Haha :D No it wasn't :P

Huh I didn't even know I have posted that much >.>

So - IT'S AN OMEN! :shock: :war: ;) :xD:

It could be
>.>
<.<

:rolleyes: :D

Back on subject :P

I find this interesting because my environmental professor is neutral, or if anything advocating fracking. Its supposedly a lot better for the environment than this "clean coal". But this video does seem legitimate, I will investigate.

Watch it, it's actually funny at the end because a typical politician gets served.

Oh that is so typical. People will always try to sell you one horrible practive by threatening you with something even more horrible. That way they sell you nuclear power as CO2 free (while it produces waste that is toxic for 1.000.000 years). They sell you the construction of a new road through a national forest as an alternative to cars having to take the longer route and polluting the villages on that route. They sell you the protection of a tiny forest as nature reserve under the threat of cutting down all the forest in the area.
So natural gas is certainly "better" than coal - less CO2, no more mountain top removal and so on. But it is not really a lot better - it is marginally better and even that only if one assumes that fracking can be made safe.

That whole scenario is sarcastic - Cheap and easy coal runs out, so they start mountain top removal and other such atrocities and then they give you a "better" alternative that supposedly is less ****ty as a viable solution?
They deplete the cheap and easy oil and start tar sands mining, destroying landscapes the size of countries - and they offer you biofuels or nuclear power as an alternative?

People always are more likely to subscribe to atrocities if it seems to be in the best interest or if they can prevent worse with it. If someone holds a gun to your head, of course you will give him your wallet - loosing the money in it is a lot "better" than being murdered.

But in the end, we all know that the mountains will still be mined eventually and the tar sand will be dug up eventually - no matter if people start fracking the planet to get natural gas now or not. If the dominant culture is allowed to, they will continue to extract every last coalseam, every last drop of oil and every bubble of natural gas they can get their hands on. And as a definite sign of peak oil theory in action, the complexity and cost and destruction created by the exploitation of "unconventional sources" is exploding in our faces. I am really sick of this! This robbery is not conducted by a sane person who uses force only to drive people to accept the "lesser evil", there is no question that the "bigger evil" will also follow. It is a robbery by a psychopath followed by murder. That's what it is. Did I mention that I am really sick of this!

You sound like you know a lot of what you're talking about. I'm just curious though, for developing my own opinion, where do you get you're information? Because what you're saying is the opposite of my professor who has decades of experience in the entire environmental field. It's hard making opinions on anything anymore. Every side will claim they are correct.

Hi caveman.
You ask where my opinion comes from. It is a combination of a lot of things that shape my world view. I do not have decades of experience, but I have a MSc in geosciences (with a major in economic geology) and am continuing an academic career in earth system sciences. I do read a couple of scientific journals and also more "popular science" feats like "Science Daily". I listen to online talks and interviews with people in the field (TED talks, radio interviews) for additional, more passionate opinions. I also occasionally join in on guest lectures in the Uni about earth sciences - like that one time when this representative of Shell tried to sell us a new way of mining sticky oil by actually drilling down, either laying electrical or water heating pipes under the deposit, heating some cubic acres of rock so the oil becomes liquid and then pump it. Of course one then can have an opinion about it - he was enthusiastic about the ability of his company to mine more oil and increase production, my opinion was "what a waste of heat energy just to get some more of the stuff that is causing global warming.

I have to admit, that I also take in a bit of "propaganda" by watching environmental documentaries and TV news shows like "Democracy Now!".

The rest is mostly my own conclusions from all of these and a review of what people have said 20 years ago in relation to what has happened, giving more credibility to the directions of thought that turned out to be on track, like predictions on global warming, the predicted development of China and the economy.

Yes, I am probably biased - but I doubt anyone including your EnvSci Prof is not. But I try to back up my statements as good as I can. Admittedly in science, you can almost always find someone with an opinion (and data to back it up) opposite or supporting yours :D

So what statements are the ones, you think do contradict the statements of your Prof?
That as long as there is coal and oil that is economically viable to be mined, people will continue to do so? That if one of them becomes ineconomic, they will change to a different resource that still is viable?
The only way for coal and oil mining to stop is actually (within this socioeconomic system) if it is not anymore economic viable. This can be caused by a replacement of cheaper and widely available alternatives. This does not have to mean that they are cheaper to begin with, but subsidies or punishment taxes can change the economy there. In Germany for example, solar power is subsidised, so many solar panels are installed because for the owner it is economic to do so compared to using oil. Nuclear power here is getting expensive, as subsidies are threatened to be cut, there is talk about a tax on Uranium and protesters along the transport lines of the waste products cause the transport costs to increase. Consequently if there would be taxes high enough to make mountain top removal or tar sands mining more expensive than setting up wind farms, the mining would likely be slowed down considerably. But the string attached to it is of course that to shift economics in that way causes money and as such productivity. It costs many millions for Germany to subsidise Solar Energy and Canada/USA can probably not dismiss the attraction of having their own compareable cheap power supply in face of economic instability.

So should I put in more links to back up my statements? With some effort, I could do so probably for a lot of them, but not for all of them, especially the ones on economics are more based on observation and more "popular" sources than the ones on natural sciences, for which I can probably often find papers and articles. And when it comes to social issues, I actually tend to be highly opinionized and drift more into the sphere of philosophy and hard science ;) - like stating that humans are more happy in one situation compared to another - I can back this up only with sparse evidence.

Thank you for the kindly response. I wasn't suggesting you need links to earn credibility. You obviously have a lot of knowledge here. It's just hard forming opinions when I'm receiving opposite sides of the story. I entered thinking fracking was an improvement, and now I'm re-adjusting my opinions as I gather more information.

Oh sure - for every topic there are differing opinions. And I do not mind at all if you post them ;)

Fracking is of course an improvement in one specific way: It improves the availability of natural gas as a resource. It has economically huge benefits - it is relatively cheap, it is available locally in the countries that otherwise have little gas or oil left, it creates jobs, money, income, GDP, independence from forein resource imports. It can even temporarily offset the CO2 emissions if it is used to actually replace other sources of energy that produce more CO2.
For the environment and for people in the long run it is not helping though. It still produces CO2, it cannot replace all other fossil fuels, and the process itself is highly questionable (actually the EPA wants to stop it for now). In the end it could even make some things worse, as it would keep the price for fossil fuels at a low range for longer, eliminating the incentive of the public to move away from fossil fuels. Worst case - it makes gas cheaper, which predictably results in even larger consumption. And that cannot be dealt with locally either. If the US imports less gas as they tap into the shales, the global market will have too much gas for sale, this leads to a drop in price globally and some countries will take the chance and use it, even if the US does not increase consumption.

Again, I am biased, but I think (hydro-)carbon mining has to be stopped. And it has to be stopped soon. If people will create some alternatives that are less harmful by then, fine, if not then not, but it cannot be allowed to continue. And that goes for all of them: deep sea drilling, mountain top removal, hydrofracking, tar sands mining, brown coal mining, even looking at the crazy temptation of methane hydrates at the ocean floor. If they start with these, I would call Mr Lovelock with his doomsday prophecies an optimist by the way.

*sigh* Corporate-fascism at it's finest. Damn Homeland Security oinkers. They're not interested in protecting the safety of anything other than the profit margins of the corporations they ***** themselves out to, even if they have to trample everyone else's freedoms, as well as the truth, to do it.

Actor Mark Ruffalo Lands on Terror List for Screening Film Against Fracking | AlterNet

You beat me to it, Tsyal. Here is another link:
Zodiac actor placed on terror list for opposing oil drilling method | Raw Story

And the next movie on the list is already waiting:
So what - it is now already eco-terrorism to just show a movie??? WTF!