Let Politics, Not Science, Decide the Fate of Fracking

Slate ^ | 3-12-2013 | Adam Briggle

[Sir Napsalot]

If it is not For Your Own Good, it's

FOR

THE

CHILDREN

[E. Pluribus Unum]

At least they are finally admitting that they don't really care about science, they only care about their totalitarian agenda.

[DManA]

Right off the pages of Rand’s Anthem.

[vbmoneyspender]

Let Politics, Not Science, Decide the Fate of Fracking

Politics is deciding the fact of fracking particularly in New York.

[marstegreg]

This sudden shift tells me we are about to hear that studies reveal fracking is actually not a threat to the environment.

[rey]

Does this apply to “climate change”?

Oh wait. Everything is decided by politics, not science and certainly not the rule of law.

[Buckeye McFrog]

Politics is deciding it here in PA too, though not as the Left would like (Democrat politicians are walking around drooling just at the thought of all the new revenue streams)

[oldbrowser]

That decision depends on how we want to balance the goals of safety, community character, and access to mineral rights.

Let's also add in the need for heating oil in the winter to the list of aesthetic priorities.

[InterceptPoint]

I'll summarize the article in a few words.

Recommendation from Slate: Just let this guy decide what is best.

[Sir Napsalot]

Ayn Rand, to us, is a dire warning.

To the left, it is their roadmap (to a totalitarian dystopia).

[Shady]

Related:

http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20130312/BUSINESS/303120091/New-labor-stats-Unemployment-up-every-area-NY

[Sgt_Schultze]

...important questions surround the process of injecting millions of gallons of water laced with chemicals (some of them not publicly identified) deep into the earth to make natural gas embedded in shale formations accessible. What, for example, does this do to groundwater and air quality?

It's the "deep into the earth" that strikes me. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I wasn't aware the groundwater was present at the depths these fracking companies operate. Below is an image from wikipedia indicating the fracking is below aquifer levels.

[hattend]

Meanwhile, the Dakotas get richer as New York gets poorer.

[Sir Napsalot]

Influx of people into the rich Dakotas makes it a real (somewhat real?) possibility of Alaska v2.

[demshateGod]

Since we’re substituting science as a determining factor with considerations we personally think are worthy, I’m going to propose we decide based on economics.

[demshateGod]

How about this one. Let’s decide based on private property rights. You know, freedom.

[CedarDave]

At least they are finally admitting that they don't really care about science, they only care about their totalitarian agenda.

Yup. You nailed it. From the author of the article:

I happen to share that perspective. I believe that going to such extremes to prolong our addiction to fossil fuels is a grave mistake.

[driftless2]

Oh, I get it...when it concerns global warming, then we must rely on the scientists to tell us what to do. But when it comes to energy exploration, we must rely on the politicians to tell us what to do. Yeah, that’s great logic. (snicker)

[circlecity]

"until there is “conclusive scientific evidence” on environmental and health risks."

this is an insane, dishonest standard. You can never prove the negative, ie. that there is "conclusive scientific evidence" that there are no environmental or health risks. It's a impossible hurdle. The burden is on those who would claim there ARE environmental and health risks and if they can't prove that to a reasonable degree of certainty then you go ahead and extract the gas.

[Lx]

According to my vast research on earthquakes (I saw the movie Earthquake with Charlton Heston), since there’s a fault line, shouldn’t one side of the fault line have all the layers shifted in one direction or other?