26 February 2011

The Best Defense Against Propaganda Like "Gasland" is to Learn How Things Are Actually Done

26Feb2011 MORE:New Scientist looks at the questionable tactics and claims of Gasland. The New York Times -- lately more of a tabloid rag than a purveyor of accurate news -- makes some new claims about threats of radioactivity released by wastewater from fracking. Time will tell. Certainly the developed world needs the energy and fuel from unconventional hydrocarbons to allow it to bridge into the era of advanced fission, advanced biofuels, enhanced geothermal, fusion, and other advanced nuclear and exotic particle reactions.

This video provides a brief summary of the oil and gas drilling process. If you pay attention over its few minutes, you will know far more about oil & gas production than most of the faux environmentalists who write propaganda pieces and make propumentary films on the topic, meant to sway public opinion.

The Oscar-nominated film Gasland is a fine example of the genre known as "propumentaries", or propaganda as documentary. Michael Moore is a master of the genre, but Josh Fox is certainly up and coming in the field with this entry.

Here is a website devoted to debunking Gasland

Here is a PDF from Gasland's maker meant to debunk the debunking of Gasland, called Affirming Gasland

A further debunking of Gasland can be found here and here and here

It should be said that for most thinking persons, Gasland debunks itself. But the film is not aimed at thinking persons, it is aimed at members of the Idiocracy, programmed by a failed educational system not to think at all. With that audience, the film has apparently succeeded -- since it is nominated for an Oscar.

President Obama's EPA and Interior Department have succeeded in proclaiming CO2 as a "dangerous pollutant" and in stonewalling offshore oil drilling at all costs. Obama's minions have shut down several coal mines and coal power plants. Obama's NRC is dragging its feet on newer, safer, nuclear plants. All forms of reliable energy have been targeted by Obama's regime. If the regime were able to find any significant pretense to pull the plug on shale gas, they would have done so by now. As it is, they are still looking for anything at all substantial they can use to shut down yet another form of energy. Gasland is certainly not that thing, but is rather in the category of a joke. But they are still looking -- hard.

You can bet a large number of overseas gas producers from Russia to MENA are very interested in seeing Obama take action against shale gas producers. Needless to say, lefty-Luddite greens of the dioff.orgy persuasion are likewise eager to intensify the Obama program of energy starvation in the US.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger Superkuh said...

I admit that Gasland was an emotional gambit rather than one centered upon information. I watched it and was moved, but I cannot accept it's claims without proof.

The facts they that were included, the exceptions to some of the most important environmental protection laws stand by themselves, free of this emotional manipulation.

Do you think that natural gas production should continue to be exempt from the clean air, clean water, and superfund acts?

These exceptions to the environmental laws make me doubt the authenticity of the energy companies' claims of environmental safety. How do you interpret this?

Saturday, 26 February, 2011  
Blogger al fin said...

Superkuh: Yes, truly an emotional gambit by a maker of avant garde art films.

As for the film's claims that natural gas production is exempt from environmental laws -- one should not accept such claims at face value.

There are few, if any, more closely supervised, monitored, and regulated industries than the natural gas industry.

Obama's executive branch is essentially doing whatever it wants in total disregard of the legislative or judicial branches of government. Do you truly believe that Obama's environmental hacks under Salazar, Jackson, and Holdren would allow natural gas production to be exempt from any applicable regulation whatsoever?

That is hardly likely.

Saturday, 26 February, 2011  
Blogger Superkuh said...

Thank you for your quick response.

I did not take the claims at face value, but as you have stated, the regulatory environment is very extensive and complex; I cannot understand all implications. Some of the cited exemptions from SDWA and CAA are then covered by state or other Federal regulation which may be even more stringent. But the exemptions certainly do exist as can be confirmed by even a cursory look at the EPA website.

I do not follow your reasoning on Obama and the current american federal government. I don't perceive a difference between the two major political parties. Each party controlling the executive branch in turn does what it wishes regardless of law. I certainly do not have confidence that the stereotype of environmentally friendly democrats has a basis in reality strong enough to prevent loopholes in environmental regulation.

If only nuclear power were less offensive to the idiocracy. I dream of a thorium fission powered world.

Saturday, 26 February, 2011  
Blogger al fin said...

It is not likely that gas producers are evading any meaningful oversight, regardless of any particular exemption in a particular subsection of regulation.

Have you personally tried to file the paperwork for starting and operating a business -- any business, much less one as environmentally sensitive as mining or drilling? There is nothing easy or slippery about it.

It is not necessary for any two persons to see eye to eye on political topics. It is my opinion that US Democrats are less concerned about the profitability of business in general than are US Republicans. Think of it as a matter of core constituencies -- with Democrats more protective of trial lawyers, unions, environmental lobbies, minority community activist groups, and other special lobbies -- while Republicans tend to look to business for support.

Each reader of this blog is welcome to his own opinion on all topics. It is not my intent to persuade anyone to change his mind.

I do personally tend to change my mind whenever the preponderance of evidence suggests that I should. I find doing so exhilarating.

Saturday, 26 February, 2011  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts