07-9-2011 at 11:35 PM

I mentioned the fact that it causes earthquakes sort of as "just another reason it's a bad idea." Fracking, in general, just seems like something we shouldn't be doing. We don't know anything about the long term consequences, and that alone should make them pause. But it's all about the profits.

07-8-2011 at 5:15 PM

Quoted from Jive:<br /> <i>This was a low-cost production made by one person and a small team of assistants, and he didn't even want the responsibility. </i><br /> <br /> Oh, that actually surprises me. I got that sense in the beginning when the film was less steady, but as the movie went on the quality got much better. He won a lot of awards for Gasland, right? That's impressive for a given that background.<br /> And yeah, I definitely agree it would be better safe than sorry for all the chemicals we don't know. And the ones we do - I remember hearing formaldehyde, numerous carcinogens, and VOCs in the movie. And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.<br /> <br /> To play the devil's advocate, fracking isn't the only (or most common) way that humans cause earthquakes. When I was researching geothermal energy, that came up as a possible consequence. I found <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/top-5-ways-that/">this article</a> about 5 ways to make man-made earthquakes with building dams at the top of the list. But actually, the 2nd and 4th way on that a list - injecting liquid into the ground and extracting natural gas/oil respectively - both happen with fracking.

07-7-2011 at 11:20 PM

Also, just to reply to Gracie:<br /> <br /> <i> I feel like it lacked some of the scientific aspects of how those chemicals will interact with the environment over the next fifty years.</i><br /> <br /> This was a low-cost production made by one person and a small team of assistants, and he didn't even want the responsibility. Not to mention that some of those chemicals are toxic, no matter the time or creatures or environment involved. One such chemical listed was <i>formaldehyde</i>. I don't think that has any place at all in our native streams, drinking water reserves, and groundwater.<br /> Add to that the fact that the oil companies responsible for all the fracking in the US refuse - outright and despite numerous appeals via legal means - to release a comprehensive list of all of the chemicals involved. So there's literally no way that Josh Fox could have come up with the information you consider to be scientifically valid.<br /> <br /> In any case, I would think this could be a matter of "if you don't know, don't risk it." <br /> <br /> Also something to take into account is the fact that fracking does irreparable and <i>unknowable</i> damage to the structure of the earth far under ground. We cannot possibly predict the consequences of such actions, although some are already showing up in places like Arkansas. I live very close to Greenbrier, AR, where multiple, strong earthquakes have been recorded...and are still happening. There were absolutely no quakes here before the fracking began, and as it continued, they continually got stronger and more frequent. Many experts have suggested we stop the fracking to study this effect, but guess who has more money and therefore more say in the matter?<br /> <br /> Some sources: <a href="http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/17/swarm-of-quakes-rattles-arkansas-residents-and-seismologists/">1</a> and <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/117167/20110228/arkansas-earthquake-natural-gas-link.htm">2</a>, respectively. Although simply googling "arkansas natural gas earthquakes" will bring up a lot more than just those two articles.

07-7-2011 at 11:08 PM

Electric cars are - again - a poor response to the energy crisis. Not only do they rely on the exact same fossil fuels we're supposed to be trying to avoid, but they use lithium. The current method for lithium mining is incredibly pollutive and the damage done is, as far as we currently know, irreversible.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1166387/In-search-Lithium-The-battle-3rd-element.html">Read more here.</a><br /> <br /> As I stated before: diesel engines running on clean, easily-produced biofuels is the best answer we currently have, but the profit margins are small, since anyone can make the technology needed to produce the fuel in their own home with a little help from, say, home depot and the internet. It's not hard; it's just not well known.

07-7-2011 at 6:25 AM

of course we're too dependent and of course we should find alternatives and of course it's Much too hard and out of our reach. all the alternatives ive read about, theres always just one thing getting in the way. which is sad, but a good start. i believe that anything worth doing or having shouldn't be easy. i hope our abuse toward the earth wont come back to permanently haunt future generations.

07-7-2011 at 5:21 AM

Hmm, Gasland was intriguing. I watched the full version. As far as documentaries go, I wasn't terribly impressed... I feel that a lot of the content was more anecdotal than factual, and while I understand that hits a chord in terms of human interest, I feel like it lacked some of the scientific aspects of how those chemicals will interact with the environment over the next fifty years. That being said, I was even less impressed by the ANGA's response video. That looked to me like a "let's show you happy stock film while telling you the facts without proving anything" kind of move. I would be willing to believe some of the ANGA's claims, like the fish kill being mining related, but they weren't very concerned with backing up their information with science. <br /> <br /> Speaking from what I learned in AP Environmental Science last year, I feel that natural gas is a better option than oil, but that's not saying much. I certainly think the natural gas industry could be improved by more regulations. For example, the contaminated produced water in the Gasland video could be required to have similar lining standards to landfills to reduce, if not prevent, groundwater contamination. I'm sure that even with increased safety regulations, the natural gas companies could turn a handsome profit. Some things might actually be in their best interest; there were many things in Gasland that looked like natural gas leaking into the streams/groundwater/atmosphere, so I imagine the companies are losing a decent chunk of money there. In class, we talked about a lot of the regulations added to coal burning plants, and even with scrubbers and such the companies aren't going under.

07-7-2011 at 4:03 AM

I think we should depend on natural gasses and such wile working on electric cars and solar pannels. Untill we perfect those ideas, it seems like we have to depend on natural gass.

07-6-2011 at 10:42 PM

Aust, the problem with electric cars is that they still have to be charged. And most electricity is still produced in horrible, dirty, pollution-producing ways, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.<br /> A better, cleaner, more sustainable alternative would be to revert all vehicles to diesel engines and run them on biofuels. Originally, the inventor of the diesel engine (Mister Diesel himself!) intended them to run on vegetable-based oils. However, there are better alternatives, now, such as algae, that won't eat into our food supply and the supplies of other countries dependent upon us. Algae is one of the fastest growing and reproducing organisms on the face of the earth, and it grows using only partial sunlight, water, and nutrients found in - of all things - chicken litter. In fact, there are huge, disastrously destructive algal blooms destroying parts of many US rivers and tributaries from folks like Tyson dumping chicken waste into the water supply (that's another rant altogether).<br /> <br /> The only reason this hasn't been used more effectively (or at all) is simply because algae is an organism, not an invention. It cannot be patented, unlike the technology in use to retrieve things such as crude oil and natural gas...as well as the processes by which those materials are turned into fuels. In short, algae biodiesel isn't as costly to the public nor as difficult to produce for yourself as gasoline, oil-diesel, etc.<br /> <br /> Add to that the fact that literally anyone can produce and manufacture their own fuels using algae, and the oil companies get really scared. They don't want you to know about it, and they want you to think it's silly and won't work. Consider that all of their current "solutions" for oil dependency only make the public at large more dependent upon <i>them</i> as a supplier of those alternatives.<br /> <br /> As proof that it <i>does and can and will</i> work, though...the US Navy has already attempted to shift entirely to biodiesel because they fear they won't be able to get enough "normal" diesel to keep their entire fleet up and running. Willie Nelson has also helped set up a biodiesel fueling station in Texas, and truckers often stop there preferentially because not only is it cheaper by the gallon, but it burns cleaner and more efficiently.<br /> The only reason we cannot get enough algae biofuel to supply everyone is because it's an unknown technology. You'd think the praises of this "new" alternative fuel would be all over the media, in the papers, etc. But as of yet, most people are unnecessarily skeptical of algae as a viable source of fuel. Additionally, most petroleum based products (plastic, for one) can also be made from algae, without taking any of the supply away from fuel production...what you don't use to make plastic is the necessary component for fuel and vice versa.<br /> <br /> I know that was all sort of a hijack of the thread, so to answer the actual question at hand: natural gas itself may burn cleanly, but the means by which they retrieve it are destructive and unnecessary. The only thing these companies have in mind is their bottom line and profiting from others' misfortunes. There's absolutely no need for natural gas, and the push for it is completely and utterly an invention of the oil companies that now own the majority (if not all) of the stock in it...and they have the cash flow already to advertise it on TV, hire the best of lawyers to defend against accusations of irresponsible "fracking," and pay the media outlets to push it as a viable solution. But natural gas is exactly the same sort of road as drilling for oil or blowing up mountains for coal and lithium: it isn't sustainable, and it isn't clean, and nothing they say to the contrary will change facts.

07-6-2011 at 5:03 PM

I think we depend too much on all 3 (oil, coal, and natural gas). Most people are aware that we are going to run out sometime in the near future but really aren't doing anything major. Car companies are making electric cars and fuel efficient but they cost more, making it more convenient to buy the other type of cars.<br />