this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
76 points (98.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
4955 readers
369 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry New Mexico didn't have reasonable legislative restrictions to frac site choice, construction, or maintenance. I worked for 8 years in the Marcellus and Utica plays in PA, OH and WV, and saw varying degrees of state requirements for containment and reporting.
Solint's complaints are:
The rest of the article was about how renewables are better, and I wholeheartedly agree to that. What I didn't see mentioned in her article? Citing chemical spills on the ground. Citing crude oil releases on the ground. Citing water table pollution.
I believe that we should move away from frac, but not because of the paltry reasons in the article, but because any hydrocarbon usage will continue to harm our climate. We'll see peak oil in the next ten years, and it won't be through lack of sources, but from a shift in need. We can hasten that by insisting that frac sites pay upfront for possible remediation, contain and process all materials that come out of the well, pay sufficiently for freshwater usage, and have liability for costs from cradle to grave. New earth-first legislation would work to make frac unprofitable now, instead of waiting for peak oil and the falling price per barrel of oil to do it for us. So go vote locally and at the state level, because SCOTUS just made it hard for the EPA to enforce its rules at the federal level.
Fracking already is unprofitable now, if we account for the slimy corporate practices used to avoid paying for spent wells to be properly plugged.
Propublica has done a lot of good reporting on this topic, this is just one article of many, but this one explains aforementioned corporate slime quite well https://www.propublica.org/article/the-rising-cost-of-the-oil-industrys-slow-death
First of all, this is an opinion piece. It tells a story about how fracking has harmed one ranch, and weaves it into a broader narrative about short term gains for a few shareholders against long term harm to the land. It doesn't need to exhaustively cover all aspects of fracking.
Second, NM isn't PA. The land itself has a fragility that PA simply doesn't. The high desert is a delicate ecosystem and even stepping on cryptobiotic soils for example can cause damage that leads to erosion. The absurdity of wasting water in the desert for fracking doesn't compare to PA, and your point about water being ifinitely reusable is odd - go tell the folks in Flint that technically water can always be returned to a pure state and see how helpful that is. Let me dump PFAS in your well and shrug, mumbling something about evaporation fixing your problems before I scamper off to poison your neighbors well.
Lastly, while you're spot on about the deficient regulatory structure and bond system for ensuring abandoned wells are taken care of, the reality is much worse than your anecdote about perfectly plugged wells. These are sold off to shell corps and they often continue to leak for decades because it's cheaper to do nothing than to abandon wells safely. This is a major problem, Colorado for example has implemented reforms but they are still not even close to funding proper well plugs around the state.