anyone see Gasland part 2?

phobicsquirrel

I don't know how I missed this ... but anyway watched it on hbo tonight and wow. I thought the first one was horrible with what was going on but this one is even worse. It is bad enough that these companies are doing this to people but when the govt actually give the power to private industry to trample over our rights and land I do believe it is enough. Strange thing is, in the areas these things are happening the worse, people keep voting for people that continue with this agenda. And then you have people who you might think may oppose it but then don't. Obama for instance, something I did forget (though I mentioned it at the time)... Before he was POTUS he mentioned "clean" coal and natural gas a bit but really wanted to move towards non fossil fuels, but then as the election came ever so closer the clean coal and gas was all there was. Then for re-election he did the same thing, even more so cuz of the Gulf. Then after the election is was Obama as usual. And it's just not him, it's most of them. I really think we are all ****. Between the killing off of our water, air, and rights, we be ****!

webmost

phobicsquirrel:

I don't know how I missed this ... but anyway watched it on hbo tonight and wow. I thought the first one was horrible with what was going on but this one is even worse. It is bad enough that these companies are doing this to people but when the govt actually give the power to private industry to trample over our rights and land I do believe it is enough. Strange thing is, in the areas these things are happening the worse, people keep voting for people that continue with this agenda. And then you have people who you might think may oppose it but then don't. Obama for instance, something I did forget (though I mentioned it at the time)... Before he was POTUS he mentioned "clean" coal and natural gas a bit but really wanted to move towards non fossil fuels, but then as the election came ever so closer the clean coal and gas was all there was. Then for re-election he did the same thing, even more so cuz of the Gulf. Then after the election is was Obama as usual. And it's just not him, it's most of them. I really think we are all ****. Between the killing off of our water, air, and rights, we be ****!

I saw the opposite on HBO a while back. Some reporter from Scotland went from one Gasland witness to another asking them if it's true. About a third said: "I never said what the movie said I said", about another third said: "I said the opposite", and the last third said "Lawyer says I can't talk about it." Went to the witnesses' neighbors, who'd say: "The water here has always been bad, since way before any fracking." Scottish guy also went to the scientists who'd been quoted, who said: "They made all that up. It's the opposite." Went to other scientists, who said: "BS". He went to government regulators who were quoted. They all said: "weaselwords weaselwoprds weaselwords," like they always do; but my reading between the lines was "He's a liar." He also tried to talk to Fox himself; but that guy was literally ducking him out the back door wherever he tried to corner him.

However, I never saw Gasland, so who knows what to believe? This HBO thing looked completely plausible. But then, some people actually think Obama sounds plausible. Apparently.

Which is really baffling.

jgibv

I haven't watched Pt. 2 yet, got it saved on the DVR though.
Saw the original one when it came out a year or two ago and was very surprised.

But there's no easy fix to our energy problems .... fossil fuels will eventually run out.
Yes we're making better use of them, running our engines/industrial processes/etc. more efficiently and making each drop that comes out of the ground last longer today then we were at the start of the industrial revolution. But the world's economy is based on fossil fuels.
That banana at the supermarket? Transported by gasoline. Your cell phone's plastic case? Derived from petroleum. Your computer you're reading this on? Runs on power from coal or natural gas.

Solar, wind, etc are making gains but they're not their yet. They're great as supplemental power sources but not at a point where they can act as a main "on demand" source like coal & nat gas are now.
At least not with the way the majority of people live their lives, and the way we have our homes & businesses set up

Oh and "clean coal"?
There is no such thing. There's less dirty coal, but it's never "clean".
You're right, coal is getting "cleaner" because there's no more acid rain, toxic clouds coming out of the stacks in the USA but what about the other ramifications? Strip mining? Slurry? Burning all that diesel fuel to run the behemoth machines to extract the coal? Look up a film called Dirty Business .
Oh, and that "dirty" high sulphur coal that we can't burn in the US any more because of those pesky environmental regulations?.
Guess what.....
It gets sold to China and they burn it 24/7 with virtually no pollution controls. So we're just sending the problem elsewhere

Nuclear could be a great solution if we had a way to handle the very-long term ramifications of spent fuel. There's some good theories and ideas out there on how to handle it. But no one's quite sure what to do, because how do you imagine storing something for 10,000 + years. That's a long time, much longer than any one of us will be on this earth, hard to fathom ....
And I've posted this before but give the film Into Eternity a look.

And Phobic, if you liked Gasland, you should read The End of Country: Dispatches from the Frack Zone by Seamus McGraw. Gives another unique perspective as to what's going on with the "fracking boom"

Amos_Umwhat

I was listening to Diane Reems (sp?) on NPR yesterday, she had the film-maker on as a guest, as well as an industry representative. It made for interesting listening, but few questions answered, which was primarily because every time she asked a question of the industry representative he launched into an obviously well-prepared speech, and what he said was rarely even remotely related to the question she'd asked.

She must have asked him three times at least "Has anyone ever had to move from their home as a result of the occurences that are alleged to be connected to fracking?"

He never once answered that question. After several minutes of speculating that the gas in the waterline occurences etc. could have been the result of some natural phenomenon not connected to his industry, noting that some of the folks in the original film claimed that the film mis-represented their situation, and on and on and on, with Diane repeating her question politely but firmly at about 30 second intervals, he continued to talk over her until she finally must have cut his feed and asked a different question of her other guest.

When "Mr. Frack", since I don't remember his name, was addressed again, he again failed to respond to the questions or subject at hand, and continued his litany of blowing sunshine up Dianes skirt. Some of what he said may have had merit, but I wouldn't believe it from someone like him, who's obviously not interested in an open minded discussionl

phobicsquirrel

Well there isn't any doubt that this stuff gets into the ground and water supply not to mention air. So I ask what I always ask to people who keep up with the whole " what else we going to use " meme, umm, would you drink the water or swim in oil infested waters? I mean really? The reason why the above old excuse is used because that is all we have because there is so much opposition to anything that is free. Tesla had great ideas for free power, that got squashed. Even with wind and solar and hydro we could get most of our electricity or even all of it if it was done right and the funds were given. OIL and GAS have and are destroying our world and yet we keep allowing this. Whether gasland is a lie, which I doubt it since there really isn't any money in it and the gas companies have spent millions against any opposition it still seriously causes problems for people. And if there was an anti gasland video or what not, then who backed it? What parties are behind the scenes? One of the things I have learned is that the only time I believe anything anymore is if the side with the most to lose and least amount of money behind it/them they are usually right. When in recent history has the big money, big interest not been at fault? Can't really think of one time.

webmost

phobicsquirrel:

One of the things I have learned is that the only time I believe anything anymore is if the side with the most to lose and least amount of money behind it/them they are usually right. When in recent history has the big money, big interest not been at fault? Can't really think of one time.

Exactly my argument against ever-expanding government. There is no other sphere of human activity even remotely so corrupted by money and interest than government. The irony is that the only tool we have with which to rein in money and interest is the very one most terribly corrupted by money and influence.

You cannot have good government. You can only have less government. It ought to be judiciously meted out in the most parsimonious manner only where absolutely necessary.

See: For the most part, the world is self-regulating. When whale oil runs out, we found an alternative to whale oil. When oil runs out, we will find an alternative to oil. Not until. Not until. History does not hit a wall. It tunnels under goes round or scales wall after wall. This has happened over and over again. Problems are never averted. They are dealt with.

If you don't like it, stop all your incessant driving. Get a motorcycle. Get a job close to home. Make friends with your neighbors. Play in the yard. Go to bed when it gets dark.

I am originally from Kalifornia -- a state where every person pretends to be greener than you yet spends a minimum three hours a day in their car. Bullet trains to nowhere, windmills which actually increase oil use, battery cars which take more energy to build than they save ... these are the only answers even they can come up with.

phobicsquirrel

I get the "idea" of less government. Reagan used it to great success and it seems to have been a driver ever since and because of it and other things we are where we are at now. I believe that the idea of less intrusion is good however it doesn't work. What we have here is an idea of less government. however this country was founded on government and a government that for the most part was suppose to work for the people. Now sure nothing is perfect but really, especially at this point in time less government isn't a good thing, well I guess it depends on what government one wants.

Like you mentioned oil. Well sure the world reacts which IMO is very primitive. Reactive is not a good idea and it costs way too much. In terms of say one's own home. If you know your water heater is old but do not be pro-active in fixing it one day it's going to blow and you might have a *** ton of water around. So now not only do you have to clean up the mess you need a new water heater and that all is more expensive or time consuming had one just bought a new one. Bring this type of scenario to anything the govt does or a home owner does and things would be much more effective.

Let's take the oil thing for example. We have known for decades that oil wasn't a good move to keep going. Carter tried to warn us and even tried to push for a huge reduction in fossil fuels, hell he even put solar panels on the roof of the white house. Homes were being built around solar and I've been in some of them, very nice. Well once Reagan and his pro oil and pro walstreet guys came in that was torn down. And because of that we are way worse off now. Had we went along with Carter's plan we would have a much lower dependace on oil, our enviroment would be cleaner and who know's we might have started a whole new industry where our economy would be better off. We probably wouldn't have been in the 1st gulf war and the 2nd and spend so much money on our navy defending these companies at sea. There also wouldn't have been the gulf BP disaster which pretty much killed off any sea life and destroyed the eco system.

A reactive world or culture is the way to destruction. Our climate for instance as of right now is way past a breaking point and it's due to us burning fossil fuels. Science has warned against this for decades and now it is upon us and things aren't going well. If only we as a nation and/or world had taken head we would be in a much better place. Maybe one day humanity will learn from our stupid past of always reacting instead of being proactive.

Govt. is really the only way the people have a chance. Right now the govt. isn't really doing a good job because it has been taken over by the people who it was created to buffer. If it isn't the govt helping out the banks, they are helping out gas companies kill our land and even our people, if it's not there, they are breaking laws to spy on us and using private companies even. Govt. is telling woman that they are not in control of their bodies, govt is telling us we can't use plants to consume, govt is telling us that if you have a pound of grass it's more criminal than raping someone. But then we have a govt that started the epa to protect our air (to an extent), make sure some level of health is being done for our food, allowing people of color to vote (at times), getting seniors some type of safety net (while it lasts), has a national defense.... and so on. So really govt is what we make of it. These laws are made or broken based on who we as citizens elect so it's really our fault.

webmost

Right there is the difference. Realists versus Idealists. An idealist will cite a paragraph chock full of government bred evils just as you did, then conclude: "So really govt is what we make of it." An realist will cite that same list and conclude: "Power corrupts."

You believe: "this country was founded on government". You are dead wrong. The country was founded on the novel idea of LIMITING government. Why? Well, empirical realism, is why.

We have got to the point now where it's all about people of by and for the government, rather than the reverse. How did we get here? Idealism, discarding one limit after another.

phobicsquirrel

webmost:

Right there is the difference. Realists versus Idealists. An idealist will cite a paragraph chock full of government bred evils just as you did, then conclude: "So really govt is what we make of it." An realist will cite that same list and conclude: "Power corrupts."

You believe: "this country was founded on government". You are dead wrong. The country was founded on the novel idea of LIMITING government. Why? Well, empirical realism, is why.

We have got to the point now where it's all about people of by and for the government, rather than the reverse. How did we get here? Idealism, discarding one limit after another.

I will agree that power corrupts but you are wrong in that this country was "not" founded on govt. That is how after all we have a society. Without it, it wouldn't work. Sure there was a lot less of govt intrusion back in the day but the govt still was made to be just that, the govt. Without it, this country never would have been made. Besides the idea of limited govt is a farse. What is really the ceiling and floor for that? There is not set limit on how a "limited" govt should be measured. If truly we had a limited govt how would that work? I mean right now we have the best govt money can buy. Really though, we the people do elect our govt so to say that isn't the case is crazy.

Sort of cracks me up how people in texas and florida are all pissed because the legislator is making all these abortion laws and such ... but the thing is all of these people passing these laws, were elected by the citizens so really they shouldn't vote for these people. Same could be said of a lot of elected politicians. Sure you never really get everything you want but in terms of the hearty things one can usually find out what a candidate stands for.