hydrofracking yay or nay

Thanks but......Meh, being in school was miserable for me. Nursing school put me over the edge. The clock is ticking, I’m going to do what I want to be doing from here on out.

Understood- but you have to have some god given aptitude to have survived given your threshold of fear.

A short documentary on the Camp Fire. It sounds interesting.

https://activenorcal.com/fire-in-paradise-full-review-of-netflixs-camp-fire-documentary/

PeeTex wrote

Understood- but you have to have some god given aptitude to have survived given your threshold of fear.

When I’m focused I can do really well at things. Sitting around all day studying drives me nuts. Speed puts me in my happy place, that’s where this world or my mind strangely feels calm and comfortable. I’m wired a bit differently than most and not really cut out for our modern capitalistic culture. I simply don’t have any interest in the things that drive most folks, it’s a blessing and a curse to be honest.

Wyoming & North Dakota *use* more energy per capita than most other states. That's what I'm saying.

And I think P-Tex and I aren’t disagreeing but more importantly we should be looking at what drives that. Ill bet you a hundred dollars it’s the most populated states consumption. In other words there’s two states with very small populations providing energy for the larger populations in states such as New York and California. These topics are usually a lot more complicated than one graph might suggest.

raisingarizona wrote

And I think P-Tex and I aren’t disagreeing but more importantly we should be looking at what drives that. Ill bet you a hundred dollars it’s the most populated states consumption.

I got a map for that, too:
 

But I also have this:


It's a complicated story. And I didn't mean to imply that California doesn't consume energy (because I uhhh... never said that).

And why does Texas consume so much energy? It’s not pickup trucks as you implied, it’s the petrochemical industry - refining is highly energy intensive. Where do all the chemicals go (gasoline being one), to all those other states.

California has gone from 40 refineries to 15 since 1984 and has cut production by 50%. However it’s consumption has gone from 30 to 40 million gal/day. That’s exporting pollution which is the ultimate in “not in my backyard”.

PeeTex wrote

And why does Texas consume so much energy? It’s not pickup trucks as you implied.

Yeah... But it's also long commutes in pickup trucks:



Like, I know we all want to tell ourselves stories... But if your story is: "Climate change is the fault of giant multinational oil companies and not individual choices by consumers" is true, but kinda leaving out something... Something you mentioned earlier in the thread, but seem to want to attack me for now:

PeeTex wrote

Yea - agree that those big houses are ridiculous. But Industry uses twice as much energy as residential and transportation is a real hog. We throw away 60% of the energy we consume and power generation (conversion to electricity) and transportation (conversion to motion) are the worst offenders.

And those good ole country boys driving their big pick up trucks are producing goods for consumers in other places in our country.

I see what you are saying though, in rural boom town America the commutes can be long but they are still there to meet energy needs for people all over the country. Like as in, the huge populations in New York.

My point is that we are all a part of this big system and no one has clean hands. Shit, this is a skiing forum, as if a wealthy recreational activity such as skiing can claim rightoues environmentally friendly roots l! This whole industry is fueled by over the top consumerism and capitalism ! And, AND! So is your job as a ski instructor! You don’t have work if it weren’t for rich, weekend warriors that can afford this new “hobby”!

raisingarizona wrote

And those good ole country boys driving their big pick up trucks are producing goods for consumers in other places in our country. .

There are plenty of places in NY and CA that produce things too, bud:


And this whole thing started because you said that overpopulation was responsible for all the carbon emissions. I'm just saying... That's not the whole picture.

Sure but still the overall carbon footprint is spread across huge populations in those other states. And shoot, manufacturing jobs aren’t the same as energy extraction industry. Those manufacturing jobs require energy consumption.

Oil drilling and fracking has a massive overall footprint and in Wyoming and North Dakota it’s shared with the smallest populations per square mile of any state in the country.

And yes, I stand by my point that everything is related to too many people everywhere. The population throughout the world is accelerating climate change drastically, not pick up trucks in Wyoming even though it’s all connected.

Bud.....

Do you think cities with smaller footprints, more dense housing, and good public transportation would help? Because I'm saying it would... That was my point and I feel a bit like you guys don't seem to think that matters at all (even though it is directly related to the sprawl you mentioned as a problem in your area).

Let's do it!

I don’t think anything matters at this point.

We are totally fucked imo.

And I’m definitely not saying this to justify more bad behavior on my part. I guarantee you I’m one of the most environmentally green people you talk to. My footprint is next to nothing and that’s something I’m proud of.

City, dense housing, and public transportation is my definition of torture.

Couldn't do it

MC,
You came in with the premise that pickup trucks and long commutes were the problem and you have clarified that with the idea that we should all live in cities and dense urban areas. I call BS to that, you can't feed and power the city if you don't have people in the farm land and oil patch growing food and producing energy and products. I said that when people move to cities they export their pollution to those places that produce the food, energy and goods - that was my point. RA is correct in that the root of the problem is too many people - you get rid of people and you get rid of man made pollution. If you moved ALL the people to the city they would starve with no food from the farms and eventually die as the lights would go out because there is no fuel to run them and then after that the pollution problems would go away - well, after all the bodies rot and the methane from the decay dissipates. So I guess in a weird sort of way you are correct as well.  

MC must be those initials stand for Map Chart

campgottagopee wrote

MC must be those initials stand for Map Chart

Bahaha!

He really does love those things.

campgottagopee wrote

City, dense housing, and public transportation is my definition of torture.

Couldn't do it

Yup. Kill me now.