AOC Rules!

[rufus]

I have to disagree with AOC on one point here (ducks lightening bolt). You can grow production of natural gas, a fossil fuel, IF its taking the place of dirtier forms of energy (coal, oil) and still benefit the environment. Yes we should eventually move on from that as well, but if you could say increase production to switch trucks and busses from petroleum based fuel to compressed natural gas for example, you'd do the environment a lot of good.

Except for all the fracking you do to get that gas.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: AOC Rules!

So, basically using the Star Trek teleportation machine?

Settle down Fox and Friends.

If it’s violating federal regulations, then the feds should pursue injunctions or file suits after the fact.

Right but Trump is in office and had a super majority early on in the DAPL process so.....

 

[Rover]

Re: AOC Rules!

Except for all the fracking you do to get that gas.

I'd prefer that to mining coal or to running trucks on diesel or cars on gas anymore. Life's full of tradeoffs and this is one I'd make until clean energy can keep making up more and more of the energy supply.

 

[rufus]

I'd prefer that to mining coal or to running trucks on diesel or cars on gas anymore. Life's full of tradeoffs and this is one I'd make until clean energy can keep making up more and more of the energy supply.

Sure. You don't live where the groundwater is contaminated, or they have constant earthquakes as a result of it.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: AOC Rules!

So, basically using the Star Trek teleportation machine?.

Funny, those exact words came to my head too. When’s the last time we agreed on something haha.

I also agree with the rest of your post. I’m ok with imposing new and harsher regulations but we also need to enforce our existing regulations. But we should also go after these companies much more aggressively.

 

[Rover]

Re: AOC Rules!

Sure. You don't live where the groundwater is contaminated, or they have constant earthquakes as a result of it.

That's not my problem rufus and I say that with all seriousness. If Texans are okay with their state being fracked for natural gas I'm not going to tell them differently.

 

[rufus]

That's not my problem rufus and I say that with all seriousness. If Texans are okay with their state being fracked for natural gas I'm not going to tell them differently.

Yeah, we know. Perfect little Republican stance. Not my problem unless it affects me personally.

 

[Rover]

Re: AOC Rules!

Yeah, we know. Perfect little Republican stance. Not my problem unless it affects me personally.

No, more like I'm sick of looking out for people who aren't looking out for themselves. Knucks in Texas, Oklahoma, etc have made a decision. They'll put up with earthquakes and questionable drinking water in exchange for the jobs and tax revenue that fracking brings. Massachusetts and New York for example have made the opposite decision, banning fracking as not being worth the cost. So be it. Mass has decided to get a good deal of energy from Quebec hydro which Texans for example could look at as lining the pockets of another country at the expense of American production. If they objected I'd tell them to go screw. We'll decide what works for us here and you can decide what works for you over there.

What exactly is your problem with that?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: AOC Rules!

That's not my problem rufus and I say that with all seriousness. If Texans are okay with their state being fracked for natural gas I'm not going to tell them differently.

I almost replied to his post with that same response. Problem is that one of the largest freshwater aquifers in the world is being put at risk. It’s essentially what provides the water to feed the world. If the Ogallala or Edwards aquifers are poisoned, we would all feel the pain.

 

[Rover]

Re: AOC Rules!

I almost replied to his post with that same response. Problem is that one of the largest freshwater aquifers in the world is being put at risk. It’s essentially what provides the water to feed the world. If the Ogallala or Edwards aquifers are poisoned, we would all feel the pain.

I'd really need more details on that. Generally speaking I wouldn't want decisions made by one state negatively affecting the well being of another that had a completely different view. If Texas energy development affects likeminded Oklahoma though again I don't feel the need to get involved in that.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: AOC Rules!

I'd really need more details on that. Generally speaking I wouldn't want decisions made by one state negatively affecting the well being of another that had a completely different view. If Texas energy development affects likeminded Oklahoma though again I don't feel the need to get involved in that.

Just read the Wikipedia page on the Ogallala. It’s enormous Something like seven states use it. Including states that produce an assload of corn. That corn feeds all sorts of livestock among other things.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: AOC Rules!

No, more like I'm sick of looking out for people who aren't looking out for themselves. Knucks in Texas, Oklahoma, etc have made a decision. They'll put up with earthquakes and questionable drinking water in exchange for the jobs and tax revenue that fracking brings

Well if you don't present any real alternative in terms of decent paying jobs then of course people are going to make that tradeoff. People tend to cover their immediate needs first even if the long term consequences are dire. There's a severe lack of opportunity in rural areas and that's something that needs to be addressed at a policy level.

 

[Rover]

Re: AOC Rules!

Well if you don't present any real alternative in terms of decent paying jobs then of course people are going to make that tradeoff. People tend to cover their immediate needs first even if the long term consequences are dire. There's a severe lack of opportunity in rural areas and that's something that needs to be addressed at a policy level.

Sure trix, but you also have to consider that even the people who do have good paying jobs not related to fracking are in favor of it in conservative states. Conservatism isn't a logic based political movement. Its a cult. These are the people that I have zero interest in saving from themselves.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: AOC Rules!

Sure trix, but you also have to consider that even the people who do have good paying jobs not related to fracking are in favor of it in conservative states. Conservatism isn't a logic based political movement. Its a cult. These are the people that I have zero interest in saving from themselves.

Well yeah, Sica posts here, I know .

 

[alfablue]

Re: AOC Rules!

So, basically using the Star Trek teleportation machine?

When you harvest substances like oil from land or from water, you expose that land or water to risk that there will be a spill or an accident or a blow out or whatever. The same when you transport that substance across land or water, and honestly, there really is no other way of transporting it other than across land or water.

All we can do is implement reasonable regulations to require that oil companies and the transport companies to do so up to available industry standards, and if there is a spill or escape, to look to the responsible party for the costs of clean up.

Yeah, it sucks when there is a spill or leak. Yeah in an ideal world we wouldn't have to use oil or coal and we could just leave them where they are at, deep within the earth. And yeah it wreaks havoc on fish and wildlife and even humans when the leak or spill occurs, but at the end of the day spilled oil or coal is really returning to whence it came.

So you think that the companies involved with a spill should clean it up, then.

Which is exactly AOC's point here.

Yes, she does have an extra agenda about CO2- which Well Fargo *says* they are concerned about. Again, it seems quite fair to ask a company who claims global warming is real why they would support a pipeline jobs seem very fair.

There's 100% chance that if the people responsible were held more responsible, they would do a better job. And for that, there's no reason to not include the financiers- since they would put additional thumbscrews to the builder and operator of the device. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[alfablue]

Re: AOC Rules!

Well if you don't present any real alternative in terms of decent paying jobs then of course people are going to make that tradeoff. People tend to cover their immediate needs first even if the long term consequences are dire. There's a severe lack of opportunity in rural areas and that's something that needs to be addressed at a policy level.

Build clean nuclear plants. Takes a lot of people to do that. Make them small so that the risks are minimized, and you get more of them to be made, therefore more jobs.

In reality- that's no different than fracking or building a pipeline- they are jobs to make energy.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: AOC Rules!

Build clean nuclear plants. Takes a lot of people to do that. Make them small so that the risks are minimized, and you get more of them to be made, therefore more jobs.

In reality- that's no different than fracking or building a pipeline- they are jobs to make energy.

I wish we would solve this problem and go with it. Problem is there is too much NIMBY about the waste storage. The mountain in Nevada made a lot of sense but the NIMBY crowd would not allow it.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: AOC Rules!

So you think that the companies involved with a spill should clean it up, then.

Which is exactly AOC's point here.

Yes, she does have an extra agenda about CO2- which Well Fargo *says* they are concerned about. Again, it seems quite fair to ask a company who claims global warming is real why they would support a pipeline jobs seem very fair.

There's 100% chance that if the people responsible were held more responsible, they would do a better job. And for that, there's no reason to not include the financiers- since they would put additional thumbscrews to the builder and operator of the device. Why is that so hard to understand?

I think the companies directly involved with the spill should have to clean it up. For example, if an oil company hires a train company to transport oil and the train company screws that up and causes a train wreck which then contaminates a lake, I think the train company (and anyone who had a hand in the derailment) should be held responsible. I don't look to the oil company. I don't look to financier of the oil company or the train company.

If a Fedex plane crashes into a building due to pilot error, I don't look to people shipping crap through Fedex to pay for that loss, nor do I look to the banks of Fedex.

 

[alfablue]

Re: AOC Rules!

I think the companies directly involved with the spill should have to clean it up. For example, if an oil company hires a train company to transport oil and the train company screws that up and causes a train wreck which then contaminates a lake, I think the train company (and anyone who had a hand in the derailment) should be held responsible. I don't look to the oil company. I don't look to financier of the oil company or the train company.

If a Fedex plane crashes into a building due to pilot error, I don't look to people shipping crap through Fedex to pay for that loss, nor do I look to the banks of Fedex.

If FedEx is partially held responsible, they will do a better job finding pilots. Just like if WF was partially held responsible, they would do a better job knowing what they are financing, and make sure whoever builds will do a better job. At some point, companies have to be held liable, to the point of officials going to prison, to reduce the odds of dumb failures. This pipeline is a great example- it's such a simple device- a pipe- yet they have more than their obvious share of failures. Given that they do such a simple job in a simple way, it's clear to me that the builders and operators cut corners to save money. And if the "go out of business" when a failure happens, who gets held responsible? Tax payers. And that's not the way to make sure that failures are avoided.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: AOC Rules!

Build clean nuclear plants. Takes a lot of people to do that. Make them small so that the risks are minimized, and you get more of them to be made, therefore more jobs.

In reality- that's no different than fracking or building a pipeline- they are jobs to make energy.

Right, the green new deal addresses a lot of this stuff with the job guarantee.