Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I am not (much) here any more. (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The diarist is advocating for (3+ / 0-)

    a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in California.

    The likelihood of that happening is fairly low.

    By not making the regulation and stringency of oil and gas industry operations the primary objective, as Governor Hickenlooper (D) has done in Colorado, the diarist is distracting California Democrats from both issues and involvements in regulatory matter for the oil and gas industry that are crucial environmental and public health protection rules.

    If the diarist wants Democrats to address the 'real world,' then a primary focus on oil/gas regulations and not a fracking moratorium is the reality-based approach.

    •  Missing the bigger point regarding this place. (4+ / 0-)

      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

      by the fan man on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 06:35:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  For the record, I enjoy your diaries LS (2+ / 0-)

      even if I don't agree with some of your conclusions. Your experience is helpful to me.

      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

      by the fan man on Mon Mar 10, 2014 at 06:53:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You seem to be making the argument (4+ / 0-)

      that anything gas and oil companies want to do must be allowed, no matter what that is, because banning any of their practices interferes with regulating that practice.

      I don't have a lot of history in participating in this particular subject, so I'm coming to it with a pair of fresh eyes, and trying to understand what the diarist has done and what your objection to it is.  Your argument seems to be that if you ban something you can't regulate it.  

      If I had a list of gas and oil company proposed practices, might I not consider each one and advocate that some be regulated and some not be allowed at all?

      Offshore drilling - regulate

      Transportation of toxic waste materials via clown car through town -  banned

      Installation of pipelines -  regulated

      Fracking -  banned

      I understand some of those are silly examples, but really, would you make the point that we must allow clown cars full of toxins to travel through neighborhoods so that we can regulate them?  That if we ban that practice then we are no longer allowed to regulate anything at all concerning these practices?

      I'm approaching this a a layman, a "lightly educated" voter, and I don't get your argument at all.  Banning certain practices is a form of regulating the overall practices of an industry, and the distinction you make between the two seems very odd to me.

      •  LS is a "pragmatic" environmental lawyer. (0+ / 0-)

        Usually that means his opinion is antagonistic to all or nothing positions, at least how he sees them. There is a good degree of all or nothing policy recs coming from this site which is why I find his take enlightening, even when I disagree with his position.

        Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

        by the fan man on Tue Mar 11, 2014 at 03:22:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site