What are community resources? If you are fracking for energy resources on your personal property, you are selling it to members of your community for them to use - how does that not help the community?
Really? Do you own the acquifer under your house?
Your property rights don't give you the right to the community water supply to pillage for fun and profit.
2. What property rights? You don't own property. It is rented from the county, city, town, village etc.
Your property rights don't give you the right to the community water supply to pillage for fun and profit.
2. What property rights? You don't own property. It is rented from the county, city, town, village etc.
You are arguing from the wrong side. Of course I own the water under my property. What I can't do is do anything to the water that may harm people outside of my property. If I do, I go to court and defend myself against accusation of harming the water under my property that harmed people outside my property.
Are you suggesting I need permission to get drinking water from under my property? Who is my master that gives me permission?
I agree with your renting claim, but that's a separate argument.
You are arguing from the wrong side. Of course I own the water under my property. What I can't do is do anything to the water that may harm people outside of my property. If I do, I go to court and defend myself against accusation of harming the water under my property that harmed people outside my property.
Are you suggesting I need permission to get drinking water from under my property? Who is my master that gives me permission?
I agree with your renting claim, but that's a separate argument.
You are disallowed by the governmental initiation of the force of law from bottling and selling the aquifer.
You are disallowed by the governmental initiation of the force of law from cutting and selling trees, excavation, or even opening a water park.
Unless granted a government license for such behavior.
You have no rights until they are granted to you.
Property rights no longer exist.
You and I could never sell devices for profit, that would dump poison gases into the environment, yet Henry Ford was allowed to smog up the world, for fun and billionaire status.
You are disallowed by the governmental initiation of the force of law from bottling and selling the aquifer.
You are disallowed by the governmental initiation of the force of law from cutting and selling trees, excavation, or even opening a water park.
Unless granted a government license for such behavior.
You have no rights until they are granted to you.
Property rights no longer exist.
I agree on all of this.
I was talking about your post and personal belief that said community resources can't be used for personal profit. The argument I believe is - I can't harm another individuals resources on their property when extracting resources on my property.
Actually, there have been a number of studies, including the one from mid July, which have shown that is safe. The REAL science has been backing up what the pro-fracking people have been saying all along. The Kennedys, the Gores, the Saudi Royal Family, the Pelosi-palosers in the Democratic Congressional Caucus, the Hollywood Left and all of the other environmental special interests groups have been trying to obfuscate, distort and other wise brain wash the public into believing it is dangerous. When in fact, the aforementioned are more dangerous to our nation's future than almost anything else on earth.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Actually, there have been a number of studies, including the one from mid July, which have shown that is safe. The REAL science has been backing up what the pro-fracking people have been saying all along.
5 million people drive drunk every month.
That doesn't make it safe.
Frackers should buy their own county where they can do what they want.
The United States is 95% uninhabited wilderness.
Why must they insist on fracking where people live?
The argument I believe is - I can't harm another individuals resources on their property when extracting resources on my property.
Correct.
That would be the initiation of the use of force on others, by altering their property as a result of your actions.
If a person owns 20 square miles the chance of causing damage to others would be next to nothing.
If a person owns a couple acres, the risk would be much higher.
The Rotterdam landfill in Pattersonville comes to mind.
Some genius in the planning commission allowed a landfill to be opened uphill from homes.
The ground water ended up loaded with chemicals that leeched down the hill.
Damage to the aquifer isn't known since the technology isn't there to know exactly what has made it through into the water supply.
These same brainiacs allowed Schenectady International to build and expand many times on the aquifer as well.
GE dumped behind the main plant for half a century. The only reason GE hasn't closed is because the land would require a superfund cleanup operation. It's cheaper to keep a small operation running than face the massive cleanup that would be needed.
GE, Schenectady International and the landfill all were allowed without regard to resulting contamination over the course of decades of spills, dumping and just ignorance of the consequences of their actions.
This is why people are suspicious of fracking. They don't want to look back in 2025 and say "who was the idiot that allowed fracking. How stupid were they?"
Sure you can't prove exactly how much environmental pollution has been caused by the factories and dump, but the Great Flats used to be the best farmland and hunting grounds in the area.
That's the same argument for DWI check points. You stop everybody assuming they are drunk, and require them to prove their innocence. Public Safety. So you are saying people fracking are guilty of pollution without it being proven. And government can initiate force by threatening fines and jailing for potentially polluting, though they haven't been found guilty of it by a jury, but instead by politically appointed bureaucrats.
there aren't too many 'natural' resourses that is not a risk to 'something'.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The radius is 7,000 ft., or an area of 153,938,000 sq. ft. which equals 3,534 acres. Most people (who are poor destitute landowners) do not own that much property without impinging on a neighbor's property. Fracking, under extreme pressures can drive toxic, proprietary chemicals well beyond these water extraction wells creating an even larger zone of influence. Hey, whatever you're comfortable with . . . .
That's the same argument for DWI check points. You stop everybody assuming they are drunk, and require them to prove their innocence. Public Safety. So you are saying people fracking are guilty of pollution without it being proven. And government can initiate force by threatening fines and jailing for potentially polluting, though they haven't been found guilty of it by a jury, but instead by politically appointed bureaucrats.
Not the same argument at all.
DWI checkpoints have nothing at all to do with public safety. If a person follows the rules of the road, they should never be stopped, questioned or searched.
I'm not saying anyone is guilty.
The government disallows any tampering with natural waterways without studies and conclusive testing.
Local governments decide what is deemed safe for the community and are there to protect the community resources.
In the past your method was used and today the most pristine lands in the county have become polluted wastelands.
25% of all lakes in NYS have absolutely no life in them. They are dead. From geniuses who said their pollution was safe. They also said studies hadn't proven that acid rain causes any harm.
The radius is 7,000 ft., or an area of 153,938,000 sq. ft. which equals 3,534 acres. Most people (who are poor destitute landowners) do not own that much property without impinging on a neighbor's property. Fracking, under extreme pressures can drive toxic, proprietary chemicals well beyond these water extraction wells creating an even larger zone of influence. Hey, whatever you're comfortable with . . . .
I'm uncomfortable with corporations forcing chemicals through the public water supply.
I support personal liberty. That same support does not apply to corporations.
Corporations are the use of the force of the law to gain preferential treatment over others.
The force of law should only be used to support equal treatment under the law.
Corporations are not people born with rights.
They are people petitioning the government for special privileges.
"It Can't Happen Here"...But It Is Happening There Tuesday, 30 July 2013 14:05 By The Daily Take, The Thom Hartmann Program | Op-Ed
Right now, highly toxic and environmentally devastating tar sands oil is leaking from underground wells at a tar sands oil extracting operation in Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada.
While that’s bad enough, here’s the real stunner: Tar Sands oil has been leaking non-stop from these underground wells since May, and officials still don’t know exactly where the leaks are coming from, how to stop them and how to clean up the damage that they have caused.
And, the company that owns the tar sands operation in Cold Lake, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CRNL) has suggested that the oil could have started leaking even earlier than May, possibly as early as March.
As of July 19th, 26,000 barrels of bitumen (the main ingredient in tar sands oil) mixed with surface water had been cleaned up from the leak site, but the actual amount that has leaked into the environment could be much higher.
Documents show that about 68,000 pounds of oil-contaminated vegetation has been removed from the latest of the four spill zones, and the Alberta environment ministry has already confirmed that the spills have killed a number of animals.
But officials in Alberta will have to brace for more cleanup efforts, because CRNL not only doesn’t know how to stop the leaks, they don’t have a clue where the leaks are coming from.
Truthout needs your support to produce grassroots journalism and disseminate conscientious visions for a brighter future. Contribute now by clicking here.
Meanwhile, back here in the U.S., the Obama administration is still deciding whether or not to give approval to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, which would transport the very same type of highly corrosive and highly dangerous tar sands oil, from Alberta across the middle of our nation to the Gulf Coast region where it can be refined and exported.
The owners of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada, have sworn that the pipeline will be completely safe, and will cause little to no environmental danger to the areas of the country that it would run through.
TransCanada has also made a point of saying that it’s agreed to 57 safety conditions suggested by pipeline safety regulators, which it says will make it safer than other oil pipelines.
While that sounds good for public relations, the reality is that those so-called safety conditions are the bare minimum standards that all pipeline operators must follow.
And, as TarSandsAction.org points out, TransCanada said that the Keystone 1 pipeline, the first phase of the greater Keystone XL project which went into effect in the summer 2010, would have at most one oil spill in seven years. It had 12 spills in just its first year of operation alone.
TransCanada’s miscalculation might have something to do with the fact that tar sands oil is much more dangerous to transport than conventional oil because it’s much more corrosive to the pipelines through which it travels through.
And, when those pipelines break, and the tar sands oil spills out, it’s nearly impossible to clean up.
Unlike regular oil that floats on the top of water when it spills, tar sands oil sinks to the bottom of the ocean, or deep into the soil if it’s on land, and as result, is far more destructive to the environment and harder to clean up.
Over the past decade, tar sands pipelines have had hundreds of ruptures, spilling more than a million gallons of tar sands oil that have devastated rivers, wetlands, drinking water reservoirs and wildlife.
Should the Keystone XL pipeline be given the green light by the Obama administration, it will cross through America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million Americans.
Tar sands oil is also one of the most carbon intensive forms of energy. Substituting tar sands oil for conventional oil increases global warming emissions by a staggering 20%.
Despite what TransCanada may say in its press releases and public relations campaigns, the Keystone XL pipeline is a disaster waiting to happening, and when that disaster does happen, it will make us long for the “good old days” of “normal” disasters like the BP Gulf oil spill. .
Dr. James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and one of America’s top climate scientists, has said that the extraction and use of tar sands oil is “essentially game over” for the climate.
We need to be taking the actions necessary to save our planet, not further destroy it.
Call your members of Congress, and tell them to urge the Obama administration to say no to the Keystone XL pipeline.
That would be the same James Hansen who predicted the coming ice age in the 70's and who used phony figures to prove his hockey stick theory on global warming that proved to be wrong as the earth hasn't warmed in over 15 years. The oil pipeline in Alaska has transported oil for many years without serious problems. Methods of transporting oil have been improved due to strict laws protecting the environment, if it can be done safely then the project should go forward.
Logged
