Spills are an issue, just as they are for any activity, like farming as OK noted above. That’s far different than the overblown fearmongering that has gone on.
I'd rather have the occasional emissions system problem than the stinging eyes and sore throat I had when visiting California back in the '60s.
Ah the old “all or nothing” fallacy. I’d sooner have something in the middle: about mid-90’s seemed pretty darn livable, and a LOT less “ticky-tack”-ish.
Realistically, I rather highly doubt changing the 2-party makeup of Congress slightly would lead to the non-existence of the EPA. I rather doubt anybody elected actually wants that–regardless of what certain pols might say when they pander to their constituency.
“overblown fearmongering”
We’re ONLY taking about contaminating the groundwater
ONLY . . . ?!
May I assume you’re in favor of fracking?
Fracking is currently saving the US economy, and that is no exaggeration.
“Fracking is currently saving the US economy . . .”
What criteria are you using to arrive at your statement?
Hypothetical situation . . . fracking saves the US economy, but contaminates the groundwater. It costs billions to fix the problem, if it’s even possible, and it takes years to do so. Is it worth it?
If fracking eventually results in contaminating aquifers over vast expanses of the country, what happens then? Have the fracking investors put up $trillions in assurance bonds that there will be no damage? Can we assume that if the fracking ultimately becomes a disaster the government will be expected to clean up the mess after the investors have taken their cash and run home?
What and who is responsible for the economy needing saving?
“Your body is like a car engine that can never be shut off and most of it’s fuel use is standby (idling) fuel consumption”.
@B.L.E. Idling most of the time explains Triedaq. However, he is consuming quite a bit of fuel (beer and potato chips) while idling and watching the Notre Dame vs. Arizona State football game.
Mrs. Triedaq
“contaminates the groundwater”…all or nothing? Might a spill contaminate a small area? Yes, and there are fines involved and cleanup procedures. Just like if a car or truck wrecks and spill diesel or gasoline. The ‘fearmongering’ I’m talking about is the completely false claims that large amounts of groundwater are being contaminated. There have been tens of thousands of fracs done over the last 50 years. Have there been isolated problems? Sure, just like there are car crashes, industrial accidents, airplane crashes, etc. EVERYTHING we do has risks and costs. Same here.
Fracking has increased US oil production by 60% in the last 10 years, and is behind much of the recent worldwide drop in oil and gasoline prices. We have multiple wars in the middle of the largest oil producing area, yet oil prices are down. That’s due to over 3 MILLION barrels a day of new (and completely unexpected 10 years ago) oil production on the market.
Natural gas prices are HALF what they would normally be, thanks to fracking. We consume about 20 trillion cubic feet a year. If natural gas is $4/1000 cubic feet, and would have bee $8/1000 cubic feet, we are saving $80 BILLION dollars a year, thanks to fracking.
Short term gains apparently trump long term problems, as always
If billions are earned in profits, it’ll probably cots tens of billions to clean up the mess, as always
The fracking industry will pay scientists to interpret data in a way which is favorable to the industry
We’ve seen this before
Sure, fracking is bringing in money, which creates better schools, hospitals, etc. but what if the water and environment is ruined? There will be plenty of people to fill those hospital beds
Well, there’s always bottled water
And nobody cares about the environment, anyways, right?
Someday, this world is going to be like in the movie Soylent Green. Remember the video that Edward G Robinson watched, while he was dying? The video showed deer, and natural landscapes, things that were long gone by then
Cheap gas to fill your Suburban’s tank is more important than anything as meaningless and pathetic as the environment or good groundwater
LOL
Sorry, DB, 99% nonsense there. Profits are dropping as prices DROP (didn’t you notice that?). Are there issues? Sure, but they’re manageable. NO WAY ‘the water and environment is ruined’. It’s not happening, it hasn’t happened. Impacts? Yes. Ruined? Nope.
@texases
“NO WAY 'the water and environment is ruined”. It’s not happening, it hasn’t happened."
That is YOUR opinion
If you want to say it’s a fact, fine
I do NOT believe you
If you want to think I’n an idiot, fine
I’ve done pretty well in life, considering what an idiot I must be
Let me ask you one more question . . . do you believe in global warming?
Please just answer yes or no
While I am skeptical regarding global warming being a real threat there are many environmental issues that are troubling to me and fracking is on the top tier of concerns. Politics and corporate profits are much too short term in their concerns for me.
Fracking is the “least lousy means” of getting energy out of the ground. To the extent a BTU of gas replaces a BTU of strip-mined coal, it’s (on net) a win for the environment.
“There’s no such thing as a free lunch…” (but some lunches are cheaper than others.)
There’s no frackin’ way our nation is going to pass up all that money under the ground. Accept that for how it is. The only open question is how much of a PITA will the powers that be make getting at that gas!
I think there’s global warming occurring. I also know, through experience, that fracking is not ruining the environment. Is it affecting it? Absolutely, just like you or me driving a car or using electricity, or any other activity we do affects it. Like @meanjoe75fan said, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
And I absolutely don’t think @db4690 is an idiot. There have been lots of incorrect claims made about fracking, backed up by very polished movies, etc. There’s no way a non-expert in the field could figure out what’s right. I’ll be happy to discuss the actual vs. false problems, item by item. “Fracking” includes lots of different things.
@texases
Thank you for the reply
NOW we’re drifting away from automotive subject matter…
The questions in my mind are how much of the current global warming is normal and due to things beyond our control and whether the EPA’s current policy focus and direction is going to make any difference whatsoever or is motivated by political aspirations. I don’t know the answer to the first question. I have my doubts that what we’re being fed isn’t produced in the digestive systems of bovine. As regards the second question, I truly believe that while the EPA originally did a great deal of good, their focus now is on growing and becoming more and more powerful. Their quest now is, IMHO purely political. The policies they’re enacting now are not focused on cleaning up environmental disasters, they’re focused on growing and growing and growing some more, on becoming more and more politically powerful, on controlling more and more things to the “nth” degree.
In summary, I believe the EPA has run amok and is currently totally out of control. They’re controlling, impeding, and driving up the cost of everything, including the building of new roads, new buildings, housing, and even the energy supply infrastructure. The overwhelming majority of their actions have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with politics.
Want examples?
Which is environmentally safer, importing oil through pipelines or on trains?
They drove up the cost of a very needed I-93 expansion here in NH by millions and held up the project for years by filing (through the Conservation Law Foundation out of Boston) repeated lawsuits to force NH to build a rail system that nobody wanted and the state can’t afford.
The landscape is littered with examples of how out of control the EPA is.
In fairness, so is the NSA and their bastard-child, the TSA.
Since I mentioned emissions controls as being a “bread and butter” issue for the pros that frequent this board, let me ask them, specifically:
-
Do you think that, in a cynical sort of way, extreme pollution mandates imposed on automobiles are actually BENEFICIAL to your job? (i.e. balance the costs imposed on running your busininess vs. regs manufacturing a lot of hard-to-diagnose issues with vehicles.)
-
Even if you expect to realize a fiscal gain from extra eco regs, are you against them anyways?
I bet a lot of folks would answer “yes” on both counts. I know, from dealing with small-engine repair shops, NONE of them have anything nice to say about the ethanol mandate…even though, from a standpoint of providing customers to the shop, they ought to singing the praises of everyone involved. I think most people are frustrated by inefficiency, even if it indirectly benefits them. Me, too: I hate having to work stupid, especially when told to by those who hire me (plus that, as an independent contractor, you’re supposed to tell me WHAT to do…NOT how to go about doing it!)
@meanjoe75fan
My answer to question #1 is yes, but I’m not cynical about it
I don’t own my shop, so I don’t have any opinions about the costs
Since the typical car owner isn’t capable of diagnosing and repairing their vehicle, that’s where I come in
Even a Nissan Leaf needs periodic repairs and maintenance, I would assume. So even if emissions were taken out of the picture, there would still be things that the car owner wouldn’t be able to do, or wouldn’t want to do
As long as automobiles and trucks are being produced, there will be a need for mechanics
That is not cynical. That is realistic
Hi - I haven’t been in all day, but thank you for bringing this one back to the auto domain.
I feel certain that both sides of all environmental issues are pumped up by political/corporate collusion with acquiring profits and power as the primary objective and an appearance of public good as a cost of doing business.
Several years ago several tons of old tires were burned near my shop and dozens of agents from state and federal organizations were there and several questioned me thinking I had some involvement. They spoke as though there would be some serious consequences for the obvious intentional burning. As it turned out a well connected local business man and former state congressman was responsible. The fire burned out and everyone went home and filed a report that was put in file 13.
If I had been in any way involved with the fire I can only guess what the consequences might have been, though.