Being forced to essentially pay in advance for fossil fuels, through a lifetime of taxes so you can't AFFORD not to, IS NOT A CHOICE.
Only nonconsentual, corruption-enabled subsidies, for almost two centuries, makes them economically mandatory - even though they've demonstrably killed more around the world, and certainlly caused more misery and suffering, than they've helped.
There are many words for that, but just three are :
CRIMINAL, FASCISM and TYRANNY.
If "INSANITY" also qualifies, that was partially caused by exposure to its many toxic byproducts, not excluding the poverty and despair that has life in West Virginia a living hell for almost ALL of its inhabitants.
I would not even exclude inability to spell "Fractivism" from the thousands of ill effects.
It springs from a desire not to be poisoned nonconsentually, in your own home.
It springs from insisting on your legal right to decide who does what on, under, and TO your own property.
And it springs from outrage at these things being forced on us by greedy criminal "Industries" who have corrupted our government at the highest levels; to actually PROTECT their unconstitutional ability to inflict permanent harm and damage to MOST of America through these harmful methods, in order to export our resources FASTER, driving UP domestic prices to the $14Mcf they can get elsewhere by stripping our country of its supposedly "dwindling" resources. And that isn't some "narrative" of a theory or conjecture. It's based on pesonal observation and experience of reality. It's the narrative of EXACTLY what's happening to us in WV TODAY.
Domestic NG prices have been less than $5/mcf for the past 8 years and is near $3/mcf today. If anything, O&G exploration has driven consumer prices down. Where is this $14/mcf market? I want to sell my gas there (and so does the producer for my lease because we'll both benefit).
Since you want to live in a fossil free world I suggest that if you want to have a proper discussion on this subject please take a quill pen with paper and write a letter to me and send it via horseback. I'll be happy to reply likewise.
Fossil fuels are and always will be the foundation of industry.
They were the foundation of the industrial revolution.
Industry is good.
It built our mighty country and will continue to grow it.
Even the simplest minded can comprehend those facts.
We do not have that choice
- and THAT's the problem.
Please read my first post again.
And? The "Industral Revolution," really a COUP d'Etat by the Robber Barons, (and a replacement for slave labor by creating "wage slaves," as well as monstrous economic inequality -upward wealth redistribution- through greed, corruption and bribery,) was humanity's fatal mistake. It could easily have been avoided by adhering to the original limits of the Corporate Charter, by enforcing Antitrust, and by realizing that hinging society's future on dangerous and depletable energy sources was a huge and fatal mistake - for everyone but the greedy criminals called "business."
It's only irrelevant to you because it doesn't fit your false narrative.
BTW, you do have a choice, go off the grid and produce as much as you can of what you consume.
Please don't tell me that isn't a choice. Check out the Amish and Mennonites.
Plus I have friends who live off the grid.
Check out their ages and health conditions.
AGAIN - "Off grid" is NOT a viable choice because it has been made
not only economically, but physically nonviolable.
Amish is a religion - they are anabaptists. It is not a cult. None of this has anything to do with the fact that they are off-grid, and off-grid can be VERY economically viable as evidenced by some very, very wealthy members of their community. While they are not all millionaires, as a community, they do very well for themselves largely because they work very hard and are very frugal in their spending habits.
Given your take on this, we have to assume you live in a tent, are a hunter-gatherer, and utilize NONE of the advancements that have happened because of said Industrial Revolution?
That assessment depends on who's "thriving and burgeoning" (i.e. getting rich)
and how many (of whom) have to suffer and even die for it, in comparison.
And of course, WHETHER THE VICTIMS HAVE A CHOICE.
As is their necessity. (Good thing they don't CURE it, because that would be less profitable...)
Cancer was first discovered in Germany, after the refining of coal tar into "aniline" dyes began giving workers incurable "Aniline Tumors." In fact most of the chemical carcinogens we have today are petroleum (coal waste)- based products. The rest are nuclear-based, also a byproduct of (especially) Marcellus fracking's produced- and waste- "water" TENORMs.
No, but it certainly WAS a choice (of highly monetizable depletable -and dangerously produced- fossil fuel dependence) that made it FAR more common. Just another purposely "externalized" cost typical of the unbridled capitalism of the robber barons, who are STILL very much among us, and more virulent than ever. But is it YOUR contention that they actually knew better, and so are even MORE culpable?
(Actually, they did. That's what the move of "Industry" to America was all about. Driven out of Germany and Switzerland for this reason, they sought the more lax regulation of a young, naive country where they could oppress and kill workers, and pollute the resources, at will.. Read a book called "Tom's River" by Dan Fagin.)
What I'm saying is, better, more sustainable and responsible choices could have been made, but for greed. And it could have been contained, but for corruptability, and especially the wllingness of business to corrupt government, and in MANY case actuallly criminally ENFORCE that corruption. Fossil Fuel dependence has an ugly history and has only gotten more so.
First hand knowledge here: My wife's stage 4 cancer treatments over 2 years averaged $4,000/month. Imaging every 3 months ran the cost up to around $14,000 for that month.
Knowledge is wisdom.
So you think you should choose who thrives in a free society's burgeoning population ?
I for one don't think so Rodney.
To me you're coming off like some kind of sanctimonious, liberal, fake do-gooder, holier than thou, elitist.
Yup, that's what I think after I thunk about it some.
Rodney fails to take into account (intentionally, I believe) that this is America and you are only limited by your imagination, ingenuity, determination, and work ethic. Anyone can be successful and thrive here. Those who do thrive, utilize the characteristics I mentioned previously to the fullest extent and are rewarded for their efforts.
It strikes me as hypocritical to rant and rave about others rants and ravings. The pro-gas camp, in general, is much more rabid in it's comments than the "fractivist" camp. Their hyperbole and ad hominem attacks belie the lack of real facts or logic.
To imply that the human race would not exist without the use of fossil fuels is ludicrous. A rotting fish is a better fertilizer than ammonia, as is horse manure; you just can't have 'factory' farms with them.
No one is suggesting that we abolish the use of fossil fuels. The genie is out, and the genie is now in charge. That doesn't mean that there is no time for moderation. The 'drill-baby-drill' crowd would like to eliminate any and all oversight, and that springs from greed. For them, enough is never enough, and pollution only kills the weak ones.
A misrepresentation of his argument.
The pet snakes would be the lobbyists and the bought-off politicians who pass laws that favor the health of business over the health of the individual. Also, the sycophants who use political-type speech, emotional but fact-deficient, to sway those who don't understand the issues, and listen to the loudest voice, even though it be bluster.
Still, it's hard to stop progress, and impossible to reverse it. Neither of these facts prohibits slowing it to a safer, saner rate. Idealism on either side is academic.
Actually, the"pet snakes" are the pipelines (from the Lakota legend's warning of "the Black Snake.")
But it's an even better metaphor that has more than one application
If it be a misrepresentation it is he (rodney....) that 1st used it and left it open-ended and now leaves the questions I've asked unanswered. The mark of phony argument / hyperbole.
Your argument, or lack thereof is nonsensical.
Though Rodney asserts his belief that the "pet snakes" should be killed, you attempt to brand him as the pet snake. Is it your contention that he desires to see himself killed?
Furthermore, Rodney stated a clear, fact-based argument. It is yourself and others who have failed to present a valid counterpoint. If you believe that his argument is phony, you should be prepared to contradict it with facts supporting that opinion.
Rodney's argument not so much open-ended as it is one-sided, lacking an adequate response. Your argument is empty of facts, containing only conjecture.
The genie reference is mine, and is a common analogy for an entity that has been unleashed and has the power to preclude itself from being restrained again. While I believe it obvious, I'll clarify it to mean the fossil fuel conglomerate.
. You are not reading what Mr. Rodney wrote. He brought up the 'pet snake' reference less clarifying who he was referring to - leaving it open to interpretation. You ASSUME he referenced ONLY political / industrial associates / surrogates. He still provides no clarification. It is he and you who are not making sense and instead remain clinging to unapologetic phonyism / nonsense / hyperbole. Also refrain kindly from referencing firearms / deadly force in polite conversation among assumed gentlemen members here on this forum and elsewhere should either of you encounter others not holding your opinions. Note it is he and you who have referenced firearms (target practice) / killing and not I or anyone other member readers here.
My point was that he was likely not referring to himself as the pet snake, as you characterize in your question: "What phony genie are you a pet snake to Rodney ?". Unless, of course, he is suicidal, though I doubt it.
I admit that the chronology is difficult to follow, but it appears that it is you are not reading the posts fully; Rodney clarified the snake analogy as being a Lakota Indian reference to pipelines a full half-hour previous to your last post. As it turns out, my interpretation was not in line with his; I was unaware of the Lakota pipeline connection.
I am sorry to (and for) anyone who is frightened by talk of killing snakes and genies. I also bite my Pop-Tarts into gun shapes. (just kidding, moderator) The term kill is widely used to denote events other than ending a life. The kill switch on my ATV does not cause machine guns to pop out and annihilate living things; it just stops the engine. To kill a project does not usually mean that everyone on the team must die (unless you're CIA).
My position remains one of moderation; you can take anything too far. I also try to be realistic. It is a waste of time to talk of abolishing the industry. That in no way means that the industry should be allowed to proceed unfettered while it seizes property and pollutes the environment at will. Without the voice of dissent, our environment would be worse than China's.
I also try to be precise. I support free speech. I am as much disagreeing with Rodney's extremism as I am your misrepresentation of it, and your defense of Barry's. Neither of you have yet to offer a factual counter to any of the points that Rodney made, some of which are true and valid. The entire thread is based on a flawed and hyperbolic argument, beside of which Rodney's assertions appear downright cerebral. To equate being concerned bythe polluting of one's environment with insanity is about as ungentlemanly as one can get, in my book.
Being anti oil and gas and being pro environment are not the same thing.
Believing so, is a part of the mental disorder.
Being pro oil and gas is not the same as being anti environment.
Believing so, is a part of the mental disorder.
First, this view assumes that extractionists would produce fossil fuels safely and responsibly even if that were possible. They are not known for absorbing costs rather than pass them on, no matter the consequences.
But a process THIS harmful, and depletive, producing FAR more than America can use; cannot be done without harming the environment, and Exxon itself proved they knowingly create these risks to others - and that they are terminal to life on earth.. The intent was inarguably to destroy all life in order to deplete American resources, because it's more profitable to export them.
Where would a Corporate Business sell "its" (*Stolen*) product? Where they get $3 a unit, or where they can get $14 (minus $1/unit for shipping?) - AND. importantly, FOR HOW MUCH?
"American Energy independence," my ASS.
Thank you for your continued responses.
With each post you continue to make my case.
BTW, I doubt that American Energy Independence has anything to do with your posterior.
I interpreted Mr. Rodney as describing all pro-fossil fuel development folks (of which I am one of) as 'pet snakes' to the fossil fuel industry. I then inquired what alternative energy industry he was as a 'pet snake' to ? Still unanswered. BTW I read within this discussion that Mr. Rodney wants to 'kill the genie AND his pet snakes' so I'm not buying your interpretation Mr. Dan.
I acknowledge my mistake. It was lost on me that you were only borrowing his analogy.
Your interpretation was also incorrect. As Rodney explained, the snakes are the pipelines.
Your attempt at personifying the genie from my analogy seeks to suggest a malice towards mankind. In fact, it is towards an idea, an industry.
The best method for discrediting Rodney's assertions would be to refute them through contradictory facts, rather than assaulting his character. Tax money is used for subsidies. Wars are initiated for oil. Property is seized for the good of the industry. Life for many, myself included, is hell because the industry is given carte blanche. You get the idea.
The point is not whether rod's assertions are correct or incorrect.
A reasonable person would offer an alternative to fossil fuels.
Which there are none at this point in time.
To constantly rant and rave about the use of fossil fuels without proposing an alternative is the fractivist position. It's madness.
Actually, that is precisely my point.
The discussion began with a statement by yourself that anyone with a negative opinion regarding the industry was unbalanced, not whether or not there is an alternative power source.
I would add that there is one - nuclear.
You mis-understand and write a mis-representation of the meaning of my simple inquiries.
Personification : I interpreted the 'pet snakes' as Mr. Rodney's personification of pro fossil fuel folks - I only asked Mr. Rodney what alternative energy industry he thought of himself as a 'pet snake' to. Further I did not personify him / identify him as a 'pet snake' to any ? My questions remain unanswered.
Mr. Rodney's 'pet snake to pipeline analogy' came after my inquiries but did not answer them to my satisfaction as I do not believe it was his true meaning when he wrote the analogy initially.
You see - I do not believe Mr. Rodney. Period.
"What phony genie are you a pet snake to Rodney ?"
"I only asked Mr. Rodney what alternative energy industry he thought of himself as a 'pet snake' to."
Anyone see a difference?
We believe what we want to believe.
To : dan-warner2 :
Prior to my inquiries of Mr. Rodney and what comment of his spawned my inquiries, Mr. Rodney wrote as follows :
"I say kill the genie AND his pet snakes, because that's his approach to us - all the rest of humanity, and indeed all life on Earth."
Read above, check the chronology and believe what you want to believe.
And FWIW to you Mr. Dan, you have also achieved becoming unbelievable to me.
I still have a 5 gallon bucket of frac fluid sitting in my house.
So far so good, knock on wood.
Although, I will admit that the dog and cat are getting along better. Coincidence? Or proof that frac fluid, just by it's existence, can have an effect.
What do you think Paul? Can the magical powers of frac fluid affect the relationship between my dog and cat?
I would believe you would based on the stuff you post.