To Frack or not to Frack is the Question I don’t want you to think I have gone over to the dark side in terms of politics. Politically, I have always been in favor of human rights regardless of my political orientation. I think water boarding is terrible while I think terrorists captured on the battlefield should not be released. Politically, I am a pragmatist. I am in favor of what works. I think NYC water system under public control does a marvelous job while I think the NYC Board of Education needs competition provided by a voucher system. The NYC subway system was built under a pubic private partnership and functions well. Medicare is done well with 2% costs which the private sector cannot compete. Government can do great wonderful things but can also do things in a very costly and clumsy fashion. It is amazing how cheap our politicians sell out to the lobbyists for campaign contributions and votes. And last thing we need is crony capitalism or letting the government instead of the marketplace be the arbitrator. Make no mistake the people opposed to technology no matter how noble their motives appear to be are lobbyists who are interested in power, not the betterment of humanity. When they lose out on the science, they use politics to get what they want – power. For some of them, worship of nature has become a form of idol worship. They love humanity but hate human beings that they would have actually to deal with. In 1952, a conference known as “Club of Rome” met and warned that technology could not save the world but we must cut back on technology because our resources are limited. Professional pessimists have held meetings ever since with the same theme. Professional experts like Paul Ehrlich have made a good living of predicting doom and glom although none of this has come to pass in over forty years. His book the Population Bomb in 1968 predicted mass famines in the 1970s. Some of the more extreme global warming alarmists were warning that Bangladesh and the island nations in the Pacific would be under water within five years ten years ago. Of course, we should take global warming seriously but not some of the proposed solutions. Businessmen, inventors, and scientists in search of fame and fortune ignored all this and made the world a better place. Today, one billion people own cars and computers can be sold as cheap as $150. They ignored the gloom and doom mantra that whenever there is a crisis, we must cut back technology instead of using technology to solve a crisis. In 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency was founded by Richard Nixon. An administrative judge ruled that DTT was safe. William D. Ruckelshaus, the first head of agency and a non-scientist, made the political decision to overrule him and declare it unsafe in response to environmental activists. The result is that millions of people have died or been crippled by malaria and yellow fever around the world. One time malaria was a disease that prevalent as far north as Philadelphia. Only recently, the World Health Organization and many African nations have decided that DTT in moderation is more effective than screens against mosquitoes. An activist campaigning for the restoration of DTT used to drink a glass of it at end of every demonstration. After twenty years of this, he died at the ripe old age of eighty-four. In other words, decisions about science by government are not necessarily based on science or on the best interests of the population. In “Gasland I,” Josh Fox made a great deal about the pollution in the water at Dimock, PA supposedly caused by fracking. The EPA and the PA State Environmental Department investigated four times and found no connections. In fact, some of their neighbors complain the complaining landowners are cheap bastards who should do like everyone else, get their sewage lines and holding tanks cleaned and unclogged. I recently saw on HBO, “The World According to Dick Cheney.” I also saw a short segment late at night of “Gasland II” when it first premiered. Unfortunately, when I goggled two of Gasland II’s claims, they came up short. Both Dick Cheney and Josh Fox share something in common: They are willing to lie for the greater good; twist any fact or anecdote in their favor; power, not money, drives them; and they enjoy the power they weld over other people’s lives; and meanwhile people suffer collateral damage for their wrong-headed policies. Like George Zimmerman, the fracking industry has every right to put on a defense. The Environment Defense Fund thinks fracking is better than better some of the other alternatives. In New York State, the Environmental Department has twice found nothing against fracking. Meanwhile, Governor Cuomo wants another study. Of course, delay is part of the anti-fracking effort and he gets the votes of both sides on the issue—ideal for a politician. Therefore, we should look at the data offered by those for or against fracking on the basis on the merits of scientific data, not political diatribes. Unfortunately, I see the crusade against fracking the same way as I see the crusade against DTT. It makes the instigators (“activists” would be too kind a word) feel good but harms both people and the environment. Since the anti-fracking people have lost the battle of scientific facts, they have to engage in politics to get their way. What they do is not harmless. It means more expensive energy that lowers the standard of living for the average person and actually increases pollution because we rely upon other forms of energy that generate more damaging stuff. In a way, they kill more people after lowering their quality of life than what they accuse their opponents of doing. I saw the entire film on July 22, 2013. I found Gasland II better written and more interesting to watch though ran longer the original Gasland I. Fox made clear his connection to the land by explaining this was his childhood home and he wanted his children to share the experiences of wonder on the land. I felt it was a little bit over the top when he tried to play some folk music on a guitar! Since Fox made Gasland I in 2010, neither the EPA nor any of the 50 State Environment Departments have come out against fracking. Josh Fox makes a big deal that he so eager that Lisa Jackson promised a two year study on fracking and if the states were not doing a good job, Uncle Sam would step and make things right. Unfortunately, two years later, the EPA concluded there was no threat to the Dimock water supply. As of July 22, 2013 there have now been six studies of the Dimock water supply by the Pennsylvania Department of the Environment and the Environmental Protection Agency. Fox paints a dark picture of in and out nature of bureaucrats, lobbyists, and industrialists in which the industry captures the agency that is supposed to regulate it. Now Lisa Jackson is seen as league with evil industry. The only problem is that the EPA has not been very friendly to the oil industry as it has issued very drilling permits. Josh hints at conspiracy but cannot prove it. Another problem with water study is why not Josh Fox got an independent study of the supposedly contaminated water. You can reverse engineer it to find what the chemicals. Maybe it is better to claim darkly there are dangerous chemicals in the water than to actually find out there is nothing to the claim. . Josh Fox makes much of the same problem with the water in Pavilion, Texas but the federal and state government studies fail to back up the claim. Josh Fox quotes a so called expert that 15,000 wells frack more pollution into the air than any automobiles in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The only problem that relying on fracking in place of other sources has reduced overall pollution and the green gases effect. Repeated studies by federal and state agencies have failed to find that fracking has contaminated the water table or the aquifers. Josh Fox expresses concern that all the pipes laid to carry oil could contaminate the ground. This is far safe for people and the environment than transmitting this stuff by boat, truck or railroad. Josh Fox is an economic illiterate. He claims that if pipes were built to convey oil to the ports, not only is the environment is at risk but this will push up the price of oil or gasoline in the USA because now this will make oil that is fracked part of the world market. The only problem is that oil in America is already part of the world market. That is why it is now profitable to frack oil from shale and elsewhere because of the high prices. The reason shy oil is $8 per gallon in Europe and $16 per gallon in Japan are the incredible high taxes drivers pay to the government determined to raise revenue and to discourage individual driving. By the way, do you know that fracking causes earthquakes? Fox has two scientists claim that their preliminary research indicates that maybe it is not a coincidence that earthquakes have increased in number in some areas. Funny, no other seismologists in the world or in America have found any evidence. However, he wants fracking industry proves it is safe – always proving a negative. Josh also claimed not in the film that fracking causes cancer. He has no proof but he wants the fracking industry to prove a negative. Finally, there is the hogwash about renewable energy. Again, Fox have so-called experts claim that if Uncle Sam made a serious push for renewable energy we could replace fossil fuel in a mere thirty years. The problem is that water flow is erratic, wind direction and strength does not always cooperate, and we have cloudy days as well as sunny days. The technology is still very inefficient. Worst of all, we don’t have a means to store electricty or energy that is generated. Throughout the world, the promise of green energy has proved to very disappointing despite generous subsidies to push the technology. Robert Kennedy, Jr. and Uncle Ted Kennedy, strong supporters of renewable energy, oppose the Cape Cod wind turbine project because of visual pollution. In some parts of the country, rivers are being undammed and returned to be “wild” so we are losing them as sources of power. Some environmental zealots oppose renewable energy because it messes Mother Nature. In conclusion, the good guys are the people fracking industry that gives us jobs, climate control (heat and air conditioning), physical mobility (individual automobiles and mass transit). and so much more. Josh Fox offers anecdotal stories of doubtful scientific value to block a new technology that benefits humanity.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 06:35:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015