Fracking protesters
Discussion
Largechris said:
ZedLeg said:
Who's saying it's being funded by the russians?
There's plenty of reasons to dislike fracking without jumping to conspiracy theories.
Disliking fracking is like disliking the rain really. Needs must.There's plenty of reasons to dislike fracking without jumping to conspiracy theories.
ZedLeg said:
Largechris said:
ZedLeg said:
Who's saying it's being funded by the russians?
There's plenty of reasons to dislike fracking without jumping to conspiracy theories.
Disliking fracking is like disliking the rain really. Needs must.There's plenty of reasons to dislike fracking without jumping to conspiracy theories.
From what I've found, fracking would only produce around 20% of the gas we would need over the next 30 years. Definitely worth the risks of poisoned ground water and other environmental destruction.
Beside the point anyway, I'm just curious as to the source of the russian op conspiracy
Beside the point anyway, I'm just curious as to the source of the russian op conspiracy
Edited by ZedLeg on Monday 28th February 12:13
ZedLeg said:
From what I've found, fracking would only produce around 20% of the gas we would need over the next 30 years. Definitely worth the risks of poisoned ground water and other environmental destruction.
Beside the point anyway, I'm just curious as to the source of the russian op conspiracy
I'm uninterested in all conspiracy theories without evidence, I'm much more interested in practical engineering solutions to current issues and was hoping you could help out.Beside the point anyway, I'm just curious as to the source of the russian op conspiracy
Edited by ZedLeg on Monday 28th February 12:13
ZedLeg said:
I'm not an engineer so I can't help you, as always being practically educated in a field isn't necessary to have an opinion on a part of it.
Erm, you haven’t really given an opinion though. You’ve just said fracking bad. “As opposed to what” would be another way of phrasing my question I suppose.
My opinion is that fracking is bad because of the risks of pollution and environmental damage.
From a supply point of view I don't really see a volume that works out as 15% to 20% of what we'll need as worth the risk.
With regards to what we should be investing in instead. Energy sources that will sustain us into the future rather than chasing dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. Heating is obviously harder to figure out but we really do have to get away from the idea that whatever the problem, the solution is burning dinosaur bones.
From a supply point of view I don't really see a volume that works out as 15% to 20% of what we'll need as worth the risk.
With regards to what we should be investing in instead. Energy sources that will sustain us into the future rather than chasing dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. Heating is obviously harder to figure out but we really do have to get away from the idea that whatever the problem, the solution is burning dinosaur bones.
ZedLeg said:
Who's saying it's being funded by the russians?
There's plenty of reasons to dislike fracking without jumping to conspiracy theories.
From 2019:There's plenty of reasons to dislike fracking without jumping to conspiracy theories.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/the-p...
NATO said:
Unlike most conspiracy theories about Russian meddling in Western politics, this one is out there in plain sight. The head of Nato, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said the Russians, as part of a sophisticated disinformation operation, “engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations — environmental organisations working against shale gas — to maintain Europe’s dependence on imported Russian gas”.
article said:
The Centre for European Studies found that the Russian government has invested $95 million in NGOs campaigning against shale gas. Russia Today television ran endless anti-fracking stories, including one that “frackers are the moral equivalent of paedophiles”. The US Director of National Intelligence stated that “RT runs anti-fracking programming … reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.”
Not sure if I'd call any of those folks peddlers of conspiracy theories. However it's not a case of being led by profit or any such other nonsense you've posted - it's the realisation that after spending god knows how many years thinking we can power Western Civilisation with wind, solar and unicorn farts, along with some fairly irrational anti-nuclear sentiment, we don't have much left other than gas to keep us warm and keep the lights on. ZedLeg said:
My opinion is that fracking is bad because of the risks of pollution and environmental damage.
From a supply point of view I don't really see a volume that works out as 15% to 20% of what we'll need as worth the risk.
With regards to what we should be investing in instead. Energy sources that will sustain us into the future rather than chasing dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. Heating is obviously harder to figure out but we really do have to get away from the idea that whatever the problem, the solution is burning dinosaur bones.
Although the 15% figure is disputed, with the greatest respect, all you’ve done is highlight the acknowledged problems. You kind of have to choose a solution. Do you like nuclear?From a supply point of view I don't really see a volume that works out as 15% to 20% of what we'll need as worth the risk.
With regards to what we should be investing in instead. Energy sources that will sustain us into the future rather than chasing dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. Heating is obviously harder to figure out but we really do have to get away from the idea that whatever the problem, the solution is burning dinosaur bones.
Largechris said:
ZedLeg said:
My opinion is that fracking is bad because of the risks of pollution and environmental damage.
From a supply point of view I don't really see a volume that works out as 15% to 20% of what we'll need as worth the risk.
With regards to what we should be investing in instead. Energy sources that will sustain us into the future rather than chasing dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. Heating is obviously harder to figure out but we really do have to get away from the idea that whatever the problem, the solution is burning dinosaur bones.
Although the 15% figure is disputed, with the greatest respect, all you’ve done is highlight the acknowledged problems. You kind of have to choose a solution. Do you like nuclear?From a supply point of view I don't really see a volume that works out as 15% to 20% of what we'll need as worth the risk.
With regards to what we should be investing in instead. Energy sources that will sustain us into the future rather than chasing dwindling supplies of fossil fuels. Heating is obviously harder to figure out but we really do have to get away from the idea that whatever the problem, the solution is burning dinosaur bones.
Evanivitch said:
ZedLeg said:
All the companies engaging in fracking are doing altruistically are they?
No more or less altruistic than the overseas gas production businesses.Evanivitch said:
ZedLeg said:
All the companies engaging in fracking are doing altruistically are they?
No more or less altruistic than the overseas gas production businesses.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff