"Clean coal" more republican lies

LOL.. I actually thought you were agreeing with me while reading the first half of your post scratcho. I got all giddy after the first sentence. You need to include the preceding [sarcasm] tag as well.

I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by peak oil. I still say that it's nothing we should worry about, as long as we allow competition and free enterprise to function the way it's supposed to. Take this simple economic law for example, Shortages do not occur on a free market. In the absence of intervention (price controls), as a good becomes more scarce, it's price rises which makes that good less favorable. When this starts to occur to fossil fuels, the allure of these sources will lessen, and alternatives will naturally arise. I'm not denying that we will further deplete oil and other natural resources and prices will go up, my argument has to do with what we should be doing about it. Which I believe, especially in the case of government, is essentially nothing. Governments intervening and "investing" our money in losing energy ventures have made citizens more poor, by confiscating more of their resources via taxation, and also artificially increasing the cost of energy for all of us (by limiting supply). And the benefits, lets be honest, have been scant if any.
In the case of Fracking. It's not actually the "fracking" itself that pollutes drinking water, but the oil and gas well drilling. Regardless though, if people's property is damaged or polluted, they need to be reimbursed. Do we need to outlaw fracking all together because of it? I hope not! I think the benefits we receive from fracking far far exceeds any of the repercussions (which exist for ANY source of energy, just in differant forms). If you look at the amount of wells drilled, compared to the amount of wells that have been linked to drinking water pollution, I believe you'd be more convinced of it's benefit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1W8MnveFq8"]The Truth About Gasland - YouTube Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=e9CfUm0QeOk There is certainly 2 sides to those stories, and I'm not really interested in weighing in on which one is correct. If people can prove that their property rights were violated by pollution caused by mining, than they should be reimbursed. If they are not being reimbursed, and have proven their case, than that just shows another failure of government, which has been put in charge of protecting our rights.

 

WOW R.J. that poor dude with the flamable faucet in Candor, N.Y.

and Fracking isn't even allowed/legal in New York State

 

But there is no chance in hell of having a free market for energy. Just ask a Republican to repeal the Price-Anderson Act, which removes most of the liability from the nuclear industry, and puts the taxpayer on the hook for paying for the damages from a meltdown. This isn't right. It is not in the national interest to give the nuclear industry such a boost, given that it is the most expensive way to generate electricity. But Republicans, who say there are in favor of a free market, but actually they favor special breaks for all their corporate friends.

 

I couldn't agree with you more! I'm not familiar with that particular act, however it doesn't sound right to me either. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, that should be left up to us, the consumers. I also agree that the republican party, while vocally advocating for the free market, certainly doesn't reflect that in their policies.

I think where we differ is that I blame the entire person for the problem (government), while your only blaming one of his arms (a certain party). Republican's aren't the only one's who participate in crony capitalism, and giving their buddies unfair advantages in the market place. Just an example..

The chances of returning to a more free market certainly does seem bleak, given our current political climate, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying. The best place to start is for backing any policy that limits or shrinks the power of the federal government, as it is a malignant and costly growth on society, and only benefits the well connected, at the expense of everyone else.

 

Remember ,it's the bastards that run it,not government itself. There's definately a place for government--after all,they're supposed to represent the best interests of us citizens. (you know-the usual-roads,bridges,etc).They've gotten so far out of control that I can see what you folks on the the right mean. They just blow billions on wars that when all is said and done,those countries affected will return to their former states when we leave. Somebody/ies is/are making some heavy bucks on them. If there was just a way to get rid of all of them in one swell foop,but by the time any of them reach the point of trying to get elected--they're totally compromised. Maybe we should get used to a bunch of self serving, lying,mostly rich assholes for whom the word compromise has no meaning.

 

Well, I certainly don't consider myself on the right when it comes to wars. I'm just as liberal as you are when it comes to that issue. I used to be one of those "strong national defense" guys, until I learned about exactly what you just said. The military industrial complex is an ugly beast. Take this guy for example, Michael Chertoff. Head of homeland security, as well as the TSA, touting the dire need for increased homeland security, and all the while consulting for, and heading firms that are in the business of selling security to the government. And it doesn't just stop with him, the government is permeated with unelected beurocrats, in key foreign policy positions (telling us how bad we need more military) that are also directly involved with the companies that benefit from increased military (defense contractors, etc). So I completely agree with you when it comes to wars, people are certainly profiting off of them, and it's usually the same people telling the American people how bad we need them. The worst part is its the business of killing and spreading fear! Pretty fucking sick if u ask me.
So, I'm in favor of less government all across the board. I see them operating in the "best interests of the people" in name only. I think that's a guise that people currently wielding political power use to convince the masses to go along with their ridiculous, entirely self serving policies. When it comes to roads, bridges, infrastructure, and protecting individual rights, a pretty compelling case can be made for those services to be better handled by private means, however if the government does need to provide us with those (which I have no real problem with), than I'd at least like the government to be strictly limited to that function, and almost entirely on the state level.

 

Yeah,it's like "they"run this country for the benefit of themselves and their benefators and just love to use (and probably wallow in it-like D. Ducks uncle)our limited tax dollars for whatever they want. I wish we had a government like the countries that can get rid of their whole rig if they become disatisfied.

 

From Wikipedia

This is what I'm talking about. The taxpayers are on the hook for perhaps a trillion dollars if there is a bad meltdown. Completely stupid, and enthusiastically supported by both parties.

 

Okay, stop my power company from using coal or oil to provide my electricity, thus forcing them to use a cleaner but, far more expensive alternative. Are you then going to pay the increase in my bill so that I can remain in my home and continue to eat without having to quit my job and go on welfare?

Sure cleaner energy is great but, not if it comes out of my pocket. It cost too much to live as it is and, wages are not high enough for me to afford the 500.00 a month bill that would result, I can't afford to put in my own power production equipment and go off grid, so how do you plan on fixing that?

 

No matter what happens, energy will cost more in the future and you have to plan for it. We all do.

 

How can you trust this shit? It's a film produced by ANGA, another Big Energy Lobby http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000046794

Guess what happens to a geologist (on their payroll) who provides one of these lobby/think tanks with information contrary to a lobby/think tank's message? Lobbyist write the legislation in this country - the more money they throw at their whore legislator, the more attention they get, and the more of their "truth" gets turned into our laws. This is how this fucking country privatizes legislation and regulation (in fact, it's pretty much how the entire world approaches environmental and resource stewardship). If you don't see the implicit, fundamental problem with this approach, then I'm at a complete loss. When a consumer lobby is pitted against an energy lobby, the one with the deepest pocket is going to win - right or wrong, and guess who ALWAYS wins? You can call this a Representative Republic if you like, but I'm going with "plutocracy".

 

I completely agree with you about legislation, and government curruption. I think the way you described how our political system works is pretty damn accurate. All the more reason for us to curtail the powers of the federal government so this can no longer occur. Companies wouldn't try to wield the government for their own private interest if the government didn't have the power to grant them what they want. But as long as we have a powerful and pervasive centralized state, this type of politician buying will continue to go on.

In the case of fracking though, I just think its the wrong thing to attack. I watched a documentary about it, and the people complaining either had very trivial objections (stuff like the big trucks going back and forth all the time), or voluntarily signed leases of their land with the gas companies. And I can understand that perhaps the first few residents who signed contracts may have gotten short changed, because they didn't know what to expect. However, people now don't have that excuse. I'd include (and I'm sure people do now) clauses in there that would garuntee settlement money if methane levels in my drinking water rose any significant amount after they started drilling. Also, now that residents know how pervasive the process is, they're able to negotiate for A LOT more money to lease their lands. I personally would kill for an opportunity to have some land I could lease out to be fracked all over, while I sit back and reap all the royalties. Hell, it could turn my drinking water to fecal matter for all I care, I'd just buy bottled water with my new found money. My brothers wife and him are set because her moms family owns some farm land in Texas that just happened to be sitting on a bunch of natural gas. This, plus the fact that it creates tons and tons of domestic jobs (just look at unemployment in North Dakota) is a cleaner source than coal, helps us become less dependent on foreign oil, and supplies everyone with cheaper energy, makes the repercussions of it more than worth it. I could understand if people were getting sick, dying off in droves, or some crazy shit like that. But even watching the documentaries that are obviously designed to paint it in the worst possible light, fracking just didn't strike me as being all that bad. Besides, would you rather live by a natural gas well, or work in a coal mine?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2wm8tn088&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Lol, just found this. It's an hour long, but crazy if it's true! Seems far fetched though

 

Privatization is getting absurd here in Texas. I had my license suspended by a private company called "Municiple Services Bureau" for too many points but it's absolute BS. I have 1 ticket. But what can I do? The only goal of a private contractor is to stick it to you. So I have to pay them if I want my license back. But I don't think that's going to happen. In fact I won't pay off the regular city ticket either and get a warrant. Leaving Texas anyways.

 

Might be a scam.... It also says on that forum that you're not obligated to pay through them, and that you can essentially legally fire them as your collector. You don't get your license suspended for 1 ticket, I'd take that up with the county.

 

Listen man, I understand where you are coming from, but you've got to take a step back from this and look at the long term. We've agreed that the system of regulation in this country is broken. But limiting the power of the government isn't the issue - you can limit it all you want - Big Energy will happily fill that power void. Someone (and someone with great power, money and influence) will fill that power void and exploit those resources as they see fit. The government is supposed to represent the people, not job creators (more on that later) - the government has no business "creating" jobs short of employing people to run the government. De-regulation will fix nothing, solve nothing and only speed up the rate and irresponsibility in which we currently squander these resources.

A corporation's job, it's sole purpose, is to make as much profit as quickly as possible. Now, let's say that we encounter some unicorn of a CEO, who has a conscience, and decides to run his/her corporation with some level of social and environmental responsibility. Guess what happens the first time he/she announces at stock holder's meeting that he/she is going to put sustainability and even the company's longevity ahead of dividends and profitability? FIRED. Why? This doesn't follow the infinite growth paradigm, which is another mythological beast.

De-regulation, and selective laissez faire capitalism has created this unemployment crisis. Privatization has created this unemployment crisis.
There's no shortage of work to be done in this country. The stock market isn't sluggish because of uncertainty. The all too influential and powerful industry giants have decided to hold these jobs for ransom - the bailouts are a result of private sector extortion, they saw an opportunity to flex their muscles, usurp our government and they clamoured for control of it, AND THEY GOT IT. This is the government that Barack Obama inherited, it was true before, but it came out in a big way during the Bush/Cheney "administration". We, all of us, were sold out at the huge Fire Sale and the banking cartel was sitting there waiting in the wings, licking their chops, ready to buy us all up.

Now, you say, in the short term that you'd be thrilled to sell your mineral rights and gladly buy bottled water for the rest of your life. That bottled water comes from a "somewhat" clean water source. Now, following BIG ENERGY'S infinite growth paradigm would mean that eventually most domestic water sources could potentially be subjected to contamination for the sake of energy independence (which is yet another fairytale, if we're talking fossil fuels). Contaminated water is expensive to de-contaminate (requires more fossil fuels and other resources to purify). So my question to you is how thrilled would you be to spend 25% of your income on safe drinking water?

You say that you could understand regulation (and I mean real regulation, not the shell game kind of regulation we have going on right now) if people were dying off in droves. What you just described is a VERY REAL possibility, A LIKELIHOOD, if we give BIG ENERGY the right to do whatever the hell they want. They already purchase the right to get their own way or to break the rules (trust me when I say that EPA fines are well worth the risk in most cases to energy giants). So, this whole big government verses small government nonsense is another fine example of bullshit misdirection. A government, no matter what "size" is worthless when it becomes so corrupt that it ceases to concern itself, at all, with the well being of the people it is allegedly governing.

Let's say you hit pay dirt, you inherit land over a giant natural gas reservoir. Let's say Haliburton suddenly decides they don't want to pay you what you agreed upon in your legal contract. Let's say it's much more profitable for Haliburton to hire a team of lawyers to dream up some clever way to prove that the contract was breached by you somehow, let's say it was infinitely more profitable to pay off a judge to make sure that things went their way in the courtroom when you're lawyer somehow miraculously got them to court. Could you match them dollar for dollar to get justice? Are you naive enough to think that this kind of shit doesn't happen everyday in this country?

The next time, if ever, you hear any politician, damned fool enough to even broach the topic of campaign finance reform, or limiting and curtailing the influence of powerful lobbies you damn well had better hold raise him/her up and hold them to task - because, short of full on revolution, that is the only hope for this nation.

 

Our philosophies are so diametrically opposed that I fear it's beyond my ability to properly respond to all you said in the scope of this forum. I especially don't share your apparent disdain for corporations, or profiteering in general. Profiteering is responsible for just about everything you enjoy in life, it is the only system that dragged the average person living under it from a state of grinding poverty to one where they now have amenities and luxuries even the most wealthy emperors didn't have just a century ago. These advances were not spontaneous developments in human history, they were spurred by those dastardly capitalists pursuing their own self interest and the profit motive. That unicorn of a CEO would be fired, and rightly so. If he decides not to seek profits, he would doom his corporation to failure, which would than deprive consumers of whatever good or service it was offering to be VOLUNTARILY bought. so I believe corporations, when lacking the coercive arm of government, are a inherently good and beneficial thing.
Capitalism, by definition is simply voluntary exchanges between people. Consumer preference is what determines outcomes in a free capitalist system. A companies success or failure hinges on whether or not it offers a good that the masses find valuable. An industry shrinks or grows in size in relation to the total demand individual consumers have for it's products. I don't call this exploitation. It's only when the government is allowed the power to pervert this process that problems arise. Companies use the government to pass regulations, ordinances, licensture laws, acts, bailouts, etc that give them unfair advantages over competitors and limit new entry into industries. This is what allows companies to grow in sizes that they never would have in an unhampered market.
I think you're the naive one, if you believe that campaign finance reform, or passing laws to curtail lobbying would stop politicians from being bought by private interests. You don't really believe that do you? Do marijuana laws stop people from smoking marijuana? As long as the government has the power to give companies unfair advantages in the market place, companies will continue to pay for this service (even if it's on the black market). We should not allow the government to posses such power. This is why the size of government isn't a misdirection in the debate, it's the center of it. Every "unemployment crises" we've ever experienced has been because of government intervention, not "laissez faire capitalism". We haven't had anything even remotely close to "laissez faire capitalism" in a VERY long time. So we don't just keep spinning our wheels though, since you seem to understand our current crises so well, what specific deregulation and "selective laissez faire" (which is actually an oxymoron btw) is the root cause? I'm interested in hearing what specific actions you mean by that, and how they led to widespread unemployment.

Also, in the scenario you gave about Haliburton. No, I don't think that sort of thing happens often. If it did, people with bull shit cases wouldn't be winning massive settlements from huge corporations like Mc Donalds and Wal Mart. If the contract was sound, and I'd make sure it was, I should have no problem proving my case. If the judge was bought by Halliburton, I'd simply repeal? There are lawyers that take cases free of charge if they think you have a good chance of winning. I wouldn't have to match them dollar for dollar at all. I'd take it all the way to the supreme court if I had to. I bet the price of 5 out of 9 of the supreme court justices would be pretty expensive to buy. Assuming that it wouldn't be worth their while to settle before buying judge after judge on the way there. I'd also get the media involved, who would jump at a story that exposes such obvious and blatant government corruption. I think a little public spot light would encourage the judge to make a more ethical decision. But for arguments sake, if the unthinkable happened and they were able to buy every single judge, that'd just show another failure of government. Which is supposed to protect private property rights and enforce contracts. I don't think the government should be in the business of doing that either, but that's a story for another time. An industry of private arbitration companies competing with each other for customers would give us much more efficient and less corrupt courts than the government run monopoly we currently have . I don't expect you to understand or agree with that, but I'm telling you, that's how stunningly opposite our views really are.

Also, I'm sorry, but I just don't share your "sustainability" fears. If you understood how markets and the price function worked (I explained a little up there), than you wouldn't be so worried about it. People a hundred or so years ago were absolutely terrified of running out of whale's to hunt for oil to power their lanterns with. Profiteering, capitalism, and the free market has supplied us with an alternative. You can already see alternatives to our current sources of energy arising (hydrogen cars, hybrid engines, natural gas, nuclear, etc), and they are coming from those gosh darn selfish capitalists, doing anything they can to make a buck. But if we continue to allow government to take away their incentive to do so, those gosh darn evil capitalists are going to stop trying. Once they perfect an alternative to the point where it benefits consumers more than our current methods, it'll take over. I'm not really worried about natural gas wells polluting every source of drinking water, there's only so much natural gas and in so many places. Even if there was natural gas under the entire planet, there's still not enough demand to warrant drilling enough to pollute any significant amount of our aggregate water supply. And besides, I think clean water takes precedence over natural gas. If clean water ever became more expensive than natural gas, than wouldn't it be more profitable to keep a water source clean and sell the water than to spend all the money involved in harvesting the gas to sell? Your fears are irrational and border on paranoia. You're wild rants are beginning to worry me. If at least some of your arguments weren't coherent, and based off at least partial truths, than I'd begin to suspect you were insane.

 

I've read some good arguments both ways here, however I tend to lean towards being against fracking. Lots of evidence pointing to earthquakes, etc. I usually roll with the scientists on things of that matter since that is their area of knowledge. Also, I can't afford to buy water. I lived for two years in Puerto Rico and during storms we'd lose power and water for days. After seeing how much water just my wife and I went thru in a few days was an eye-opener for me. Not just drinking water, but water to cook with, wash dishes, bathe, and clean with. That would be expensive.

 

I find it strangely ironic that the word "fracking" is so similar to "fucking". Who wants to live on a planet that increasingly resembles a used-up old whore? This is the road we are on right now.

That's one of the reasons why I prefer smaller companies. If the owner/CEO of a small incorporated company is satisfied with the profit he/she is getting, and the bank always gets its loan payments on time, then there is no compelling force pushing the business in the direction of risking dire environmental consequences to make a little more profit.

Not sure if this paradigm would ever work in the energy market, though. The scales of operations are so large.

For large corporations, there is at least one business reason not to take great environmental risks for profit. Sometimes, the EPA and the federal courts look back at a slowly-unfolding environmental disaster (examples: PCB, tobacco, asbestos) and require all the companies that participated in it to pay into a common fund to mitigate cumulative damage and pay legal and/or medical claims. Those payments can become a long-term drain on company finances. So, if you roll the dice on environmental responsibility, you risk the loss of billions in long-term profits for the shareholders. (examples: GE, Hooker Chemical, Armstrong World Industries)

Unfortunately, not many stockholders or board members think more than one year down the road. Why? Because you can easily sell the stock at any time, unless you own so much of it that the sale will drag the price down.

It's the role of government to make sure private businesses bear full liability for the consequences of all their actions, short-term and long-term, but the Republicans very much want to go in the opposite direction.

 

Wow, That's enough to make me lose my stiffy.