• 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!

Thanks to Fracking, U.S. on Target for Paris Goals

Jack Hays said:
Think about how silly that comment is. Would you have us cease all oil/gas drilling/pumping operations (non-fracking) to get rid of the other 98-99%?
Click to expand...

What if non fracking only produces seismic impacts a small percentage of the time and only minor impacts, while fracking is very high percentage and major impacts? Fracking is less than .01% of operations and as much as 2% of seismic impacts before severity is considered. If we expand fracking to all feasible locations, it might represent 10% of operations and 80% of seismic impacts with exponential severity in each case.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
What if non fracking only produces seismic impacts a small percentage of the time and only minor impacts, while fracking is very high percentage and major impacts? Fracking is less than .01% of operations and as much as 2% of seismic impacts before severity is considered. If we expand fracking to all feasible locations, it might represent 10% of operations and 80% of seismic impacts with exponential severity in each case.
Click to expand...

Or not.
 
Jack Hays said:
There is no evidence now that it's much of a problem. If there ever is then we can rethink.
Click to expand...

Even if so, your claim that 2% doesn't matter and "what about 98%" is an illegitimate argument. It ignores percent of total operations, frequency of impacts and severity of impacts.
 
ecofarm said:
Even if so, your claim that 2% doesn't matter and "what about 98%" is an illegitimate argument. It ignores percent of total operations, frequency of impacts and severity of impacts.
Click to expand...

No. It's not illegitimate. It's an accurate picture of the current state of knowledge.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. It's not illegitimate. It's an accurate picture of the current state of knowledge.
Click to expand...

What a joke. Your argument regarding the percentage was uninformed and stupid.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not the topic.
Click to expand...
Victim card, really?

Your "it's only 2%, are you going to stop the 98%" argument was dumb. I explained why. Good day.
 
Jack Hays said:
I always hope for reasonable, civil discussion.
Click to expand...

Another joke. I clearly explained why your "what about the other 98%" argument was dumb. It's obvious. Do you accept that? No.
 
ecofarm said:
Another joke. I clearly explained why your "what about the other 98%" argument was dumb. It's obvious. Do you accept that? No.
Click to expand...

I don't think your claim was persuasive, no. It was based on a number of suppositions not in evidence.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't think your claim was persuasive, no. It was based on a number of suppositions not in evidence.
Click to expand...

Percentage of operations is not a supposition. Frequency and severity are legitimate objections to your uninformed blather. But you can't understand that. Not my problem.
 
ecofarm said:
Percentage of operations is not a supposition. Frequency and severity are legitimate objections to your uninformed blather. But you can't understand that. Not my problem.
Click to expand...

Your #28 is a house of cards for which there is no supporting evidence. And I avoid terms like "stupid" and "blather."
 
Jack Hays said:
Your #28 is a house of cards for which there is no supporting evidence. And I avoid terms like "stupid" and "blather."
Click to expand...

You prefer the term "silly". So don't be hypocritical.

If you can't understand the basis of my dismantling of your argument, that's your problem.
 
ecofarm said:
You prefer the term "silly". So don't be hypocritical.

If you can't understand the basis of my dismantling of your argument, that's your problem.
Click to expand...

Applied to a comment, not a poster. That's the difference.
I understand your claim; I don't think you provided any support for it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Applied to a comment, not a poster. That's the difference.
Click to expand...

That's BS. Blather clearly refers to a comment, by definition. And stupid was clearly directed at your argument. You're playing the victim card in desperation. If you're still confused, stop crying and report the post. No one needs your dishonest attempt to play mod.

I understand your claim; I don't think you provided any support for it.
Click to expand...

You made the argument. I explained why it was stupid. What's next, you claim there are as many fracking operations as all other oil operations combined?
 
ecofarm said:
That's BS. Blather clearly refers to a comment, by definition. And stupid was clearly directed at your argument. You're playing the victim card in desperation. If you're still confused, stop crying and report the post. No one needs your dishonest attempt to play mod.



You made the argument. I explained why it was stupid. What's next, you claim there are as many fracking operations as all other oil operations combined?
Click to expand...

I did.

No. You made a claim. A claim that requires support like any other. You did not provide any.
 
Jack Hays said:
Thanks to fracking, the U.S. is well on target to meet the emissions reduction goals of the Paris Accord, even though the Trump administration has abandoned the agreement. Likewise, the Clean Power Plan has been rendered superfluous.


Study: thanks to fracking, we don’t need Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) to meet Paris climate target

From the “thanks to fracking, the biggest driver of lower carbon dioxide emissions has been declining natural gas prices” department. Even without the clean power plan, US can achieve Paris Agreement emissions reductions CMU researchers point out that there are many paths to compliance Carnegie Mellon University researchers have calculated that the U.S. can meet–or…

Continue reading →

". . . Carnegie Mellon University researchers have calculated that the U.S. can meet–or even beat–the near-term carbon dioxide emission reductions required by the United Nations Paris Agreement, despite the Trump Administration’s withdrawal of the Clean Power Plan (CPP).
Published in an Environmental Science & Technology viewpoint, the CMU team used data from U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2017 Annual Energy Outlook to examine projected power sector carbon dioxide emissions to determine if the CPP emission targets for 2020, 2025 and 2030 can still be met. They found that emissions declined from 2.7 billion tons to an estimated 1.9 billion tons and revealed a strong link to natural gas prices as being a driving market force. The decrease puts U.S. emissions reduction at the CPP’s planned 2025 target this year. . . ."

". . . 'Our work shows that the U.S. power sector could meet the Paris Agreement goals even without the Clean Power Plan, and that the path to compliance can be a collection of politically feasible, minimally invasive actions–if we plan ahead and start now,' said David Rode, a recent Ph.D. graduate from the Department of Social and Decision Sciences.
In addition to Anderson and Rode, Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decision sciences and engineering and public policy, and Haibo Zhai, associate research professor of engineering and public policy, worked on this research and article."
Read the viewpoint: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b00407
Click to expand...

We have always been ahead of other nations in methodologies that are practical.
 
ecofarm said:
What if non fracking only produces seismic impacts a small percentage of the time and only minor impacts, while fracking is very high percentage and major impacts? Fracking is less than .01% of operations and as much as 2% of seismic impacts before severity is considered. If we expand fracking to all feasible locations, it might represent 10% of operations and 80% of seismic impacts with exponential severity in each case.
Click to expand...

How utterly none-honest of you.

If you consider the impact of the fire truck driving by then 99% of seismic incidents are the result of fighting fires.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have never supported Trump and do not support him now. Take that nonsense elsewhere. Fact is the natural gas boom was championed on the right and unforeseen on the left. The Clean Power Plan had nothing to do with it and has now been rendered obsolete.
Click to expand...

Didn't say you liked Trump, said you post like a Trump alternate fact spin master. You went from the Cons foresaw the rise of cheaper NG when Facts from back then the Rabid Right, and I see the Heritage Foundation as just that, predicted INCREASE in energy costs! :roll:

Fact is for years the Clean Power Plan sat 'unnoticed' by the right until Obama PUSHED it to the fore and 'suddenly' NG gas took off. The only thing obsolete in this are the century old coal power plants that are now being replaced by far more modern NG power plants.

Take your right wing revisionist nonsense elsewhere, that dog don't hunt... :peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom