when you take into account the methane escapes and its 30-70x higher potency than co2 as a greenhouse gas, the process of fracking negates your argument many times over. (add onto that all the soil and water issues.. and well.. )
or is there a hidden strategy of increasing the phone sizes of new iphones to deliberately make them unwieldy, and create a problem which can be "solved" with a smart-watch? ie, more crap to sell.
has anything really changed re: tesla on the actual net pollution front? last i checked in, while electric cars 'burn clean', so long as the power that comes to the car from the 'wall socket' is still generated by either burning coal or natural gas which was most likely produced by fracking (which releases escape methane and is 10s of times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2).
is there any legitimate data on the net benefits (if any) of switching to electric cars taking into account the methane impacts of fracking on the greenhouse situation? without that, the whole electric cars as a solution seems like more PR and hype (granted, hype that will no doubt make a lot of people very rich) than something that gives people (san franciscan's in particular according to south park) a reason to feel smug.
or is it more about reducing dependence on cheap oil, and thus, to theoretically at least give america less of a reason for meddling in the ME?
i apologize for dropping the quote the way i did. i can see how that can be viewed as an attack.
i'm saying that human beings, no matter how intelligent, have powerful cognitive biases. when possible, it's worthwhile to at least take a minute and ask if it's possible that our view is distorted in some way - whether it be in synch with sinclair's comment or otherwise.
i assure you, there is a plethora of data out there regarding the industry and practices that point to significant damage being done.
came up behind me in the squad car with their silly flashing lights. they were laying in wait for someone... anyone.. to fleece. "fishing" as it were. damn district 2ers. don't get me started.:)
well, im sure glad i didn't bring you as my attorney to correct the judge when he ruled in my favor. point is, there IS ambiguity, and cops ARE using it as a means to generate extra revenue. Don't roll over and pay if you get ticketed and can afford to fight.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair (incidentally, author of Oil! - the book upon which there will be blood was based)
One big thing you're missing is the environmental impact of escaped methane. See, when you blast all this rock, you can't hope to capture all the methane as it escapes. a significant amount is released directly into the atmosphere.
Methane is something like 20x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2 over a century, and ~50-70x more potent over periods of less than 50 years (give or take). When you take the methane release into account, even away from all the water/soil pollution, fracking is more damaging vis-a-vis climate change than oil or even coal.
related to citibike but a bit off topic.. if a copy tries to give you a ticket for riding in a 'non-bike-line' in NYC (as happened to me), chances are they will give you a whole song and dance: "gee whiz buddy.. sorry to have to do this, but they're cracking down. here's a ticket for $140".
this is a police scam.
there is no law saying a bicyclist must ride in lane in NYC.. it's only recommended but up to rider's discretion.
I showed up to my hearing and the judge dismissed it without me saying a word (after the cop lied about how far he saw me riding of course).
they're of course hoping you don't know the law and don't (or can't) get off from work 6 months later (when you get a hearing date) to challenge it.i wonder how many millions theyve stolen from the public this way.
answering from my relatively light knowledge base on geothermal, im inclined to say : absolutely. i don't know enough about geothermal to know if there are deleterious unintended side effects, but conceptually it seems far far more harmonious.
it's properly (and technically) called 'exploitation of natural resources'. It isn't sustainable - in terms of environmental impact, massive front-ended depletion rates rates, or the ultimate demand-destruction the high cost of extraction begets. Political and environmental chicanery have obfuscated the first two, with massive monetary stimulus banking on the dollar's reserve status having propped up the latter (among other things of course).
If the ultimate cost of extraction were markedly lower (as it has in decades past) the net energy gains might still be enough to justify. But those days are long gone.
given that GM has had to recall more cars in 2014 than they sold globally in 2011,2012, and 2013 combined, it strikes me as almost surreal that they are floating the idea that consumers should 'trust them' in their ability to produce this technology safely and bug-free.
then again, people do have pretty short memories, and are easily distracted by shiny things . either way though, i think this can safely be called either chutzpah, or some kind of weird statement regarding what they think consumer's attention span is.
i stopped reading your novella after the first two sentences.. the stupidity made my brain hurt, so i skimmed a little of the rest.
a) tongue-in-cheek humor is still humor. b) you still believe equitable resolution occurs a majority of the time by things going (and making it) to trial? how adorable.
Slashdot Mirror
when you take into account the methane escapes and its 30-70x higher potency than co2 as a greenhouse gas, the process of fracking negates your argument many times over. (add onto that all the soil and water issues.. and well.. )
or is there a hidden strategy of increasing the phone sizes of new iphones to deliberately make them unwieldy, and create a problem which can be "solved" with a smart-watch? ie, more crap to sell.
thanks for that
has anything really changed re: tesla on the actual net pollution front? last i checked in, while electric cars 'burn clean', so long as the power that comes to the car from the 'wall socket' is still generated by either burning coal or natural gas which was most likely produced by fracking (which releases escape methane and is 10s of times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2).
is there any legitimate data on the net benefits (if any) of switching to electric cars taking into account the methane impacts of fracking on the greenhouse situation? without that, the whole electric cars as a solution seems like more PR and hype (granted, hype that will no doubt make a lot of people very rich) than something that gives people (san franciscan's in particular according to south park) a reason to feel smug.
or is it more about reducing dependence on cheap oil, and thus, to theoretically at least give america less of a reason for meddling in the ME?
agreed. but time and a place fueg... time and a place.
can you elaborate (as i said i dont know much about it)? i suspect order of magnitude will be the key driver.
there's a difference between anarchy and stupidity.
i apologize for dropping the quote the way i did. i can see how that can be viewed as an attack.
i'm saying that human beings, no matter how intelligent, have powerful cognitive biases. when possible, it's worthwhile to at least take a minute and ask if it's possible that our view is distorted in some way - whether it be in synch with sinclair's comment or otherwise.
i assure you, there is a plethora of data out there regarding the industry and practices that point to significant damage being done.
so you're just looking for ways to clean it up just enough to skirt your ban? to hell with real actual consequences? sheesh.
came up behind me in the squad car with their silly flashing lights. they were laying in wait for someone... anyone.. to fleece. "fishing" as it were. damn district 2ers. don't get me started. :)
very fair - i stand corrected.
well, im sure glad i didn't bring you as my attorney to correct the judge when he ruled in my favor. point is, there IS ambiguity, and cops ARE using it as a means to generate extra revenue. Don't roll over and pay if you get ticketed and can afford to fight.
decent article on it: http://www.wnyc.org/story/2842...
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair (incidentally, author of Oil! - the book upon which there will be blood was based)
One big thing you're missing is the environmental impact of escaped methane. See, when you blast all this rock, you can't hope to capture all the methane as it escapes. a significant amount is released directly into the atmosphere.
Methane is something like 20x as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2 over a century, and ~50-70x more potent over periods of less than 50 years (give or take). When you take the methane release into account, even away from all the water/soil pollution, fracking is more damaging vis-a-vis climate change than oil or even coal.
related to citibike but a bit off topic.. if a copy tries to give you a ticket for riding in a 'non-bike-line' in NYC (as happened to me), chances are they will give you a whole song and dance: "gee whiz buddy.. sorry to have to do this, but they're cracking down. here's a ticket for $140".
this is a police scam.
there is no law saying a bicyclist must ride in lane in NYC.. it's only recommended but up to rider's discretion.
I showed up to my hearing and the judge dismissed it without me saying a word (after the cop lied about how far he saw me riding of course).
they're of course hoping you don't know the law and don't (or can't) get off from work 6 months later (when you get a hearing date) to challenge it.i wonder how many millions theyve stolen from the public this way.
ok - that's all.
answering from my relatively light knowledge base on geothermal, im inclined to say : absolutely. i don't know enough about geothermal to know if there are deleterious unintended side effects, but conceptually it seems far far more harmonious.
"retired" in the 'borat' sense?
that explains it.
(sorry, couldn't resist).
Please don't beat your wife.
Ok, I'll beat my daughter instead.
No, please don't beat your daughter either.
Ok, I'll beat my wife.
huh??
yes.
http://geology.com/royalty/pro...
it's properly (and technically) called 'exploitation of natural resources'. It isn't sustainable - in terms of environmental impact, massive front-ended depletion rates rates, or the ultimate demand-destruction the high cost of extraction begets. Political and environmental chicanery have obfuscated the first two, with massive monetary stimulus banking on the dollar's reserve status having propped up the latter (among other things of course).
If the ultimate cost of extraction were markedly lower (as it has in decades past) the net energy gains might still be enough to justify. But those days are long gone.
if by 'small risk of environmental damage' you mean 'enormous active environmental damage', then yes - i agree.
given that GM has had to recall more cars in 2014 than they sold globally in 2011,2012, and 2013 combined, it strikes me as almost surreal that they are floating the idea that consumers should 'trust them' in their ability to produce this technology safely and bug-free.
then again, people do have pretty short memories, and are easily distracted by shiny things . either way though, i think this can safely be called either chutzpah, or some kind of weird statement regarding what they think consumer's attention span is.
great sig line
i stopped reading your novella after the first two sentences.. the stupidity made my brain hurt, so i skimmed a little of the rest.
a) tongue-in-cheek humor is still humor. b) you still believe equitable resolution occurs a majority of the time by things going (and making it) to trial? how adorable.
i think there should be a new mod category... +1 Flamebait. this is awesome.