Well considering we already use man-made caverns to store compressed gas and it doesn't leak out... And considering the areas where fracking is occurring have also been areas where coal and gas have been previously extracted and thus is the location of a lot of existing coal and gas power plants so transportation should be relatively short.
Usually fracking is done very deep within the earth. So your worries about temperature increases are highly unlikely as well as not likely to increase the pressure in the formation very significantly. For reference the earth pressure at ~4000' depth (which is where a lot of the Marcellus shale is located) is well over 5000 psi. As far as the best solid sink of CO2, that would be limestone... http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
I listened to the NPR piece by Diane Rehm and it is SOOOO horribly biased. She only asks the one not very official spokesperson for fracking loaded questions and then cuts him off and lets the director of GasLand (and sequel) pretty much give a sales pitch on his movie. I'm not saying there aren't environmental consequences from fracking, but when the director of the documentary is saying the EPA, USGS, and other government studies showing the fracking isn't to blame can't be believed, then who DO you believe?
Now I'm not saying oil and gas extraction can't pollute the water supply. It can and frequently does. But even if there is contamination around fracking sites, it isn't due to the fracking itself, but poor environmental controls in the supporting operation. The key here is not to fight fracking, but to fight to keep all the processes associated with well drilling within the rules of existing environmental regulations.
Blaming fracking for well contamination is equivalent to blaming GM because your gas tank leaks. (Obligatory Slashdot car analogy)
According the the WIKIPEDIA LINK IN THE ARTICLE the shale covers approximately 104,000 square miles which seems much more realistic. Come on editors. If you are going to link the source, you know actually check the source!
Depends on if it's an open or closed primary. Some states don't even have primaries, they have caucuses. CGPGrey explains it quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_95I_1rZiIs
The problem is, write ins aren't counted. Voting for a third party is the only way to count a vote against the two main parties. And it doesn't even matter which 3rd party you vote for since as mentioned previously, none of them have a chance at winning. The point of the third party vote is not to get a third party elected, but to force the two major parties to change to try to attract the voters so frustrated with the parties that they aren't willing to vote for either.
Fracking is creating the most energy efficient and cleanest source of energy we have. It is largely responsible for the reduction in CO2 emissions in the US over the past few years. Deforestation isn't caused by expanding cities and suburbs. It is caused by the increase in agriculture which is needed to provide all of the biomass to make ethanol in response to stupid policies to fight climate change.
If you can show me a model of car that weighs less than the previous model, I'll give you a billion moles of CO2 that you can do with what you wish.
I have no problem with reducing pollution, it's a matter of how much pollution is dangerous. There is lead, arsenic, mercury, and all kinds of other horrible things in drinking water. They are so low it's not a hazard, so you stop caring. What level of CO2 in the atmosphere is so low that it isn't a hazard? What is the threshold? I am breathing fine right now, and I can't think of anyone who has died from CO2 poisoning (maybe O2 deprivation if the CO2 is too high), so I don't think CO2 is a pollutant. A greenhouse gas maybe, but not the only one and certainly not solely responsible for global climate.
*Ring* *Ring* Hello? Oh hi! Broken window fallacy, I haven't seen you in forever... Oh, this call isn't for me? It's for Sperbels? Ok, I'll hand you over.
The point is, that the OP was saying "Why wouldn't we reduce emissions, even if climate scientists are wrong" and the correct answer is, because you can't do it for free. You have to determine what your ultimate goal is. If it is saving human lives, then reducing emissions can clearly be shown to save more lives today due to increased fuel costs and decreased standard of living. It's not like we can just cut emissions at no cost or say "it's just money". Climate science, wrong or right, has done a very poor job of weighing costs on both ends. Maybe if we are making the world warmer, we would actually have to sacrifice more lives today to stop it then would be lost due to the change in the climate. You never see those reports...
Gee, if only there were more than two candidates running for any particular office... Oh wait, you wouldn't vote 3rd party because they don't have a chance right? That's just what they want you to think so they can maintain their power.
We have unions out protesting in front of various businesses because they used non-union labor for things. Of course I don't think they have actual union people out protesting. They probably hire out non-union people for that...
This. Russia may have made a lot of mistakes that led up to Chernobyl, but many men gave their lives (or at least severely curtailed them) in order to prevent what could have been a lot worse.
It is difficult, but with some practice, they can be recubified... There are several good ways of doing it. I recommend youtube instructional videos. Also I've noticed that even cubes are easier to make than odd cubes. So if you got a 5x5x5 pack, make a 4x4x4 cube.
The only reason any of this is coming to a head is because that damned liberal said something stupid about a "red line" that he wasn't willing to back up. Forget speak softly and carry a big stick, Obama speaks loud and carries his limp dick...
Even worse, even if they conclude chemical weapons were used, how can they verify if it was the Assad government who used it? It could just as easily be the rebels trying to pull the US into the conflict. Just stay out of it! The situation sucks, no one disagrees. But I fail to see how intervention is going to improve things...
Well if we use the same definition of WMD that is being used against the Boston Marathon bombings... Pretty much any armed conflict uses WMDs. What damned us was when Obama drew a red line that he wasn't willing to enforce. He's not willing to do what is necessary to back up his threat. Just like he's not willing to call what happened in Egypt a coup. Or call Obamacare penalties a tax. Or really do anything at all.
More like, "Editor's note: There were no editors, and authors are unverified. Also, this book was transcribed and translated by unknown individuals as well. Additionally, some parts may be missing. Please take messages in the book with a Lot's wife sized grain of salt."
At a US border crossing, I feared (sad that I fear my own government) them asking to search my Blackberry. They were already searching my car and made me leave my phone in the car. They also told me I had to wait in their lobby and I was not allowed to witness the search. My Blackberry is password protected though, and if they demanded I give them my password, THANKFULLY it is technically my company's property and I would have told them that they'll have to call my company's lawyers if they wanted access to their property. Hopefully that would have stopped it, but is the threat of a corporate lawyer really a saving grace? Thankfully I didn't have to find out. I just had to be interrogated and sent on my way... I mean really, is it suspicious that a guy doesn't remember his girlfriend's birthday? Is it scary that the government does?
Let's get rid of the seventeenth while we are at it. Having senators elected by popular vote just makes another house of representatives with more power and less accountability. Want to know why states rights don't exist? Because states haven't had a say in the government since 1912.
Vote any alternative! It doesn't matter. So long as your vote is counted and it is not going to one of the two major parties. If the third party vote manages to take even a measurable percentage of the total vote, politicians might take notice. Considering most presidential elections are decided by a percent or so, can you imagine what Dems and Repubs would do if third party candidates started getting even 3% of the vote? Sure, the third party won't get elected, but maybe some of their platforms and beliefs will be co-opted by the majors and change will start to happen.
As far as getting a third party, it's impossible with a first past the post voting system. It cannot mathematically happen. In the meantime, I will vote third party even if it throws away my second choice. In my case, I am a libertarian, but would prefer a Republican in many cases to a Democrat. Fuck the Republicans. I will make them lose every election for the rest of my life until they actually figure out how to cut spending. Democrats can freely run this country into the ground before I vote for a Republican because they "aren't a Democrat".
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure you're not confusing CO2 poisoning with CO poisoning? http://chemistry.about.com/od/medicalhealth/a/Carbon-Dioxide-Poisoning.htm
The latter is HIGHLY unlikely.
Well considering we already use man-made caverns to store compressed gas and it doesn't leak out... And considering the areas where fracking is occurring have also been areas where coal and gas have been previously extracted and thus is the location of a lot of existing coal and gas power plants so transportation should be relatively short.
Usually fracking is done very deep within the earth. So your worries about temperature increases are highly unlikely as well as not likely to increase the pressure in the formation very significantly. For reference the earth pressure at ~4000' depth (which is where a lot of the Marcellus shale is located) is well over 5000 psi. As far as the best solid sink of CO2, that would be limestone... http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm
I listened to the NPR piece by Diane Rehm and it is SOOOO horribly biased. She only asks the one not very official spokesperson for fracking loaded questions and then cuts him off and lets the director of GasLand (and sequel) pretty much give a sales pitch on his movie. I'm not saying there aren't environmental consequences from fracking, but when the director of the documentary is saying the EPA, USGS, and other government studies showing the fracking isn't to blame can't be believed, then who DO you believe?
http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/Websites/iogcc/Images/2009StateRegulatoryStatementsonHydraulic%20Fracturing.pdf
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3489
Now I'm not saying oil and gas extraction can't pollute the water supply. It can and frequently does. But even if there is contamination around fracking sites, it isn't due to the fracking itself, but poor environmental controls in the supporting operation. The key here is not to fight fracking, but to fight to keep all the processes associated with well drilling within the rules of existing environmental regulations.
Blaming fracking for well contamination is equivalent to blaming GM because your gas tank leaks. (Obligatory Slashdot car analogy)
According the the WIKIPEDIA LINK IN THE ARTICLE the shale covers approximately 104,000 square miles which seems much more realistic. Come on editors. If you are going to link the source, you know actually check the source!
Depends on if it's an open or closed primary. Some states don't even have primaries, they have caucuses. CGPGrey explains it quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_95I_1rZiIs
The problem is, write ins aren't counted. Voting for a third party is the only way to count a vote against the two main parties. And it doesn't even matter which 3rd party you vote for since as mentioned previously, none of them have a chance at winning. The point of the third party vote is not to get a third party elected, but to force the two major parties to change to try to attract the voters so frustrated with the parties that they aren't willing to vote for either.
Fracking is creating the most energy efficient and cleanest source of energy we have. It is largely responsible for the reduction in CO2 emissions in the US over the past few years.
Deforestation isn't caused by expanding cities and suburbs. It is caused by the increase in agriculture which is needed to provide all of the biomass to make ethanol in response to stupid policies to fight climate change.
If you can show me a model of car that weighs less than the previous model, I'll give you a billion moles of CO2 that you can do with what you wish.
I have no problem with reducing pollution, it's a matter of how much pollution is dangerous. There is lead, arsenic, mercury, and all kinds of other horrible things in drinking water. They are so low it's not a hazard, so you stop caring. What level of CO2 in the atmosphere is so low that it isn't a hazard? What is the threshold? I am breathing fine right now, and I can't think of anyone who has died from CO2 poisoning (maybe O2 deprivation if the CO2 is too high), so I don't think CO2 is a pollutant. A greenhouse gas maybe, but not the only one and certainly not solely responsible for global climate.
*Ring* *Ring*
Hello? Oh hi! Broken window fallacy, I haven't seen you in forever... Oh, this call isn't for me? It's for Sperbels? Ok, I'll hand you over.
The point is, that the OP was saying "Why wouldn't we reduce emissions, even if climate scientists are wrong" and the correct answer is, because you can't do it for free. You have to determine what your ultimate goal is. If it is saving human lives, then reducing emissions can clearly be shown to save more lives today due to increased fuel costs and decreased standard of living. It's not like we can just cut emissions at no cost or say "it's just money". Climate science, wrong or right, has done a very poor job of weighing costs on both ends. Maybe if we are making the world warmer, we would actually have to sacrifice more lives today to stop it then would be lost due to the change in the climate. You never see those reports...
Gee, if only there were more than two candidates running for any particular office... Oh wait, you wouldn't vote 3rd party because they don't have a chance right? That's just what they want you to think so they can maintain their power.
We have unions out protesting in front of various businesses because they used non-union labor for things. Of course I don't think they have actual union people out protesting. They probably hire out non-union people for that...
This. Russia may have made a lot of mistakes that led up to Chernobyl, but many men gave their lives (or at least severely curtailed them) in order to prevent what could have been a lot worse.
It is difficult, but with some practice, they can be recubified... There are several good ways of doing it. I recommend youtube instructional videos. Also I've noticed that even cubes are easier to make than odd cubes. So if you got a 5x5x5 pack, make a 4x4x4 cube.
The only reason any of this is coming to a head is because that damned liberal said something stupid about a "red line" that he wasn't willing to back up. Forget speak softly and carry a big stick, Obama speaks loud and carries his limp dick...
Even worse, even if they conclude chemical weapons were used, how can they verify if it was the Assad government who used it? It could just as easily be the rebels trying to pull the US into the conflict. Just stay out of it! The situation sucks, no one disagrees. But I fail to see how intervention is going to improve things...
Well if we use the same definition of WMD that is being used against the Boston Marathon bombings... Pretty much any armed conflict uses WMDs. What damned us was when Obama drew a red line that he wasn't willing to enforce. He's not willing to do what is necessary to back up his threat. Just like he's not willing to call what happened in Egypt a coup. Or call Obamacare penalties a tax. Or really do anything at all.
In summary: Nobel Peace Prize my ass.
More like, "Editor's note: There were no editors, and authors are unverified. Also, this book was transcribed and translated by unknown individuals as well. Additionally, some parts may be missing. Please take messages in the book with a Lot's wife sized grain of salt."
At a US border crossing, I feared (sad that I fear my own government) them asking to search my Blackberry. They were already searching my car and made me leave my phone in the car. They also told me I had to wait in their lobby and I was not allowed to witness the search. My Blackberry is password protected though, and if they demanded I give them my password, THANKFULLY it is technically my company's property and I would have told them that they'll have to call my company's lawyers if they wanted access to their property. Hopefully that would have stopped it, but is the threat of a corporate lawyer really a saving grace? Thankfully I didn't have to find out. I just had to be interrogated and sent on my way... I mean really, is it suspicious that a guy doesn't remember his girlfriend's birthday? Is it scary that the government does?
Why did the Libertarian cross the road?
None of your damn business! Am I being detained?
Let's get rid of the seventeenth while we are at it. Having senators elected by popular vote just makes another house of representatives with more power and less accountability. Want to know why states rights don't exist? Because states haven't had a say in the government since 1912.
Vote any alternative! It doesn't matter. So long as your vote is counted and it is not going to one of the two major parties. If the third party vote manages to take even a measurable percentage of the total vote, politicians might take notice. Considering most presidential elections are decided by a percent or so, can you imagine what Dems and Repubs would do if third party candidates started getting even 3% of the vote? Sure, the third party won't get elected, but maybe some of their platforms and beliefs will be co-opted by the majors and change will start to happen.
As far as getting a third party, it's impossible with a first past the post voting system. It cannot mathematically happen. In the meantime, I will vote third party even if it throws away my second choice. In my case, I am a libertarian, but would prefer a Republican in many cases to a Democrat. Fuck the Republicans. I will make them lose every election for the rest of my life until they actually figure out how to cut spending. Democrats can freely run this country into the ground before I vote for a Republican because they "aren't a Democrat".
I tried to go to the government's website but I got a 413 error :(
Wouldn't it just be easier to teach people not to buy shit from spammers? Then wouldn't the problem go away?
Of course, some awesome mathematical analysis from Data Genetics: http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/july32013/index.html