She was so cute when she was on Good Times.
Agree but what is your plan to mitigate the impact on the poorest people who will bear the bulk of increased fuel costs?
Tax the rich and ubi or something
Sounds good. How is this passing?
You may as well suggest that subsidizing fossil fuels is the right way to help poor people.
But to answer your question, there are a million ways. Child care, education, health care, minimum wages, public transportation, negative income tax/universal basic income, etc, etc.
1 Like
I donāt feel like doing this tbh. Itās not passing and we all know that, the same way we canāt get universal healthcare passed which could at least help mitigate the financial burden on those most impacted by the health risks of things like fracking
āWe canāt have any good things, therefore fracking is OKā doesnāt seem logical
4 Likes
This discussion started with the idea Harris should ban fracking. My point is that decision has a million knock off effects that are difficult to solve.
Your point is right though which is why I donāt think forcing a reduction in production is the right solution and why almost nobody serious is making this claim.
The right path is incentivizing decarbonzarion like has been done in the IRA. Make it way more economical to provide green energy and it will naturally replace hydrocarbon molecules.
DDT made food cheaper and banning it impacted poor people. Asbestos is a great and cheap material that made lots of consumer products more useful and less expensive and banning it impacted poor people. Lead is a fantastic additive to gasoline and made engines run better and more efficiently and banning it impacted poor people. Fracking makes oil cheaper and causes more to be burned, which is causing the whole planet to heat up.
6 Likes
I donāt think I made your last claim anywhere.
The right path is anything that changes the infrastruction and either helps build a future for renewables or hurts fossil fuels. Regulations can change overnight. Even the uncertainty over fracking in North America is good in and of itself.
āSeriousā people donāt try to curtail production because of the massive influence of the industry (yes, itās massive) and how irrational people are over shit like āthis will cost 30 jobs in West Virginiaā. Those āseriousā people, could not be elected or appointed to anything if they opposed production.
1 Like
Not explicitly but the thought process is there. Our inability to help the most vulnerable is an attribute of our system and has nothing to do with fracking
Ok so are we talking about we would do if we were magically dictator for a day or what we should do given the real world?
Barely anything. We have no power. I decided what I could do was install solar panels for like 15 years. Iām almost done with that, but they keep pulling me in a little bit. Hopefully done soon. Iām too old for this. After that? Give up I reckon.
4 Likes
One of the best pieces of advice I got for persuasion canvassing was to ask the voter, āif you were President/governor/mayor/whatever for a day, what would be the first thing you would do to help someone you love?ā
Itās a way better question than asking about their own priorities or top issues.
Iām not sure a single person on the planet, in PA or otherwise, would say anything about fracking
1 Like
I guess Iād suggest what you do is turn down your heat and air conditioning, buy less shit, if you have to buy another car and itās viable make it electric, get solar panels if you own a house and the roof gets enough sun, eat fewer cows, etc.
So you want to hurt the economy, which hurts poor people. Got it
Well, sabotaging oil production could have a big impact of course.
Fossil fuels have a very low # of workers per energy. Solar industry is way better for the working class. Also, eating things other than cows probably good for workers/poor. Also, less global warming definitely good for the poor. On the whole, I think itās a pretty poor friendly plan.
1 Like
Buy less shit and use less energy is bad for the economy. Way way way way worse than higher energy price due to less fracking