The second sentence doesn’t support the first. You might be saying that whatever risk or lack of safety exists may be acceptable for some reason. That’s not the same as saying it is not unsafe.
This is just a logic problem. It has nothing to do with the facts on fracking.
Nominally, and given the current SCOTUS, regulation by the EPA is only going to decrease.
Obviously this has some bias, but I’m pretty sure this is accurate:
“a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act that prevents EPA from regulating the notorious drilling process that involves injecting huge volumes of toxic chemicals deep into the ground to recover oil and natural gas, potentially contaminating the nation’s water supply and putting the public’s health at risk.”
I don’t think the companies even have to disclose what chemicals they are using, much less have any restrictions on what chemicals they can use (at the federal level, some states might have some minimal additional regulations).
There is no kind of development without environmental risk. That’s why we have regulations.
My point from the start is if the argument is carbon budget make a carbon budget argument. Dont make up things about fake risk. It’s only hurts the argument.
I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m simply stating that above does not necessarily make a particular action or kind of development “not unsafe”.
The problem with these debates is people do not fairly apply risk. When it’s something they don’t like only 0 risk is acceptable. When it’s something they do like of course we have to accept some risk.
That’s the point of my anti-vaccine comment.
My apologies. When I say not unsafe I mean on a risk scale. There is no such thing as 100% safe engineering of any kind.
With vaccines, the risks and benefits are fairly well quantified.
If you want to do the same with fracking, have at it.
Clovis being pro-fracking was an unexpected discovery.
I wouldn’t say I’m pro fracking anymore than I’m pro injection moulding.
I do work for some oil and gas companies in my role as an environmental and regulatory consultant so I do this stuff all day.
Although now I work 90% on green tech and 10% on traditional energy projects.
He’s already responded to this by bringing up that Biden shut down the Keystone pipeline and thus eliminated jobs. And at the same time he let (Russia?) open a pipeline
I mean, he has his own salient points for his positions. Again, he’s not some dumb maga chud. I just think his positions are wrong headed and it drives me nuts I can’t get anywhere. If anything, I feel I lose more debates with him than win. I’m not a good debator
Just keep hammering away. Jobs are up under Biden. He eliminated some, created others. We have more jobs now, what’s the problem and oil production is up? There are plenty of other responses.
You’re getting to the point where you now have to roll up your sleeves and explain why those are shitty arguments that don’t make sense.
I reiterate that this is a waste of time unless it amuses you, in which case, keep at it. You can’t lose. You have the higher ground.
Tell him he’s a good debator.
Then send him the link to https://unstuckpolitics.com/ Tell him it’s the final boss.
Looking forward to HeritageNotHate 2.0.
Who should JJ vote for? “Not sure if black” Harris or”not even a little bit black” Trump? Hard decisions
I vaguely remember at the very beginning of his term when people were furious that he shut something down that cost 20 oil jobs or something. That was the allegation at least
Paycheck, understanding, etc
Companies pay him to tell them they’re not hurting the environment or breaking regulations
These are the comments that come from people who have already made up their minds and know they’re gonna vote for a POS
Janet Jackson is a boomer now? Damn, I’m old.
You really are incredibly boring when you try to edgelord like Bruce. Zzzzzzzzzzz.
Blacker than Michael.