Let's keep it simple: anybody who's fine with fracking needs to be fine with it in their own backyard. Funny how all these warnings about how we need to achieve "energy independence" simply revolve around fetishizing this or that tech, finding "new" and "clean" sources, or Drill Baby Drill (though again, not in the backyards of those squawking for it). But nobody ever talks about simply consuming less, about what the effects and opportunities might be if people drove smarter and less, if we enforced better fuel-efficiency standards, if people shut the fucking light off once in a while when they're not using it.
You can champion all the new tech you want, whether it's green and clean or kitchen faucets spewing fire. But at some point, at least a modest level of conservation has to enter the discussion. Or not.
4 comments:
I don't think linking to an article in the Wall Street Journal is going to educate anyone about the health and environmental hazards of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. However, it will supply anyone with economic interest in the practice talking points for deflecting criticism from those concerned about such hazards.
modest reduction in consumption?
Maybe people need to realize that 5,000 square foot McMansions 20 miles from town are not the way to go?
Anonymous:
Well, that's why I was decrying the WSJ article, and linking to the Gasland site, so's folks could avail themselves of better knowledge.
To reiterate the primary point of the post: the people who are so hot to frack everywhere, let's start in their backyards and see how that works out.
Brian:
I totally agree, but the way Americans are conditioned to self-actualize through consumption, any non-catastrophe-caused steps toward conservation are going to be incremental. The point is that even that small step has not seriously entered the conversation.
I'm not sure if that's because people are tired of being told to recycle or what-not, but it's true all the same.
Post a Comment