Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    ca.general    |    California general chatter    |    8,950 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 7,394 of 8,950    |
|    NaBizCo to All    |
|    Re: Trading water for fuel is fracking c    |
|    22 Feb 14 19:06:51    |
      XPost: us.politics, ca.politics, dc.politics       XPost: co.politics       From: in@val.id              On 2/22/2014 2:39 PM, ConɀƦConɀ wrote:       > Trading water for fuel is fracking crazy              Depends on WHOSE water...              > It would be difficult to live without oil and gas.              It would be a LOT more than just "difficult", especially north of 60.              > But it would be       > impossible to live without water.              Is Canuckistan running out of water?              > Yet, in our mad rush to extract and       > sell every drop of gas and oil as quickly as possible, we’re trading       > precious water for fossil fuels.              Depends on WHOSE water...              > A recent report, “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress”, shows the       > severity of the problem. Alberta and B.C. are among eight North American       > regions examined in the study by Ceres, a U.S.-based nonprofit       > advocating for sustainability leadership.              Wot, you hoseheads can't even get your own left-wing non-profits to       (wait for it) carry your water?              LOL!              > One of the most disturbing findings is that hydraulic fracturing, or       > fracking, is using enormous amounts of water in areas that can scarcely       > afford it. The report notes that close to half the oil and gas wells       > recently fracked in the U.S. “are in regions with high or extremely high       > water stress” and more than 55 per cent are in areas experiencing       > drought.              Bummer.              Ever consider those water rights were BOUGHT from farmers and ranchers       who now have a new cash crop?              > In Colorado and California, almost all wells – 97 and 96 per       > cent, respectively – are in regions with high or extremely high water       > stress, meaning more than 80 per cent of available surface and       > groundwater has already been allocated for municipalities, industry and       > agriculture.              DUMB FUCK!              Those wells are on agricultural land using existing landowners'       agricultural water rights - sheesh!              Wake the fuck up, fool!              > A quarter of Alberta wells are in areas with medium to high       > water stress.              Well maybe you can pipe some down from the Great Slave Lake, you morons.              > Drought and fracking have already caused some small communities in Texas       > to run out of water altogether,              Good thing they were "small communities" then, eh?              > and parts of California are headed for       > the same fate.              Blah, blah, blah, tend to your own nation's affairs you witless Canuck       troll.              > As we continue to extract andburn ever greater amounts       > of oil, gas and coal, climate change is getting worse, which will likely       > lead to more droughts in some areas and flooding in others.              So a new balance, yeah, feast or famine, but likely both.              > California’s       > drought may be the worst in 500 years, according to B. Lynn Ingram, an       > earth and planetary sciences professor at the University of California,       > Berkeley.              Yeah, so?              What's it to ya, Canuck?              > That’s causing a shortage of water for drinking and       > agriculture, and for salmon and other fish that spawn in streams and       > rivers. With no rain to scrub the air, pollution in the Los Angeles area       > has returned to dangerous levels of decades past.              Lions and tigers and...oh my!!!              > Because of lack of information from industry and inconsistencies in       > water volume reporting, Ceres’ Western Canada data analysis “represents       > a very small proportion of the overall activity taking place.”       > Researchers determined, though, that Alberta fracking operations have       > started using more “brackish/saline” groundwater instead of freshwater.              Oh?              You mean they adapted.              > The report cautions that this practice needs more study “given the       > potential for brackish water to be used in the future for drinking       > water” and the fact that withdrawing salty groundwater “can also       > adversely impact interconnected freshwater resources.”              Wow, full Chicken Little mode, eh?              > Although B.C. fracking operations are now mainly in low water stress       > regions, reduced precipitation and snowpack, low river levels and even       > drought conditions in some areas – likely because of climate change –       > raise concerns about the government’s plan to rapidly expand the       > industry. The report cites a “lack of regulation around groundwater       > withdrawals” and cumulative impacts on First Nations lands as issues       > with current fracking.              Why is any of this Canuck rant in a US newsgroup, troll?              > Ceres’ study only looks at fracking impacts on freshwater supplies, and       > offers recommendations to reduce those, including recycling water, using       > brackish or wastewater, strengthening regulations and finding better       > ways to dispose of fracking wastewater. But the drilling method comes       > with other environmental problems, from groundwater contamination to       > massive ecosystem and habitat disruption – even small earth tremors –       > all done in the name of short-term gain.              I love it when the earth has tremors, feels like giant Magic Fingers!              > It’s important to heed the conclusions and recommendations of this study       > and others, but given the problems with fracking, and other forms of       > extraction, we must find ways to control our insatiable fossil fuel       > demand. That burning these – often wastefully – contributes to climate       > change, and our methods of extraction exacerbate the problems, should       > make us take a good look at how we’re treating this planet and       > everything on it, including ourselves and generations to come. It’s a       > reminder that we need to conserve energy in every way possible.              I bet you hosers won't drop your thermostats to 58 deg. F in the winter,       will ya?              > In the short term, we must realize that we have better ways to create       > jobs and build the economy than holding an “everything must go” sale on       > our precious resources.              Like that infamously buggy Canuckian software and CrackBerry industry, lol?              > In the longer term, we must rethink our outdated       > economic systems, which were devised for times when resources were       > plentiful and infrastructure was scarce. Our highest priorities must be       > the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil that provides food and       > the biodiversity that keeps us alive and healthy.       >       > By David Suzuki              As rhetorically over the top as ever, wotta nutbar!              --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca