Skip to main content

View Diary: Fracking New York State - the Inside Game (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ive been a New York resident (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax, milkbone, charliehall2

    all my life. In one way shape or form.

    Damaging our water supply would be a tragedy on a epic scale. That is why Fracking needs to be properly regulated.

    If you are 100% standing on any side this argument....You are NOT helping

    If you are against fracking on any condition. You are going to loose and by failing to negotiate and be part of the discussion you are failing to put your support behind a good and proper set of regulations.

    If you 100% against regulation......I do not even think I need to finish this because I have never met anyone who is 100% against it. But ya giving the Oil companies a free card to do whatever they want till end up costing us big time.

    Fracking just like any other source of energy

    Coal mining is not safe without regulation
    Nuclear power is not safe without regulation
    tidal power is not safe without regulation

     The fact that one of his aids has a financial investment that would benefit from fracking legalization is neither surprising nor important.

    People who are influential tend to have money. People who have money tend to have investments. And seriously are you going to expect every last one of them to not have invested in ANY energy/oil company? Thats just stupid.

    Ps NY was not devastated by the hurricane.  The hurricane did around 50 billion in damage. NY's GDP is a around a trillion.  If NY took half that damage that's about a weeks worth of GDP. Significant yes. Devastated No.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    •  If the companies could guarantee (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, Rob Dapore, betson08

      that one out of a hundred wells weren't faulty, regulation would be OK, but a 1% chance of leakage looks OK as a tradeoff. However, if you have 2000 wells, then what? Sorry, I'd rather live next to a nuclear reactor.

      "We are monkeys with money and guns". Tom Waits

      by northsylvania on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 12:33:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, about that... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeminNewJ, northsylvania, sfbob

      It's not surprising that wealthy people have all kinds of investments. The problem is when those investments are not fully disclosed or acknowledged. Schwartz is the point man on making fracking happen. The phrase you've overlooked has to do with foxes and henhouses.

      And your point about 50 billion in damage being trivial in comparison to the size of the NY economy? Cuomo has already acknowledged that this should not be treated as a one time event. It's not just the cost of cleaning up - it's the cost of preparing for the ones to follow.

      And the people still sitting in cold, damaged homes would take issue with your dismissal of their devastation.

      "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

      by xaxnar on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 04:01:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  GDP around a trillion, real property $800 billion (0+ / 0-)

      NYC is resilient. But we need the natural gas to fund our needs for electricity.

      And don't suggest using less. It is because we use things like (electrically powered) subways and (electrically powered) commuter railroads that we are more energy efficient than most cities.

      Oh, we could go back to coal. Which is FAR worse than fracking in every respect.

      •  No argument about coal, but... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gentle Giant, sfbob, PinHole

        Natural gas isn't our only alternative, nor is it as clean as you think. Aside from the water supply issues, Methane is a worse green house gas than CO2, and fracking is releasing worrisome amounts. We have plenty of wind power to tap yet, both upstate and offshore. Solar can't be ignored either. And don't dismiss using less power - the smartest way to do that is to use it more efficiently. Just upgrading the grid in NYS would be a good start. As you point at the size of the NY economy, the idea we can't afford it is ridiculous.

        "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

        by xaxnar on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 09:56:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  OK, 0112358, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob, PinHole

      regulate the flow of toxic chemicals under the ground. Regulate where it can and can't flow, seep or spread.

      If you are NOT 100% on the side dead set against fracking and you like to have potable water to drink, you are part of the problem.

      There is no compromise on polluting our water table. None. How much toxic substance in your child's kool-aid is acceptable?

      Don't tell me. Tell your children.

      I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

      by Gentle Giant on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 12:34:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do not know the numbers but the EPA does (0+ / 0-)

        http://water.epa.gov/...

        There. Now you know whats safe. If we can safely meet and guarantee those standards it would be stupid to stand in the way.

        AND BTW every water table on this planet has toxic chemicals in them to varying concentrations. :)

        Did you know that if you have pets they are exposing you to a non trivial amount of radiation. Radiation which can cause cancer? Did you know that if you ever hug someone you get a little more of this harmful radiation?

        Guess what. We still do those things. Including hugging children. I get some risk is acceptable. The trick it to not be a dumbass and make realistic trade-offs.

        I have no idea what the regulations should or should not be. What % of toxic chemicals is ok etc.  But the fact is that neither do you. The difference between us is I like to have facts before making trillion dollar decisions.

        Have fun with your senseless hyperbole.

      •  You said: (0+ / 0-)
        If you are NOT 100% on the side dead set against fracking and you like to have potable water to drink, you are part of the problem.
        When I see someone say something like that I think it needs to be noted that this is an extreme kind sentiment you're expressing.....In reading it I'm reminded of people who shove a bible in your face and demand that you submit to "God's word" or what Goldwater said about extremism in the defense of liberty (etc)....and other examples come to mind.

        What you are not doing is engaging in the language of the relevant sciences to address oil and gas exploration and production, how to control/regulate it, how to monitor and enforce, etc.

    •  You can't uncontaminate an aquifer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xaxnar, PinHole

      This is why we are adamantly opposed and will continue to be so. There are now so many thousands of antifracking activists that they have to sit up and take notice

      Helping a food pantry on the Cheyenne River Reservation,Okiciyap." >www.okiciyap.yolasite.com<"

      by betson08 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 04:28:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (140)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (40)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Spam (19)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site