I don’t say much these days that is controversial. When I tweeted yesterday that NB was a maple syrup/blueberry powerhouse I got a little rebuke from defenders of La Belle Province but we are a long way from the days when I would invoke serious vitriol.
There is problem growing in the world, and Donald Trump is not the root...he isn't even a major branch. It isn't a conservative or a liberal problem, it is a problem of logic. Truth, supported by science and provable logic is not acceptable as a 'thing,' it isn't the newest craze and never will be, so it is a hard sell. Branding, advertising in general, and controlling the message in particular is more important. Glitz, likes, and fans are the goal, and sensationalism is the method. The far right and far left have one thing in common—they both have no respect for truth, it isn't even a factor in their message.
The left screams that the world is burning up, and they quote the United Nations report on climate change, which says no such thing. They claim that the sea will soon rise enough to cover the Everglades, Holland, Bangladesh and New York City. The truth is, those areas are sinking. But sea levels are rising, albeit slowly, with the UN report predicting a 20 cm rise by 2100 if we are unsuccessful in our attempts to eliminate greenhouse gases, and that is a given. The left has taken pieces out of that report, neglecting to quote the caveats. However, the climate is warming, thr report is definitive on that, and it is out of control at the moment. We could wait and see whether the dire predictions on one side of the equation will become reality, or ignore it, using so-called conservative science that claims the problem will take care of itself. I prefer to look at climate as an immediate problem, with a negative potential of disastrous proportions.
Natural gas is a direct path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a large amount in a short time. A miniscule amount of the gas, which has a high methane component, will escape, but as greenhouse gases go, methane is at the bottom of the list because it dissipates in less than a year. Carbon dioxide lasts for centuries, nitrous oxide for decades. Whatever CO2 we pump into the atmosphere now will be with us for centuries...in a practical sense, we cannot reverse it without spending trainloads of money. Carbon sequestration is expensive, prohibitively expensive if we are looking at compensating for the damage we are doing.
The best time to plant a tree is fifty years ago...the second best is today. We cannot correct yesterday, but we can improve our chances tomorrow if we begin today. We need natural gas and nuclear power if we are to avoid even the most optimistic predictions of global warming problems, and we need an all-out effort if the pessimists are right. We could convert every car and truck to natural gas for a few hundred dollars each, and small nuclear power plants located near factories and large cities, minimizing the losses from our antiquated grid system, would give near-immediate results.
While the left is clinging to apocalyptic scenarios and pollyanna, Don Quijote solutions and the right is denying the existence of it, climate change could be accelerating exponentially—there is clear and disturbing evidence that this is the case. A substantial section of our population is worried about nuclear power plants exploding, inherently impossible, and possible but unlikely water well contamination from gas exploration. It seems that these exaggerated fears of the boogey man under their bed, have pushed the immediate problem of climate change out of the picture.
Bill Gates wrote a great book on climate change, the only one I've read that didn't have an axe to grind. As it pertains to natural gas development, he has nothing to gain, but he makes a good case for using it to fill the time gap technology needs to completely break our addiction to greenhouse gases. Certainly, Putin's Russia should be off the table, opening an opportunity for us, if we can move fast enough. Surely the antivaxers are teaching us that we can't allow 10% of the population to run the country.
You are right on in your comments about NB’s lost opportunity. SWN said it had never encountered such opposition anywhere else prior to that. It is clear that to continue its efforts and claims here with that kind of obstacles means that SWN saw real potential in NB.
There is problem growing in the world, and Donald Trump is not the root...he isn't even a major branch. It isn't a conservative or a liberal problem, it is a problem of logic. Truth, supported by science and provable logic is not acceptable as a 'thing,' it isn't the newest craze and never will be, so it is a hard sell. Branding, advertising in general, and controlling the message in particular is more important. Glitz, likes, and fans are the goal, and sensationalism is the method. The far right and far left have one thing in common—they both have no respect for truth, it isn't even a factor in their message.
The left screams that the world is burning up, and they quote the United Nations report on climate change, which says no such thing. They claim that the sea will soon rise enough to cover the Everglades, Holland, Bangladesh and New York City. The truth is, those areas are sinking. But sea levels are rising, albeit slowly, with the UN report predicting a 20 cm rise by 2100 if we are unsuccessful in our attempts to eliminate greenhouse gases, and that is a given. The left has taken pieces out of that report, neglecting to quote the caveats. However, the climate is warming, thr report is definitive on that, and it is out of control at the moment. We could wait and see whether the dire predictions on one side of the equation will become reality, or ignore it, using so-called conservative science that claims the problem will take care of itself. I prefer to look at climate as an immediate problem, with a negative potential of disastrous proportions.
Natural gas is a direct path to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a large amount in a short time. A miniscule amount of the gas, which has a high methane component, will escape, but as greenhouse gases go, methane is at the bottom of the list because it dissipates in less than a year. Carbon dioxide lasts for centuries, nitrous oxide for decades. Whatever CO2 we pump into the atmosphere now will be with us for centuries...in a practical sense, we cannot reverse it without spending trainloads of money. Carbon sequestration is expensive, prohibitively expensive if we are looking at compensating for the damage we are doing.
The best time to plant a tree is fifty years ago...the second best is today. We cannot correct yesterday, but we can improve our chances tomorrow if we begin today. We need natural gas and nuclear power if we are to avoid even the most optimistic predictions of global warming problems, and we need an all-out effort if the pessimists are right. We could convert every car and truck to natural gas for a few hundred dollars each, and small nuclear power plants located near factories and large cities, minimizing the losses from our antiquated grid system, would give near-immediate results.
While the left is clinging to apocalyptic scenarios and pollyanna, Don Quijote solutions and the right is denying the existence of it, climate change could be accelerating exponentially—there is clear and disturbing evidence that this is the case. A substantial section of our population is worried about nuclear power plants exploding, inherently impossible, and possible but unlikely water well contamination from gas exploration. It seems that these exaggerated fears of the boogey man under their bed, have pushed the immediate problem of climate change out of the picture.
Bill Gates wrote a great book on climate change, the only one I've read that didn't have an axe to grind. As it pertains to natural gas development, he has nothing to gain, but he makes a good case for using it to fill the time gap technology needs to completely break our addiction to greenhouse gases. Certainly, Putin's Russia should be off the table, opening an opportunity for us, if we can move fast enough. Surely the antivaxers are teaching us that we can't allow 10% of the population to run the country.
You are right on in your comments about NB’s lost opportunity. SWN said it had never encountered such opposition anywhere else prior to that. It is clear that to continue its efforts and claims here with that kind of obstacles means that SWN saw real potential in NB.