Frack Not

Thursday, May 1, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

People in Santa Barbara have begun assembling to ban fracking — and it is about time! It doesn’t take a scientist to see how detrimental fracking is for the people and the environment. However, several scientists have, in fact, spoken out on the reprehensible effects caused by the exploitation of fracking by big oil companies. It has been documented in several studies and reports that fracking has caused problems such as poisonous chemicals in the water and earthquakes in areas not prone to them.

Here in Santa Barbara, a new method of steam injection is being used, which is especially prone to causing earthquakes. We are near the San Andreas fault and already susceptible to earthquakes; this dangerous practice is downright immoral and irresponsible.

In your story “Fracking Freak-Out Justified?”, one of our state senators, Hannah-Beth Jackson, speaks out against fracking and I am proud that many citizens have begun standing up to the oil companies that are exploiting the people for mere monetary gain.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

"It doesn't take a scientist". Well, yeah. Liberals are all ready to quote "science" as a reason to take action on global warming, yet they seem just as ready to discount it when the body of scientific evidence doesn't agree with their agenda.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If being a conservative means you conserve, water and air should be at the top of the list if you are human. If you worship the market and money, that is a different fetish. There are even republican voters against fracking because of what it has done to their property (pay attention to what is going on in Texas). This is a human vs. extinction issue at this point according to scientific evidence, not your typical liberals and conservative game of monopoly.

spacey (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Indy, can you please ask Ethan Stewart do an investigative report into the environmental hazards of fracking with a focus on both local issues and non-local issues?

I've been mostly staying out of this issue because:

1) I know there are environmental hazards that have been caused by fracking and I think fracking companies should be held responsible when these environmental issues occur. This can potentially in effect can cause a market-based ban if the cost to fix the environmental issues becomes too high, causing the insurance rates of oil companies to go up too much to continue the practice (see spacey, the market CAN be good if utilized correctly)

2) However it would be good to know the true magnitude of those issues, whether they relate to the specific type of fracking being done in SB County and what problems we may see from an increased presence of fracking in our local water supply.

Earthquakes - Does fracking reduce the magnitude of a future earthquake by causing them earlier before as much tension has built up, or does fracking increase overall earthquake activity over a very long period of time?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, I imagine the original title of the piece was, "Frack No" but perhaps the Indy would not publish it under that title?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If there's groundwater at risk underneath where they want to frack, why aren't we tapping into that water?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 1, 2014 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany, there isn't any science that justifies taking action on global warming. There's no evidence CO2 causes global warming. You need to realize the liberal media is almost entirely government propaganda. Mother Jones even censored my comment asking for one reference that showed CO2 caused warming.

Example (All videos have been deleted as far as I know):

Environmental Scientists Eugene Franklin Mallove, Juventina Villa Mojica and Dorothy Stang murdered after releasing lab test results linking chemtrails to the mass death of fish, plant and animal life.

Huffpost published a completely different story:

MEXICO CITY -- A band of gunmen killed an environmental activist who had received death threats for standing up to drug gangs and had a police guard when she was ambushed in southern Mexico, authorities said Thursday.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

^ this guy.... So all those other PhDs have been duped and drank the cool aid. They ignore their own evidence and are all in it for the grant money. The odds that they're all dirtbags aren't in your favor noscams, you weirdo.

redspool (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams is right. You have been duped, redspool. It is all about grant money today in "science" which has become highly, highly politicized.

There needs to be another name for what it has become. But you can use the term "wealth transfer system" for lack of a better one. It is tax money and you do know tax money gets dispensed for political favors.

The government unions needed a feel good fig leaf, so they bilked the environmental movement as the easier group to dupe. Sorry if this is news to you.

Science that is science moves in entirely different circles than this current mass hysteria with political, class warfare overtones. This stuff today barely rises above shamanism.

California dedicated 5 billion or so via bond issue a while back for "stem cell research". Ever get an update how that money is getting spent? Last I heard it was for a PR company to sing its own praises. You might want an update on that collection of "scientists".

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

14 - I think there probably is a man-made component to global warming. But the IPCC "science" is junk science driven by a political agenda. The idea that it's a "settled" science is irrefutable garbage.

My issue is that liberals often claim that they are believers in science and the scientific process, yet they completely disregard the facts in relation to fracking. There is no scientific support for just about all their claims about the "dangers" of fracking, yet they rail on about the dangers of fracking without the scientific evidence to back it up.

Botany (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Liberals are very frightened people. Not sure why, but they are. They are afraid of everything.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Point and laugh.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 2, 2014 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, I have never read such complete and utter nonsense with respect to refuting AGW. Not one coherent, persuasive argument with any proof whatsoever. It is all about supposed scientists and their grants. Completely ignoring the fact that AGW was predicted in the 1890s and that NOAA and NASA collect data every day that supports AGW. I bet none of the hysterical, badly-informed deniers could provide the specific characteristic that indicates that it is man-made, because there is such a thing. They just don't know, like with everything else. In addition, Jim Hansen's predictions from the 1970s have proven to be on the mark. Jim Hansen's concerns, which should be those of everyone, is what kind of world is being left to his grandchildren - not about stupid grants. The deniers become more laughable and pathetic every day.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios."

"Germany is one of the only big countries that has actually tried hard to change its energy mix; on one sunny Saturday in late May, that northern-latitude nation generated nearly half its power from solar panels within its borders. That's a small miracle – and it demonstrates that we have the technology to solve our problems. But we lack the will. So far, Germany's the exception; the rule is ever more carbon.

"Sometimes the irony is almost Borat-scale obvious: In early June, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled on a Norwegian research trawler to see firsthand the growing damage from climate change. "Many of the predictions about warming in the Arctic are being surpassed by the actual data," she said, describing the sight as "sobering."

This in a week when Kentucky farmers were reporting that corn kernels were "aborting" in record heat, threatening a spike in global food prices.

Read more:

Continued in next post ......

tabatha (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In the series’ first episode, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman traveled to Syria to investigate how a long-running drought has contributed to that conflict. Climate change has also been discussed as a “threat multiplier” for recent conflicts in Darfur, Tunisia, Egypt, and future conflicts, too.

In a recent interview with the blog Responding to Climate Change, retired Army Brig. Gen. Chris King laid out the military’s thinking on climate change:
“This is like getting embroiled in a war that lasts 100 years. That’s the scariest thing for us,” he told RTCC. “There is no exit strategy that is available for many of the problems. You can see in military history, when they don’t have fixed durations, that’s when you’re most likely to not win.”

In a similar vein, last month, retired Navy Rear Adm. David Titley co-wrote an op-ed for Fox News:
The parallels between the political decisions regarding climate change we have made and the decisions that led Europe to World War One are striking – and sobering. The decisions made in 1914 reflected political policies pursued for short-term gains and benefits, coupled with institutional hubris, and a failure to imagine and understand the risks or to learn from recent history.

1. London financial analysts and environmentalists
2. Germany
3. Firsthand corroboration
4. Farmers
5. Republican Thomas Friedman
6. retired Army Brig. Gen. Chris King
7. retired Navy Rear Adm. David Titley

Nope, according to some, it is all about frightened liberals and scientists and grants. There are high school kids who know better.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ummmm... unlike the title of this article, *a minority group of noisy people* in Santa Barbara want to ban fracking.

It makes PERFECT sense to ban fracking because:

1. It has done zero damage to anything anywhere.

2. Has lowered US CO2 emissions back to 1998 levels by lowering the price of natural gas, which electric plants are now using more instead of coal.

3. All the fracking currently in SB county uses the same amount of water as a single golf course

4. Reduces our dependency on and arguments for foreign wars to secure oil.

So OF COURSE we need to ban fracking. It makes us feel good about ourselves as we dream of windmills and solar panels that are 10x more expensive than oil and contribute a tiny fraction to the lowering of CO2 during the past 10 years.

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Teh stoopid iz strong.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
May 3, 2014 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting and timely article today on increase of earthquakes in Oklahoma due to fracking...

mesarat68 (anonymous profile)
May 6, 2014 at 12:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: