Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By jocular

Thread: Environmental Efforts Misbegotten?

  1. #1 Environmental Efforts Misbegotten? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Can it be that some of the environmental control means are actually harming the environment beyond that which would prevail if they were not implemented? Example:

    Blank gummed labels intended for computer-generated printer use, I have an Avery 42895 variety. The front cover of the package proclaims "EcoFriendly" benefits, see back cover. Back says: "Recycled material. Label paper is made of 100% FSC Certified Post Consumer Content". "Recyclable. Labels and packaging are recyclable as part of paper waste. Labels are made of water based 100% recyclable adhesive*: (* Complies with Federal Executive Order 13148 Section 702)". "Processed Chlorine-free". "Soy and vegetable-based inks. These inks are derived from renewable materials."


    My hackles tuned in upon seeing "Executive Order": A mandate governing some complicated industrial processes ORDERED by a non-technical bureaucrat, illegally at that.

    I wonder what environmentally deleterious operations take place in order to guarantee 100% recycled paper? The recycled contents may be recycled: how is the deleterious material, processing materials, binders, colors, etc., removed without affecting the environment? Are inks an environmental issue, when compared to, say, the burning of the rain forests, or the enormous quantities of endocrin-mimicing herbicides being distributed world-wide continuously?

    jocular


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    (* Complies with Federal Executive Order 13148 Section 702)"
    This just means that the product meets the environmental standards set for government agencies. So, "Yes, madam Purchasing Officer from xyz government agency. You will still be in compliance with agency requirements for stationery standards when you buy our product. And btw, I should point out that our competitors, Stinky Paper 4 U and Grade ZZZ paper-with-lumps-of-wood-still-in-it do not offer such wonderful benefits. May I take your order now."

    This is just like all those other regulations that make official purchasing such a juggling act. Buy environmentally sound, buy local, buy cheapest, buy by tender only - anyone who can meet all the requirements for all purchases is either a magician or kidding themselves.


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore Busy Bee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    106
    Is there something in particular about this particular regulation/standard that you have a grievance with? I would expect most products would have either mandatory or non-mandatory regulatory standards. In this particular instance the manufacturer has put this information on the packaging most likely as a selling point.

    Everything we do has an impact on the environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
    Is there something in particular about this particular regulation/standard that you have a grievance with? I would expect most products would have either mandatory or non-mandatory regulatory standards. In this particular instance the manufacturer has put this information on the packaging most likely as a selling point.

    Everything we do has an impact on the environment.

    Forget the small stuff. We better ask when the environmental Apocalypse knocks on our doors, not only from above but also from below. For some this is already reality.

    Watch this movie and be scared, how the fossil fuel industry values the entire ecosystem on earth and how they treat the "unalienable rights" of individuals and entire communities.

    The title of this "must see" documentary is: Gasland Part II (currently showing on HBO)

    Be forewarned, it is depressing but illustrates the duplicity and callous disregard to large numbers of individuals' health and environmental destruction by the fossil fuel industry and their bought representatives in congress
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I hope Galand Part II, is a lot more objective than the first film. It was a travesty that grossly misrepresented the laws, the history and perhaps most importantly the potential environmental harm from Fracking.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I hope Galand Part II, is a lot more objective than the first film. It was a travesty that grossly misrepresented the laws, the history and perhaps most importantly the potential environmental harm from Fracking.
    After watching the film and a little research showing the true scope of this extraction method, I must conclude that if anything, the movie understates the global implications of this NOW primary method of extracting fossil resources from the ground.

    Regulations

    As of 2012, fracking is exempt from seven major federal regulations:[8]

    The Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, due to the "Halliburton loophole" pushed through by former Vice-President/former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney, exempting corporations from revealing the chemicals used in fracking fluid;
    the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which exempts fracking from federal regulations pertaining to hazardous waste;
    the Superfund law, which requires that polluters remediate for carcinogens like benzene released into the environment, except if they come from oil or gas;
    the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act;
    the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
    the National Environmental Policy Act; and
    the Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

    Fracking - SourceWatch

    It just occurred to me that if BP had claimed the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a result of fracking today, they would be exempt from clean-up and economic damages. Go figure.
    Last edited by Write4U; July 9th, 2013 at 01:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The science thus far doesn't support the position that drinking water is threatened. In fact, one of the few studies done by the EPA at Dimock, PA, which Gasland made ground zero in the fight about Fracking, showed natural levels of well water contaminants and no evidence of any change from Fracking. This study completely destroyed the credibility of Gasland. As least thus far there's not much of any scientific evidence that Clean Water Act should be applicable to Fracking. In fact Fracking was exempted largely at the EPAs recommendation after studying the subject in 2004-2005. Out of tens of thousands of gas wells, only a few dozen have even been suspected of effecting local water supplies and less than a half dozen confirmed cases. The EPA is due to release a more comprehensive study next year.

    That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Gasland II, features more well that hit natural pocked of methane (they really aren't that hard to find), stirred up emotional arguments, and hardly any scientific arguments, similar to the first film.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    My hackles tuned in upon seeing "Executive Order": A mandate governing some complicated industrial processes ORDERED by a non-technical bureaucrat, illegally at that.
    Im interested in what makes the bolded statement true
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    The science thus far doesn't support the position that drinking water is threatened. In fact, one of the few studies done by the EPA at Dimock, PA, which Gasland made ground zero in the fight about Fracking, showed natural levels of well water contaminants and no evidence of any change from Fracking. This study completely destroyed the credibility of Gasland. As least thus far there's not much of any scientific evidence that Clean Water Act should be applicable to Fracking. In fact Fracking was exempted largely at the EPAs recommendation after studying the subject in 2004-2005. Out of tens of thousands of gas wells, only a few dozen have even been suspected of effecting local water supplies and less than a half dozen confirmed cases. The EPA is due to release a more comprehensive study next year.

    That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if Gasland II, features more well that hit natural pocked of methane (they really aren't that hard to find), stirred up emotional arguments, and hardly any scientific arguments, similar to the first film.
    I did see copious references to studies and research. I cannot vouch for the reliability of those sources. Problem is that the oil companies are NOT REQUIRED to provide lists of "proprietary chemicals", thus we really have no idea what is really being used except for secondary stages after a problem occurs in ground water. Then the deniability is that it is a natural seepage of rogue existing gases, which cannot be proven as a result of fracking. There is very little information available from the source itself, thus the scarcity of direct data. One little bit is that 12% of wells fail immediately when made operational and the current casing materials used are degradable over various periods of time and results in greater and greater leakage of unwanted stuff in our ground and out into the atmosphere. Low laying ozone is a real concern.

    Allow me to ask why all those exemptions from accountability are necessary in the first place? As I observed before, if a Gulf of Mexico disaster happened today, BP would be exempt from liability merely by claiming it was a result of fracking.
    Those exemptions, along with the fact that billions of dollars are at stake, give oil companies total control over oversight and responsibility.
    What is it now? There are 63 inspectors inspecting 17000 wells? If we divide the workload, each inspector may have time for a cup of coffee and accept a file handed to him with preassembled data from the oil techs, which are forbidden to blow the whistle on pain of destruction of their lives from litigation.

    btw. the oil industry has a new definition for "fresh water". It now means freshly delivered after they have used it. Read the article on the town of Dish, where the mayor was forced to move out of his own home, to his great surprise. The movie shows a millionaire standing in front of his mansion with a garage full of bottled water, some potable some not. He is unable to use his own water supply.

    Finally, considering the opportunity to bypass accountability just invites abuses, especially when we talk about trillion dollar companies. The only other organization I can think of with less accountability is the NSA. Not to be an alarmist, but if you consider the location of the largest oil reserve running underneath New York and in the middle of Los Angeles and along the fault line, I have great fear, not of an occasional water supply spewing fire water, but a calamity affecting millions of people and costing trillions of dollars for clean up, which the company is exempt from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    My hackles tuned in upon seeing "Executive Order": A mandate governing some complicated industrial processes ORDERED by a non-technical bureaucrat, illegally at that.
    Im interested in what makes the bolded statement true
    Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is a provision included giving Presidential power to circumvent the law-making process delegated to the Congress. jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    My hackles tuned in upon seeing "Executive Order": A mandate governing some complicated industrial processes ORDERED by a non-technical bureaucrat, illegally at that.
    Im interested in what makes the bolded statement true
    Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is a provision included giving Presidential power to circumvent the law-making process delegated to the Congress. jocular
    The constitution was left vague on many points and the executive order process has been upheld as legal
    Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    My hackles tuned in upon seeing "Executive Order": A mandate governing some complicated industrial processes ORDERED by a non-technical bureaucrat, illegally at that.
    Im interested in what makes the bolded statement true
    Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is a provision included giving Presidential power to circumvent the law-making process delegated to the Congress. jocular
    The constitution was left vague on many points and the executive order process has been upheld as legal
    Executive order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    And enforced by the congressional "purse strings"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Allow me to ask why all those exemptions from accountability are necessary in the first place?
    Already answered. In 2004 and 2005 the EPA weighed into the subject, reviewed the literature and research based on decades and thousands of wells already in existance, and all but a very few incident of contamination, those related to surface spills, and concluded the risk was SO LOW that the oil companies didn't need to be put through the more rigorous standards.

    More recent they conducted the study of wells in Dimock, PA, the very town at center of the controversy and where, according to alarmist, there was extensive contamination--the result--nothing abnormal there at all. (Basically Gasland was completely contrived alarmist BS)

    As I observed before, if a Gulf of Mexico disaster happened today, BP would be exempt from liability merely by claiming it was a result of fracking.
    There's very little valid comparison between the two--different standards, different agencies, and in large part different methods by a different part of the fossil fuel industry etc.

    Those exemptions, along with the fact that billions of dollars are at stake, give oil companies total control over oversight and responsibility.
    The EPA is not in controlled by the oil companies--to claim they are is nearly akin to conspiracy theories.
    --
    Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is a provision included giving Presidential power to circumvent the law-making process delegated to the Congress. jocular

    Lets try to stay with the environmental issues if we can. But to answer your question executive powers come from Article II, Section 3, clause 5; so yes the President has authority to carry out the Constitution and Laws when Congress fails to do so (for what ever the reason--such as stalling appointments, failure to provide money for their own law, etc).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Executive Order 13148 - Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management

    702:
    Sec. 702. Environmentally Benign Adhesives. Within 12 months after environmentally benign pressure sensitive adhesives for paper products become commercially available, each agency shall revise its specifications for paper products using adhesives and direct the purchase of paper products using those adhesives, whenever technically practicable and cost effective. Each agency should consider products using the environmentally benign pressure sensitive adhesives approved by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and listed on the USPS Qualified Products List for pressure sensitive recyclable adhesives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Lynx_Fox,
    As I observed before, if a Gulf of Mexico disaster happened today, BP would be exempt from liability merely by claiming it was a result of fracking.
    There's very little valid comparison between the two--different standards, different agencies, and in large part different methods by a different part of the fossil fuel industry etc.
    Fracking is now used in oil wells as well, both vertical and horizontal. It is pervasive and exempt from pertinent regulation. This is why the only option available to states is to either restrict fracking to vertical bores or suspend fracking as they have and extended the moratorium one more year in New York.
    fracking fields - Bing Images

    Those exemptions, along with the fact that billions of dollars are at stake, give oil companies total control over oversight and responsibility.
    The EPA is not in controlled by the oil companies--to claim they are is nearly akin to conspiracy theories.
    The current exemptions were requested by the oil companies and is now popularly called "the Halliburton loophole"
    Halliburton is one of the biggest fracking companies. They claimed economic reasons for this request.
    In 2005, at the urging of Vice President Dick Cheney, Congress created the so-called "Halliburton loophole" to clean water protections in federal law to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating this process, despite serious concerns that were raised about the chemicals used in the process and its demonstrated spoiling and contamination of drinking water. In 2001, Cheney's "energy task force" had touted the benefits of hydrofracking, while redacting references to human health hazards associated with hydrofracking. Halliburton, which was previously led by Cheney, reportedly earns $1.5 billion a year from its energy operations, which rely substantially on its hydrofracking business.[11]
    But this may grab your attention. The oil companies have now virtual power of "eminent domain". This has relatively small impact on laying a single pipeline over long distances, but some fracking requires extensive networks of connecting pipes. The companies have now the right to condemn any property these pipes may cross.
    The authority of companies engaged in shale gas extraction to take private property to convey the produced gas is clear. Less clear, however, is whether that authority also allows them to condemn land needed for other infrastructure necessary to support hydraulic fracking. For example, may companies condemn the land needed to pipe water to the fracking wells? What about pipes that may be needed to transport “produced water” (i.e., water recovered from the fracking process that is contaminated with chemicals used to fracture the shale)? Or land needed for the construction of the compressor stations?

    And what of the wells and well pads themselves? If private companies engaged in these activities are designated as “public enterprises,” then they may be able to take private property for purposes far beyond that of laying pipelines.

    The potential threats to drinking water, natural resources and public health from hydraulic fracturing are serious and, appropriately, are the primary focus of most of the public dialogue as North Carolina considers whether to lift the 50-year old prohibition on horizontal drilling and injection of toxic chemicals into underground drilling wells. But the rights of private landowners should also be considered and protected, especially when their property may be sacrificed to benefit someone else’s fracking operation. Landowners should be able to protect their property and local governments should have a say about impacts to their communities.
    http://www.nationaleminentdomain.com...n-in-fracking/

    I am not speaking of conspiracies, for the fossil fuel companies this is (un)sound business, especially in a time when oil is becoming scarcer and gas has been relatively cheap (not very profitable) until now.

    Conspiracy is not the point. No business which has high potential risk and impact (and history of failure) on the environment, should be exempt from regulation. That is sound governance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    But this may grab your attention
    Unlikely if you keep coming up with biased sources such as Gasland series.


    Anyhow, I'll post a pretty well rounded article about the EPAs decisions over the past 40 or so years, which includes the legal (federal versus states rights) and sometimes debatable scientific reasons for their Fracking recommendations and regulations. It's a good read:
    Fractured: The Road to the New EPA


    -
    Conspiracy is not the point. No business which has high potential risk and impact (and history of failure) on the environment, should be exempt from regulation. That is sound governance.

    The EPA, as a federal agency, needs two things to regulate Fracking: the jurisdiction to do so-- questionable because it has local effects for the most part (thus the past legal problems the EPA had when it violated state rights), and that there's a clear danger to people or the environment (the science doesn't suggest there is).

    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; July 10th, 2013 at 12:08 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    In the spirit of the thread I'll enter another example of environmentalist getting things wrong.

    During the early 1990s there were severe restrictions on the wood cutting in WA State based around the idea of protecting the Northern Spotted Owl which was often touted as preferring virgin forest. While stationed at a local post, and assigned for 3 months to the Judge Advocate, I was part of a tasks force asked to coordinate jurisdiction maps and environmental concerns and other barriors to a proposed highway through the military base. They had a detailed map of Spotted Owl sightings. I asked the environmentalist why all the sights were in 2nd and 3rd cut forest areas of the fort--they were studying the issue.

    That highway was never built, in part, because of incorrect Spotted Owl habitat rules. Now we know the Barred Owl was replacing the Spotting owl as a competitive species, neither of which prefer virgin forest.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    In the spirit of the thread I'll enter another example of environmentalist getting things wrong.

    During the early 1990s there were severe restrictions on the wood cutting in WA State based around the idea of protecting the Northern Spotted Owl which was often touted as preferring virgin forest. While stationed at a local post, and assigned for 3 months to the Judge Advocate, I was part of a tasks force asked to coordinate jurisdiction maps and environmental concerns and other barriors to a proposed highway through the military base. They had a detailed map of Spotted Owl sightings. I asked the environmentalist why all the sights were in 2nd and 3rd cut forest areas of the fort--they were studying the issue.

    That highway was never built, in part, because of incorrect Spotted Owl habitat rules. Now we know the Barred Owl was replacing the Spotting owl as a competitive species, neither of which prefer virgin forest.
    A good read, no doubt about it! Of lesser impact upon Society as a whole, than some of the really stupendous blunders committed, some of which have always glared at me as technologically absurd. For example, I do not doubt the existence of a "hole" in the ozone layer, or that perhaps we, as zealous over-users of everything we like, have caused that hole to increase in size. But, the "kicker" is Freon, or "CFCs", Chlorinated Fluoro-Carbons. The gas originally considered most contributive to ozone layer destruction, Freon 12, which chemically is Dichloro-Difluoro Methane, was used primarily in vehicular air-conditioning systems. In gaseous state, it is considerably heavier than air, thus seeding the questionability of millions of pounds of it being lofted skyward to great altitudes. But, OK, maybe factors not logically obvious are at play, concession granted. And, LOTS of the stuff was indiscriminately allowed to escape to the atmosphere, via system leakage and purposeful venting.

    But then came Freon 22, as yet another offensively severe contributor, used mainly in refrigeration, most of which employ hermetically sealed systems, which mean the compressor used cannot lose Freon via it's shaft seal, the likeliest loss point in unconfined systems- see, the vehicle must drive the compressor externally, mechanically, thus necessitating a leak-prone rotary shaft seal, but closed systems powered electrically can be totally sealed. Thus, in order for a refrigerator, store cooler-cabinet, freezers, or any refrigeration device having a sealed system, to leak, only a mechanical break somewhere in the cooling loop can allow Freon to escape to the atmosphere. Everyone is familiar with the fact that refrigerators and freezers often run trouble-free for several decades, usually until the compressor fails mechanically, but still, no Freon leaks out. So, why ban F-22? Political game-playing, perhaps? A way seen to make more money? Create a whole new industry overnight, charged with recovery and reclamation, as well as destruction of, all the "old" Freons removed from service. Let a bit of that shit leak out, purposely or by accident, and an enormous fine can be levied, this alone justifying a ban on the stuff.

    So, ya gotta have "air", you learn that the lawmakers have found through consultation with experts, as well as makers of chemical products, that if we get rid of the chlorine component in the cooling media, it's "safe" for the ozone layer. Thus came Freon 134-a, to replace F-12. By law. Virtually all of the "old" freons were based on the Methane molecule. Characteristics of Fluorinated-only Methane, no chlorine, are unsuitable, and we now have mandated Tetra-Fluoro-Ethane, F-134a, which is a heavier molecule, likely no more or less stable chemically than the Methanes, in general use. I believe it has supplanted R-19 also for the most part. But guess what? After 20 years of use of "SAFE" 134a, it, too, is now undergoing a mandated phase-out!

    I've not mentioned at all, the many other Freons involved in industry. It just seems to me that the Freon mumbo-jumbo has certainly been one of the more unprecedently foisted environmental issues since the early 1990s. Just MHO. jocular
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    But this may grab your attention
    Unlikely if you keep coming up with biased sources such as Gasland series.

    Anyhow, I'll post a pretty well rounded article about the EPAs decisions over the past 40 or so years, which includes the legal (federal versus states rights) and sometimes debatable scientific reasons for their Fracking recommendations and regulations. It's a good read:
    Fractured: The Road to the New EPA-
    Yes, I was going to use it, until I saw who they represent.
    Litigation

    Overview
    Client Work
    Lawyers
    Cases

    Litigation
    A Successful Track Record Focused on Achieving Business Results
    Our lawyers are skilled advocates for our clients. We have a successful track record of litigating a wide range of environmental and energy matters, and also are experienced in mediation, arbitration, and other forms of alternative dispute resolution. Whether we are working on complex multiparty proceedings or defending a permit appeal, we bring the same common sense, business-oriented approach to our work, because we know that clients want results, and that litigation is simply a tool for getting them.
    Conspiracy is not the point. No business which has high potential risk and impact (and history of failure) on the environment, should be exempt from regulation. That is sound governance.


    The EPA, as a federal agency, needs two things to regulate Fracking: the jurisdiction to do so-- questionable because it has local effects for the most part (thus the past legal problems the EPA had when it violated state rights), and that there's a clear danger to people or the environment (the science doesn't suggest there is).
    And here is where you may underestimate the pervasiveness, it is no longer local, local in this context means communities , cities, entire geographical areas, pollution of stream. These are not local issues, these are federal issues and regulation of these Economic giants is not a priority. Another example can be shown in the Finacial Collapse, due to insufficient oversight and control.
    Was that local?

    Perhaps the science is not shown all the facts, such as the use of proprietary chemical mixtures. You can test for that what you are looking for and as a result several well drillers have been caught using diesel illegally as an ingredient of their process.

    But it is a scientific fact that the system has failures and those failures may not reach the surface for decades, but then have become irreversible. There is clear evidence that where fracking occurs, the environment suffers sometimes alarming changes. Ozone is a concern. It is not the scientists working EPA at fault, they are severely underfunded and understaffed and run up against corporate desire to do things their (profitable) way. The laws governing the EPA cannot even be enforced. They are exempt. Only studies can be started, but are sometimes withdrawn on the objection of a state or a corporate fracker.

    Are you using the Spotted Owl case to compare a minor ecological threat to a bird, with "FRACKING"??
    Earlier you said that the Gulf disaster had nothing to do with fracking and could not be used as an example of what happens when things go wrong, now you cite the Spotted Owl?

    Look at the maps how pervasive this potentially life threatening (to millions of humans) industry is, especially near populated areas, including fracking on top of the San Andreas Fault in California. But we can take Halliburton and their lawyers' word for it, they'll manage it just fine and there will be minimal impact to the population and the environment, conveniently excluding anything below the surface as part of the environment, where it is invisible and surely safe. And if an occasional accident happens, well that's the price the nation pays for progress.

    Fracking is a technique of fracturing the substrates formed by millions of years of pressurizing fossil bearing substrates. Now we are cracking these substrates to release what's trapped in there. We are not talking about a tree for a spotted owl here, we are talking about releasing trillions of tons of toxic materials and we are doing it with millions of tons of "unknown" (but surely toxic) liquids, compounding the problems of containment.

    Not to sound too alarmist, should there not be some regulation and protection from harm to the population? Deniers and proponents have a long history of allowing practices resulting in major disasters to occur, affecting thousands of people.
    Alarmist are alarmed not by the use of fracking as a tool, they alarmed where and how frequently it occurs. A failure rate of say, 10% in 1,000,000 wells IMHO presents a real danger number to the environment (including water and air). Not insignificant! This is critical!

    Ask yourself, how would you like it if your neighbor leased his land for fracking and now YOU have pressurized pipes running underneath your house, which if they fail may allow them to condemn your property by eminent domain.

    IMO, of all the methods used, this must be the most invasive industry ever conceived in the pursuit of profits.
    Last edited by Write4U; July 10th, 2013 at 07:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Are you using the Spotted Owl case to compare a minor ecological threat to a bird, with "FRACKING"??


    The thread is about where environmental science got it wrong. I added one to the list. I even put it into a separate post so you and others wouldn't think they a comparison (unlike you did when you made a direct broad brush comparison between (the unproven dangers ) of Fracking and the demonstrated dangers of deep oil drilling during the Golf Spill.

    Not to sound too alarmist, should there not be some regulation and protection from harm to the population?
    Of course their should. Fracking has thus far shown very little harm even after decades and tens of thousands of wells, even when scientist went to look for where alarmist film makers said there was clear evidence and unnecessarily stirred up fear in that Pennsylvania community. No need for regulation when it appears to be little or no risk. The proven cases of problems with these well have been local problem, usually restricted to an individuals property-- that does not demonstrate a need for federal regulations.

    Given the evidence thus far, much like it lost the jurisdictional battle before, there is large chance of over reach is it tries to strongly regulate Fracking. Given many states, regardless of the science showing little harm, seem hell bent to restrict Fracking, there's probably no need anyhow.

    --
    IMO, of all the methods used, this must be the most invasive industry ever conceived in the pursuit of profits.
    You should go abroad in that case--where multinationals are doing wholesale damage to entire ecosystems nearly completely unregulated by anyone. The problems in the US are really minor by comparison.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I just dug this up from wiki, specifically for CO2 (note the contribution from cement manufacture, used extensively in fracking.

    List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    then I ran across this, specifically for Methane, which has much greater impact on climate change, albeit with a shorter lifespan.

    •Industry. Natural gas and petroleum systems are the largest source of CH4 emissions from industry in the United States. Methane is the primary component of natural gas. Some CH4 is emitted to the atmosphere during the production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas. Because gas is often found alongside petroleum, the production, refinement, transportation, and storage of crude oil is also a source of CH4 emissions. For more information, see the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks sections on Natural Gas Systems and Petroleum Systems.
    Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

    But frackers are exempt from this standard.

    The EPA has become almost irrelevant in that arena. To rely on their impact in policy making, is highly optimistic IMO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    This will probably be my last post about fracking, but the EPA has been studying methane for at least 20 years. In fact they recently lowered their estimate for the amount released by Fracking.

    Methane Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I understand, I was primarily responding to the Thread Title.

    I do not think environmental efforts are misbegotten. I believe they are essential to our existence. Time will tell if we were prudent enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I understand, I was primarily responding to the Thread Title.

    I do not think environmental efforts are misbegotten. I believe they are essential to our existence. Time will tell if we were prudent enough.
    That's why the OP said "Can it be that some of the environmental control means....."

    I'm very supportive of environmental effort and was quite active for several efforts including: stopping back filling of a local stream when I was a teenager; letter writing, taking water samples and speaking in front of the Vermont legislature to reduce acid rain; extensive letter writing of representatives to remove the Elwha River dams in WA state; and obviously here explaining what I know about green house gases and climate change.

    What's always bothered me is when the "efforts" gets way ahead of the science makes false claims, is overly broad in its application, or as suggested by the OP the "cure" either isn't really necessary of worse than the problem.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    [

    What's always bothered me is when the "efforts" gets way ahead of the science makes false claims, is overly broad in its application, or as suggested by the OP the "cure" either isn't really necessary or worse than the problem.
    Well stated! Wish my old faculties were less deteriorated, making me unable to find the right words..... jocular
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Environmental Measures
    By Jona in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 5th, 2011, 03:21 PM
  2. What is environmental damage?
    By skeptic in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: July 6th, 2011, 03:13 AM
  3. Environmental certifications
    By dawn in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 13th, 2010, 06:52 AM
  4. Religion hampering efforts to save environments?
    By am_I_doin'_it_rite in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: March 18th, 2010, 10:56 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •