[ExI] Cephalization, proles--Where is government going?

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Sat May 14 01:38:06 UTC 2011


Eugen, you linked to some eco-freak stuff without reference to any
clear evidence of significant health or other problems caused by
fracking.

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:46:50PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>> ### Methane leakage into well water is a common occurrence wherever
>> there is shallow shale. So far there has been no proven impact of
>> fracking on the frequency of such events. Even if there was an
>> increase in methane leaks into potable water, this would not be a
>> reason to prohibit fracking, although the operators could be expected
>> to pay well-owners for methane gas traps to be installed in their
>> wells.
>
> I find it curious that you put the burden of proof on the other
> side, while focusing on more trivial impacts of fracking.

### The economic impact of fracking is immensely more important than
any trivial concerns about its alleged environmental impact. Simply
put, even if it is true that a few bystanders are harmed by fracking,
the benefits to the rest of us vastly outweigh the harms. The only
situation so far where the evidence of harm exceeds anecdote and poses
a minor concern is regarding methane leaks - not proven to be a common
or unavoidable effect of fracking but certainly (as I mentioned above)
a possibility.

Again, mitigation of these possible harms is easy - either by
preventative measures or by reimbursement of harmed bystanders. If
home owners can prove that a particular fracking operation put methane
into their wells, it will cost little to pay for cleaning it, adding a
trivial amount to the cost of gas paid by all of us. In this way, we,
the users, pay for any harms our actions may inflict on third parties.

This is the basis for my saying that environmental concerns are
trivial - the harms inflicted on humans add a minuscule amount to the
price of a commodity whose value is measured in trillions of dollars.
Economic analysis tells us what matters and what is a trifle.

I am surprised that you are surprised about the burden of proof.
Obviously, if you claim to be harmed by somebody, it is incumbent on
you to prove causation. If I find my house has been burglarized, *I*
have to find proof against a specific person, rather than going around
and demanding that random parties prove they didn't rob me. In modern
legal theory the burden of proof is usually on the accuser, not on the
defendant.

That wiki post you linked to BTW is full of anecdote and eco-freak
propaganda, one has to look closely for any grain of truth there.
Vanadium, yeah, sure.

And, BTW, I grew up in a coal mining area. I played on burning coal
tips. I skirted ground subsidence pits opening in the middle of
fields. My house shook daily from underground cave-ins. So what - the
coal board paid for shoring up the house when a few cracks opened. The
ground subsidence pits were filled with debris. The coal tips either
burned out or got capped with sand. The benefits of coal to the many
clearly outweigh the minor harms to a few bystanders. Absolutely the
same applies to fracking, even more so, since fracking is inherently
safer and produces a fuel that is much cleaner than coal.

Rafal



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list