Fracking Propaganda

[Sight Unseen]

Just saw this in a youtube ad while watching "North Korean Nuclear Propaganda".
The Truth About Gasland - America's Natural Gas Alliance

Do you ever watch stuff like this and wonder if the creators actually believe their own bullsh*t? I see a number of problems with this:
1. Every "fact" they present was collected with some kind of funding from the gas industry.
2. Natural gas is still fossil fuel: I don't care how many times they say it's f*cking clean, hydrocarbons produce CO2
3. Um... what?: It's propaganda, funded by the gas industry, and presenting false and/or skewed data with a poker face, with a .us domain no less. Also, youtube comments require approval, and ratings are disabled. They wouldn't have anything to fear if they were telling the truth.

Some interesting quotes:

Originally Posted by anga.us

Contrary to the film's misleading claims, natural gas production is subject to federal, state and local regulations that cover everything from initial permits to well construction to water disposal.

Yes, it is subject to federal regulation, which was clearly stated in the film. The regulations are there, but have been so watered down there basically are no regulations anymore.

Originally Posted by anga.us


In rare cases where incidents occur, companies work with the appropriate regulatory authority to promptly identify and correct the issue, and implement measures to ensure it does not recur.

The natural gas community is committed to the safe and responsible development of this abundant resource, and we firmly believe that no community should have to choose between its economic and environmental interests.

Riiiiigggghhht. And I'm Linus Torvalds.

Originally Posted by anga.us


The process of hydraulic fracturing has been routinely and safely used in communities throughout the nation for decades-bringing economic prosperity to local communities and significant environmental benefits.

Originally Posted by anga.us


The process of hydraulic fracturing [...] significant environmental benefits.

Umm... I'm no expert, but any time you pump any chemicals into the ground with names you can't pronounce it's a bad thing.

Originally Posted by anga.us


We appreciate the opportunity to share this information with interested stakeholders...

Of course it's for the stakeholders.

*shakes head disapprovingly* Okay I'm done ranting.

[Human No More]

At least they're wasting money , although I'm sure there are a few people who might believe that, they aren't likely to be that intelligent, and probably would support it anyway... The fact that films like Gasland are so well known, while they have to resort to buying advertising shows something, I think

[Isard]

CO2 isn't the issue, YOU emit CO2 ever few seconds. Multiply that by the billions of creatures on earth now... The issue with fossil fuels is the heavy metals they also release into the atmosphere, mercury and all that. THAT's what makes a fossil fuel "dirty". Not CO2.



Also, you just out and out said "You're lying" twice as an argument. That doesn't work.

[Carborundum]

Originally Posted by Isard

CO2 isn't the issue, YOU emit CO2 ever few seconds. Multiply that by the billions of creatures on earth now... The issue with fossil fuels is the heavy metals they also release into the atmosphere, mercury and all that. THAT's what makes a fossil fuel "dirty". Not CO2.



Also, you just out and out said "You're lying" twice as an argument. That doesn't work.

CO2 could be an issue. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by approx. 30% since 1960.

Whether or not this increase is due to human activities is uncertain, as is whether or not the increase is actually problematic. But the fact that CO2 levels are increasing is not disputed.

There is a strong correlation between increased CO2 emissions and the increased atmospheric levels, but no proven causation so far.

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Isard

The issue with fossil fuels is the heavy metals they also release into the atmosphere, mercury and all that. THAT's what makes a fossil fuel "dirty". Not CO2.

CO2 from a fossil fuel is not any more dirty than the CO2 from human breathe, you are right. But CO2 from fossil fuels is still bad, because it's "overproduction" => pollution. When you burn a tree it takes only relatively short time for the tree to grow back, but when you burn oil it takes ages to get that CO2 back from the atmosphere.

Please note that I am not trying to make CO2 look any worse than the heavy metals. I think that CO2 has a way too big role in the whole pollution problem.

[Tsyal Makto]

Anyone who still believes hydraulic fracking is safe after watching Gasland is either a:

1. Complete moron.

2. Teabagger.

And they usually aren't mutually exclusive.

[auroraglacialis]

LOOOL - Humans breathe out CO2, so it cannot be the problem. I am LMAO! Nice try to shift attention away from CO2 to the heavy metals (that of course are a huge problem, but one that can be dealt with by a number of means, so then you can claim that one just has to do these and all is blimey)
Oops - I promised to myself to not reply to Isard more than twice a week for personal sanity - So no more comment on that.

But yes - propaganda stinks and sadly the media is full of it, especially the media that are paid by the people who profit from such things. I hate it is companies retreat on "we are following all governmental regulations, everything is fine". It is not hard to follow regulations, the own experts and employees created by being "advisors" to the government. To make the point, imagine, I would be such an advisor and given the same credibility - do you think they would manage to make a single well after the regulations I invented come into effect - it is highly questionable to let the people who profit make the laws that regulate themselves. That is like letting the dog guard the sausage.

[Isard]

And you're trying to divert attention from the fact that CO2 is clean, whereas heavy metals are not. That is why they can say that burning natural gas is clean, it doesn't release toxins into the atmosphere. If you wish to debate that, do it, don't shift around just to attack my credibility.

[Human No More]

'Cleaner than coal' != clean.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Human No More

'Cleaner than coal' != clean.

Coal burning with filters is "cleaner".

Natural gas is clean.

[Sight Unseen]

Hmm.. I guess I didn't actually say what I wanted to in the first place, I was furiously pecking away at the keyboard after watching that video. Isard is correct. Methane is clean, however too much CO2 is bad. I guess what I meant was "Methane, clean or not, still produces a harmful excess of greenhouse gases."

Also, this thread wasn't intended to be a debate thread with exacting language, I was just ranting about the gas companies' propaganda.

Tea Party? meh. Political Parties in general? meh. George Washington warned us about forming parties, but did anyone listen? No. Now we're stuck choosing the lesser of two evils year after year on election day.

[Human No More]

Woodsprite, Aihwa and Tsyal Makto - if you want to argue politics, do it between yourselves, don't just hijack every single thread that more than one of you post in into an argument. I don't care about your political tourettes. If you want to make a thread on this 'tea party', make one.

[Woodsprite]

^Thank you.

[Tsyal Makto]

Extracting it sure as hell isn't.

[Human No More]

Natural gas is cleaner than coal, at least when used (less particulates produced, and it is better for complete combustion) - but that doesn't make it clean. It's debatable which is worse overall when extraction is included though.