• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vermont first state to ban fracking

TheDemSocialist said:
Maybe should invest in green jobs not this ****.
Click to expand...

Ah...

images


Green Unicorns will save us.


Einstein%2BInsanity.gif
 
TurtleDude said:
as a college kid I ran into nutcase Lyndon LaRouche. He was perhaps the most vicious hater of the environmental whacks of any person I had met. I did some research-hard core laborites like him saw rich preppy/yuppy environmentalists as impeding jobs for the working class. Sort of like the rich kennedys whining about alternative energy (windmills) screwing up their ocean view at Hyannisport
Click to expand...

Ok cool story. So im guessing the people that ran these studies are "yuppies nut jobs" right?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Zero. Let me guess your a drilling genius so therefor you know the all the chemicals involved, where those chemicals go afterwards, how it affects the communities, etc.
Right?
But i have enough common since to look into research done on the subject.
Click to expand...

Am I a drilling genius? Of course not. There's no such thing as a, "drilling genius". My father drilled oil wells for 50 years and he learned new **** until the day he died.

Do I have enough common sense and experience to know that water doesn't flow up hill? You bet your butt I do.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Ok cool story. So im guessing the people that ran these studies are "yuppies nut jobs" right?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think they're a buncha tree huggers that are taking half-assed information and passing it off as fact.
 
apdst said:
There were, "scholars", in the 13th Century that assured everyone that the Earth was flat, too.
Click to expand...


You really should have paid attention in history class. It would have kept you from making such a fool of yourself.


There is even a Wiki page - The Myth of the Flat Earth
During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was dead.
Click to expand...

Basically you are showing the tendency so prevalent amongst the modern American right of denigrating science while knowing next to nothing about complex subjects. Thank you for playing.
 
Somerville said:
You really should have paid attention in history class. It would have kept you from making such a fool of yourself.


There is even a Wiki page - The Myth of the Flat Earth


Basically you are showing the tendency so prevalent amongst the modern American right of denigrating science while knowing next to nothing about complex subjects. Thank you for playing.
Click to expand...

wiki.jpg

And that is...yah...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Vermont is a state moving in the right direction. Banning this harmful practice that threatens people livelihood is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

It's a mixed success here (seriously messing up our local rural way of life), but you can bet your ass we are loving the hell out of its macro economic benefits. Sorry bub.

They are using it as justification to remove the property tax. A bad idea, because we'll probably just get the taxes somewhere else where it will hurt, but everything revolves around this boom of ours.
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
You really should have paid attention in history class. It would have kept you from making such a fool of yourself.


There is even a Wiki page - The Myth of the Flat Earth


Basically you are showing the tendency so prevalent amongst the modern American right of denigrating science while knowing next to nothing about complex subjects. Thank you for playing.
Click to expand...

Gee whiz! I guess that's why Columbus had such an easy time getting funding for his trip to the New World...oh wait!
 
apdst said:
Gee whiz! I guess that's why Columbus had such an easy time getting funding for his trip to the New World...oh wait!
Click to expand...

Actually you're wrong on this one buddy. They're relying on unproven science and to distract you from that have gotten you on some petty trivia.

Let's get back to the issue.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Jobs at the cost of bystanders lives? No thank you.. Maybe should invest in green jobs not this ****.
Click to expand...

Bystanders lives at 14,000 feet deep? Care to give me a population table of our underground brethren?
 
dabateman said:
Actually you're wrong on this one buddy. They're relying on unproven science and to distract you from that have gotten you on some petty trivia.

Let's get back to the issue.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic.
 
apdst said:
Gee whiz! I guess that's why Columbus had such an easy time getting funding for his trip to the New World...oh wait!
Click to expand...

Nicely done. Yet another proof posted on the internets of your lack of knowledge of history.


Columbus had problems getting the funding because the monarchs he approached had other interests - you know, like defence of their kingdoms.

Then there was the whole - "we're already trading with the Far East by traveling to the East, why take a chance on crossing an ocean for thousands of miles."

Oh yeah - they didn't know there was a "New World" in between Europe and China, in fact Columbus insisted he had reached Chinese territories when he first returned to Spain.


Interesting way to be "sarcastic"
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I was being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

That's not how it was coming across. Sorry. Perhaps some sarcastic emoticon would have clued me in. :)
 
dabateman said:
That's not how it was coming across. Sorry. Perhaps some sarcastic emoticon would have clued me in. :)
Click to expand...

You just don't know me well enough. :)

You'll get used to me.
 
I'll leave the pros and cons of fracking to others who may or may not know more about it than I do...but here is a bit of information about Vermont that is interesting...even if it is from 2009:

Resources and Consumption

Vermont has no fossil fuel resources but does have minor renewable energy potential. The Connecticut River, which defines the State’s eastern border with New Hampshire, and Lake Champlain, along the western border with New York, offer hydroelectric power resources. Vermont’s hills and mountains cover most of the State and offer wind power potential, while dense forests in the State's northeast offer biomass resources for home heating and wood-fired electricity generation. Vermont’s total energy consumption is the lowest in the Nation, and per capita energy consumption is among the lowest. The transportation and residential sectors are the State’s leading energy consumers.
Click to expand...

Petroleum

Vermont ranks last among the 50 States in petroleum product demand and receives supply from neighboring States and Canada. Because it has no air quality non-attainment areas, Vermont allows the statewide use of conventional motor gasoline. (Most States require the use of special fuel blends in non-attainment areas.)
Click to expand...

Natural Gas

With the exception of Hawaii, Vermont has the lowest natural gas consumption in the United States. Supply is imported primarily for residential use through a small-capacity pipeline from Canada.
Click to expand...

Coal, Electricity, and Renewables

Vermont is one of only two States in the Nation with no coal-fired power plants; the other is Rhode Island. Vermont generates a higher percentage of its electricity from nuclear power than any other State. The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant typically accounts for about three-fourths of total electricity generation.
Click to expand...

Vermont - Ap - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


So...in my opinion this is much to do about nothing.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
CNN) -- Vermont's governor has signed a bill making it the first U.S. state to ban fracking, the controversial practice to extract natural gas from the ground.
Vermont first state to ban fracking - CNN.com


I wish there was a way to have these not in my back yard states pay more for affordable energy that is produced in other states that are willing to do what needs to be done. They are like leeches on America, perfectly willing to get reduced prices on fuel from other states like North Dakota but not willing to do their share for our country. Hey Vermont, Kiss My Ass!
Click to expand...

I think I've watched too much Battlestar Galactica.
 
It's not a new technology, but the scale of its use is certainly a major change. I would say that its safety is an open question.

dabateman said:
It's actually not a new procedure. It started in the 40's. The current technique has been used since the 90's. There has been extensive testing. Dallas hasn't sunk into the earth yet. (see Barnett Shale)
Click to expand...

The U.S. Geological Survey is set to release its findings Wednesday that a "remarkable" increase of quakes in the U.S. midcontinent since 2001 is "almost certainly" the result of oil and gas production. However, the lead author of the report, Bill Ellsworth, emphasized in an interview with the U.S. televison network CNBC that the earthquakes aren't caused by the fracking process itself that is used to extract the gas. Rather, earthquakes have been linked to the injection of wastewater produced during fracking back into the ground in order to dispose of it.

U.K. experts, meanwhile, point to a study released Monday that found recent earthquakes in northwest England were caused by fluid injection into a nearby fault zone as evidence fracking can be safe when conducted by responsible operators.
Click to expand...

OTOH....

President Obama's Interior Department (DOI) today contradicted media reports on a government study that supposedly tied natural gas drilling and fracking to a rise in earthquakes.

"There is no evidence to suggest that hydraulic fracturing itself is the cause of the increased rate of earthquakes," Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Hayes wrote today. Hayes does believe that a rise in minor earthquakes is "man-made," but added that "it remains to be determined if they are related to either changes in production methodologies or to the rate of oil and gas production."


Read more: DOI: 'No evidence' fracking causes earthquakes | NewsOK.com
Click to expand...
 
Mycroft said:
I'll leave the pros and cons of fracking to others who may or may not know more about it than I do...but here is a bit of information about Vermont that is interesting...even if it is from 2009:








Vermont - Ap - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)


So...in my opinion this is much to do about nothing.
Click to expand...

Their low energy consumption is due to low population but you have some interesting stats on their energy reserves. Apparently their ban on fracking is a political stunt that will have no real consequence. I still think though that any state that refuses to help in getting the US off Arab fuel dependence with an anti energy production policy such as Calif refusing to drill off shore or Vermont making an anti fracking statement should be charged a NIMBY tax at the pump. Ten cents a gallon maybe that would be distributed to states that are willing to step up and help with our energy situation.
 
apdst said:
Am I a drilling genius? Of course not. There's no such thing as a, "drilling genius". My father drilled oil wells for 50 years and he learned new **** until the day he died.

Do I have enough common sense and experience to know that water doesn't flow up hill? You bet your butt I do.
Click to expand...

Why don't you try this experiment, Pasteur: find a hole, drop a hose down into it, turn on the spigot, and see if water doesn't come up out of the hole. Please report your results.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
CNN) -- Vermont's governor has signed a bill making it the first U.S. state to ban fracking, the controversial practice to extract natural gas from the ground.
Vermont first state to ban fracking - CNN.com


I wish there was a way to have these not in my back yard states pay more for affordable energy that is produced in other states that are willing to do what needs to be done. They are like leeches on America, perfectly willing to get reduced prices on fuel from other states like North Dakota but not willing to do their share for our country. Hey Vermont, Kiss My Ass!
Click to expand...

With all the fears of that stuff leaking and contaminating the land and ground water I really don't blame Vermont. Its not like you can send someone down there to clean it up if it does contaminate the area underground.
 
jamesrage said:
With all the fears of that stuff leaking and contaminating the land and ground water I really don't blame Vermont. Its not like you can send someone down there to clean it up if it does contaminate the area underground.
Click to expand...

What about the Mole Men?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Their low energy consumption is due to low population but you have some interesting stats on their energy reserves. Apparently their ban on fracking is a political stunt that will have no real consequence. I still think though that any state that refuses to help in getting the US off Arab fuel dependence with an anti energy production policy such as Calif refusing to drill off shore or Vermont making an anti fracking statement should be charged a NIMBY tax at the pump. Ten cents a gallon maybe that would be distributed to states that are willing to step up and help with our energy situation.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment that this fracking thing is a stunt, but to be fair to Vermont, I disagree with the rest of your post. They seem to have taken steps to get off of fossil fuels as much as they can...not by producing something they don't have, but by obtaining their energy from other sources. Nuclear energy mainly.

I've never been one to support punitive measures against a State just because I don't like their choices.
 
Yep, it's amazing how quickly that whole "states' rights" thing goes by the wayside when it's a state doing something conservatives don't like.
 
AdamT said:
Yep, it's amazing how quickly that whole "states' rights" thing goes by the wayside when it's a state doing something conservatives don't like.
Click to expand...

If that doesn't go both ways, then I don't know what does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom