin to modern day slavery.
Back to the point at hand, do you support New York's ban? If so, why or why not?
Of course there is! The good people of NY state have decided that it's too unpleasant to provide their own petroleum using fracking, so they're going to let others poison their states while reaping the benefits.
If they're that concerned about the risks in fracking, how do they justify profiting (and they will profit from cheaper oil) from the process?
So let me get this correct: you're not a hypocrite if you're against child slave labor, but you buy an Apple product you know was made by child slave labor?
I think they're being foolish and hypocritical. The risks from fracking are mild compared to the benefits.
That's ridiculous. Putting that aside, we have no idea of the source of the oil we put in our gas tanks.
Do you feel the same way about states that take more in federal monies than they pay in?
They didn't say that fracking "poisons" the air and water supply. They said that the process poses "inestimable public-health risks".
How do you propose that New York implements a regulation that completely bans petroleum products derived from fracking? Once this oil ends up in the supply chain there's no telling where it will end up.
The State of New York has a right to impose this ban because it concerns drilling and works within its boundaries. Even if I supported your view that they should not benefit from fracking elsewhere, there would be no practical method of ensuring that those benefits don't reach New York. Not to mention that any process that you suggest so as to deprive New York of any benefits of fracking from elsewhere would likely be meddling with interstate commerce, something that would most definitely upset the Federal Government.
Don't make it about Apple products. Make it about electronics in general. Household appliances. Clothing. A considerable amount of goods would be affected by this classification. Are the hundreds of millions of citizens in the USA and Europe hypocrites? Are you?
That's not what the report from the New York Department of Health stated.
It doesn't sound like they're just being foolish to me.
That's a copout, the information can be had so the good people of New York State can avoid hypocrisy if there's a fierce moral urgency to do so.
That's absurd. Might as well determine who does more to protect the country by looking at which states provide the most soldiers to our military.
I was speaking off-handedly, but if those so-called "risks" are serious enough to result in banning fracking from NY State, there are no moral grounds for purchasing oil from states that do allow fracking.
It's a matter of regulation, and could be done in time. Obviously the ban on purchasing along with producing fracked oil would be done in stages.
I was using Apple as an example. Of course you're a hypocrite if you buy products made by slave labor that you know were made by slave labor. The question is how do you know it for sure?
Yes, they're being foolish. That report is full of terms like "suggest" that show there are no stats to back up their concerns. The remainder are silly problems such as the odors that arise from trucks parked on concrete pads and the increased likelihood of traffic accidents. Hardly the kinds of issues that should keep the state from exploiting the wealth in its borders.
New York is a net contributor into the federal system. I think that will offset it if economic "fairness" is the only thing you're concerned about.
It couldn't be done in time. Imposing a condition like this would amount to prohibitively high costs, which would eventually filter down into almost every other industry. It would require complete separation of interstate imports of oil extracted through fracking and other sources. This would require the goodwill of the other fracking states, something which is highly unlikely due to the costs involved.
When the issue at hand is public health I disagree. In 1960 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refused approval to a drug named Thalidomide despite overwhelming pressure from a then-major pharmaceutical company. The FDA did not have concrete evidence but made claims that suggested the studies on drug safety were not conclusive enough. Only a couple of years later the drug was proven to cause birth defects.
Case in point, I would rather wait for long-term studies on the effects of fracking to public health rather than go right ahead and exploit the resources now.
NY isn't FORCING the other states to produce oil through fracking, if those states choose to allow it it's their prerogative. Trying to regulate what oil/gas goes where would be infinitely impossible once it's mixed in the system.
The other big story in NY today was the announcement of the locations for 3 new casinos NOT on Indian reservations. Should the people in locations that received the license but that opposed the casino being placed in their area be allowed to reap the benefits (likely lower taxes due to the revenue from the venue, not to mention new eateries and infrastructure improvements) of the new venue?
The "fracking revolution" that can increase the risk of respiratory problems, birth defects, blood disorders, cancer and nervous system impacts? You can keep it.
And that's just from air contamination. Radioactive waste also leaks into out water supply, and affects our food supply.
Not to mention people who live near fracking sites.
http://www.thenation.com/article/171504/fracking-our-food-supply (Article only loads on desktop)
Fracking banned in New York State
Got a real source for that F.U.D. you're trying to spread. I mean really, "The Nation?"
We don't know, the State of Texas does not even know, nor want to know (or is keeping it close to the vest), the air quality at fracking-ground-zero, South Texas. The popular opinion is that business is always good for Corporate US even if it kills YOU.
3 billion gallons of wastewater dumped into clean California aquifers.
Really great for a State that is always short of water, that sucks the Colorado River dry before it makes it to the ocean. Actually there should be no smiley emoticons, this is atrocious.
State officials shouldn't have allowed the dumping. Can't blame industry for following the rules.